You have, repeatedly! Just go back to your post 163:
"I am talking about protestors entering a law enforcement operations. When officers tell them to stay away and then they keep crossing the line."
Yes that explains its not just protestors standing on the sides away from the actual operation. That means as soon as he steps further in towards the officers. He is suppose to stay with the other protestors. Especially carrying a gun.
The facts are about 2 minutes before the incident Pretti had already been told and removed from disrupting officers. He was not just filming but coming up close and yelling abuse as he did. He then injected himself again by trying to direct traffic.
The officers had clearly told him to stop interfering. Trying to act as a cop directing traffic around the operation is getting involved. He was finding different ways to agitate and thats what he was trained to do.
What line?
Are you talking about the masked ICE agents verbally telling them to stand back? What does that mean?
It means exactly what it says. Stand back. So if Pretti is in their face screaming abuse they tell him to stand back. If he steps in close further than the other protestors and is alone with the officers. Then he is crossing the line. They tell him to step back. Or physically put him back. If he steps in again and tries to direct traffic then he has crossed the line.
Not only that because he is carrying a loaded gun it is added responsibility to not inject himself at all. He is bringing a loaded gun close and into a volitile situation. That is why the gun carriers are to stay well back further than others. But Pretti did the exact opposite over and over and over again.
Did the officers set up a perimeter? What does the law say about such a perimeter? What does it say if they did NOT set up a perimeter? (They did NOT in this case, as the first video below critiques.)
The law says when the officers tell someone to back up that they obey. Otherwise its breaking the law. Full stop say no more. No one is going to be arguing with law enforcement officers during dangerous operation where that line is.
Its up to the officers and if they deem the person is crossing the line then they are to obey. Full stop. Stop trying to find ways to break the law. This is the very mindset that is undermining law and order.
Yup, there you go again. Assert, assert, rinse and repeat. It's his fault for 'crossing the line.'
Define that line for us, please.
Its what the cops say on the job during their own dangerous operation. Not for you or the agitator to determine. If they tell Pretti to back up and he doesn't he is breaking the law. Full stop. Stop trying to make out he was not breaking the law.
What you fail to realise is that this is a law enforcement operation. Just like police stopping and arresting a criminal on the street. Who in their right mind would take a loaded gun and get in the face of police while trying to arrest a criminal. It is crazy.
He should not have been there in the first place. The officers were arresting a criminal. Pretti was screaming and agitating to stop federal agents arresting a criminal. This is irrational.
Do some more legal reading, and figure out what you are trying to say before you come back here and just repeat yourself. Because you have NOT defined the line at all. As far as I can tell, you are saying exactly what you just said no-one is saying: that the protesters cannot protest.
Tell me if the officer says move back in other situations do people question them. I seem to remember everyone moving back and not complaining about moving away from dangerous situations. Respecting the law.
What are you saying that we now stop and measure the line during a shoot out or arrest when agitators are screaming in officers ears.
What you don't seem to realise that Pretti made himself the target. He was alone in the inner space between protestors. He was coming right up to them But not just filming, spitting out all sort of bile and hate and anger. It was verbal abuse. He was not some innocent protestor.
So making himself known as an agitator the officers specifically told him to stand back, to stay away. Especially that he had a gun. He is agitating with a gun. Why can't you see this simple fact.
This is similar to Lemons attack on a church. Claim he was only filming while he engaged and spat his vile in peoples faces. Terrorising church goers including kids. But its all fair game it it was just innocent reporting. We can break the law because we represent the victims.
Try getting specific.
Video from 6 minutes before shows a few protesters turning up and blowing whistles. They are standing on the footpath, defined by law to be a public place where they can protest. They blow whistles, part of the protest. Is this crossing the line?
Pretti and the protestors got their fast because they were organised. An organised group to antagonise and disrupt ICE. This is now being investigated.
Those blowing whistles and standing away were doing nothing wrong. But Pretti did not remain on the sidelines like the rest. He stepped in and got close, screaming abuse in the officers faces with a loaded gun right next to them. Thats a threat. But still they told him to go and not arrest him.
But still he kept coming back. The tactic is called passive disruption. One walks close by and gets in the way distracting officers while the other can get in close. Its on video. They are busted. Their aim is to antagonise, upset officers so they get confused and make mistakes so they look bad.
Then a masked ICE agent (don't you love how Stormtrooper all this is?) starts getting in Pretti's face, not the other way around.
This is the very antagonistic and dangerous rhetoric that is fueling this defiance. That you cast law enforcement officers who put their life on the line. Many x vveterans and make out they are like Hitler is itself evil. A lie. Bearing false witness.
Is this ICE agent allowed to do that?
He walks right up in Pretti's space, forcing Pretti to walk backwards for about 10 meters.
Yes because just before that Pretti had walked up to the officers securing the area and was spitting vile in his face and abusing him. Carrying a loaded gun he should not have even been in an officers face. Pretti escalated the situation.
Even your video admits this when it says that the officers should have arrested Pretti for several violations.
In fact they they the blame to the lack of local police policing of their own citizens from breaking the law. for not controlling the agitators. They have been allowed to abuse federal officers, burn and destroy buildings, rob federal property and no one is policing or controlling them.
Is the ICE agent allowed to do that?
Yes when there is a threat from Pretti getting in their face carrying a loaded gun and enough amo to commit mass murder. He has already kicked a car in and spat on officers. He was agitating and went too far. So of course they wanted to remove him from the situation.
Did Pretti do anything ILLEGAL by this point?
Yes and even your video admits that by that time Pretti had committed several violations.
Public space. Filming. That's it.
No it was not. Try throwing in abusive bile spewing out of his mouth right in the face of officers with a loaded gun. Theres about 2 or three felononies just in that. Then not getting back when told, resisting arrest several times.
You can whinge abut lines but once the officers tell a person to stand back and they don't and resist thats breaking the law.
Where did he cross the line?
When he came back aftert the officers told him not to. When he screamed abuse in their face, when he was resisting being put back to the sidelines. Need I go on.
What if Pretti had slipped on the icy sidewalk and banged his head on the concrete and died?
Theres always some loop hole people want to find to allow them to break the law.
Then these buffoons didn't like him rushing in to help the lady that fell over, so they immediately pepper-spray Pretti, wrestle him to the ground, and there's about 5 seconds of wrestling.
Because he was told many times to stay away. He was trying to direct traffic and finding all sorts of passive agressive ways to inject himself.
He did not go there to be an innocent protester recording from the sidelines. He went as an agitator to purposely disrupt law enforcement whichever way he could. In conjunction with others. Thats what he trained for.
One ICE agent yells "Gun gun" as he REMOVES IT - so what happens?
The other buffoons shoot Pretti dead.
I don't know. That has to be determined. But did you ever consider why Pretti was there with a loaded gun. Why he ended up in that situation. If he stayed on the sidelines he would not have been in that situation.
When you agitating law enforcement during a dangerous operation that is already tense. Then you increase the chaos with screaming abuse, whistles, horns. Then you keep pushing over the line and disobeying demands to stay away. Chances are something bads going to happen. Pretti chose to put himself in that situation.
You do not yell "GUN GUN!" when the victim has been immobilised and you are REMOVING IT!
Like I said I don't know. Your being an armchair critic with super slow motion. This all happened in split seconds. All I know is Pretti brought the loaded gun into the situation and put everyone in a dangerous situation.
That's just plain unprofessional in a situation of heightened anxiety.
So your the experts in this situation. You stand on the side and tell others they should have done this and that different in that split second.
The ICE agents involved should have their body camera footage released to the public so professionals can analyse it and have mainstream reporters release it to the public.
Yes that would be part of the investigation.
Then they should be prosecuted to the maximum extent of the law to set a precedent that this kind of incompetence is NOT acceptable!
Yet you make them guilty before you have seen those body cams.
Ha ha ha! Buddy - you
tell yourself that.
But I'm still
just a bit hazy on the details.
So hazy that a I'm tempted to use a certain 3 letter acronym starting W.T...? but I try not to use that sort of language.
Asserting he crossed the line a thousand times does not PROVE he crossed the line, or even define this mythical line of yours.
But you do you!
Just tap your ruby slippers together 3 times.
"He crossed the line. He crossed the line. He crossed the line."
View attachment 376031
I explained this above now. So there should be no ambiguity. Do you still claim Pretti did not cross any lines. Do you still claim he did not antagonise and get in officers face with a loaded gun. Breaching several laws. He should have been prosecuted for kicking in the car spitting on officers.
Ironocally applying the law would have saved his life. He would have been in jail and would not have had the chance to get in that situation.
