New Video PROVES Border Patrol Agent Shooting Liberal Minneapolis Protestor Was LEGALLY JUSTIFIED!
Quick Read
Summary
Takeaways
- ❖The host asserts that video evidence unequivocally justifies the Border Patrol agent's shooting of Alex Pretty, an armed protestor in Minneapolis.
- ❖The protestor was identified as armed, actively resisting arrest, and attempting to get up while an agent was simultaneously trying to disarm him.
- ❖Officers' post-shooting questions ('Where's the gun?') indicate they did not know the protestor was disarmed, supporting their reasonable belief of an ongoing threat.
- ❖The host criticizes 'moral arguments' as irrelevant to the legal standard of use-of-force, focusing solely on the officers' perspective in a high-stress situation.
- ❖The protestor had previously ignored commands to 'get back' and interfered with a federal operation targeting a criminal immigrant.
- ❖The host warns against confronting armed federal agents while resisting, calling it 'not smart' and providing legal justification for force.
Insights
1Legal Justification for Deadly Force in Split-Second Decisions
The host argues that the shooting was legally justified because officers, in a split-second, reasonably believed the armed and resisting protestor, Alex Pretty, posed a deadly threat. This belief was based on identifying a weapon, the protestor's active resistance, and his posture suggesting he was reaching for his holster, even if another agent was simultaneously disarming him. The critical factor is the officers' perception at the moment of the incident, not what was known in hindsight.
Video analysis showing the protestor resisting while armed, one officer attempting to disarm, and another firing. Post-shooting audio where officers ask, 'Where's the gun?' () is cited as proof they didn't know he was disarmed.
2Irrelevance of Moral Arguments to Legal Use of Force
The host explicitly separates the legal justification of the shooting from any moral or emotional arguments. He states that while people may disagree morally, the law focuses on whether an officer's actions were reasonable given the circumstances and perceived threat, not on subjective feelings about the outcome.
The host states, 'At the end of the day, you can morally agree or disagree with it. That's not what this is about. And too many people spend too much time making moral arguments that are irrelevant to the law. I'm giving you a legal breakdown of why this is justified.' ()
3Protestor's Actions as Precursors to Justified Force
The host details Alex Pretty's actions leading up to the shooting, including ignoring commands to 'get back,' interfering with a federal operation (which was targeting an individual with a criminal conviction for domestic assault), and attempting to direct traffic. These actions, combined with being armed and resisting, are presented as directly contributing to the escalation that justified the use of force.
The host describes Pretty 'impeding a law enforcement operation and assaulted our officers' (), 'showing up with a gun and ammunition' (), 'resisting arrest' (), and 'harassing Border Patrol' () after being told to 'get back' ().
Lessons
- Avoid confronting armed federal agents, especially while armed and resisting arrest, as this legally justifies their use of force.
- Do not interfere with ongoing law enforcement operations or ignore direct commands from officers to 'get back' or 'move back.'
- Understand the legal framework of use-of-force, which prioritizes an officer's reasonable belief of a threat in a split-second, over moral or emotional considerations.
Quotes
"I don't know of any peaceful protester that shows up with a gun and ammunition rather than a sign. This is a violent riot when you have someone showing up with weapons and are using them to assault law enforcement officers."
"At the end of the day, you can morally agree or disagree with it. That's not what this is about. And too many people spend too much time making moral arguments that are irrelevant to the law. I'm giving you a legal breakdown of why this is justified."
"The officers clearly did not know that he had been disarmed. Right. The where's the gun actually strengthens the idea that the officers did not know that he was disarmed. For all they knew, he was still armed because a gun had been identified at the time."
"If we spent more time lecturing these people on why you should not do this and why this is stupid and stop making excuses for the stupid behavior, then you would see less of it."
Q&A
Recent Questions
Related Episodes
Even Joe Rogan & Tim Dillon Called the Minnesota Shooting Wrong
"The host details why the Minnesota shooting of Renee Good was an unjustified 'execution-style killing,' highlighting a surprising consensus among figures like Piers Morgan, Joe Rogan, and Tim Dillon who also deemed it wrong."
PBS News Hour full episode, April 10, 2026
"This episode covers high-stakes US-Iran peace talks amidst ongoing conflict, Hungary's pivotal election challenging Viktor Orban, the accelerating decline in US birth rates, AI's disruptive impact on jobs, and Palestinian Christians observing Easter under Israeli restrictions."
THIS STORY IS TERRIFYING
"The host argues that a police officer's murder trial verdict and Chicago mayoral election results demonstrate how racial bias fundamentally compromises jury trials and democratic processes in multicultural societies."
Robby Soave GOES OFF On ANNOYING Liberal Black Woman Making Emotional Trump Deranged Arguments!
"The host dissects a heated foreign policy debate, arguing that 'left-wing' emotionalism and 'Trump derangement' prevent a rational understanding of US sanction strategies against Cuba and Iran."