3 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

What I said was: "Incidentally, had Pretti been arrested on his previous encounter when he ti ==commented a felony interfering while "protesting", as he should have been, he'd probably still be alive." You were the one that started the whole value of the taillight and whatnot.

Both Good and Pretti were interfering with federal law enforcement when they were killed. Neither of them deserved to die, neither of them was murdered. You disagree, whatever.

Well, actually, you were the one who brought it up first by saying he would have been charged with a felony for the tail light. I simply pointed out that the charge might not have been deemed a felony, based on the amout of damage.

2 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

What I said was: "Incidentally, had Pretti been arrested on his previous encounter when he ti ==commented a felony interfering while "protesting", as he should have been, he'd probably still be alive." You were the one that started the whole value of the taillight and whatnot.

Both Good and Pretti were interfering with federal law enforcement when they were killed. Neither of them deserved to die, neither of them was murdered. You disagree, whatever.

Let's review the bidding, as dear 'ol Dad used to say. It was you, not me, who introduced the broken tail light into the conversation. I've maintained, and still do, that this incident from the past had no bearing on Pretti being murdered. It was you who asked me a direct question, should Pretti have been arrested and charged with a 'felony' for breaking the tail light.

I thought a felony charge was a bit harsh for just a broken tail light so in order to answer your question, I checked google to see whether a broken tail light would amount to $1,000, an amount google said was often used to determine if a vandalism had reached the threshold to warrant a felony charge. Seems it's borderline, but still not relevant.

2 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

She moved the car forward and backward, to block ICE, while letting other cars pass. This is on video.

So, it is your position, that Pretti was just walking along, minding his own business, saw the woman pushed to the ground, and went to her aid, yes?

So why was he fighting with law enforcement?

If a road is blocked, call traffic police and use another route. ICE has ZERO authority to intervene with a traffic situation. Yes, Pretti was going to the aid of the woman violently pushed to the ground. That's what nurses do, as well as other concerned citizens, when one woman is attacked by a swarm of agents. ICE didn't like it, wrestled him to the ground, frisked him, found a holstered gun, took the gun away, two agents shot him repeatedly,even though he was unarmed and subdued, then they all had a good laugh about it.

16 minutes ago, newnative said:

Well, actually, you were the one who brought it up first by saying he would have been charged with a felony for the tail light. I simply pointed out that the charge might not have been deemed a felony, based on the amout of damage.

No, that is not what I said. What I said was:

"Incidentally, had Pretti been arrested on his previous encounter when he commented a felony interfering while "protesting", as he should have been, he'd probably still be alive."

Nothing about what he should be charges with. Interfering with federal law enforcement is already a felony. Even without the taillight, he could have been charged with a felony, I went on to ask you:

"Do you agree that Petti should have been arrested and prosecuted when he spit on and kicked the taillight out of the ICE vehicle?"

That's when you got on the value of the taillight.

16 minutes ago, newnative said:

Let's review the bidding, as dear 'ol Dad used to say. It was you, not me, who introduced the broken tail light into the conversation. I've maintained, and still do, that this incident from the past had no bearing on Pretti being murdered. It was you who asked me a direct question, should Pretti have been arrested and charged with a 'felony' for breaking the tail light.

I thought a felony charge was a bit harsh for just a broken tail light so in order to answer your question, I checked google to see whether a broken tail light would amount to $1,000, an amount google said was often used to determine if a vandalism had reached the threshold to warrant a felony charge. Seems it's borderline, but still not relevant.

Again, you make it up as you go. I never asked you if he should be arrested and charged with a felony. I asked you: "Do you agree that Petti should have been arrested and prosecuted when he spit on and kicked the taillight out of the ICE vehicle?"

And he would not have be charged with vandalism. Vandalism is a kid on a skateboard with hammer breaking out a taillight as he goes by,

23 minutes ago, newnative said:

If a road is blocked, call traffic police and use another route. ICE has ZERO authority to intervene with a traffic situation. Yes, Pretti was going to the aid of the woman violently pushed to the ground. That's what nurses do, as well as other concerned citizens, when one woman is attacked by a swarm of agents. ICE didn't like it, wrestled him to the ground, frisked him, found a holstered gun, took the gun away, two agents shot him repeatedly,even though he was unarmed and subdued, then they all had a good laugh about it.

Again, you have been disinformed about what authority federal law enforcement officers do and do not have.

No, that is not what I said. What I said was:

2 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

"Incidentally, had Pretti been arrested on his previous encounter when he commented a felony interfering while "protesting", as he should have been, he'd probably still be alive."

Nothing about what he should be charges with. Interfering with federal law enforcement is already a felony. Even without the taillight, he could have been charged with a felony, I went on to ask you:

"Do you agree that Petti should have been arrested and prosecuted when he spit on and kicked the taillight out of the ICE vehicle?"

That's when you got on the value of the taillight.

Again, you make it up as you go. I never asked you if he should be arrested and charged with a felony. I asked you: "Do you agree that Petti should have been arrested and prosecuted when he spit on and kicked the taillight out of the ICE vehicle?"

And he would not have be charged with vandalism. Vandalism is a kid on a skateboard with hammer breaking out a taillight as he goes by,

What's the big whoop of a difference between being asked if he should be arrested or 'do you agree that Pretti should have been arrested?' Totally splitting hairs. Also splitting hairs regarding the use of the word vandalism. Google says:

Yes, breaking a tail light is considered an act of vandalism or criminal damage to property. It is defined as the intentional or reckless destruction, defacement, or damage of another person’s property, often falling under "malicious mischief" in legal terms. 

Perhaps a different term is used if it is a Federal vehicle. I don't know and, frankly, don't care. And, in any case, totally not relevant to Mr. Pretti's murder some weeks later.

2 minutes ago, newnative said:

No, that is not what I said. What I said was:

What's the big whoop of a difference between being asked if he should be arrested or 'do you agree that Pretti should have been arrested?' Totally splitting hairs. Also splitting hairs regarding the use of the word vandalism. Google says:

Yes, breaking a tail light is considered an act of vandalism or criminal damage to property. It is defined as the intentional or reckless destruction, defacement, or damage of another person’s property, often falling under "malicious mischief" in legal terms. 

Perhaps a different term is used if it is a Federal vehicle. I don't know and, frankly, don't care. And, in any case, totally not relevant to Mr. Pretti's murder some weeks later.

Oh what a tangled web we weave...

It would have been vandalism had the vehicle been parked.

But the vehicle was in traffic, with federal law enforcement officers inside, attempting to carry out federal law enforcement.

That is why he could have been charged with interfering with federal law enforcement.

46 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Oh what a tangled web we weave...

It would have been vandalism had the vehicle been parked.

But the vehicle was in traffic, with federal law enforcement officers inside, attempting to carry out federal law enforcement.

That is why he could have been charged with interfering with federal law enforcement.

Dance all you want, still totally not relevant to his being murdered several weeks later. The only way it could possibly be relevant is if the agents that murdered him were involved in the earlier incident. If so, it could show they were 'getting even' by shooting Pretti in anger, and that certainly does not help their case of murdering an unarmed and subdued man.

The DOJ is seeking to hire specifically pro-Trump prosecutors, and is turning to social media to accomplish that controversial task.

Chad Mizelle, who previously served as the chief of staff to the Department of Justice under Attorney General Pam Bondi and general counsel at the Department of Homeland Security in the first Trump administration, took to social media to encourage people to "DM" him to apply to become a pro-Trump prosecutor.

The ex-official said, "If you are a lawyer, are interested in being an AUSA, and support President Trump and anti-crime agenda, DM me." He added, "We need good prosecutors. And DOJ is hiring across the country. Now is your chance to join the mission and do good for our country."

DOJ seeks social media users who 'support Trump' in desperate new hiring spree

A user on X quickly pointed out that Mizelle's DMs weren't even open on his profile, to which he replied simply, "Fixed!"

Just now, bannork said:

The DOJ is seeking to hire specifically pro-Trump prosecutors, and is turning to social media to accomplish that controversial task.

Chad Mizelle, who previously served as the chief of staff to the Department of Justice under Attorney General Pam Bondi and general counsel at the Department of Homeland Security in the first Trump administration, took to social media to encourage people to "DM" him to apply to become a pro-Trump prosecutor.

The ex-official said, "If you are a lawyer, are interested in being an AUSA, and support President Trump and anti-crime agenda, DM me." He added, "We need good prosecutors. And DOJ is hiring across the country. Now is your chance to join the mission and do good for our country."

DOJ seeks social media users who 'support Trump' in desperate new hiring spree

A user on X quickly pointed out that Mizelle's DMs weren't even open on his profile, to which he replied simply, "Fixed!"

Why would the DOJ be seeking to hire anti-Trump prosecutors? We have too many of those already.

Time to get rid of the blue slips.

Saw this on Facebook and thought it was about the best description I've seen of why we are seeing thousands and thousands of Americans getting off their butts and marching in the streets in protest of ICE, with some of the marches in the very bitter winter cold. They are so mad that a Democrat, of all things, just won a special election in Texas, of all places. Apparently, the first time for the district in 35 years. Worth a read, I think:

The question was “What is ICE doing that is so bad?” Glad you asked!

In the United States, being undocumented is primarily a civil immigration violation, not a violent crime. That matters, because civil violations are normally handled through courts, notices, hearings, and due process — not through militarized street operations.

Using masked federal agents, unmarked vehicles, and military-style tactics to round up people whose primary offense is a civil status violation is not normal law enforcement. It would be like deploying SWAT teams to find people with unpaid fines. The scale and posture simply do not match the offense.

Donald Trump campaigned on removing “the worst of the worst” — violent criminals. That claim is repeatedly used to justify these tactics. But available reporting and court records show that many people being detained have no criminal record at all, or are being arrested for non-violent civil violations.

In many cases, people are being detained outside courthouses after appearing for scheduled immigration hearings. These are not fugitives. They are people attempting to comply with the legal process. Others have been detained at workplaces, schools, or during routine daily activities.

There are also documented cases of U.S. citizens being detained or questioned by federal agents based on appearance, accent, or language, and released only after proving their citizenship. That is racial profiling, and it is unconstitutional.

Many detainees are being held in large-scale detention facilities without timely access to legal counsel, often far from their families. Members of Congress have reported being denied access to observe conditions in some facilities. Reports from attorneys and journalists describe overcrowding, unsanitary conditions, and delayed medical care.

To be clear: a “concentration camp” does not mean an extermination camp. It means mass detention of civilians without trial or due process. That definition applies here, and it should alarm every American regardless of political affiliation.

This is not how a democracy enforces civil law.

What makes the situation even more alarming is what happens when citizens protest or monitor these operations. Increasingly, members of the public who record federal agents or attempt to observe their actions are being threatened, detained, or forcibly dispersed.

There have been fatal shootings during federal operations that remain disputed, with conflicting accounts from witnesses and federal officials. In multiple cases, video evidence from bystanders has contradicted official statements. Rather than transparent, independent investigations involving state authorities, federal agencies have retained control of evidence and limited outside review.

In a functioning democracy, lethal force by federal agents triggers immediate independent investigation, administrative leave for involved officers, and public accountability. That is not what we are seeing.

So what is ICE doing that is “so bad”?

It is enforcing civil law through fear, spectacle, and intimidation rather than courts and due process.

It is detaining people first and sorting out legality later.

It is expanding executive power while narrowing public oversight.

It is treating constitutional limits as obstacles rather than obligations.

If this were truly about removing violent criminals, there is already a lawful model. We use it every day. Police investigate crimes. Suspects are arrested, charged, tried in open court, and sentenced by judges. That is how a democracy handles danger.

We do not send masked agents door to door.

We do not detain people based on appearance.

We do not punish entire communities to create fear.

Those of us protesting this are not “pro-crime” or “pro-criminal.” We are pro-rule of law. We are defending the idea that the government must follow the Constitution even when it claims urgency.

The United States has deported large numbers of people before — including under the Obama administration — without abandoning due process or unleashing violence on American streets. What is happening now is not about capacity. It is about power.

This is how authoritarian systems begin: not by abolishing the Constitution overnight, but by teaching the public to accept its suspension in the name of safety.

We are opposing that.

Hope this helps.

On 1/31/2026 at 7:41 PM, Yellowtail said:

Ford puts the price of the taillight assembly at $748.87, and the vehicle has to be taken out of service for at least a few days, plus the installation, plus any scratches and wiring, plus whatever time the agents lost getting a new vehicle. Four guys, at least a couple hours each, where does that put the cost?

I never said Pretti deserved to be killed. Why do you and every other leftist keep saying that?

Pretti was not helping a woman, he was interfering with federal law enforcement officers that were in the process of dealing with a woman that was also interfering with federal law enforcement. The woman committed a crime, and Pretti committed a crime "helping" her. That you (and every other leftist) seem to believe otherwise, matters not.

A few days out of service for a broken tail light assembly! Is America that broken? Have ICE chased away so many foreigner workers there are not enough gold old boys to do the work? That might also explain a $1,000 price tag.

Absolutely ridiculous. $1,000 and several days for something that just clips in and is mostly made of plastic. No wonder your manufacturing industries are toast.

10 hours ago, josephbloggs said:

A few days out of service for a broken tail light assembly! Is America that broken? Have ICE chased away so many foreigner workers there are not enough gold old boys to do the work? That might also explain a $1,000 price tag.

Absolutely ridiculous. $1,000 and several days for something that just clips in and is mostly made of plastic. No wonder your manufacturing industries are toast.

Because the 3,000 ICE agents are in Minnesota temporally, it's likely they have a service contract with Ford.

It's out of service the day of the incident

Service center is notified

Vehicle has to be transported

Repair has to be scheduled

Parts have to be secured

Repair has to be completed

Vehicle has to be transported back

And who's to say the taillight was all that was damaged? If there was a scratch or dent, add a week.

So, you have the cost of the parts, the cost of the repair, the cost of the vehicle down-time, the cost of transporting the vehicle and the lost time of the officers involved. I think that gets to $1,000 pretty quick, you disagree, whatever.

And it does not matter that ICE self-insures, or what the actual repair costs, or if the scratches are repaired or not, the estimated cost of repairing the damage to "new" condition, is what would be used to determine damages in court.