this post was submitted on 24 Jan 2026
1207 points (99.5% liked)

politics

27418 readers
4906 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The footage of the fatal shooting of Alex Jeffrey Pretti, said one journalist, “shows that the final act of his life was trying to help a woman who was being physically assaulted by the masked agents who would then kill him.”

In the original video of the shooting of a man in Minneapolis, identified by the Minneapolis Star Tribune at 37-year-old Alex Jeffrey Pretti, a woman in a pink coat was seen in the background filming the incident with her phone. 

Drop Site News obtained footage that appeared "to come from the direction of the woman in pink filming from the sidewalk" and showed the shooting at a closer distance than the footage taken from inside Glam Doll Donuts. 

In the video, the shooting victim, dressed in a brown coat and pants, is seen filming a federal agent with his phone. He's then seen guiding another person toward the sidewalk as the agent forcefully shoves a third person to the ground.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] HazardousBanjo@lemmy.world 234 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

He did have a gun.

He was being a responsible citizen, exercising his 2nd Amendment rights with a holstered weapon, in compliance with Minnesota law.

Gestapo thugs tackled and beat him, unholstered and removed the firearm from his side, and only then did they unload 9 bullets into him as he laid unarmed and beaten on the street.

But as you'll see, and as anyone who's ever paid attention to the 2A fascist assholes will know, they suddenly become hyper anti-gun the moment its someone they don't like exercising their rights.

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 59 points 1 day ago (4 children)

That sure sounds like something the NRA should have an opinion about

[–] HazardousBanjo@lemmy.world 83 points 1 day ago (4 children)

The NRA exists solely for the profit of firearms manufacturers.

This won't hinder their sales,so the NRA won't care.

[–] JackBinimbul@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 21 hours ago

Their sales will actually go up as more people on either side arm themselves. The rich get richer, the machine of death keeps rolling.

[–] Aljernon@lemmy.today 17 points 1 day ago

The NRA is an embezzlement scam. They don't care about gun rights OR gun manufacturers

[–] Typhoon@lemmy.ca 20 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] PattyMcB@lemmy.world 13 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

I hope innocent people start arming themselves. It's fucking time for the 2A to kick in

[–] dditty@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I live in MPLS and I just passed my qualification for a permit to carry yesterday. Never thought I'd be the type of person to learn about and practice firearms but now that the future is so uncertain and tumultuous I figure it's better to be educated and practiced just-in-case.

[–] PattyMcB@lemmy.world 3 points 22 hours ago

Good! Education and practice are key! More people need to follow your example!

[–] JustEnoughDucks@feddit.nl 2 points 1 day ago

Lol, if that were true, they should be shouting from the rooftops because after this, people will be scrambling to get guns when an occupying private military starts executing civilians on the street.

[–] halcyoncmdr@piefed.social 19 points 1 day ago

The NRA started the anti-gun movement in California alongside Reagan. In response to the Black Panthers carrying while copwatching as they did similar shit to the Black neighborhoods in the 1960s.

The NRA will back it no problem. They have before.

The NRA protects cops more than they protect guns.

[–] rklm@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Idk about the NRA, but this is the GOAs response.

While I disagree with their statement about immigration, I gotta at least give them credit for not being totally two-faced.

[–] benderbeerman@lemmy.world 10 points 1 day ago

That statement some real "both sides" energy bullshit. The only ones obliged to behave like professionals here are the ones representing the US government on official duty. The rest are obliged to do exactly what they are doing. Keep watching, keep filming, keep supporting each other, and keep showing the world all of it.

It would have been great if not for that "The Left is clearly the antagonist here!1111!111" part