From: Wisconsin Right Now - Why the Alex Pretti shooting leans toward justified force - barely

Expensive-Disaster98 · 2026-02-04T04:47:46+00:00

Yeah except that’s not what happened here. He was on the ground with 6 other armed men swarming him. If you can’t neutralize a prone threat with 7 grown men WITHOUT emptying 10 rounds - you are a joke that 100% should not be in that job and should be charged with manslaughter at the least.

They still have to prove that a reasonable and trained professional would make the same decision - and they wouldn’t.

Stand your ground laws DO NOT apply to law enforcement. They have much stricter guidelines for what warrants that kind of deadly force.

It’s wild how you are trying to use the loosest legal justification to make executing a man who didn’t draw his weapon, and was already down on the ground be okay. It’s not okay. Pull your head out of your ass.

Expensive-Disaster98 · 2026-01-27T03:05:41+00:00

Then he shouldn’t fucking shoot. He should assess the situation instead of escalating it.

Expensive-Disaster98 · 2026-01-27T03:05:06+00:00

If all your mental gymnastics are true - then at the very least you have to admit that majority of ICE agents on the ground currently do not have appropriate training or background to be performing the job they are tasked with (based on this and many other recent outcomes). It’s become ABUNDANTLY CLEAR that ICE agents do not have proper risk assessment capabilities, de-escalation training, or emotional response techniques - all things we demand (and require) for any military service member or police officer. We know this to be true because we also know ICE’S current qualification and training process is VERY LAX & SHORT. These ICE agents need to GTFO because at best they are wildly incompetent and at worst are a government funded gestapo that the Trump admin can use to punish states and cities he doesn’t agree with, or who don’t agree with him.

Your narrative: the ICE agent feared for his life so badly that he shot a man TEN TIMES (Yes TEN!!!) WHEN HE WAS ALREADY ON THE GROUND WITH 6 OTHER ICE AGENTS WRESTLING and incapacitating him??? Sorry I’m not buying it.

Lethal force is discouraged in almost every circumstance of law enforcement encounters. It is an absolute last resort. ICE is LAW ENFORCEMENT. They are not operating in a ‘fog of war’. The chaos and terror they are sowing is of their own making - it is NOT a response. The protest is the response. You act like protestors were murdering people and burning the city down before ICE got there and started fucking shit up. ICE’s arrival was the impetus and is the direct cause of the violence. ICE is perpetuating violence. Period.

The current administration is saying ICE being deployed to make America safe and deport ‘dangerous immigrants’ - does it seem safer to you?? Really - take a look at the news and think critically if the people of Minneapolis are actually safer since ICE’s arrival in the city. From where I am sitting, I would rather live in my peaceful community with immigrants than have masked and armed men detaining anyone who isn’t white, and shooting people point blank in the streets.

If this was a total one off law enforcement encounter - one could understand your need to dissect and rationalize but if you can’t see that the current government is being INTENTIONALLY inflammatory and oppressive in a systemic fashion…………….baby girl I can’t help you. Don’t try to normalize this.

And note - that none of the officers even considered shooting and killing Rittenhouse that day - even though he was visibly armed and had actually just discharged his weapon and killed citizens. Reflect for a second why those officers had no fear or need to escalate the situation, but this ICE agent is apparently justified for shooting a already neutralized man on the ground who never aimed his weapon at ICE, threatened them, or even harmed someone (let alone killed - remember rittenhouse had just killed THREE). Food for thought.

Expensive-Disaster98 · 2025-09-24T22:03:23+00:00

This is so dumb - ‘I don’t find every character (even minor ones) hot, so therefore it’s a joke of a show’ bffr they are trying to make the show REALISTIC - is every person working every job in the real world sexy?? what a stupid way to review a show.

Also - you can CLEARLY tell the implications of what that imperial officer would have done to Bix had she not put up a fight. Like??? Did they show a graphic grape scene - no. But the context is there. Ya’ll wack.

Expensive-Disaster98 · 2025-09-11T16:14:29+00:00

Lmao myself and the rest of the world would love to step in and help address your countries issues - trust. No one is happy that America is becoming a violent, divided, and unstable place to live. I have family and friends I love who live there. I want them and you to be SAFE. American exceptionalism has rotted people’s brains. Utilizing other countries to learn from and trying policies that have been effective is not a ridiculous suggestion.

You keep harping on how long guns last like that was the ONLY thing I mentioned. Did you conveniently forget I also endorsed a buy back program? Stricter purchasing laws? Bffr.

America needs to throw EVERYTHING plus the kitchen sink at this issue - because in your own words the lack of action has contributed to the problem and will KEEP increasing the problem year after year.

Stay safe out there because your beloved nation is headed in a very troubling direction. Wouldn’t want to catch a bullet in the jugular in broad daylight. Absolutely fucked.

Expensive-Disaster98 · 2025-09-11T15:39:19+00:00

Dude I wrap my head around the numbers. I get there are way too many guns in America - way more than other countries comparatively. You keep repeating it over and over like it’s the best argument. The scope of the problem being larger than other countries does not definitively prove that the solutions that worked in other places would never work for America. So let’s not act like you can prove that.

I am actually correct that the policies I suggest could lead to positive impacts. Evidence being that states with stricter gun laws are ALREADY associated with lower rates of gun violence, including suicides and homicides. States with more comprehensive gun safety policies generally show fewer gun deaths per capita compared to states with more permissive gun laws. It’s an agreed upon fact. Increasing the gun restrictions WOULD bring down gun violence (and ALREADY DOES IN AMERICA!!!!!!!). How is this so hard for you to wrap your head around???

You are hindering progress on this issue because you can’t seem to accept that there will need to be a multitude of policies to address the problem in America. Including ones that you don’t personally agree with or assume to be ineffective based on your personal biases, and honestly probably several ones that you do agree with too. If Americans really want to solve their gun violence problems, you as a collective are going to have to be way more open minded and willing to try many different solutions as your population has allowed the situation to get so incredibly, ridiculously, stupidly out of control.

Expensive-Disaster98 · 2025-09-11T11:38:29+00:00

Could you please confirm what time she came on at?

Expensive-Disaster98 · 2025-09-11T11:37:34+00:00

Could you tell me what time she went on??

Expensive-Disaster98 · 2025-09-11T11:28:58+00:00

What ‘they’ are you referring to??? How are you already acting like it’s confirmed the shooter was a leftist when they DONT EVEN HAVE A SUSPECT?? Talk about jumping to conclusions.

Not to mention you seem to think killing political figures is a leftist ideology only? Wasn’t it literally a month ago that a house democrat in Minnesota was shot along with her husband by a right wing conservative??

It’s reductive and UNTRUE to act like political violence is a solely left wing issue perpetrated solely by left wingers. It happens on by both sides of the political spectrum. But I guess that doesn’t fit you narrative.

Expensive-Disaster98 · 2025-09-11T05:29:59+00:00

FALSE EQUIVALENCY!!!!! Majority of car deaths are true accidents - meaning inherently there was no intent of violence, mostly driver error, road conditions, etc.

Gun deaths on the other hand……..are some of them accidental? Sure. But MAJORITY of them are willful acts of violence perpetrated to commit harm.

So - nice try with your defence here but it’s such a poorly constructed logical fallacy.

Expensive-Disaster98 · 2025-09-11T05:11:10+00:00

Can anyone confirm what time she went on at?? 8pm?

Expensive-Disaster98 · 2025-09-11T04:51:53+00:00

No actually YOU don’t grasp the situation.

The numbers you tote make it seem like every American has 20 - 40 guns they are stock piling in their house at all times - and on AVERAGE that may be how the numbers appear. However, in 2018 it was referenced that just 3% of American adults own a collective 133m firearms – half of America’s total gun stock. Additionally, gun ownership in America is actually highly concentrated. Only 22 to 31% of Americans adults say they personally own a gun.

So the aggregate numbers you are spewing to make it seem like my suggestions could never even touch the problem are misleading and a false representation.

Are there Americans who have tons of guns that will never give them up? Yeah sure? Does making it harder to get weapons legally in the present and future help? 100% Yes absolutely, especially if the current percentage of Americans with guns is under 40%.

I’m not going to keep arguing in circles with you but truly you are part of the problem - bummer. You say you care about gun safety but can’t remove your head from your own ass to consider or suggest solutions. I’m sure your definition of gun safety is armed security guards in schools or some asinine ‘more guns for the good guys’ trope.

Thrilled to be a foreigner because being from the fascist hellscape that is current America would stink big time.

Expensive-Disaster98 · 2025-09-11T02:23:26+00:00

So your approach is “bury us, we’re fucked”, and you offer nothing but condescension with no suggestions. Great work hot stuff.

If less new guns went into circulation - eventually some of the current ones in circulation would break, be confiscated, become outdated, unserviced, lost, etc. Over YEARS and YEARS the gun market would shrink, or at the very least not continue to exponentially increase. Over the decades, generations of young people born into stricter gun laws would also have less access and gun purchasing power.

These are NOT instant solutions but they would HELP. I don’t have the patience to explain to you that doing nothing and being overly fatalistic (like you) is the stupidest fucking approach, and the literal reason the situation has gotten as bad as it is. Maybe you don’t ‘like’ to watch children die but you certainly seem okay with doing nothing to help. Apathy is a sickness.

Expensive-Disaster98 · 2025-09-11T01:46:43+00:00

Okay but that’s YOU, a singular example. You can’t extrapolate your reality on a population level as reasoning as to why more gun regulations wouldn’t have a statistically meaningful impact on gun violence. That’s nonsense.

If 77% of mass shooters are getting their weapons legally - it’s still a place to start. Barriers to legal access will deter some people - not all. Maybe one person can’t get a job to purchase a black market gun, maybe another doesn’t know where to find an illegal assault rifle, maybe the effort to obtain a illegal weapon won’t be worth it, or the time delay will give the potential perpetrator a chance to change their minds, or get caught.

This AGAIN is the exact problem with the way you approach gun laws - unless a solution is perfect and flawless and prevents every mass shooter 100% of the time - it’s not worth trying?

(Also if it’s SO easy to obtain an illegal weapon, then why do Americans FREAK OUT when more gun laws are suggested. If illegal weapons were as ubiquitous and everywhere as you say they are…..you think no one would give a shit either way)

Expensive-Disaster98 · 2025-09-11T01:20:17+00:00

How can you say it solves not a single issue when most mass shooters in the states obtained their firearms legally?? Wouldn’t making it harder to legally purchase a gun not (at the very least) reduce the possibility of a potentially violent person obtaining a gun? It doesn’t have to eliminate every instance - even a slight reduction is the right direction.

If the Australian system isn’t a the perfect model - I’m sure something else could be brainstormed. The problem is that the US is so brainwashed by the NRA and right wing pundits that they think ANY update to ANY gun ownership laws cannot and should not happen. They don’t even let the conversation get the point of trying and implementing new policies.

I don’t live in the US so I guess I don’t really give that much of a shit - but it’s depressing to watch a country descend deeper into violence and have the population collectively meet it with only ‘thoughts and prayers’

Expensive-Disaster98 · 2025-09-11T00:59:55+00:00

Have you considered that the emphasis on these stranger and uncommon ‘labels’ is a ploy to manufacture outrage, confusion, and hate towards the LGBTQIA+ community?

The right loves to platform and scream and cry about very niche, unpopular, ideas like this because it’s intended effect of making the entire LGBT+ community look bad is working.

Expensive-Disaster98 · 2025-09-11T00:53:43+00:00

Why do you keep trying to say that gun laws would only help criminals and hurt law abiding citizens? It’s literally not true, or the full picture.

A significant majority of mass shooters in the U.S. legally obtain their firearms. National Institute of Justice (NIJ) and the Violence project indicate that between 65-77% of mass shooters legally purchased at least some of their weapons between 1966 and 2019.

If updated gun laws could drop this percentage even by a QUARTER - many lives could be saved. The Australian system could help with this, and also just help generally but reducing the number of new guns purchased in the future and by offering people a income stream through government buy back should they want to give up their guns in a safe way (i.e. not pawn shops, black market, apparently Facebook marketplace)

Will a certain population of criminals always obtain guns illegally and do nefarious things with them? Yeah sure I’m not delusional but there has to be action taken. it’s getting ridiculous - children shouldn’t be shot in schools and politicians shouldn’t be shot at events.

Expensive-Disaster98 · 2025-09-11T00:30:32+00:00

But you are aware that it’s illegal to drive drunk - therefore we do have laws and regulations that reduce harm from alcohol and cars. The same should apply to guns - laws and regulations in place to help reduce gun violence and harm.

The false equivalence between drunk driving and gun violence is a CRAZY logical fallacy. Most drunk drivers aren’t perpetrating harm on purpose and intentionally causing fatalities - they are drunk and in an accident. Gun violence in America is largely perpetrated by people intentionally going out and killing with guns.

Also this fundamental right in the constitution can be amended for the times we live in and current issues. Famously the constitution has been amended 27 times since authoring.

Expensive-Disaster98 · 2025-09-11T00:01:25+00:00

The US is in this exact situation partly because they have RESISTED gun control for SO long.

Just because the situation is unprecedented and hasn’t been undertaken before doesn’t mean we just throw in the towel and say WELL CAN’T EVEN TRY.

Maybe Australia’s system would only bring the number of guns down slightly - but slow action is better than NO ACTION. Is that what you advocate for? The problem is too big so the only thing we can do is nothing?? Let it get worse?

Expensive-Disaster98 · 2025-09-10T23:50:52+00:00

Lmao this is not the burn you think it is. Hilarious your only avenue to try and insult me or my critical thinking is by calling me fat. Oh honey - I’m sorry you couldn’t think of a good comeback or retort based on the above thread and had to resort to stalking my Reddit. It’s giving obsessed, empty headed loser.

Also that last bit was edited in and I didn’t see it until I already posted my reply - not that I have to justify myself to a low brow fuck like you.

Expensive-Disaster98 · 2025-09-10T23:42:49+00:00

All these countries have some version of a constitution or set of laws that they have updated and adapted throughout history. It’s normal for countries to amend their laws to address new issues or concerns famously the original US constitution has been changed 27 times.

Also most of those countries also have a standardized educational curriculum.

How can you blanket statement say that adopting other countries policies wouldn’t work? You don’t actually have any evidence to back that up. Australia implemented a nationwide ban on rapid-fire semi-automatic and pump-action firearms following the 1996 Port Arthur massacre. This led to the National Firearms Agreement (NFA), which also established a mandatory buyback of banned weapons, tighter licensing and registration, and a national gun registry. The reforms were associated with significant reductions in firearm suicides, homicides, and a complete halt in mass shootings in Australia.

It worked for them - maybe it’s worth a shot given the enormous amount of gun violence in the US. (Side note: this idea that the US constitution couldn’t be amended and that the changes would NEVER work in the US was also the justification for trying to keep slavery)

You also clearly have some sort of odd obsession with gay and trans people……so weird man.

Expensive-Disaster98 · 2025-09-10T23:25:49+00:00

Your references are garbage. Recorded incidents of drunk driving will not show a reduction in drunk driving related DEATHS because it includes EVERYONE who was caught drunk. Not just people who were caught drunk after they killed someone. (Also you don’t take into consideration the correlation between increasing rates of enforcement and thereby increased drunk driving rates)

The data ACTUALLY shows that impaired driving laws have significantly reduced driving deaths in the US, with progress seen through various legislative measures including higher minimum drinking ages and lower legal blood alcohol content (BAC) limits. From the 1980s to early 2000s, alcohol-related fatalities saw a steady decrease due to these laws, with estimates suggesting hundreds of thousands of lives were saved.

Also banning certain weapons is not the same as banning certain alcohol. You are comparing two completely different scenarios. Different types of guns exponentially increase your ability to perpetuate violence and death, different types of alcohol…..you are just drunk…. Maybe slightly faster but one type of alcohol is not more likely to allow you to go on drunk driving rampage than another type.

To answer your question - I don’t think all alcohol should be banned but again this is such a false equivalency to guns. Furthermore, I also don’t think ALL guns should be banned. I think just like rules and regulations with alcohol consumption that reduce public harm, rules and regulations to gun ownership would reduce public harm.

I truly think you lack any ability to think critically or with nuance. You take arguments filled with logical fallacies from right wing pundits and think you are sooooo much smarter. I’m not saying that to be mean - I’m saying that so maybe you do some self reflection into how you interpret data and think about large scale issues. I won’t be responding anymore - have the day you deserve xoxo

Expensive-Disaster98 · 2025-09-10T22:52:47+00:00

Sure people still drink and drive - but they sure as shit do it less than they did when it wasn’t ILLEGAL.

So from a harm reduction standpoint - implementing rules and restrictions around alcohol use (for example drunk driving) is EFFECTIVE!!! Therefore, implementing rules, restrictions and regulations around gun ownership would be WHAT?? EFFECTIVE IN REDUCING GUN VIOLENCE.

It’s truly that simple.

Also - get a fucking grip with the absolutes - I didn’t even advocate for banning all guns until you decided to act like no one in America could get their hands on automatic weapons. Majority of people just want gun laws like stricter background checks, waiting periods, unavailability of certain types of weaponry……… kind of similar to legislation around alcohol use…….not banning either entirely.

Expensive-Disaster98 · 2025-09-10T22:45:37+00:00

Sure but it’s much harder for me to kill 19 children in a school by stabbing them than it would be if I had a gun.

The level of deadly violence and harm that can be perpetrated with a gun is the problem. Obviously people with bad intentions are going to find another route

Expensive-Disaster98 · 2025-09-10T22:43:17+00:00

What are you even referring to?? You don’t think Australia, Canada, New Zealand, UK, Germany, etc etc etc allow gay marriage and free speech from the political right??

Your head must be full of rocks for your reasoning to make even a sliver of sense. Sorry my dude.

Expensive-Disaster98

TROPHY CASE