I dont know what murder people are referring to, but if its Alex Pretti, I would like to point you to the analysis by Bellingcat, currently posted on reddit. Its clearly a murderous execution of a man that is on his hands and feet. You will not let me choose lies above my own eyes.
The main group of politicians encouraging the destruction of law and order is the regime currently squatting in the White House, rejecting any sort of accountability for the revanchist militias they have sent to attack American civil society. And no, it doesn't matter that the wannabe tin-pot dictator gave them "law enforcement" badges as both they and their leadership clearly have no respect for the highest laws of the land.
His attempt to “de-arrest” someone occurred immediately before he was fatally shot. That stands on its own as the proximate cause of the outcome. The video from a week earlier merely establishes a consistent pattern of behavior.
He was not peacefully protesting. Repeatedly showing up to protests, engaging in violence, and doing so while carrying a loaded firearm fundamentally undermines that claim. Carrying a weapon imposes an elevated duty of restraint: when you are armed, you have an inherent responsibility to avoid escalating conflict, precisely because your presence introduces a far greater risk of serious injury or death -- including to yourself.
Literally fighting with federal agents is the opposite of restraint and satisfies the elements of criminal conduct irrespective of political motive. Anyone lionizing him is engaging in vapid propaganda. He was not a peaceful protester, he was not a responsible gun owner, and he consistently engaged in criminal behavior that ultimately led to his death.
Legally speaking it probably depends on law enforcement actually being in their right to grab the other protestor in the first place?
In practice I had experience of protests in 2010s Russia, and legitimacy is another huge factor there. E.g. even if the law enforcement was in the legal right to grab the other protestor, is it ok that they had the right in the first place.
I'm not saying either of these apply, but that because legality and legitimacy of grabbing a protestor is often unclear this de facto is a normal behavior at a protest and should not have any severe punishment attached to it.
In the US, there is no civilian privilege to physically interfere with an arrest, even if the arrest is later found to be unlawful. Legality is and must be adjudicated after the fact; real-time obstruction is in and of itself a very serious criminal offense.
What may be common at protests is irrelevant, other than perhaps raising the question of why riotous behavior has become an accepted norm among certain demographics. Such behavior as Pretti demonstrated is not — and has never been — constitutionally protected.
Physically inserting oneself between officers and another person constitutes illegal interference, not protected protest, and predictably escalates the risk of serious injury or death — especially in a volatile crowd, when the interference is violent, and especially when the individual is carrying a loaded firearm.
There’s simply no legal right to obstruct law enforcement. Doing so is a serious crime, and, as clearly demonstrated by the ultimate outcome of his consistent pattern of behavior, extremely dangerous.
Which is precisely why the conduct is illegal in the first place, why engaging in it was unjustifiable, and why characterizing it as “protest” is politically motivated sleight of hand.
This whole comment ignored the legitimacy part which is non-trivial in this case.
My understanding is ICE ignored state court orders (I did not look up details, might be very wrong on this one), from which point on any activity of theirs could have been illegitimate if not outright illegal. Preventing any of their activity might be considered a duty in a sense that it is pushing them to abide by lawful court orders.
I was quite clear on that. You cannot interfere with law enforcement.
> In the US, there is no civilian privilege to physically interfere with an arrest, even if the arrest is later found to be unlawful. Legality is and must be adjudicated after the fact; real-time obstruction is in and of itself a very serious criminal offense.
Of course you're right to be suspicious. The Trump administration has already used AI-altered videos to bear false witness in at least one instance we know of, so it's a good idea to hunt down multiple sources. (That, incidentally, is one reason why it's so important for citizens to film ICE and other so-called "law enforcement" activities in the first place. Multiple sources need to exist.)
In this case, the footage is consistent and unequivocal: an execution-style killing took place in cold blood under color of law. But I'm sure that won't always be true.
