"Those rights don't count": Bovino says Pretti forfeited 2nd Amendment rights in fatal shooting - Salon.com
www.salon.com
Border Patrol's Greg Bovino said his agents were "the victims" of a the deadly shooting in Minneapolis.

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/42161854

In a heated interview with CNN‘s Dana Bash on Sunday, Border Patrol Commander Gregory Bovino said his agents were the real “victims” in the fatal shooting of a Minneapolis protestor.

Alex Pretti, a 37-year-old Veterans Affairs nurse, was killed by Border Patrol agents on Saturday. In videos of the deadly altercation between Pretti and several agents, he can be seen placing himself between an agent and several women that he was shoving. Pretti is sprayed with a chemical irritant and then wrestled to the ground, where one agent repeatedly hit him in the head with the irritant’s metal canister. Pretti, who was legally carrying a firearm, was fatally shot by agents while on the ground.

DHS immediately painted Pretti as a threat, saying that officers feared for their lives because Pretti was legally carrying a firearm. Multiple videos of the shooting contradicted the official line that Pretti was threatening agents. On Sunday, Bash pressed Bovino for evidence “that he was intending to massacre law enforcement.”

When Bash repeatedly asserted Pretti’s right to carry his firearm, Bovino made the bold claim that Pretti forfeited his Second Amendment rights via his actions.

  • flandish@lemmy.world
    31·
    11 hours ago
    1. im aware. was speaking of the system soup to nuts. so why was it necessary to have a bargain to get it passed?
    • forrgott@lemmy.zip
      6·
      11 hours ago

      They had no mandate to write the thing. Technically, if they failed to get popular support, they could have been considered guilty of treason. So, in short, it was propaganda to get people to just go ahead and sign on to what they were doing

      • flandish@lemmy.world
        31·
        11 hours ago

        and my position is that it never truly meant “all men” when it referred to equality, etc. we all know that anyway. i just wanted to remind folks that the existence of things like amendments means the document and mindset is not immutable and depending on the folks in charge can be changed. sometimes even reversing prior amendments!

        in short: stop pretending the declaration and constitution mean anything. at all. in this day and age most critically.

        • forrgott@lemmy.zip
          5·
          11 hours ago

          Man, it gets tiring, doesn’t it? The way people basically worship the existence of certain documents, in spite of having no clue what the authors were actually talking about. Obviously this goes for religion as well as politics, cause they’re fundamentally the exact same thing.

          Oh, and speaking of the founding documents not being immutable, I heard that Jefferson actually made some quote to the effect that he expected us to completely rewrite everything every 20 to 30 years or so… Implies that the so-called founding fathers did not intend for the Constitution to be set in stone in any way. But instead everybody swears oaths to a goddamn piece of paper, giving it a quasi-holy status in our culture.

          So basically all I’m saying is I’m right there with ya!