Why are you talking about cuddling?
Because you claim that a person displaying agression, antagonism and resistence can have a mindset thats innocent, thinking of dream holdisays and all nice and cuddly things. Completely detached and in contradiction to the outward behaviour.
I think you are. When you claim that completely contradictory thinking can be held to actions that are the complete opposite or completely detached from the reality of the situation.
Its actually what you claimed to dispute the obvious conclusion of the caption. I said the connection is obvious as thinking and actions usually go together. I said its not as if he was dreaming of his holidays or innocently checking his magazine.
You said its actually a viable possibility as a way of undermining the obvious. Without any evidence. Like it was just said to throw some mud at the obvious and not a serious possibility.
Cool, because I didn't write it.
Your missing the point. I am using the example of a cuddly nature or disposition to show how unreal it is to say that a person who is agressively resisting police will be thinking of innocent, dreamy, cuddly thoughts. Its a completely contradictory thinking to his actions and disposition.
Your trying to claim its poswsible Pretti was just dreaming, innocent and checking for his gun like he was checking for his wallet. While fighting off police.
Hum this is what I mean. Your quite willing to entertain the idea that he was smart enough to check for his gun innocently. But not smart enough to realise doing so at that time is the same as reaching for his gun. Either way a case can be made that his thinking was threatening.
Remember that the responsibility for carrying a gun is that you are to understand the threat carrying a gun means. If he was a responsible gun carrier than he would have knwn exactly that this was a threatening action.
Didn't I already write that you can check your weapon in a tense situation? Why do you keep twisting the situation?
No you cannot. Not in a police operation which is already volitile and tense. You cannot check for your gun while resisting arrest. Thats the most silly thing I have ever heard.
No, I didn't. You are the one that think checking on your weapon and cuddling is the same. I have never said that checking on the weapon have to be casual or is the same as thinking about cuddling.
But you want to make out that the exact same actions while resisting police and not resisting police carries the same meaning. Your trying to inject an innocent checking for a gun while not resisting and on the side lines. To actually in a situation where the person is agitating and resisting arrest.
Do you think they have the same meaning and context and if Pretti was to do the same action while resisting that this is different and carries a whole lot of extra responsibility and accountability.
Yes, i know. I'm not arguing about the officers, I'm arguing about the Facebook post. Can you understand that?
Yes and not. You have a right to disagree and object. But if you want to then propose unreal alternatives and deny the obvious then thats a stepo beyond unsupported spectualtion.
From the officers point of view, sure. We'll see if the court buys it, if it ever go to court.
Some sort of investigation will still happen. If theres a case to answer it will go to court. The evidence is in the officers favor because all they7 have to prove is a reasonable belief of a threat. What any other person would do in the same situation.
They already have two independent officers who acted the exact same way. They both reasonable thought there was a danger to theirs and others lives. Thats two witnesses directly involved. Thats a strong case.
It is the tendentious and speculative wording of the Facebook post that I have a problem with. Those authors didn't have to make a split second decision, but they choose to describe it as if they know what Pretti thought instead of letting the caption describe the setting of the picture or what was happening in the picture. They don't know, they can speculate but then they should've said that.
But theres a difference between well supported spectulation and unreal spectulation that should not be claimed.
If its quite obvious then why not be able to state that spectualtion. Its not as if they are suggesting some radical left of field claim that is completely unsupported. This is what they said.
Here is Pretti pulling what he thought was his weapon. He pulled a magazine. When Pretti went for the gun and pulled the mag it forced the agent to act.
That is exacly the officewrs self defense and it matches exactly the actions of Pretti. Thats why I said that throwing in unreal ideas is actually sabotarging the officers defense. So therefore it requires good evidence. There is none and the only obvious conclusion is that Pretti was going for his gun. Even if it was not his gun the officers thought it a gun. Pretti still know it was a threatening act.
You adding words like casually to descriptions to the situation when I have never said or implied it, leads me to believe that you are arguing in bad faith.
Is dream of holidays a casual disposition. Is innocently checking your magazine without being arrested more of a causual disposition. Than checking your magazine while fighting agressively and resisting arrest. I say theres a destinct difference in thinking and demeana.
One is casual and innocent. The acter is agressive,and fighting to get free. Which is the same thinking one would have in going for your gunb to help fight and get free. Can you see the difference and we can determine that difference in thinking by the body langauge. 
