It is still very confusing. Have been watching MSNOW. Video shows the agents wrestling a person to the ground and a shot fired. DHS is saying the man had a gun, but under normal police protocol, if someone has a gun, they are supposed to yell, "GUN." There is no audio of that being yelled. Can't continue to watch the loop.
He was wearing a gun on his waist, but made no attempt to get to it. They wrestled him to the floor, took the gun away and then shot him multiple times.
I saw a photo of him, just as an ICE agent grabbed him. He had a smartphone to his chest. I wonder what will happen to his camera. Will probably disappear. Interesting how DHS can make the claim he was drawing his gun so quickly. Under normal procedures an investigation would take place which would take a while.
There's a lot of coverage on UK news at the moment, so there's much speculation as to what exactly happened.
It does look as though Trump's murderous thugs are inadvertently working against their evil master, making him less popular with each succeeding (and very public) outrage. Is that a general feeling in the US?
It does look as though Trump's murderous thugs are inadvertently working against their evil master, making him less popular with each succeeding (and very public) outrage. Is that a general feeling in the US?
That is my perception. Of course, if they realize they are losing, that makes them more dangerous and desperate in the short term.
There's a lot of coverage on UK news at the moment, so there's much speculation as to what exactly happened.
Yeah, mainly because a number of outlets will both-sides between what they can see with their own damn eyes and official statements no matter how contradictory.
The Minnesota National Guard is being deployed, first the Whipple building where ICE has their detention facility and then to other parts of Minneapolis to assist in law enforcement action.
"The Minnesota National Guard’s role is to work in support of local law enforcement and emergency responders, providing additional resources. Their presence is meant to help create a secure environment where all Minnesotans can exercise their rights safely, including the right to peacefully protest," the sheriff's news release stated. "We know this moment is challenging for our community. Remember that our local teams are also part of this community. We respect and protect everyone’s rights to voice concerns and stand up for what they believe in, but we urge all actions to remain peaceful and lawful. Our collective priority remains protecting our neighborhoods and keeping people safe."
The Center for Ethics and the Rule of Law (CERL) at UPenn ran a tabletop exercise in October 2024 in which they asked what would happen if a governor called out the state National Guard and the president sent in the US military. Their conclusions:
First, none of the participants – many of them senior former military and government officials – considered the scenario unrealistic, especially after the supreme court’s decision in Trump v United States, which granted the president criminal immunity for official acts.
Second, we concluded that in a fast-moving emergency of this magnitude, courts would probably be unable or unwilling to intervene in time, leaving state officials without meaningful judicial relief. ...
Third, we warned that senior military leaders could face orders to use force not only against state national guard units, but against unarmed civilians – and that they must be prepared to assess the legality of such orders. Any domestic deployment of federal troops must comply with the Department of Defense’s Rules for the Use of Force and with the constitution, including the Bill of Rights. Even under the Insurrection Act, federal troops may not lawfully shoot protesters unless they are literally defending their lives against an imminent threat – yet such conduct is already happening in Minneapolis at the hands of federal agents.
So the tabletop game was played in October 2024. Biden was still President at the time. Harris was running against trump.
And a Trump win was already a very real and known possibility.
It could be that Trump will federalize the national guard troops. If he does that the guard will then be under the Pentagon control.
In the tabletop scenario, the NG remained loyal to the state, which was your earlier position. You earlier referred to the MN National Guard as "hometown people," and also said:
I think if Trump tried to federalize the Minnesota National Guard Walz would refuse.
I can see why the governor would call out the National Guard, but I think it's very dangerous to put more people with guns onto the streets in the Twin Cities and environs.
From the outside it looks as if the number of guns out there on the streets in the hands of law-enforcement and customs agencies and private citizens is making an already volatile situation even worse.
Poorly trained federal goons with guns, some protestors carrying weapons, the National Guard placed in an awkward position between State and federal jurisdiction - and carrying guns.
Guns. Guns. Guns.
The more guns the more chances there are for fatalities and injuries, particularly when feelings are running high and there's a powder keg with a whopping big fuse leading into it.
Even if protestors with firearms don't intend to use them the fact that they're wearing one in the first place gives the DHS post-facto reasons to say, 'This person posed a threat to our officers.'
If they can say it about a vehicle slowly turning away they can say it about a pistol in someone's belt.
I can remember rabid gun-toting MAGA types ranting on social media that if the feds ever came for their guns ...
Those same people are now justifying the use of federal force against peaceful protestors.
It doesn't matter how many rules and regulations there are governing the use of weapons by State or federal authorities, one accused of 'insurrection', the other backed by the Oval office, there are so many bloody guns out there then they're bound to go off sooner or later.
The stable door has been open on this one since it was forgotten that the Second Amendment referred to a 'well-regulated militia' and not to trigger-happy ICE agents or guns being sold alongside packets of cornflakes.
When the table game was played out in Oct 2024, the race was neck and neck. They might have played it both ways.
While I did say it could be a standoff between the National Guard and Federal Troops, under normal circumstances a President can federalize the guard troops.
I have continually said the guard could be deployed with shields and batons, maybe sidearms.
Federal troops from Alaska would be fully armed.
The sheriff of Hennepin County and the Police Chief of Minneapolis have both said if the Guard stays under state control, they will be used to RELIEVE their officers at critical junctures. The sheriff did say the Guard will be there to protect the right to peacefully protest
I agree with @Gamma Gamaliel, it is foolhardy for someone to appear at those demonstrations with a firearm even though it was holstered and Pretti did not reach for it. Doesn't really matter if Pretti was licensed to carry and Minnesota is an open carry state.
If anything, the 2nd Amendment people should be standing for Pretti.
I am thinking the Pretti incident will only bring out more guns on the part of the protestors--and we know the protestors are not a well trained/disciplined militia
There's a lot of coverage on UK news at the moment, so there's much speculation as to what exactly happened.
Yeah, mainly because a number of outlets will both-sides between what they can see with their own damn eyes and official statements no matter how contradictory.
An example of the BBC doing this, from someone who is the most milquetoast of centrists:
What I’ve been reading on the BBC doesn’t seem to back-up the assertions in a lot of those posts on that thread.
It looks like they're specifically talking about the live feed, which is probably particularly susceptible to just reporting statements as the come in without analysis.
I think the thread got my goat because one poster talked about the fascist UK. That seems a very lazy thing to say and certainly not true in the way that the USA isn't fascist either even if certain people appear to be doing more than flirting with the ideology.
Which is the problem with live coverage of course. I agree that reporters shouldn't simply regurgitate what they're told but some of the assertions are clearly over the top - that the BBC is 'cool' with the shooting of unarmed civilians and wants it to happen here, for instance.
It's pretty obvious from the footage and witness accounts though that Pretti posed no threat whatsoever. He was pinned to the ground and his weapon was removed before he was shot, 10 times by the sound of it.
Once again, the Trump administration acts as judge and jury before any investigation is carried out. The announcement is craftily worded and assigns murderous intent on the dead man's part with no evidence to back up that claim.
It's described as an act of 'domestic terrorism' and violent resistance to arrest when Pretti was pepper-sprayed, struck and held down by numerous agents.
I don't think he was wise to wear a pistol to a protest but at no point does he appear to have threatened ICE agents with it. He wasn't in a position to draw the weapon even if he'd intended to do so. How could anyone held down by up to 7 agents draw a weapon let alone hope to shoot his way out?
If you are 'planning a massacre' you wouldn't single-handedly approach federal agents who'd previously shown that they are more than capable of shooting first and asking questions later with a 9mm handgun.
You'd at least have an accomplice and multiple rifles, like the jihadists who perpetrated the Bondi Beach massacre.
My concern now, like that of many others I'm sure, is that there'll be an escalation in levels of violence and the use of more force by the administration against perceived insurrection' by anyone who doesn't cave in before their skewed version of events.
Which is the problem with live coverage of course. I agree that reporters shouldn't simply regurgitate what they're told but some of the assertions are clearly over the top - that the BBC is 'cool' with the shooting of unarmed civilians and wants it to happen here, for instance.
I don't think Sunder Katwala says such a thing, he's largely critiquing their live coverage, but also their follow-up rolling coverage hours after the videos were widely circulated, eg:
All the comments about it being unwise to legally carry a gun to a protest sound to me like comments about it being unwise for women to wear revealing clothing when walking alone at night - might be true, but it's still blaming the victim.
Not in Minnesota, but linked - I've been seeing footage from an attorney who was standing outside the facility in Texas where the five year old boy and his father were sent. In the background, behind the walls, you can hear the prisoners shouting "Let us out!"
Which is the problem with live coverage of course. I agree that reporters shouldn't simply regurgitate what they're told but some of the assertions are clearly over the top - that the BBC is 'cool' with the shooting of unarmed civilians and wants it to happen here, for instance.
I don't think Sunder Katwala says such a thing, he's largely critiquing their live coverage, but also their follow-up rolling coverage hours after the videos were widely circulated, eg:
I wasn't quoting Sunder Katwala but citing some of the daft comments in response to his post.
I made the point that the live coverage was inadequate and problematic and at any rate the BBC Verify reports now completely contradict the Trump administration's version of events.
@Ruth, nobody is blaming the victim. This was a callous shooting of someone who posed no threat and who'd been disarmed.
It's nothing like blaming women who get raped or sexually assaulted for wearing revealing clothes or anything of the kind.
Pretti didn't draw his gun nor did he pose any threat to the ICE agents. They murdered him. Period.
There is no justification for their actions.
Nor did I say that there was. The fact that he was wearing a legally held handgun gave the administration the opportunity to lie about the shooting and claim it was done in self defence.
I appreciate that it is not against the law to own and carry a pistol publicly in Minneapolis but from this side of the Pond one wonders why anybody should be walking round wearing a handgun particularly at a protest where ICE agents are trigger-happy and only too ready to murder US citizens with the full backing of the Trump administration.
I'm not saying that the protestors shouldn't protest or film the ICE agents' thuggery but if I were doing so I'm not sure I'd want to give them any semblance of an excuse for shooting me in cold blood.
There's a report in today's Sunday Times, that well-known radical lefty pinko commie newspaper which gives a chilling account of how ICE agents behave. It's behind a pay-wall but is a very insightful piece I think.
If I didn't already hold Trump and Vance in utter contempt I would after reading it.
ICE agents aren't targeting Republican run cities where there are also large immigrant populations. They are targeting Democrat cities. It is politically motivated, it is racist and it stinks.
@Ruth, nobody is blaming the victim. This was a callous shooting of someone who posed no threat and who'd been disarmed.
It's nothing like blaming women who get raped or sexually assaulted for wearing revealing clothes or anything of the kind.
Sorry, but that’s just pure bullshit. What @Ruth said was:
All the comments about it being unwise to legally carry a gun to a protest sound to me like comments about it being unwise for women to wear revealing clothing when walking alone at night - might be true, but it's still blaming the victim.
(My emphasis.)
She is right. Intended or not, that is exactly what those comments sound like.
It really doesn't matter what you do right now, if ICE/Border Patrol goons feel like it they'll shoot you in the head and the entire executive branch will contort itself to spin the blame onto your still-warm corpse.
It really doesn't matter what you do right now, if ICE/Border Patrol goons feel like it they'll shoot you in the head and the entire executive branch will contort itself to spin the blame onto your still-warm corpse.
Which feels to me like they have now actually crossed the line into fascism.
Incidentally I'm pretty horrified by the amount of pro-murder propaganda doing the rounds on social media. I'm trying to decide which explanation is worse: there is a large number of people who are willingly accepting and regurgitating the lies OR manipulation of social media has got so bad that a significant fraction of comments (say 30%) are now bots or paid actors. It could, of course, be a bit of both.
I thought carrying a gun was allowed under the second amendment, so whats the issue with someone legally carrying one, that it should be used as the justification for executing him?
The claim being made by ICE, DHS, and other voices of the US Regime is that he was carrying the gun to threaten "law enforcement" (ignoring that ICE are not actually law enforcement, unlike the police or FBI). Of course, by definition, anything being said by those people at this time is complete bollocks.
The claim being made by ICE, DHS, and other voices of the US Regime is that he was carrying the gun to threaten "law enforcement" (ignoring that ICE are not actually law enforcement, unlike the police or FBI). Of course, by definition, anything being said by those people at this time is complete bollocks.
I read that the NRA are not happy with this line of argument.
They've actually said he was within his rights to carry a gun. Maybe this will be the moment when a lot of gun-toting MAGAs will stop and think 'that could have been me.' Because their argument for carrying guns in public is that a Good (white) Guy with a Gun is not a threat to anyone. If he is liable to be shot by the government anyway... then nobody's safe.
Of course, women and non-white people never were, but some people don't notice these things unless they're personally affected.
The claim being made by ICE, DHS, and other voices of the US Regime is that he was carrying the gun to threaten "law enforcement" (ignoring that ICE are not actually law enforcement, unlike the police or FBI). Of course, by definition, anything being said by those people at this time is complete bollocks.
I read that the NRA are not happy with this line of argument.
They issued a public statement against it.
The argument is pretty much the antithesis of everything the NRA believes. The right to bear arms is pretty much annulled if the cops can shoot you just for carrying a gun.
Florida has 1.5 million undocumented aliens.
Texas has 2.5 million undocumented aliens.
Minnesota has 180,000 undocuoumented aliens
It is not about undocumented aliens.
Could it be ICE cannot make their monthly goals because they are in the wrong place? Speaking as an old fisherman, I would want to go where I know there are the most fish. Not that I support the current ICE administration.
The edit window closed before I could respond to the question of whether all Americans have the right to carry a firearm under the second amendment.
Not exactly.
First of all most minors cannot carry weapons and those that do have to take a hunters/firearms safety course and be under adult supervision in most states.
Second, again in most states convicted felons are not allowed to carry firearms. Granted that law is ignored a lot.
Third, if one has domestic violence history weapons are forbidden--this is actually federal law, again easily ignored.
Some states, not all, have open carry.
Most states require special training and licensing to carry a concealed weapon.
All states have special circumstances for anyone convicted of a crime using a firearm--usually up to five years added time in prison.
All legal purchasers of firearms are required to have a background check, but this does not include private sales, and many firearms are traded illegally. This is to say nothing about the guns that are 3D printed. One can also buy disassembled weapons without a background check.
Even then, there are many legal challenges to existing laws that are winding their way through the courts every year. A recent one is from Hawaii which allows a private property owner to forbid weapons on his/her property. SCOTUS just heard that case. Decision will likely come down toward the end of their term.
I take exception to your 'bullshit' accusation @Nick Tamen but I'll let that slide. I don't want to fall out with you over it.
@Jane R - no, the MAGA types are justifying this murder on the grounds that Pretti was a lefty who was impeding federal agents from pursuing their lawful duty and fulfilling one of the policies they want Trump to pursue.
If the boot were on the other foot and a Democrat administration were sending federal agents to carry out something they didn't agree with they'd be screaming blue-murder - or out in force with the assault rifles they consider themselves entitled to tote under the Second Amendment.
@Gramps49 those statistics confirm what I've long suspected, that the cities targeted by ICE are chosen for political reasons. Yes, I know there are strongly Democrat areas in Florida but overall I get the impression it's a State with big MAGA support.
Texas the same - although again I recognise that it isn't monolithic and there are strongly Democrat areas there too.
It's been suggested that Trump is out to provoke 'insurrection' (as he sees it) in order to justify the use of force and to steam-roll measures that would undermine Congress and allow him a third term. That might be alarmist but he seems hell-bent on provoking lethal confrontations and blaming his political opponents for them when they happen.
While many gun rights people are part of the MAGA coalition, they are actually separate. Many Gun Rights organizations have publically condemned the Pretti shooting and are calling for a full investigation. At the same time they are criticizing Walz for inciting hostility toward law enforcement.
Interesting how, when the NRA came out criticizing the shotting of Mr. Pretti, Trump is now walking back on his initial comments of how Pretty was the aggressor.
Oh, and, @Ruth, if you are still following. What's this about NG troops handing out sandwiches and hot drinks to protestors in Minneapolis?
@Ruth, nobody is blaming the victim. This was a callous shooting of someone who posed no threat and who'd been disarmed.
It's nothing like blaming women who get raped or sexually assaulted for wearing revealing clothes or anything of the kind.
Sorry, but that’s just pure bullshit. What @Ruth said was:
All the comments about it being unwise to legally carry a gun to a protest sound to me like comments about it being unwise for women to wear revealing clothing when walking alone at night - might be true, but it's still blaming the victim.
(My emphasis.)
She is right. Intended or not, that is exactly what those comments sound like.
But we should go by the truth not what it sounds like. Everyone has their world view. Ruth has made hers clear. Others are free to disagree.
Sounds like is a point to start not a point to finish
@Ruth, nobody is blaming the victim. This was a callous shooting of someone who posed no threat and who'd been disarmed.
It's nothing like blaming women who get raped or sexually assaulted for wearing revealing clothes or anything of the kind.
Sorry, but that’s just pure bullshit. What @Ruth said was:
All the comments about it being unwise to legally carry a gun to a protest sound to me like comments about it being unwise for women to wear revealing clothing when walking alone at night - might be true, but it's still blaming the victim.
(My emphasis.)
She is right. Intended or not, that is exactly what those comments sound like.
But we should go by the truth not what it sounds like. Everyone has their world view. Ruth has made hers clear. Others are free to disagree.
Sounds like is a point to start not a point to finish
I would argue there is a false equivalence with saying taking a gun to a protest is the same as wearing revealing clothing. The situations are fundamentally different in context, stakes, and social meaning:
Carrying a gun to a protest involves choices about risk, legality, and public safety.
Sexual assault is an act of violence where the victim’s clothing is never relevant to consent or culpability.
But I do not want to blame Pretti for getting shot. He did everything right. He was trying to protect two females who had been assaulted by the Border Patrol people. He kept his hands away from his firearm. And, when he was disarmed there was no reason to shoot him once, let alone ten times.
Maybe we should give more weight to views of Americans who are actually there, and have an inherent knowledge of their own state and national culture - instead of pontificating at them from the UK.
Maybe we should give more weight to views of Americans who are actually there, and have an inherent knowledge of their own state and national culture - instead of pontificating at them from the UK.
My argument was principle. Sounds like is a start. I agree that US ship mates should talk. However we do have to recognise that world views differ even with in US Ship mates.
Maybe we should give more weight to views of Americans who are actually there, and have an inherent knowledge of their own state and national culture - instead of pontificating at them from the UK.
It really doesn't matter what you do right now, if ICE/Border Patrol goons feel like it they'll shoot you in the head and the entire executive branch will contort itself to spin the blame onto your still-warm corpse.
Exactly. And the gun rights crowd do not know what to make of it -- a white guy carrying a gun was disarmed and then shot in the back. This is an enormous turning point IMO.
It's been suggested that Trump is out to provoke 'insurrection' (as he sees it) in order to justify the use of force and to steam-roll measures that would undermine Congress and allow him a third term. That might be alarmist but he seems hell-bent on provoking lethal confrontations and blaming his political opponents for them when they happen.
I agree He has talked about invoking the Insurrection Act again and again. He wanted to do it in 2020 during the George Floyd protests and was talked out of it -- and he still regrets not doing it. He typically does the things he talks about again and again, sooner or later.
It's a big mistake, though, for those around him who want an authoritarian take-over of the US, because to do that successfully, they can't just other a minority within the population -- they need to buy off the rest of the population. There have been no bread and circuses, no carrot, just the stick, or jackboot really.
I'd say there's a logical difference between being at a protest and carrying a gun, and carrying a gun to a protest.
I'm going to assume that someone who chooses to carry a gun has reasons behind that choice - eg: a sense of regularly being unsafe and wanting the reassurance of having a gun (there's no point here to discuss whether or not those fears are justified or whether carrying a gun is an appropriate response, just note that people carrying guns usually give that sort of argument). Going through the time and expense of getting a license to own and carry a gun, and to purchase a gun (and, possibly membership of a gun club to learn how to use it effectively and safely) isn't something most people would do for occasional use, they're going to be carrying that gun on a regular basis (eg: they may feel particularly unsafe in their home neighbourhood, or near where they work, or on the journey between those places). If someone routinely carries a gun for their safety and goes to a protest on the way home from work, during their lunch break or otherwise fitting that into their regular day (I've no idea if that's the case here), or getting to a protest involves being in the same places where they consider unsafe, then they're likely to be at the protest with their gun. Just as someone is likely to be at a protest with car keys in their pocket.
That's not the same as someone actively thinking "I'm going to a protest, I'd better take my gun" when they wouldn't normally have it with them, as though being at a protest is a time when they would consider using their gun. The narrative of "taking a gun to a protest" implies the second meaning, whereas it's more than possible that Alex Pretti only had the gun with him because he routinely carried his gun.
It's a big mistake, though, for those around him who want an authoritarian take-over of the US, because to do that successfully, they can't just other a minority within the population -- they need to buy off the rest of the population. There have been no bread and circuses, no carrot, just the stick, or jackboot really.
Do authoritarians always need the carrot? Sometimes propaganda can fill the gap. "Guns not butter" is the slogan that springs to mind.
I apologise for pontificating from this side of the Pond on issues I don't understand. FWIW, I agree with @Gramps49's latest post and with @Alan Cresswell 's comments on carrying a gun. It's alien to my culture and way of thinking but I can see the logic in a US context.
@Ruth - I'm intrigued by your comment that this might be an enormous turning point - a white guy disarmed and shot 10 times when restrained and clearly not resisting arrest.
How do you see things panning out from here on in?
Are you suggesting there could be a backlash against Trump's policies and tactics from those who previously supported them?
I think it’s quite hard for the average Brit to appreciate how normal carrying a gun can be in the US, which leads to a cultural misunderstanding about the significance of the fact that Pretti had a gun on him.
The video evidence is pretty clear that he made no attempt whatever either to use, or to threaten to use it, and he wasn’t shot in some kind of threatening posture, but lying on the ground.
I wonder if there is any mileage in painting the idea of shooting people like Renee Good, Alex Pretti and the 30 so others they’ve killed recently as weakness - if that’s what puts them in fear of their life they must be cowards, weak, losers etc. Turning the Trumpest belief that the worst vice is weakness against them ?
Comments
It does look as though Trump's murderous thugs are inadvertently working against their evil master, making him less popular with each succeeding (and very public) outrage. Is that a general feeling in the US?
Yeah, mainly because a number of outlets will both-sides between what they can see with their own damn eyes and official statements no matter how contradictory.
"The Minnesota National Guard’s role is to work in support of local law enforcement and emergency responders, providing additional resources. Their presence is meant to help create a secure environment where all Minnesotans can exercise their rights safely, including the right to peacefully protest," the sheriff's news release stated. "We know this moment is challenging for our community. Remember that our local teams are also part of this community. We respect and protect everyone’s rights to voice concerns and stand up for what they believe in, but we urge all actions to remain peaceful and lawful. Our collective priority remains protecting our neighborhoods and keeping people safe."
https://www.kare11.com/article/news/local/ice-in-minnesota/hennepin-co-sheriff-requests-national-guard-support/89-954292de-f927-4fd6-a887-e23020f4ee1a
The Guardian's piece is written by the director of CERL: "We ran high-level US civil war simulations. Minnesota is exactly how they start" - https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/jan/21/ice-minnesota-trump
It could be that Trump will federalize the national guard troops. If he does that the guard will then be under the Pentagon control.
In the tabletop scenario, the NG remained loyal to the state, which was your earlier position. You earlier referred to the MN National Guard as "hometown people," and also said:
I can see why the governor would call out the National Guard, but I think it's very dangerous to put more people with guns onto the streets in the Twin Cities and environs.
Poorly trained federal goons with guns, some protestors carrying weapons, the National Guard placed in an awkward position between State and federal jurisdiction - and carrying guns.
Guns. Guns. Guns.
The more guns the more chances there are for fatalities and injuries, particularly when feelings are running high and there's a powder keg with a whopping big fuse leading into it.
Even if protestors with firearms don't intend to use them the fact that they're wearing one in the first place gives the DHS post-facto reasons to say, 'This person posed a threat to our officers.'
If they can say it about a vehicle slowly turning away they can say it about a pistol in someone's belt.
I can remember rabid gun-toting MAGA types ranting on social media that if the feds ever came for their guns ...
Those same people are now justifying the use of federal force against peaceful protestors.
It doesn't matter how many rules and regulations there are governing the use of weapons by State or federal authorities, one accused of 'insurrection', the other backed by the Oval office, there are so many bloody guns out there then they're bound to go off sooner or later.
The stable door has been open on this one since it was forgotten that the Second Amendment referred to a 'well-regulated militia' and not to trigger-happy ICE agents or guns being sold alongside packets of cornflakes.
But what do I know?
While I did say it could be a standoff between the National Guard and Federal Troops, under normal circumstances a President can federalize the guard troops.
I have continually said the guard could be deployed with shields and batons, maybe sidearms.
Federal troops from Alaska would be fully armed.
The sheriff of Hennepin County and the Police Chief of Minneapolis have both said if the Guard stays under state control, they will be used to RELIEVE their officers at critical junctures. The sheriff did say the Guard will be there to protect the right to peacefully protest
I agree with @Gamma Gamaliel, it is foolhardy for someone to appear at those demonstrations with a firearm even though it was holstered and Pretti did not reach for it. Doesn't really matter if Pretti was licensed to carry and Minnesota is an open carry state.
If anything, the 2nd Amendment people should be standing for Pretti.
I am thinking the Pretti incident will only bring out more guns on the part of the protestors--and we know the protestors are not a well trained/disciplined militia
An example of the BBC doing this, from someone who is the most milquetoast of centrists:
https://bsky.app/profile/sundersays.bsky.social/post/3md7cyyafvc2f
It looks like they're specifically talking about the live feed, which is probably particularly susceptible to just reporting statements as the come in without analysis.
Once again, the Trump administration acts as judge and jury before any investigation is carried out. The announcement is craftily worded and assigns murderous intent on the dead man's part with no evidence to back up that claim.
It's described as an act of 'domestic terrorism' and violent resistance to arrest when Pretti was pepper-sprayed, struck and held down by numerous agents.
I don't think he was wise to wear a pistol to a protest but at no point does he appear to have threatened ICE agents with it. He wasn't in a position to draw the weapon even if he'd intended to do so. How could anyone held down by up to 7 agents draw a weapon let alone hope to shoot his way out?
If you are 'planning a massacre' you wouldn't single-handedly approach federal agents who'd previously shown that they are more than capable of shooting first and asking questions later with a 9mm handgun.
You'd at least have an accomplice and multiple rifles, like the jihadists who perpetrated the Bondi Beach massacre.
My concern now, like that of many others I'm sure, is that there'll be an escalation in levels of violence and the use of more force by the administration against perceived insurrection' by anyone who doesn't cave in before their skewed version of events.
I don't think Sunder Katwala says such a thing, he's largely critiquing their live coverage, but also their follow-up rolling coverage hours after the videos were widely circulated, eg:
https://bsky.app/profile/sundersays.bsky.social/post/3mdaenale2c2y
https://bsky.app/profile/sundersays.bsky.social/post/3mdakdhpecs23
And contrasts it with their news bulletins:
https://bsky.app/profile/sundersays.bsky.social/post/3mdalbcu6js23
A lot of them are. Free link to NY Times piece discussing the reaction of the NRA, Gun Owners of America, and several prominent individual gun rights activists: "Gun Activists Bridle at Suggestion That Pistol Justified Killing" - https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/24/us/minneapolis-shooting-second-amendment.html?unlocked_article_code=1.HFA.XYkH.zab3O4iKppFb&smid=url-share
All the comments about it being unwise to legally carry a gun to a protest sound to me like comments about it being unwise for women to wear revealing clothing when walking alone at night - might be true, but it's still blaming the victim.
I wasn't quoting Sunder Katwala but citing some of the daft comments in response to his post.
I made the point that the live coverage was inadequate and problematic and at any rate the BBC Verify reports now completely contradict the Trump administration's version of events.
@Ruth, nobody is blaming the victim. This was a callous shooting of someone who posed no threat and who'd been disarmed.
It's nothing like blaming women who get raped or sexually assaulted for wearing revealing clothes or anything of the kind.
Pretti didn't draw his gun nor did he pose any threat to the ICE agents. They murdered him. Period.
There is no justification for their actions.
Nor did I say that there was. The fact that he was wearing a legally held handgun gave the administration the opportunity to lie about the shooting and claim it was done in self defence.
I appreciate that it is not against the law to own and carry a pistol publicly in Minneapolis but from this side of the Pond one wonders why anybody should be walking round wearing a handgun particularly at a protest where ICE agents are trigger-happy and only too ready to murder US citizens with the full backing of the Trump administration.
I'm not saying that the protestors shouldn't protest or film the ICE agents' thuggery but if I were doing so I'm not sure I'd want to give them any semblance of an excuse for shooting me in cold blood.
There's a report in today's Sunday Times, that well-known radical lefty pinko commie newspaper which gives a chilling account of how ICE agents behave. It's behind a pay-wall but is a very insightful piece I think.
If I didn't already hold Trump and Vance in utter contempt I would after reading it.
ICE agents aren't targeting Republican run cities where there are also large immigrant populations. They are targeting Democrat cities. It is politically motivated, it is racist and it stinks.
She is right. Intended or not, that is exactly what those comments sound like.
Which feels to me like they have now actually crossed the line into fascism.
I read that the NRA are not happy with this line of argument.
Of course, women and non-white people never were, but some people don't notice these things unless they're personally affected.
They issued a public statement against it.
The argument is pretty much the antithesis of everything the NRA believes. The right to bear arms is pretty much annulled if the cops can shoot you just for carrying a gun.
Not exactly.
First of all most minors cannot carry weapons and those that do have to take a hunters/firearms safety course and be under adult supervision in most states.
Second, again in most states convicted felons are not allowed to carry firearms. Granted that law is ignored a lot.
Third, if one has domestic violence history weapons are forbidden--this is actually federal law, again easily ignored.
Some states, not all, have open carry.
Most states require special training and licensing to carry a concealed weapon.
All states have special circumstances for anyone convicted of a crime using a firearm--usually up to five years added time in prison.
All legal purchasers of firearms are required to have a background check, but this does not include private sales, and many firearms are traded illegally. This is to say nothing about the guns that are 3D printed. One can also buy disassembled weapons without a background check.
Even then, there are many legal challenges to existing laws that are winding their way through the courts every year. A recent one is from Hawaii which allows a private property owner to forbid weapons on his/her property. SCOTUS just heard that case. Decision will likely come down toward the end of their term.
@Jane R - no, the MAGA types are justifying this murder on the grounds that Pretti was a lefty who was impeding federal agents from pursuing their lawful duty and fulfilling one of the policies they want Trump to pursue.
If the boot were on the other foot and a Democrat administration were sending federal agents to carry out something they didn't agree with they'd be screaming blue-murder - or out in force with the assault rifles they consider themselves entitled to tote under the Second Amendment.
@Gramps49 those statistics confirm what I've long suspected, that the cities targeted by ICE are chosen for political reasons. Yes, I know there are strongly Democrat areas in Florida but overall I get the impression it's a State with big MAGA support.
Texas the same - although again I recognise that it isn't monolithic and there are strongly Democrat areas there too.
It's been suggested that Trump is out to provoke 'insurrection' (as he sees it) in order to justify the use of force and to steam-roll measures that would undermine Congress and allow him a third term. That might be alarmist but he seems hell-bent on provoking lethal confrontations and blaming his political opponents for them when they happen.
Interesting how, when the NRA came out criticizing the shotting of Mr. Pretti, Trump is now walking back on his initial comments of how Pretty was the aggressor.
Oh, and, @Ruth, if you are still following. What's this about NG troops handing out sandwiches and hot drinks to protestors in Minneapolis?
Correction, the Guard is handing out donuts and hot drinks to protestors in St Paul (got to remember there are two cities separated by a river).
But we should go by the truth not what it sounds like. Everyone has their world view. Ruth has made hers clear. Others are free to disagree.
Sounds like is a point to start not a point to finish
I would argue there is a false equivalence with saying taking a gun to a protest is the same as wearing revealing clothing. The situations are fundamentally different in context, stakes, and social meaning:
Carrying a gun to a protest involves choices about risk, legality, and public safety.
Sexual assault is an act of violence where the victim’s clothing is never relevant to consent or culpability.
But I do not want to blame Pretti for getting shot. He did everything right. He was trying to protect two females who had been assaulted by the Border Patrol people. He kept his hands away from his firearm. And, when he was disarmed there was no reason to shoot him once, let alone ten times.
I agree He has talked about invoking the Insurrection Act again and again. He wanted to do it in 2020 during the George Floyd protests and was talked out of it -- and he still regrets not doing it. He typically does the things he talks about again and again, sooner or later.
It's a big mistake, though, for those around him who want an authoritarian take-over of the US, because to do that successfully, they can't just other a minority within the population -- they need to buy off the rest of the population. There have been no bread and circuses, no carrot, just the stick, or jackboot really.
I'm going to assume that someone who chooses to carry a gun has reasons behind that choice - eg: a sense of regularly being unsafe and wanting the reassurance of having a gun (there's no point here to discuss whether or not those fears are justified or whether carrying a gun is an appropriate response, just note that people carrying guns usually give that sort of argument). Going through the time and expense of getting a license to own and carry a gun, and to purchase a gun (and, possibly membership of a gun club to learn how to use it effectively and safely) isn't something most people would do for occasional use, they're going to be carrying that gun on a regular basis (eg: they may feel particularly unsafe in their home neighbourhood, or near where they work, or on the journey between those places). If someone routinely carries a gun for their safety and goes to a protest on the way home from work, during their lunch break or otherwise fitting that into their regular day (I've no idea if that's the case here), or getting to a protest involves being in the same places where they consider unsafe, then they're likely to be at the protest with their gun. Just as someone is likely to be at a protest with car keys in their pocket.
That's not the same as someone actively thinking "I'm going to a protest, I'd better take my gun" when they wouldn't normally have it with them, as though being at a protest is a time when they would consider using their gun. The narrative of "taking a gun to a protest" implies the second meaning, whereas it's more than possible that Alex Pretti only had the gun with him because he routinely carried his gun.
Do authoritarians always need the carrot? Sometimes propaganda can fill the gap. "Guns not butter" is the slogan that springs to mind.
@Ruth - I'm intrigued by your comment that this might be an enormous turning point - a white guy disarmed and shot 10 times when restrained and clearly not resisting arrest.
How do you see things panning out from here on in?
Are you suggesting there could be a backlash against Trump's policies and tactics from those who previously supported them?
Or that this could lead to further escalation?
The video evidence is pretty clear that he made no attempt whatever either to use, or to threaten to use it, and he wasn’t shot in some kind of threatening posture, but lying on the ground.