I am thankful that so far Microsoft hasn't removed local admin capabilities of Windows, but I dread the day that happens (mainly because it remains the most consistent ways one can deny windows updates).
Because forcing updates down people's throat creates this, and boy do I hate Microsoft's insistence on doing this for drivers, where you get such fun things like Microsoft installing a different AMD GPU driver than the one that AMD gives out (this to be fair is partially to be blamed on AMD for not having just 1 versioning system) so then you have to go into safe mode, DDU, disconnect the internet, install the drivers, turn off automatic driver update in an obscure setting.
Meanwhile on Linux it's literally 1 version that exists in the kernel.
Ever since Wayland added support for changing mouse scroll speed & changing/customizing middle click behavior that is a lot more consistent, I've used Linux to daily drive, especially with immutable distros ensuring even IF an update breaks my system I can rollback.
Trying to flee is famously not a justification for murder, if anything it's the opposite. You're literally kicking someone while they're down. Or, uh, shooting them. Obviously a fleeing person is not a threat to your life, which is the ONLY justification for a shooting.
It's not relevant because neither are justications for a shooting.
Why did George Floyd counterfeit a 20 or whatever? I don't know, but I do know he deserved due process, not a public execution. Regardless of your political affiliation.
Also, nobody tried to run anyone over. That's just straight up not true and I won't humor it, so don't bother.
There is a video of the woman either doing a getaway or a runover. I don't quite get why would you do that while you are being stopped by law enforcement. And it's also apparently dangerous.
You're missing the point. None of this matters. You're purposefully not addressing the underlying problem - extrajudicial executions - because the conclusion must make you uncomfortable.
Today, the punishment for fleeing is not execution. The conversation ends there. Everything else is just noise, and you know that, so stop.
So anytime an officer kills a person with a gun, that is now justified?
Despite the fact that the man in question that was killed had a legal permit for said gun AND 1 of the ICE agent even took his gun away and despite this was shot to death while lying on the ground?
So where is the urgency? Not enough KDA ratio to score high enough on the scoreboard?
Your version seems to be that they randomly opened fire. Another version is that a gun went off, not all of the officers knew where the victims gun was, they had also heard someone yell "gun", so after the first shot they opened fire.
It's not that you can be shot at by law enforcement when you are carrying a gun, but that you can be shot at when there is an apparent reason that you are firing at them with it. I'm sure ICE isn't happy about how the events turned out either. But for the protesters: just don't bring a gun!
Sure you have, but carrying a gun also comes with both responsibility, and also may be interpreted that you would use the weapon. To be clear, I'm not arguing the point that it's illegal to carry a gun to a protest, but that it's just not wise.
And this video is not a video showcasing a clear analysis of what happen as the man in the video is biased against the victim considering his political background and views.
So sure lying is an opinion you are correct about that, if I say you're a pedophile because you hugged a kid that is just stating a opinion.
If you have the right to bear arms, but law enforcement officers can shoot you if they spot that gun, then you don't actually have the right to bear arms.
You do have the right to bear arms but bearing arms conveys a meaning, that you'd see a reason to use it, so if you have a gun at an event where there are ample amounts of law enforcement present, against who would you be protecting yourself?
You should elaborate, because if this is the sentence you want, it's no different: Cops can kill at will if they have reason to believe that the other will kill.
They can kill when they have a reasonable basis for assuming they are facing an imminent threat to their lives or addressing a threat to public safety (but NOT to prevent criminal activity that isn't life threatening). That isn't the same thing as a license to kill, and they are accountable for charges like murder when they don't meet a "reasonable officer on the scene" standard. I don't consider that to be "at will" (likened to "at will employment") so much as "at their discretion."
Interesting. When people who stormed the Capitol openly carried assault rifles, MAGA had no problem with it. They called them patriots and peaceful protesters.
It's not about people carrying a gun at all, it's that should you carry a gun to a protest and should you engage in resisting to law enforcement while doing that. Had this person been perfectly still, he'd be still alive. (And also, had he not had that gun, but still resisted, he'd likely would have also been alive.)
> Had this person been perfectly still, he'd be still alive.
Again, I'd like to see you stay perfectly still after getting peppersprayed in the face without any reason. At no point was he threatening and attacking ICE agents. He was trying to help another woman who had just been assaulted by agents. They created the very situation that led to this tragedy.
There was a reason if you watched the video, it was the "help" of putting his hands on one of the officers. And bringing a gun into a situation like this.
There was a lot of whistlers, but I think the woman being helped was one of them, so this was what started the chain of events.
If someone were to follow me around while blowing a whistle then that would be quite irritating. What would you do in this situation?
Alex seemed to put hands on an officer. Whether this was well meaning in his head, it might have not seemed so to the officer. (Keep in mind that he had a constant whistle in his ear!)
Follow the protocol. If you lose your nerves because of people blowing a whistle, you're in the wrong job.
> Alex seemed to put hands on an officer
Where do you see that? All I see is that he raised his left hand in a protective manner, likely to keep the agent at a distance and protect himself from the pepper spray. After that gesture he turns away from the agent to help the woman on the ground. That's when they grapple him from behind and wrestle him to the ground. At no point did Alex behave in a threatening way or physically attack an agent. The DHS report does not mention any threating behavior either.
Clearly you're not on the wrong job. Find me some info materials on how cops need to be resistant to either mental or physical violence.
I'm sure we'll get a longer investigation into this matter. But it just doesn't seem like a pre-planned killing because they could get away with it, but a tragic sequence of events that you so much wish to bend your way.
I'm not claiming that this was a pre-planned killing. But it was more than just a tragic sequence of events because the agents were very much at fault here. They behaved aggressively and obviously did not know how to properly deal with an ordinary protestor (who clearly was no threat to the agents at any point).
Alex had a gun with him. If he wanted to appear non-threatening he simply shouldn't have brought it to the event.
I do maintain that this was an unfortunate sequence of events, but I think as this is investigated further, the guilt found on the officers will be small to none.
> This is the ordinary protestor a little over a week before the event
Wow, he kicked an ICE agent's car. The agents must have felt extremely threatened as they didn't even bother to arrest him...
How is this relevant to the shooting again?
> If he wanted to appear non-threatening he simply shouldn't have brought it to the event.
Carrying a gun in a state that allows conceiled carrying cannot be considered a thread in itself. Alex did not behave in a threatening way at any point during that whole situation.
Say officers report that Alex was aggressive on the day he died but there is no video material. The events from a week ago support those statements, as clearly Alex is a man that is quite worked up and capable of physical aggression.
Well, the larger sequence of events goes back to the group of people interfering with police work, including the woman whistling along with an officer. She got pushed which was where Alex entered. (Alex had already had a brief contact with the officers minutes before the fatal sequence of events.) Alex also had a gun with him. This eventually led him to being shot.
The researched why will surface likely soon. But as of now, carrying a gun to a protest isn't something that helps with looking harmless.
These were accidents, not court proceedings where you have weeks or months to think things over.
My prediction is that if you investigate them, then in the case where the woman was trying to drive away, the officer likely has no fault at all, as the drive may have easily be interpreted as driving towards him. On the armed protestor occasion, there might be some fault as the gun seemed to have gone off unexpectedly. But it won't be punished too hard, if at all, as the victim was actively escalating the situation.
These weren't punishments ("death sentences" as someone else called them). These were accidents where the victims themselves were (mostly) at fault.
Uh huh. It seems to be a small proportion of American man-children that don't understand what's happening, the rest of the world sees it plain as day. Anyway, you obviously didn't actually watch the videos. Try opening your fucking eyes next time.
> You should forgive yourself instead, become part of the grown-ups!
Or maybe you also have amnesia? In case this is hard to understand, you implied (intentionally insultingly) that I'm not a grown-up. So you invited ridicule on yourself. I think people like you are fucking idiots and I love having an excuse to tell you because you decided to stop being civil.
Well, you argue for interference with law enforcement. I don't see how that helps "the cause", it also puts the participants in danger. I.e, the few deaths that have already occurred.
First, it is the duty of law enforcement to recognize a situation that can and should be de-escalated. The public is not an cannot be responsible for that, and it doesn't justify murder if they aren't. "Interference", while in my opinion very warranted here, doesn't constitute an imminent life threat to Law enforcement nor the public, and it is not permissible for them to use lethal force in that situation. Aside from killing wantonly and happily ("fucking bitch"), law enforcement in this case is acting illegally on administrative warrants, violating the Constitution to enter houses they do not have legal warrants for, being masked and unidentifiable (and thus unaccountable for their actions to the public) when they commit attrocities in the public view (why would a legitimate police force need to hide its face) and generally being a public menace. It is your civic duty and a proud American tradition to stand up to lawless police forces.
They were not accidents. No one accidentally draws, aims a gun and shoots. If that whole sequence is accidental, that person shouldn't be in charge of a weapon.
What I'm saying is that he did have a gun, this particular gun was taken away, then he was apparently reaching for something else, which may have been mistaken for a gun, hence the shot. Or, the officer fired at him for some other suspicion. Regardless, you don't have perfect information in a situation like this. The guy wasn't behaving peacefully either.
My suggestion would be to obey orders, don't bring weapons to protests, don't resist when you're being detained. And so on.
What order was he disobeying? They pepper sprayed him and dragged him to the flor, he didn't have a gun in his hands, no danger at all, so why shoot him? He wasn't grabbing anything, you see his hands are free in the video.
And not behaving peacefully (who would when you are pepper sprayed and are hitting you in the head) shouldn't (in a decent country) be a reason to be shot.
Or better, so that you can think about. Pretti was standing there filming. What should have he done to "obey"? What was his mistake before they pushed him? Before they sprayed him? Before they dragged him to the ground, back to the street? Before they hit him in the head?
What should have he done to prevent being shot?
Well, exactly. My recommendation would be not to carry a gun where there is law enforcement already there. Or if you do, don't resist capture.
I.e, I maintain that this was an accident. The police didn't want to shoot this person, nor did the person want to use his gun. But it appeared like that to both sides which then caused the event that followed.
I'm not claiming that the ICE agent wanted to shoot Alex. I think the shooting itself was a case of gross incompetence. However, they intentionally attacked and assaulted Alex without any immediate reason. How are supposed to stay calm when you get peppersprayed in the face out of the blue?
The confiscated gun went off and the officers thought it came from the person being detained so they shot him. Waiting out to be shot would have been incompetent had he really been shooting.
Alex put hands on the officers first so there was an apparent reason.
Do you have any source for this? If that was the case, the DHS would have reported it as it would support their narrative.
> Alex put hands on the officers first so there was an apparent reason.
This not true! Alex moved in front of the ICE officer who just violently pushed the woman to the ground. He had this cell phone in his right hand and he raised his left hand in a protective manner. He does not even appear to touch the agent at any moment. This is when he got peppersprayed in the face. Then he tried to help the woman up. This is when an agent grapples him from behind and Alex gets wrestled to the ground. At no point did he behave in a threatening manner! You can clearly see this in the videos.
I think he did have his hand(s) on the officer right after he raised it. To me this "protective raise of the hand" looked like taking his hands off of the officer. Also, while Alex may have had protectiveness as a thought in his head this may have not seemed so to the officers.
Regarding shooting, what seems clear that shooting started after the gun was taken from Alex. At the discovery of it an officer also shouted "gun", after this guns were drawn and then shots were fired. Which gun went off first doesn't appear from the videos, but after the first one did, I assume that the rest of the shooting was due to the first shot being interpreted as the victim starting shooting, as not all of the officers saw that the gun had already removed.
Still, don't bring a gun to a protest, don't engage in any physical activities with law enforcement, don't stop them from doing their work, don't walk and whistle along..
So why did you claim Alex' gun went off? You have been spreading gross misinformation. Maybe take a step back and reflect before you come up with new theories.
I'm sure it will be known soon-ish where the first shot came from. It's just that the first one likely caused the rest of it as the surrounding officers didn't know who was shooting.
Say it turned out that the first shot was fired due to an officer misinterpreting something for a gun, because "gun" was yelled, would that turn this into anything else than an accident?
The best way to appear not to have a gun, nor appear dangerous at all, is not bring a gun to a protest.
Again, why did you claim that Alex' gun went off as if that was a fact?
> It's just that the first one likely caused the rest of it as the surrounding officers didn't know who was shooting.
No need to speculate. If you watch https://youtu.be/i8kFcK-X-vQ?t=108 you will see that the first agent shoots Alex in the back one time and another three times while they all move away. Note that Alex has been restrained the whole time. One second later, you hear 6 more shots. This is where the second agent got involved. At this point, Alex has already been lying on the ground.
> because "gun" was yelled, would that turn this into anything else than an accident?
At best this was an accident, but even then it was the agents fault for misinterpreting the situation or the DHS's fault for deploying badly trained agents. (Hearing the words "Gun!" does not give officers the permit to shoot, unless they perceive an imminent threat to their or someone else's life!) However, if you watch the video above, you can see that an agent removes Alex' gun right in front of the agent who fires the first shots. There are lots of open questions.
> The best way to appear not to have a gun, nor appear dangerous at all, is not bring a gun to a protest.
The act of conceiled carrying alone does not make you a threat. Alex never behaved in a threatening way.
Instead of putting the blame solely on Alex, maybe ask yourself what the agents could have done to deescalate the situation, what kind of people the DHS recruits as ICE agents and if their training is appropriate for urban policing.
> Again, why did you claim that Alex' gun went off as if that was a fact?
This seems to be what people suspect. It's less likely that an officers own gun goes off as they are familiar with it.
I don't put blame on Alex, solely (read!). But the ill meaning callouts of ICE being this and that, occupation, isn't correct either. I don't think you people in the US have actually lived under an occupation, so these words are easy to use.
Regarding being threatening: well, if you carry a gun to a protest and engage physically with an officer (subjectively and to me) is threatening. It also seemed threatening to the shooting officers.
Who? Not even the DHS people claim this! And why did you initially present it as a fact?
> It's less likely that an officers own gun goes off as they are familiar with it.
Again, you can clearly see/hear on the video that the agent fires the first shot. No gun went off. Why do you make stuff up?
> It also seemed threatening to the shooting officers.
I very much doubt it. At the best the agents were just badly trained and did not know how to handle someone who carries a gun (in a state that allows conceiled carrying).
I presented it initially because this has been what people think: https://youtu.be/QePoawDA_48?si=0mr-lMR_lIRoBDA_ There are many more people opining this, both as these more produced videos to simple social media postings. I still do present you the opinion that likely the confiscated gun went off which started the rest of the shooting.
The first shot is not "clearly seen" as far as I can tell.
If Pretti, and the first fired shot, didn't seem threatening then the shooting wouldn't have happened..
I'm happy that you know how law enforcement works, how to behave in critical situations and that it actually is possible to have perfect awareness of any situation. If you are this good, I'd suggest to join the force yourself, as you have a clear advantage in doing that kind of work.
> I presented it initially because this has been what people think:
Maybe in some MAGA podcast circles. This has never been more than pure speculation. Again, why did you present it as a fact?
Let's assume the gun went off. I'm sure the person holding that gun would have noticed that. Why wasn't this reported, especially as it would support their case? This just doesn't make any sense at all.
> The first shot is not "clearly seen" as far as I can tell.
It very much is. Did you even watch the video I've linked? It shows the very moment the first shot is being fired. Are you seriously claiming it is not the agent who is firing that shot? Again, not even the DHS is disputing that the agent fired the first shot.
The police is just as human as you and me. This person was carrying one gun - he might have more weapons on him. He was also resisting the takedown while the gun was found.
You make it seem as this was just a random guy walking with a phone, and was shot.
He didn't have a gun when he was shot, what are you talking about? He didn't even have a gun in his hand. Or you mean that you can accidentally shoot somebody who had a gun, at some point in the past?
I think you can shoot someone if you have reason to believe that somebody has a gun. In this particular occasion the guy did not have another gun.
(Hence I'm calling it an accident, where the police officer may be at fault. Though, other commentators saying it was cold blooded, a death sentence, deliberate, etc. is not true. Nor is generalizing this particular situation to changes in government type. These people really want to portray their political opponent as bad as they possibly can.)
You should not carry a gun to a protest, not engage physically with an officer nor resist when they start arresting you after that.
You should watch the video. While seem to be an accident, a way to avoid it would have just been not bring a gun in the first place nor engage physically with law enforcement.
These actions in general to restrict law enforcement to do their job isn't helping either. Protest in front of government buildings, not follow police around.
You should watch the video, the police are the ones who engaged physically: pushed Pretti, pepper sprayed him, dragged him on to the street, hit him on the head repeatedly, and then got scared and shot. You can protest wherever you like that's legal. If police cannot handle that (start fights and then get scared and shoot) they shouldn't be police.
Also, it is absolutely legal to follow police around. It doesn't make sense to make something legal while justifying getting shot for it (unless you want to make it illegal eventually).
No, they started the engagement. What's wrong with trying to help somebody pushed to the street? Or are you recommending just letting police push people with cell phones to the ground and pepper spray them, unless you want to be shot dead?
While one of these seems like an accident where the officer may have some blame, then both of them can be avoided if you don't behave aggressively or don't show up with a gun at a protest. I.e, bad things sometimes happen, but they are not the situation you wish it to be.
I’m no fan of guns but showing up with a gun is not illegal or criminal in itself that deserves instant death sentence. So you might want to introspect what you’re saying here.
I have introspected this thoroughly. What I'm saying is if you're confiscated a gun in some highly urgent situation, then the people doing the seizing get even more tense in their mental state, so accidents are easy to make.
While it may be worth it to investigate the situation and there may some blame on the officer, then the allusions people are making (perhaps not you) are completely out of whack.
I'm sure it's inconvenient if your party or candidate lost the presidential election, but you shouldn't turn to lying for retribution.
Calling this an "accident" is a pretty huge stretch I must say. They dumped rounds in the guy while he was collapsed face down on the pavement and unarmed.
If they didn't know they shouldn't have been firing at him. Soldiers in active warzones wouldn't be given such considerations and allowed to just blast people that they don't even know are armed. There is no excuse.
I would like to see any situation where an average citizen could kill somebody in a similar manner and be given the benefit of the doubt. Because "He may or may not have been armed, I don't really know because I couldn't see" would not fly in any US court for any other random civilian.
Police (and people in general) react to what appears. They can't stop time, strip-search Pretti, find nothing, then continue.
I could also say "there is no excuse for you to not understand why ICE did what they did". No point in these judgements, they don't help your argument.
The entire protest isn't a plain protest. They could do their whistling and marching on a public square, yet they walk and whistle along with law enforcement. (I guess the new way to rob a bank would just be to walk in there with the guards, but say that you're protesting and talk about the letters of constitution?)
How is filming in public an "obstruction"? Do cameras or filmers have telekinetic powers? If you then tell me what is the safe radius where this telekinetic power is neutralized. Would an 800mm lens from 500 yards away be safe?
It is if you are doing it during a police operation.
There is also no fixed radius. E.g, if there is a police op in one apartment, you are filming in another, but there is a wall in between, then the distance is miniscule. If you're walking along with the officer and filming the op as it happens, then you are in the radius. Even worse if you're also whistling.
It's been established many times that it is perfectly legal in US law to film US police on US soil .. there's been state by state settings of acceptable distances, etc.
ICE / DHS / Border patrol aren't US police, of course - they are immigration enforcement agents with more limited powers despite assertions by the current US federal administration to the contrary.
It doesn't seem to be legal to interfere with police work https://youtu.be/QePoawDA_48?si=0mr-lMR_lIRoBDA_, e.g, film or whistle during an operation. The constitution doesn't apply as naively as you think.
The video gives vague platitudes about filming limits just saying "do not obstruct" well duh, now define what not obstructing means, show case laws about the right radius or whatever else to film. No where does the video show he was "legally obstructing" the policework, just cites that a filmer must not obstruct.
I'm sure that the investigation into the Alex Pretti event will give you more exact platitudes to rely on. Unlikely will its determination concur with yours, unfortunately. (But the future will tell, right!)
For Alex Pretti, there is already a video found where he kicks a police car's tail light loose during an earlier protest (while also carrying a gun to that event, too), so circumstances are stacking against him, unfortunately.
I'd say, simply don't bring a gun to a protest! As then police won't need to do split second decisions about whether you are using lethal force against them or not.
To me saying "simply don't bring a gun to a protest" is according to constitutional law the same as saying "just don't say politically inflammatory things around officers who might accidentally interpret it as a personal threat and beat you".
If cops are too pussy for their job they can quit anytime, nobody's stopping them. The public should not have to give up firearms just because cops piddle their pants ehile being armed armoured ten times as much.
The Alex Pretti shooting is what started this thread (way up).
Though back to filming, while it's legal to just film a cop, then it may not be while an operation is ongoing. If you film the operation in quiet then I guess it's up to debate whether that is interfering with police work. But the protesters were also whistling along with the officers, i.e, giving away that they're there, etc.
Nobody is stopping illegals from being deported. They just hace to prove illegality first. If you believe otherwise, I am more than happy to recommend you for imprisonment and deportation first before asking questions.
Not all warrants are same. Some warrants ICE use don't have legal powers of court issued warrants for example. So yes, its just a piece of nosy Karen paper and you can prevent them entry to your house for example for certain types of warrants.
I'm sure an investigation into this particular case will surface what kind of warrant (or other legal document) they were carrying out and whether whistling along with police carrying out their work was interference or not.
If you know who was going to be captured and how this was only a "Karen" warrant , which doesn't constitute non-interferable police work, post to any source!
You seem to have difficulty with English, maybe its not your main language. What part of the warrant type being immaterial for third parties having a right to film the cops was difficult to understand?
Why do you say "not all warrants are the same" while them being different is immaterial?
Also, why even "protest" at these events when the people targeted by ICE haven't determined to be illegal immigrants? They can just present their basis for legal immigration and be done with it.
Ask ICE why they are acting like violent terrorists. Why are you asking protestors who have a legal right to free speech, to carry firearms, to protest in a public space and to film in a public space?
You are probably from one of the lesser countries in the world which is why your confusion. In sane countries people don't need "permission" from the government to engage in speech.
I spoke about warrants because you are the one who brought up "court orders" out of thin air and you clearly showed you had completely made it up since you neither knew about the fake Karen warrants and nor about the proportion of real court orders and fake warrants. I can print a paper saying "Ultra Real Serious Warrant for Arrest of kreetx" too. Would you listen to me and get arrested by me?
A banks not public property and the people being shot weren't engaging in any crime. A bank can decide what they allow in or not. Its extremely astounding you seem unaware of this. Your "analogy" is completely confused and meaningless.
It does: in context of an active war having a gun won't surprise anyone. In context of arresting someone and seeing a gun on that person makes that person appear lethally dangerous.
Why? If you are arrested for a parking ticket do you expect to be shot if you also happened to be carrying? It's understandable if one feels scared of someone wielding a firearm while confronting them. Therefore we should shoot any cops who attempt to come near us since they are armed and getting into an interaction with us and they appear lethally dangerous.
And this is a clear give away you haven't seen either footage of the actual killing.
I don't know of any nice, calm, non-roided ICE agent who would say "fucking bitch" to a person that was shot and killed because they drove away from them.
Nor do I know of any officer in general who would be considered an upstanding on-duty officer doing so, especially one where they push you to the ground for filming, pepper spray you, put you to the ground and then shot you 10 times.
It's a bit tiring seeing these extreme positions on Ai sticking out time and time again, Ai is not some cure all for code stagnation or creating products nor is it destroying productivity.
It's a tool, and this study at most indicates that we don't use as much brain power for the specific tasks of coding but do they look into for instance maintenance or management of code?
As that is what you'll be relegated to when vibe coding.
This exact thing is was said about Poland when they joined the EU, the truth was that French/Spanish/German farmers didn't want to give up non specialized farming, and the same argument has been made and was a primary reason why Ukraine is not in the EU.
Plus it's odd that specifically this deal is so bad, but deals with importing Asian grown food via trade deal is fine.
But if this does happen it will be in my opinion the start of a slow death of the democratization of tech.
At best it means we're going to be relegated to last tech if even that, as this isn't a case of SAS vs s-ata or u.2 vs m.2, but the very raw tech (chips).
There are after all multiple people being "given" girlfriends or contacts for social networking, shown in the Epstein files.
Most obvious example is of course Donald Trump with Melania.
reply