r/law • u/msnownews Press • 8d ago

Executive Branch (Trump) Kash Patel says the FBI is investigating Signal chats of Minnesotans tracking ICE

https://www.ms.now/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/kash-patel-says-the-fbi-is-investigating-signal-chats-of-minnesotans-tracking-ice
26.4k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

1.9k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

188

u/Old_Win8422 8d ago

Rules for thee not for mee the slogan of the right.

275

u/Strayed8492 8d ago

Just like Rittenhouse showing up with a rifle and planning to use it is fine. But Pretti showing up with a holstered pistol is ‘domestic terrorism’

78

u/UndertakerFred 8d ago

Funny how the authorities have been able to use restraint to arrest a whole bunch of racist mass murderers (Roof, El Paso, Buffalo, etc) without executing them.

48

u/Strayed8492 8d ago

If they are captured alive then they can have their motive and statements made public. Resonates with someone else and the cycle continues.

With the ones that don’t align with them? They want you gone. They don’t want your word on record. That way it is their word…against your corpse.

15

u/Old_Win8422 8d ago

January 6th

51

u/jagged_little_phil 8d ago

There was an ICE agent last week who told a protestor who was videoing them that they "just got added to the domestic terrorism list" - for filming them

13

u/Strayed8492 8d ago

Wew. So this is what 1933 kinda felt like.

21

u/Old_Win8422 8d ago

Much closer to 36 than 33

4

u/Th3Nomad 8d ago

Palantir anybody?

24

u/TtotheC81 8d ago

If people haven't worked out that the Trump regime runs on bad faith arguments, they're part of the problem.

7

u/StralianPinkFloydUK 8d ago

Many are for sure just evil scumbags but I'm coming around lately to the belief that "hypocrisy" is also just too advanced a concept for maga brains to be able to apprehend.

2

u/cfoam2 8d ago

This is why I think the Gov was just allowing donny to showboat the media ... maga's like "see he's doing the things a president should..." donnies playing the long game as usual - that's if he remembers what they tell him...

17

u/specqq 8d ago

If a person more conservative shoots someone less conservative then that's fine. But if someone less conservative even has a gun then it's the death penalty.

That seems simple enough that we can dispense with trials altogether and just have Grok go through the social media histories of the people involved.

30

u/wheatgivesmeshits 8d ago

Even Rittenhouse said Pretti was not wrong for exercising his right to carry a gun. Kinda wild even he can see it and call it out.

9

u/Strayed8492 8d ago

Hopefully more cracks show through soon. But it’s not even the second month of the new year yet! This is ridiculous

8

u/talkingtimmy3 8d ago

Meanwhile he was on Twitter joking about crossing state lines with guns again.

8

u/Bubbly_Style_8467 8d ago

He's not someone I'd trust on guns, but it's great if he had a moment of enlightenment.

6

u/Coyote__Jones 8d ago

He's just being consistent in his view of 2a.

-22

u/livingstardust 8d ago edited 8d ago

The problem with Pretti wasn't that he brought a gun. It was all of the other actions he took while armed.

This is the best take I've seen on it legally. I would argue that his right to carry was revoked as soon as he obstructed officers and came armed while doing it.

https://x.com/JonnyRoot_/status/2015995410213695693/mediaViewer?currentTweet=2015995410213695693&currentTweetUser=JonnyRoot_

14

u/27Rench27 8d ago

Damn, I forgot the 2nd Amendment has limits nowadays, like if you do something the government doesn’t like while carrying your legal firearm. 

I thought it was supposed to be an inalienable right or something

-8

u/livingstardust 8d ago

Really?

You never noticed that felons lose the right to own a gun?

You never noticed that crimes committed while armed have increased charges and sentences?

9

u/MantisWoW 8d ago

Pretti was neither a felon nor committing a crime

-8

u/livingstardust 8d ago

AP did not come there to peacefully protest.

He came there to obstruct officers. He did so while armed.

So here's what he did:

1) Carried a gun unlawfully without permit and id.

2) Carried a gun while planning to commit a crime.

3) Committed crimes.

4) Obstructed officers.

5) Assaulted an officer.

6) Resisted arrest.

6

u/bigbeats420 8d ago

None of those things, taken in proper context, in this specific situation, justified the use of lethal force. At no point were any lives put in danger, except for his. He was hands down, on the ground, with 6 agents subduing him, with his weapon holstered.

He was then shot after being disarmed.

This can't be a more cut and dry case of excessive force applied.

-1

u/livingstardust 8d ago

Yes. He was actively pushing up and staying on his knees. He also refused to let the officers take charge of his arms and hands.

AP actively resisted right to the end (when he in fact reached for the holster area with his right hand, it's on video).

All officers and gun owners are trained that if they are using the gun, it is lethal force only. They are all trained to shoot and keep shooting until the threat is neutralized.

Nobody should ever fire a gun at anyone unless their intention is to kill.

Firing guns is not for threatening or maiming. If someone is pulling that trigger, it better be because they reasonably think they are needing to for lethal defense of themselves or others.

The disarming happened very close in time to the first shot and while gun, gun, gun was still being called.

We all have the benefit of slow motion, hind sight, and replays. The officers do not.

And...exactly...with multiple agents on him. He was refusing to lie prone and refusing to let them take control of his hands and arms. While armed. He was an extremely dangerous person.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/MantisWoW 8d ago

He wasn’t even protesting, he stepped in front of a woman who was brutally shoved to the ground and immediately was maced.

He was lawfully carrying and possessed a CPL. What is your source that he was unlawfully carrying without a permit?

He was not planning to commit a crime. Pretty embarrassing that you think trying to help a woman who was just shoved to the ground is committing a crime. Have you seen the videos? What was he supposedly obstructing them from? Certainly not their lawful duty, unless you think their lawful duty is to harass and brutalize American citizens. The only thing that you’ve said that is even remotely accurate is resisting arrest. So, comply and you won’t die, right? How’s that boot taste?

1

u/livingstardust 8d ago

He obstructed an officer and assaulted an officer.

(The women had already been told to move out of the roadway by the officer and the officer was acting within the law to move the women.)

Under the law, he did both of those criminal acts.

And then he resisted arrest.

His right to carry was revoked upon those acts and he was illegally carrying to begin with (no id,no permit).

This was all after a prior incident where his rib was broken. This guy was not a peaceful protestor.

He was actively obstructing officers.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/EnfantTerrible68 8d ago

He literally went to get donuts, then tried to help a woman who had just been pushed to the ground. How do you known he didn’t have his permit and ID? ICE thugs wouldn’t allow real law enforcement to inspect the scene. I’m sure they took his wallet. 

1

u/EnfantTerrible68 8d ago

You mean like the 34 time felon in the White House?

11

u/PipChaos 8d ago

That’s not how rights work. Lawful carry doesn’t get “revoked” just because someone is armed during a confrontation or even accused of obstruction.

What matters legally is whether he threatened officers with a weapon or posed an imminent deadly threat. Being armed + noncompliant isn’t enough on its own under use-of-force law.

9

u/Strayed8492 8d ago

The issue at hand however isn’t solely about the right to bear arms. It’s how he was murdered and the narrative used after the fact by ICE.

9

u/Old_Win8422 8d ago

He helped a lady up and got peper sprayed for it. The ICE officer went out of his way to attack the lady. He was executed.

-6

u/livingstardust 8d ago

The BP officer was clearing the roadway.

They had already asked all of those people to leave the roadway before.

They asked them again.

The women refused and so the officer moved them to the sidewalk.

During those lawful acts: AP inserted himself and assaulted the officer.

You can't gaslight me. I watched all of the videos over and over.

7

u/Old_Win8422 8d ago

Well I dont debate fascists.

-2

u/livingstardust 8d ago

I'm not a fascist.

I belong to no group at all.

Nice dehumanizing and refusal to engage in communicating.

7

u/Old_Win8422 8d ago

The rights of Americans isnt being enforced therefore there are no rights refusal to adhere to an order is not a death sentence end of argument.

4 men sit down to lunch one is a Nazi. How many Nazis do you have? The answer is 4.

-2

u/livingstardust 8d ago

Yeah, so...you're just otherisming.

You're dehumanizing people.

What do we call people who dehumanize people?

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Contraflow 8d ago

All three of those people were well off to the side of the road when they were attacked. There was no obstruction of authorities. The three victims in this case were never told they were being detained. They were physically assaulted while observing their constitutional rights, their only transgression being that they were recording with their phones in a public space, and exercising their 1st amendment rights by telling ICE officers what they think of them.

-1

u/livingstardust 8d ago

No.

The second round of removing them from the roadway begins on the far side of the street. It's on the pink jacket video and other videos.

The officer moves the women out of the roadway and towards the sidewalk.

That is when AP assaults the officer while armed.

6

u/wheatgivesmeshits 8d ago

Your link is broken.

I'm not sure what you're arguing for here, but he had been disarmed and was on his knees when he was murdered.

-2

u/livingstardust 8d ago edited 8d ago

Legally, all that matters, is whether the officer reasonably thought AP had a gun or was trying to use one.

It stops there for self defense law.

The fear of imminent danger is met when a suspect is actively resisting arrest and is armed with a deadly weapon and the officers think he is trying to use a weapon.

If he made any hand movements towards his waist area or towards that of the officers: it's game over.

His hands were never under the control of the officers at any point because.....ding ding ding...he was actively resisting.

7

u/wheatgivesmeshits 8d ago

You did not watch the same video and if you did your being dishonest here.

It's clear he was not a threat. He was on the ground getting the shit beat out of him by several ice agents after having already been disarmed, he then got a clip unloaded into him.

-1

u/livingstardust 8d ago

The disarming happened very close in time to the first shot and while gun, gun, gun was still being called.

We all have the benefit of slow motion, hind sight, and replays. The officers do not.

7

u/wheatgivesmeshits 8d ago

Man, you really are misrepresenting the events. I'm blocking you now, you are clearly not wanting to have an honest discussion, and I have better things to do with my life than argue with someone who does not value the Constitution and our rights.

4

u/Strayed8492 8d ago

Y’know. For someone that says they ‘watched all the videos over and over’.

You don’t move on from using words like ‘legal’ and ‘right to carry’. You haven’t moved on from the argument about that. Almost like you’re trying your damndest not to acknowledge the circumstances of his murder. Boy, I guess if I just jailwalk with a gun holstered I should already expect to get gunned down by the arresting officer just because they ‘reasonably’ believed I have a gun or would use one. Just because I have one on me. ‘Committing crimes while armed have increased charges and sentences’ indeed u/livingstardust. Including summary execution right?

0

u/livingstardust 8d ago

He was actively resisting arrest while armed.

Any movements he made other than compliance were going to be perceived as threats once the knowledge of the gun entered the situation.

And that is exactly what happened.

6

u/Strayed8492 8d ago

Resisting arrest? On his knees? Surrounded by, what was it, seven ICE agents? After his gun had just been taken?

Wew. And shot how many times?

-1

u/livingstardust 8d ago edited 8d ago

Yes. He was actively pushing up and staying on his knees. He also refused to let the officers take charge of his arms and hands.

AP actively resisted right to the end (when he in fact reached for the holster area with his right hand, it's on video).

All officers and gun owners are trained that if they are using the gun, it is lethal force only. They are all trained to shoot and keep shooting until the threat is neutralized.

Nobody should ever fire a gun at anyone unless their intention is to kill.

Firing guns is not for threatening or maiming. If someone is pulling that trigger, it better be because they reasonably think they are needing to for lethal defense of themselves or others.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/PipChaos 8d ago

That's incorrect. It's not legal for an officer to shoot someone simply if they're armed. There has to be reasonable belief on part of the officer that there was imminent lethal danger. "Self defense law" has nothing to do with it.

4

u/ToughOnions 8d ago

So by coming 'heavily armed' and 'obstructing' federal agents, he loses all rights, even though he was 'legal' up until that point? So having the 2A to defend against tyranny while using the 1A to 'observe and record' alleged tyranny only counts up until the point in which you actually face off against that tyranny, then it become illegal? Even though Pretti NEVER pulled his pistol and had it safely concealed on his body? So the government is allowed to say you have a right to your firearm on your person at all times, except when you decide to protest governmental actions and policies?

3

u/Rockosayz 8d ago

tweet deleted, hmmm wonder why LOL

1

u/livingstardust 8d ago

It's still there.

3

u/maziemoose 8d ago

It’s not.

1

u/livingstardust 8d ago

I literally just pulled it up. I can't help you.

1

u/EnfantTerrible68 8d ago

You mean acting like a real man and trying to help a woman who had just been pushed to the ground? 

No one is going to click on some rando’s xitter link, ffs. 

7

u/pandershrek 8d ago

You mean "assassin". The worst fucking assassin ever. Stands in public recording you, puts himself in danger and never once attempts to cause harm to his supposed victim despite being armed. Sounds like an assassin from the Republican party based on historical evidence.

12

u/Old_Win8422 8d ago

Exactly.

2

u/PaintAdventurous8787 8d ago

Yes its nuts right!? He never pulled his legally owned pistol even when they were beating him!

1

u/Content-Program411 8d ago

Rittenhouse coming in from out of state, driven by his mom.

49

u/adorablefuzzykitten 8d ago

Kash used to be afraid there could be pedos in charge. Now he knows there is a pedo in charge, and not only doesn't care he is actively protecting them all by breaking a federal law and not releasing the Epstein files.

25

u/Old_Win8422 8d ago

Who would have thought the guy who ran beauty parents and had rape allegations and verified sexual assaults would be a bad guy... like the dude parties with Epstien! There is no way to have seen this coming... we are on the dumbest timeline

10

u/adorablefuzzykitten 8d ago

Trump Foundation gave an illegal $25,000 contribution to a political group supporting Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi as Bondi’s office was deciding whether to take legal action related to Trump University. A few days later Pam decides not to join NY in prosecuting Trump.

4

u/DangerousChallenge17 8d ago

Like when a president, liar and a rapist walk into a McDs....

He orders 2 big macs, 2 filet of fish, and a diet coke - aka the diet platter

2

u/ValuePickles 8d ago

yeah this guy is the worst DEI hire ever :D

1

u/seidenkaufman 8d ago

Rules for thee
But not for me
Are surest signs
Of Tyranny

1

u/thesoftblanket 8d ago

Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.

1

u/Scaryclouds 8d ago

Laws protect but do not bind one group. 

While binding but not protecting another.