ANOTHER ICE SHOOTING IN Minneapolis

[OlDawg]

1 hour ago, baddog said:

Is the investigation concluded?

I don’t think so. This mentioned ‘preliminary.’

[Reagan]

I did hear that Trump has deported so many illegals that Minnesota has lost a congressional seat.  They need to redo the census now!  

[Reagan]

On 1/25/2026 at 8:47 PM, Porter said:

Deport all illegals.

Report anyone suspected of being an illegal in your neighborhood or job to 1-866-DHS-2-ICE (1-866-347-2423), the official 24/7 U.S.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)

Tip Line - it is now active.

I’m glad you posted this.  I wonder how many illegals are in Port Arthur?   🤔 

[tvc184]

14 hours ago, OlDawg said:

 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

 

Without a comment I am not sure of the context of those sites.

 The legal comment on the way it is portrayed in the Excessive Force and the Fourth Amendment article is incorrect in the point that I think it is trying to make, in my opinion.  On the other hand, it kind of makes no point except to say that Congress might want to change some laws. 

[tvc184]

9 hours ago, OlDawg said:

I’m still waiting on the purported body cam footage. I don’t think it will paint the incident with Mr. Pretti in any better light. But, in light of new information posted, I think the ‘totality’ argument established by SCOTUS in LEO use of deadly force has been satisfied if the new evidence is proven out.

The Supreme Court does not use the totality of circumstances in determining whether a use of force was justified.

In Graham v. Connor, reaffirmed recently in Barnes v. Felix, the Supreme Court rejected the totality of circumstances in the determination of the use of force and use “objectively reasonable” as the standard. The totality of circumstances can give false decisions on the uses of force. 

[tvc184]

8 hours ago, baddog said:

Have you ever conceal carried on your person? If so, did you tuck it in the backside of your pants? That doesn’t seem like a logical place to carry. I’m going out on a limb and say Pretti had another gun in front. People resisting keep their hands in front to make it difficult to cuff them behind. With hands tucked in front and possibly another gun, I can see how he was shot very easily.

That is actually a well known way to carry, often called the SOB carry or Small of Back. They make holsters for specifically that purpose.

It has probably lost some favor in recent years with the trend being more toward appendix carry.

I used to carry a revolver in the SOB position years ago and only on some occasions. I still do on rare occasions for a situation and not as a preferred option. 

[tvc184]

7 hours ago, baddog said:

Is the investigation concluded?

No.

[OlDawg]

3 hours ago, tvc184 said:

The Supreme Court does not use the totality of circumstances in determining whether a use of force was justified.

In Graham v. Connor, reaffirmed recently in Barnes v. Felix, the Supreme Court rejected the totality of circumstances in the determination of the use of force and use “objectively reasonable” as the standard. The totality of circumstances can give false decisions on the uses of force. 

Actually, the majority SCOTUS opinion explicitly states “the totality of the circumstances” in Barnes v Felix 2025 as the reasoning that should be used to determine use of force.

Also, this paper was developed by the Congressional Research Office, which is a part of the Federal Government that advises Congress on SCOTUS for legislative needs. It doesn’t advocate for any position. It merely advises of decisions.

[OlDawg]

3 hours ago, tvc184 said:

Without a comment I am not sure of the context of those sites.

 The legal comment on the way it is portrayed in the Excessive Force and the Fourth Amendment article is incorrect in the point that I think it is trying to make, in my opinion.  On the other hand, it kind of makes no point except to say that Congress might want to change some laws. 

See above post.

[DCT]

The blame game.

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[OlDawg]

9 minutes ago, DCT said:

The blame game.

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

Even Gov. Abbott is saying there needs to be a reset. If the Texas Governor says that, it’s fairly obvious there’s an issue—in perception and communication at the least.

Houston City Council meeting last night was overrun with people demanding the city stop working with ICE. Right now, Houston holds those with ICE warrants—just like they hold anyone for any other agency. But, they don’t assist in any other way that’s not a normal part of their duties.

The madness is spreading.

[tvc184]

43 minutes ago, OlDawg said:

Actually, the majority SCOTUS opinion explicitly states “the totality of the circumstances” in Barnes v Felix 2025 as the reasoning that should be used to determine use of force.

Also, this paper was developed by the Congressional Research Office, which is a part of the Federal Government that advises Congress on SCOTUS for legislative needs. It doesn’t advocate for any position. It merely advises of decisions.

That is 100% false.

It is not a true standard, and Barnes did not say that either.

The standard has been objective reasonableness, and Barnes only reaffirm that.

I have read multiple opinions, including the one you posted, where people apparently are only reading headlines, which are written by other people who did not read the case.

[tvc184]

6 minutes ago, OlDawg said:

Even Gov. Abbott is saying there needs to be a reset. If the Texas Governor says that, it’s fairly obvious there’s an issue—in perception and communication at the least.

Houston City Council meeting last night was overrun with people demanding the city stop working with ICE. Right now, Houston holds those with ICE warrants—just like they hold anyone for any other agency.

The madness is spreading.

If the city and county uphold the ICE warrants like they should, none of this would happen.

There would be no need to apprehend people in the streets as they are likely already in custody.

Imagine a system or a violent criminal is in the county jail and the federal government has a hold on them and the powers that be want to hurry up and get the violent criminal back out on the street again quickly….. so they can escape federal warrants.

It’s the movie Idiocrasy playing out in real life. 

[OlDawg]

17 minutes ago, tvc184 said:

If the city and county uphold the ICE warrants like they should, none of this would happen.

There would be no need to apprehend people in the streets as they are likely already in custody.

Imagine a system or a violent criminal is in the county jail and the federal government has a hold on them and the powers that be want to hurry up and get the violent criminal back out on the street again quickly….. so they can escape federal warrants.

It’s the movie Idiocrasy playing out in real life. 

Yep. Whitmire knows. Houston City Council is another matter. I’m just glad I live in La Porte, and not Houston.

I thought Texas just passed a law outlawing ‘sanctuary policies’ anyway?

[OlDawg]

28 minutes ago, tvc184 said:

That is 100% false.

It is not a true standard, and Barnes did not say that either.

The standard has been objective reasonableness, and Barnes only reaffirm that.

I have read multiple opinions, including the one you posted, where people apparently are only reading headlines, which are written by other people who did not read the case.

The actual majority opinion in Barnes v Felix 23-1239 (05/15/2025) is linked. Please read the majority opinion reasoning on Page 7.

The moment-of-threat rule applied in the courts below 
prevents that sort of attention to context, and thus conflicts 
with this Court’s instruction to analyze the totality of the 
circumstances. 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

 

[baddog]

4 hours ago, tvc184 said:

No.

It was rhetorical…

[UT alum]

15 hours ago, thetragichippy said:

@DCT  @UT alum

Alex Pretti broke rib in confrontation with federal agents a week before death....

It is a CNN article using "sources' - so it could likely not be true......but if it is.....

Can we stop with the narrative he just happen to be there helping folks.......He's an illegal protestor twice that we know of (if true)

And if true, it was just a matter of time before he would get hurt.....or dead

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

From the article:  “DHS has no record of this incident”.  
This is gonna be Trump’s Kent State. Fascism has reached it’s high water mark in this country..

[OlDawg]

4 minutes ago, UT alum said:

From the article:  “DHS has no record of this incident”.  
This is gonna be Trump’s Kent State. Fascism has reached it’s high water mark in this country..

Marxism is making another attempt. How's about we just follow the laws on the books, passed by the People's Representatives in Congress? I believe they're as simple as illegal immigration is just that...ILLEGAL. Deport those here illegally with their limited due process rights, and quit making carve-outs.

Either that, or change the law.

[tvc184]

9 minutes ago, OlDawg said:

The actual majority opinion in Barnes v Felix 23-1239 (05/15/2025) is linked. Please read the majority opinion reasoning on Page 7.

The moment-of-threat rule applied in the courts below 
prevents that sort of attention to context, and thus conflicts 
with this Court’s instruction to analyze the totality of the 
circumstances. 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

 

The totality of circumstances is not a legal standard for determining a decision. The totality of circumstances is the means by which a decision is made. In short it means, did you look at everything. 

 The totality of circumstances means that you have to look at all factors before making a decision. The totality of circumstances is not the decision but how you get there.

To judge an officer’s use of force, you can’t simply look at the moment of threat which is something that the Fifth Circuit Court basically invented on their own. That meant, if an officer was in danger at any moment in time, he could lawfully respond to that threat.

 That is not what the Supreme Court said because the officer could have been committing a crime and that crime may have been the reason that the officer was in danger. For example, what if an officer had unlawfully stopped someone without the required reasonable suspicion? Then he jumped out for no reason and started beating on the person with a baton risking, serious injury or death to the innocent person. The innocent person then took the baton away to try and survive and the officer then shot the innocent person.

Obviously at the moment the officer used deadly force, he was in danger. A person had an impact weapon and could seriously injure or kill the officer. That is why the moment of threat in itself doesn’t work. Sure the officer was an extreme danger at that moment but he caused himself to be in the extreme danger by committing a crime. 

In such cases (actually all cases) the totality of circumstances tells you “how” to arrive at a decision but it is not in itself the legal standard.  It simply means to look at the entire situation before rendering an opinion. 

That standard is in the police use of force is “objective reasonableness” or what would a “reasonable” officer do under the same circumstances. Obviously, if an officer made an unlawful traffic stop like in my example and then jumped out and started using unlawful force, that is not what a reasonable officer would do. That loses in the objective reasonableness standard from Graham v. Connor.

Again, how do we arrive at the objective reasonableness (legal) standard? By looking at the entire situation. That entire situation is the totality of circumstances which (again) is not the standard but the means. The totality of circumstances, when judging an officer’s use of force is meaningless without the standard of objective reasonableness.

So we use the totality of circumstances to arrive at the Supreme Court legal standard for the use of force….. objective reasonableness.

Since you cited the Supreme Court website, here is a quote from that site:

“Held: A claim that a law enforcement officer used excessive force during a stop or arrest is analyzed under the Fourth Amendment, which requires that the force deployed be objectively reasonable from “the perspective of a reasonable officer at the scene.” Graham v. Connor, 490 U. S. 386, 396. The inquiry into the reasonableness of police force requires analyzing the “totality of the circumstances.”

We can see from the words of the Supreme Court “Held” that the use of force “requires that the force be objectively reasonable” as ruled in Graham. That if the Supreme Court talking, not me.

 The Supreme Court goes on to say that we arrive at objectively reasonable by… “analyzing the ‘totality of circumstances’”.

So the totality of circumstances which people get fixated on is not the standard for judging the police use of force. That standard is objective reasonableness as determined by looking at the entire incident and not just the last couple of seconds.

 The Supreme Court in Barnes did not even look at the situation involving Officer Felix and plainly said that they didn’t even look into the situation or answered any questions about the officer initiating the situation. The only conclusion was, look at the entire traffic stop and not merely the moment that shots were fired and determine if the officer’s actions were “reasonable”.

The Fifth Circuit heard the case again almost immediately have said, Yep, we looked at the entire thing and came for the same conclusion. The officers’s actions were objectively reasonable.

 

[Porter]

20 minutes ago, UT alum said:

From the article:  “DHS has no record of this incident”.  
This is gonna be Trump’s Kent State. Fascism has reached it’s high water mark in this country..

Someone could post the sun is shining today and you’d respond by saying Trump is causing the sun to burn the earth! Smh

 

[OlDawg]

17 minutes ago, tvc184 said:

The totality of circumstances is not a legal standard for determining a decision. The totality of circumstances is the means by which a decision is made. In short it means, did you look at everything. 

 The totality of circumstances means that you have to look at all factors before making a decision. The totality of circumstances is not the decision but how you get there.

To judge an officer’s use of force, you can’t simply look at the moment of threat which is something that the Fifth Circuit Court basically invented on their own. That meant, if an officer was in danger at any moment in time, he could lawfully respond to that threat.

 That is not what the Supreme Court said because the officer could have been committing a crime and that crime may have been the reason that the officer was in danger. For example, what if an officer had unlawfully stopped someone without the required reasonable suspicion? Then he jumped out for no reason and started beating on the person with a baton risking, serious injury or death to the innocent person. The innocent person then took the baton away to try and survive and the officer then shot the innocent person.

Obviously at the moment the officer used deadly force, he was in danger. A person had an impact weapon and could seriously injure or kill the officer. That is why the moment of threat in itself doesn’t work. Sure the officer was an extreme danger at that moment but he caused himself to be in the extreme danger by committing a crime. 

In such cases (actually all cases) the totality of circumstances tells you “how” to arrive at a decision but it is not in itself the legal standard.  It simply means to look at the entire situation before rendering an opinion. 

That standard is in the police use of force is “objective reasonableness” or what would a “reasonable” officer do under the same circumstances. Obviously, if an officer made an unlawful traffic stop like in my example and then jumped out and started using unlawful force, that is not what a reasonable officer would do. That loses in the objective reasonableness standard from Graham v. Connor.

Again, how do we arrive at the objective reasonableness (legal) standard? By looking at the entire situation. That entire situation is the totality of circumstances which (again) is not the standard but the means. The totality of circumstances, when judging an officer’s use of force is meaningless without the standard of objective reasonableness.

So we use the totality of circumstances to arrive at the Supreme Court legal standard for the use of force….. objective reasonableness.

Since you cited the Supreme Court website, here is a quote from that site:

“Held: A claim that a law enforcement officer used excessive force during a stop or arrest is analyzed under the Fourth Amendment, which requires that the force deployed be objectively reasonable from “the perspective of a reasonable officer at the scene.” Graham v. Connor, 490 U. S. 386, 396. The inquiry into the reasonableness of police force requires analyzing the “totality of the circumstances.”

We can see from the words of the Supreme Court “Held” that the use of force “requires that the force be objectively reasonable” as ruled in Graham. That if the Supreme Court talking, not me.

 The Supreme Court goes on to say that we arrive at objectively reasonable by… “analyzing the ‘totality of circumstances’”.

So the totality of circumstances which people get fixated on is not the standard for judging the police use of force. That standard is objective reasonableness as determined by looking at the entire incident and not just the last couple of seconds.

 The Supreme Court in Barnes did not even look at the situation involving Officer Felix and plainly said that they didn’t even look into the situation or answered any questions about the officer initiating the situation. The only conclusion was, look at the entire traffic stop and not merely the moment that shots were fired and determine if the officer’s actions were “reasonable”.

The Fifth Circuit heard the case again almost immediately have said, Yep, we looked at the entire thing and came for the same conclusion. The officers’s actions were objectively reasonable.

 

That’s an excellent breakdown—to me. If I understand what you’re saying, the two go hand-in-hand as a means to a decision.

I’m not an attorney. But, it always seemed to say—in layman’s terms—to not just focus on the instant, but to look at ALL things without a definite time limit. Even those events that may not directly be involved in the specific circumstance. (i.e. recent threats, other stops that may have had an effect on the officer’s judgment, community events, etc.)

That’s why I believe the agent/agents in the Pretti issue will have a strong argument that—while not pleasant to watch, and maybe not the best—they didn’t act with bad intent. They made a split decision under duress.

Do I think they may be better suited for some type of ‘off the street duty?’

Yes. For their own psychological needs if nothing else.

[thetragichippy]

44 minutes ago, UT alum said:

“DHS has no record of this incident”.

So

CNN is Fake News....., that could be true - but there are medical records that back up CNN's story.

End of the day, he could of attacked and beat up agents the previous week. It would not help or hurt this case. 

If true, it just shows he was making poor decisions that eventually led to his death.... I wonder who convinced this grown, apparently smart (ICU nurse) to commit crimes supporting a fake narrative? 

[OlDawg]

3 minutes ago, thetragichippy said:

So

CNN is Fake News....., that could be true - but there are medical records that back up CNN's story.

End of the day, he could of attacked and beat up agents the previous week. It would not help or hurt this case. 

If true, it just shows he was making poor decisions that eventually led to his death.... I wonder who convinced this grown, apparently smart (ICU nurse) to commit crimes supporting a fake narrative? 

As an ICU nurse who supposedly was given medication for his ribs, I wonder if he was on oxycodone? Hadn’t thought of that…

That would definitely impair his judgement.