Unfortunately that another shooting in Minneapolis involving a federal officer. Uh, this one was the border patrol. So we're gonna kind of walk through that, Connor, I'm glad to have you. Sorry, it's under these circumstances. Again, it's it's never never a positive thing when anyone loses their life, much less at the hands of a police officer. I'm gonna go into kind of like my view of it from a law enforcement standpoint. There's a lot of people that talk about a lot of different things. I think it's what's interesting to me is kind of the the uh, the people that have come together on this one, a lot of the Second Amendment. We want to give you a quick background just on the off chance someone doesn't know what we're talking about. All right, Yeah, so we'll go into the background. The other night, Uh, during a border or a operation for a illegal they were going to pick up, had some significant charges. They go to pick them up. Mister, if I pronounce it wrong, I think it's pretty is it? Isn't it pretty? Or pretty? Yeah? Alex uh was was filming. You hear a lot of whistles, You hear a lot of other things going on. At some point, the agents directed their attention towards him, and uh, I think it was him and two other people if I'm not mistaken, Yeah, yeah, three or four people. But anyway, agent goes towards them, uh, sprays them with a looked like a fairly significant size can of pepper spray, tried to spray them. There was a there was a scramble, I guess, for lack of a better word. He ends up on the ground with agents trying to get control of him, and at some point a gun was produced. Depending on who who you talk to and in the video, a gun was produced at some point I believe the video show is actually a federal agent was actually the one that took that office person. Right about this, right about the same time you hear that, you hear the agent I think that engaged them or one of the other agents yelled gun and mister Prudy was subsequently shot and died on scene. So that's kind of what happened. Uh. I think from my from my standpoint, from a law enforcement standpoint, having been in those encounters, what I would tell people is is think about the think about a physical altercation. If you've never been in one, it's it's not it's not as clean as you think it is, and there's a lot of things that happened during those altercations. I think we're we're quick to judge people on We have professional like what I compare it to is we have professional athletes that are trained to do a number of different things. We have instant replay that plays it back. And even with all that professionalism and what they see, there are times where you can't make a determination as to what the camera actually shows as far as timing and everything else. Because I think one of the things that really helped us with the Renee Good section or the shooting was that you had it from the officer perspective. I have not seen any videos that show it from any of the officers involved perspective. I think that does matter. I think that what they perceived has has a lot to do with it. So what I would say is, from my standpoint, from a law enforcement standpoint, just what the code says you have. I feel like we want to, we want to, we want to talk about what the agents did, but what we forget is what brought them to that situation. And like, from my standpoint, what brought them to that situation is you have somebody that is actively engaging with I read something today that there's actually they actually had a running I don't know what way to look at it, but basically they had a group of people that was doing nothing, which this gentleman was a part of, but following ICE agents and they're telling them where the ICE agents are, They're putting they're they're putting out what the agents are driving, all these different things, so making their jobs more difficult. And in the course of all that, like I said, I don't I feel like what's missing this is you have a gentleman that made the decision to go to a protest armed. And I'm just gonna tell it from my standpoint having worked in an undercover capacity in a plane closed capacity, there's one of the first things that they tell us as police officers are when some some one shows up on scene that is in uniform, you will take the commands that they give you. Because it's an excited situation. There's already been a violent encounter, you were in the middle of it. They don't have context. So even for us working in law enforcement in an undercover capacity or even into in a capacity where we're in plain clothes, we still defer to people in uniform. And I think that's what's missed in this whole situation is people I understand. I think when we talked about it, I feel like this gentleman had a lot of different choices. The first choice that I feel like he made that was a bad decision obviously, is to participate in something that interrupts a law enforcement activity. You can disagree with the activity, but going in and following agents around. I saw a meme it wasn't like and I think about it in the same way, and that is you have you have all these signs posted around the National parks, don't mess with the bison, you know, because they in the in this the heat of the moment, they look they look like they're passive, but like they can become aggressive. And the same way, I don't think it's ever a good idea to interfere with law enforcement because, like from my standpoint, they have a job to do. If you don't like the way they're doing their job, there are a lot of ways to there. There are a number of ways to have a recourse in dealing with that. So, like from my standpoint, first mistake one is like going after law enforcement while they're trying to do what they have been Uh let me let me just ask you this. Do you feel like what's going on in Minnesota? Do you feel like picking up people here that are charged with crimes? Is that a legal Is that a lawful function for to remove people that are have been charged with crimes? Yet? Yes, if it's like so, if it's immigration, yeah, because that's immigration and customs enforcement is what ICE does. I'm still not super clear overall on what like the exact parameters of ICE's jurisdiction is like depending on where you look, it's the like a lot of things, there's enough gray area where it's you know, ICE doesn't have the right to remove a US citizen from their vehicle, but then it's if there's probable cause to think that they're doing something affiliated with immigration, they can. So there's there's these workarounds for everything. Uh, well, let's just let's pause of that. So it's your understanding that, if if so, ICE has a lawful purpose, and their lawful purpose, if I'm understanding you correctly, is to remove people here that fall under the criteria. Uh, They're there to take people into custody that fall under a certain criteria and and move them into the into custody and make a determination as to whether they're removed from the country or not. Understanding is that so, in an overly simplified ice, are not police, they are immigration enforcement. They do not have the same jurisdiction as police localities. They don't have the same jurisdiction as the FBI or even the ATF or DEA. Their exclusive focus is immigration enforcement. So as US citizens, there are certain things that they cannot do to us because we are US citizens. Their jurisdiction does not apply to us. As as I think there's two different things. There's jurisdiction, but there's also law enforcement because they are. Law enforcement, but they're not state troopers. They're not you know well, and yes they're not, but you can't put them in a box. From my from what I know of law enforcement is like I have a jurisdiction that I work in. If I go outside of that jurisdiction, unless we have some kind of an agreement, I don't have any other I don't have jurisdiction. That's one of the biggest things, and I think that's where we're missing The point is ICE has jurisdiction over immigration. Is that what you're saying, Yes, okay, and so, but we, through the US Code, give them the ability to conduct these operations to determine So, so what I'm saying is instance. So I just for the sake of this, just google what jurisdiction does ICE have over US citizens? And the real quick AI overview on Google or whatever is. ICE generally has no jurisdiction to detain or to pour US citizens for civil immigration violations, as their authority is limited to non citizens. However, VICE agents can briefly detain, stop, ord detained citizens if they have reasonable suspicion of a crime, or if the citizen interferes with an arrest assaultant officer, or if citizenship cannot be immediately verified. All right, so let's just take that video of the first half. Whatever the ICE agent did, we don't know what he said. We don't know if he said, hey, you're under arrest or anything else. What we do know is that there was an interaction between him. Do you feel like, based on what you've seen with the video, do you feel like he was avoiding being detained? The individual the gentleman that got shot was he was he was he resisting what they were trying to do. No, Okay, so let me ask you this, Like I. Also think ICE had no justification to detain him in the first place. Read the second half of what that says. It says or obstruct. It says they have reasonable suspicion of a crime. Or if a citizen interferes with an arrest, assaults an officer, or a citizen cannot immediately citizenship cannot be immediately verified. So I know the point the line you're going to pull is if a citizen interferes with an arrest, this individual is not interfering with an arrest. And ICE even put it. In the written memo, we don't we don't know if he's interfering in an arrest because what we're saying, what the code says. My understanding of federal code is he is interfering. Like I understand, we have the goal of ICE is to go out and arrest people that are here illegally. If a US citizen interferes with that rest, they can be charged for a pelony for obstructing what that ICE agent is doing. And so that's my point is that we're at a point where that interference if we take one thing out of what's happening in Minneapolis right now, in Minnesota in general, with ICE, there needs to be less gray area with what defines interference. Because ICE themselves put out a memo that said yelling, making noise, being disruptive, vulgarity, name calling, all this stuff does not warrant is not considered interference. Filming is not considered interference. That's from them. So if he's just standing in the street filming saying hey stop, you know you pos like get out of here. We don't want you here, Like, what do you like any of that, their own policy is that that is not interference. Interference to me would mean going over and trying to pull an officer off, or trying to get the guy and and you know, help him escape, or like physically getting involved in the arrest, standing fifty feet away saying hey stop, or not saying anything at all, because from a lot of the videos it doesn't look like he says anything until the ICE officer gets in his face. Okay, so let's talk about interference. The purpose of the whistles and everything else is to. Do what draw attention to ICE being in the area to alert who anyone, immigrants, illegals, anyone who's But the problem with that, yes, you're right, like it is interfering with unrest because you're. Alerting the whole purpose of what they were doing is to follow these ICE agents around, identify what they're driving, and make people aware that they're in the area, to include people that are here illegally, who who have at a very minimum, like you are alerting, Like think about it like this, because hindsight's twenty twenty. Like if you don't know, we don't know what some of the targets of these investigations are. But what we do know is they have deported people, and they have taken people into Customy that have been charged with some very serious crimes and some of them are sexual assaults things like that, and so like from my standpoint, for me, why what makes people think, hey, it's a good idea to alert someone who is involved in criminal activity, who has been charged with a crime. Why are we alerting them? Like, I think that's where my side has the biggest problem, because here's the thing for me, Like we talked about it before, nobody marched or said said anything. When that police officer killed that woman at the Capitol. Correct, nobody marched, nobody said anything about it. Nobody marched when Lincoln Riley was killed, you know in George like nobody nobody. And so what it looks like from the other side is it looks like we are putting I understand the United States. Two United States citizens have died as a result of ICE operations in Minneapolis. Both of them, I would say, were involved in a group of people that were obstructing and interfering with ICE activities and so like from my standpoint, I agree, like if they just show up where the detention center is and everything else, they're out blocking traffic. But these people are actively they are pursuing ICE. They are trying to determine where they're going, and when they get where they're going, they're making all this noise and doing all these things not to not just to antagonize the officers, but also to make them aware. So I'm if you want to go and yell and scream and everything else, like, that's one thing. But one of the things that I want to point out is that ICE agent didn't or whoever would Border patrol or whatever else. The first person that made contact with the three of them, they were in the street, were in the street. That's why they got pushed. If you look, they went over a snowbank which would have been off of the road, that would have been right at the corner of the roadway. So like, from my standpoint, I think that's the problem. For me, the problem is you are injecting people who do not have the training or anything else into a situation, making a situation worse, and then complaining about the outcome. Every single persons has a choice, and the choice who doesn't have the training your observers that are getting the observers like you, you think that, And I think that's the problem is is we give people this false sense of like, hey, you have the right to do this, you do it. You have a lot of rights. Unfortunately, when you were in that situation, it's not the time to like, you know, that is not the time for you to exercise those rights because it's not I think people would put this thing of like their protests and no they're interfering. So rights are only situational. I'm not saying rights aren't situational. I mean you said that something time to exercise your rates. Clearly it is not your right to interfere with the government. It isn't because you wanted to say. I feel like people on your side wanted to say, how dare they interfere with the certification of so the function of government. They could have done it another day, They could have done a lot of things on January sixth and just decided to do it. But we decided, which I don't disagree with, like, Okay, on this date, we're going to certify that the election results. That's a function of government. Another function of government is to stand as a as an enforcement arm of the executive branch. And that's what these guys are doing. And like, you have untrained people out there standing in the middle of the road, chasing Ice around, doing all these different things. And it's not as simple like a protest. It is interfering. So like, and I think that's what people losing. The whole conversation is there are several decisions, like if you want to talk about like, hey, I think ICE needs to change their tactics, they need to do this, that's one thing. But we can't come in here and say like, hey, they weren't interfering when absolutely, when you're part of a group. If you're part of a group chat and they're going like, hey, the ice age here, let's hurry up over here, they're in the midst of an operation. You will show up on scene and you create chaos. That is that is that is interference one percent. And so like, you don't have the right. That is not a right, the right we have to And that's one of the things I think people forget is like in a democracy, there are still rules. Your right to free speech can can make me mad and everything else, but like, at some point, like I have to acknowledge, like you do have the right to say that. Where the problem comes is is that both of us think we have the same right, and at some point somebody asks the referee like what that right looks like. And what we have is we have the Constitution to go by and all these other supporting documents, and like, from my standpoint, one of the biggest problems we're having in Minnesota is people are getting a mixed message. You have local leaders that are saying this is an invasion, this is this, this is that, and you have the right to do this. You don't have the right to obstruct, You don't have the right to interfere. The reason you have the right to observe, you do. But the moment you step off that sidewalk and interfere with traffic and interfere. But it's not just it's just not just observing, Like you can actually hear the whistles, and it's fine for you to like extract like the piece that's most beneficial. But the fact is this guy was part of a group of people that that's what they did. Like, that's fine that you believe that, But if you make a decision to do that and you arrive in a confrontation with law enforcement and then you have a gun on you, like, it's there's a good chance something bad's gonna happen. I it looks bad. Let's let's circle back real quick to this, to this individual. We'll come back to overall, because I think there's there's an overarching, overarching conversation that we're having that we can we can wrap or we can we can follow up with down the road. But let's let's get back to Alex pretty here. So I think everything about this was wrong. I think every in every way ICE was in the wrong here or ce CBP, the officers from what I see yeah, sure he was in the road. Okay, he's filming. He has his camera in his hand, his other hand is empty. And where I think a compounding factor in this because it happened with Renee Good Immediately when one video was out, Christy Nome came out and called her a domestic terrorist. Trump puts some tweet out of it, out this, that and the other, essentially parroting the same domestic terrorists. She's an awful person whatever, whatever. This one comes out and Bevino the Customs and Border Patrol guy and noahm again come out and say, oh, he was high capacity magazine weapon, brandishing it with the intent to inflict maximum harm on ice agents, when there is no indication of that whatsoever, having a you know, having his gun on his six o'clock holster behind him. Like the entire video of every angle, you never see his hand go to his gun. Ever, He's got his phone in one hand, he's got his other hand up blocking pepper spray. He's grabbing the lady that gets pushed over to try and help her up. And then so like every step along the way, he's in the road. Sure you want to give him a ticket for jaywalking. Awesome, hit him up afterwards, give him a ticket for jaywalking. But the ice. Aging guy was gone. He was he was obstructing, and he was interfering that got in the way. Of a civilian's car driving by. You don't get to pick and choose like how it's applied. The fact is he is interfering. Like based on what our earlier conversation was, which is law enforcement has a function. They go into a certain area, and like we are in agreement, the purpose of their it's not it's not to protest, it is to interfere. It is to it is to alert people that they do not feel like should be removed from this country or should by people, they don't feel like belonging to their city. And they are doing everything they can to track these guys and and figure out where they're going and interfere. They don't just like happenstance upon this, like they make a conscious decision. Sly, it's it's a targeted effort. It's it's coordinated amongst the community to. Not a community. It's it is not a community. It is not you can't call like you can call it an organization, but like it's not a community. It's not this is this. I think that's one of the things is like we use words of like this community. Now it's a group of people who have decided that Ice doesn't belong here, and we are going to do everything we can to interfere with what they're doing. It's not it's not like I just think that like what it is is that they're they are they are trying to bully their way like they did during the George Ford Rights and unfortunately they've run up against an immovable force, which is the federal government who's saying, you are not gonna do this again. This is not gonna happen. We are not going to allow this to turn into some kind of like beat the law enforcement up and everything else. And I think I think that's what's missed is like you you can't pick and choose. In my opinion, you can't pick and choose, like, Okay, if law enforcement does the exact same thing here, it's okay because I believe in what they're doing. But here it's not. And I'm not just talking about true side. I think some of these Second Amendment folks that are saying, like, well, he should be allowed to carry now, that's a that's a dumb decision. It's it's it is it it? Why would I be surprised? Like honestly, like if I go into the woods without blaze orange, dressed like a deer and somebody shoots me, Like what what does that tell me? Like that was a bad life decision on my part? You know, Like you make a pretty good deer. I don't. But what I'm saying is like you, you and you. That's what people I think continue to forget, is like they want to just grab like okay, well the video showed this. Well guess what, Like you do things, we all react to things differently, and I think if you put yourself in a stressful situation, you might think you're going to react a certain way, but it's totally different when you're in the midst of it. So we want to break it down like. This is this is to me, we are at the precipice of something happening. Either stuff's gonna get worse or stuff's gonna cooler. Heads are going to prevail, And I genuinely believe right now the smartest thing to do for this whole situation. And this is not me from the left saying, Ah, the protesters win, you know, downli the government or whatever. This is me saying the smartest thing for the safety of everyone, in my opinion, would be for the federal government to pull ICE and Customs and Border Patrol out of Minneapolis for a brief period of time at minimum, for everyone to catch their breath, take a second to de escalate things. Because at the end of the day, if you're looking at to de escalate a situation, if you if you if I were to invite you over, or if I were to come over to your house, and you know we're having this conversation, you get upset and you start calling me names and throwing stuff, and I stay put. I'm in your technically, I'm in your space. And if I stay and I keep antagonizing you and things escalate. I am the one that has the ability to leave the house that's not my home. I don't live there. I can separate myself from that position. These Minie Minnesotans live in Minneapolis. They can't leave Minneapolis. ICE can leave Minneapolis. And so in this situation, for the safety of the ICE agents, for the safety of the community, and for the peace of mind, for everyone to just take a breath. I think the smart move would be to take a step back. Okay, So a couple of things. First, is I agree with initially, like this is their city. It's not their neighborhood. They're going into there. They are actively putting themselves in the middle of an operation. So like, but some of those people, it is their neighborhood. Those houses, someone works at those I understand. I understand that, But like you can't to me, you can't say, okay, well he was in his neighborhood. Well, no, that's not your neighborhood. Like you chose. You chose to be there to to to interfere like you did, like the Ice, the ICE agents. Are neighborhood Huh who decides the neighborhood? Like? Am I only allowed to be aware of what's on my street? Or am I only allowed to be aware of what's on this half of wind dress? Like you know what I mean? Like, but what you're saying like for me, I struggle with your saying, like using your analogy of like I have a choice to leave. Well, these agents don't have a choice. What they're doing is they're following the instructions of their leadership. And their leaders. They can be removed. The citizens that live in Minneapolis can't because that's where their house is, that's where their job is. So but what you know and known can pull them back. You know, Stagemen, I don't know another town in Minnesota that I don't I only know few towns in Minnesota. It's like, say, well, then I have a counterproposal. Yeah, I am about ICE give a list to Minnesota and say here are these people. You have thirty days to turn these people over to ICE. If you haven't, we're coming back. I would even say I would even go so far as here's a This is where I think I will one hundred percent agree with you on this one, and I think it would be should have been the solution from the beginning, which is and I think that that's part of the frustration that my side has is they're saying, you know, again, they're coming in for the worst of the worst, but we don't know who any of these people are. They're not giving any data to show that they are. But I think you are one hundred percent correct that if ICE said, hey, Minneapolis PD, here's a list of thirty names of individuals that we know have a violent criminal record, and our illegal immigrants, and we believe them to be in your city at these addresses. Can we work together to get them or can you get them and provide, you know, get them to us. I think that type of communication and cooperation from the beginning would have prevented all of this. But because it was again for me, I think it is political theater that the higher ups wanted to put Governor Walls in his place because you know, he is the Democrat former VP candidate, went against JD. Vance and Trump and all this, and I think they wanted to send ICE in as a show of force that we're doing this regardless of what you say. We don't like your sanctuary city. And they came in hot. You know, if I come kicking in your door, you know you invite me over or don't invite me over, but you know I want to come hang out at your house, and I just show up up like it's going to be contentious. And so I think if from the beginning there was more clear, determined, more more defined list of people or. Uh, but they do. They do have that defined list. One of the reasons why ICE agents are having to go find these people is because they're not holding them. They're not holding them into jail. So so like the first. Thing, just like that. That's my point is is that they have the list, but then they're going through parking lots and just asking anyone who's brown if they have their papers. They detained a I think it was in New York. They detained a New York police officer. All right, so here's a simple solution. Believe it or not. Simple solution. I don't disagree that that could be happening. But again, think about this based on what you're saying. Is it's like if if the federal government would have just asked. They did ask them, they said, we want you to enforce and we want you to enforce immigration. We want you to tell us if there's somebody that's wanted in your jail, we want you to share that information. Go ahead, So we want you to share that information. We want you to tell you, we want you to tell us, Hey, this this part these ten people. Here's a crazy concept that nobody's thought about in Minnesota. Right now, let's say if there's three thousand agents, is that give or take what they're saying what I've heard? Yeah, Okay, so average arrest takes two agents, right, plus like a non hostile arrest, like to go to the jail to pick them up, to do all these different things. If the State of Minnesota in Minneapolis would just say, hey, here is this number of people, then instead of those agents going out there and looking for work, they already have it. They're in the jails, they're already in their their system. The fact is Minneapolis PD I guarantee has a database of people they've contacted and instead of randomizing things, they can provide and cooperate and actually go after the worst of the worst instead of leave it. And the same thing for it is completely for me a local leader to say fuck Ice, you know, get the fuck out whatever. Like to me, what that does is that creates conflict and so like from my standpoint, you know, it would be a lot better. But they won't do it because like they didn't do it when all that rioting was held with George Floyd, Like they just let them run, just like they did in Portland. Here's the issue. The issue is local law enforcement is best suited to do local law enforcement. So like they have the initial contact. That's the whole concept of law enforcement is local agencies are contacted with the community, they have a closer bond with them and everything else in most cases, and so like, how much better would it have been if the Minneapolis Police Department would have gone out there and provided the perimeter for the ice agents be a partner with. But that's the problem is they don't want to be a partner with. What they want to do is they want to piss them own about, like, well, the federal government's doing this just to ignore what we're doing. Funny thing, and this is like, this is my wild card. Is I want to read something to you. I know we talked about it earlier, but like, from my standpoint, one of the things that I think is the most interesting, and I used your information front. I just want you to because the Second Amendment. The whole thing about the Second Amendment, We've got people on the Second Amendment side of there, like this guy had every right, he had this, he had this, But again that's education. Education from a standpoint of yes, you have a right to do that, just like I have a right to work in a capacity. But I also realized, like, hey, I'm not I don't look official. So like when somebody official shows up I defer to them. One of the things I say about this kid is he was thirty some years old. But kid is like he had an opportunity to just stay with that lady, but he didn't. He went back after the agent. But I digressed. It goes back to what we're talking about as far as making a good life decision. It talks about recently, a coalition of seventeen Democratic state attorney generals This was in twenty twenty four, including those from Minnesota, Illinois, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Warston and the District of Columbia filed a brief in January twenty twenty four at the United States Court of Appeals in the Ninth Circuit. The brief argued in support of state authority to restrict or prohibit concealed carry of firearms at events involving political speech, such as political rallies, protest and demonstrations. So really hard for the attorney general in Minnesota to say, well, he's exercising his rights. No, you find a brief in twenty twenty four saying he shouldn't have had a concealed weapon, so like. But that something should be changed. But he's saying he exercises rights because he had his right. That brief wasn't inactive, That brief wasn't made a law or made an adjustment or an amendment it was you know, that would be like me saying, like you know, you're saying, hey, we should you know, when we go on our next trip, we should try and eat better and not stop at McDonald's. And I'm like, oh, I want McDonald's. So you get a cheeseburger. I go, oh no, no, no, you can't eat a cheeseburger because you said you didn't want to eat at McDonald's. It's like, well, we're here and I didn't agree to it, so it's I'm not having the idea. What I'm saying is that is extremely hypocritical for the Attorney General from Minnesota to enter to file brief saying we think we should prohibit these items and then acted all shocked that somebody so like to me, he's just proven the point. It was he felt like it was important enough to take away, like you said, a right, a right to carry, a Second Amendment right right he's legally he's legally allowed. He is allowed, he has legal ownership of a concealed weapon. But what they're saying is these type of events are not the places to carry a firearm. So they tried to do something proactive and prohibot it. So how is it that if we prohibit them that because I'm I'm of the I am of the opinion that like that Kyle rittenhouse kid that you know what part of it at where that was it? Was that in Minnesota or where was it? I can't even remember, Okay, but either way you run up WoT. Yeah. I mean, I'm just like, from my standpoint, like that was a poor life decision, Like it worked out for him, didn't work out for the other person. But like if the thing that's that's where if we're talking about like the hypocrisy of things, and I get your point of a group of uh ags being like, hey, we should limit that, you know, don't bring guns to these certain types of events that can become contentious. I don't disagree with that idea. I think it's it has good value, it has good principle behind it. But it's that aspect too of if we're going to look at the hypocrisy of things. It's you have everyone you know, I'm seeing it. People from the right going this guy shouldn't have shouldn't have had a gun. If he hadn't brought a gun, it wouldn't be an issue this, that and the other. Meanwhile, two three years ago, Kyle Rittenhouse was the hero of the right and two a being brought on every news program, every talk show, Dade a whole like essentially what seemed to be just like around the country tour because he had his mom take him out of his house, drive him to a different location with an AR fifteen to show up at a protest of people that he was not on the same side as, and then he ended up shooting three people. And that's he's the hero of Fox News and whatnot. Back then, like I remember, you know where we work, you know, it was on every TV every day for a while. I saw him in multiple interviews. And now this guy who's didn't like Kyle had that gun across his chest out obviously because it's a rifle. You can't really conceal carry a you know, twenty four inch long rifle or however long they are. This dude had a nine millimeter in his holster on his back, you know, on his six back here. He didn't touch it. He was disarmed, which is I think a violation of his right and what's very in So this is I'm gonna tangent a little bit because this is now like a conspiracy theory ish thing that's come out. If you've watched the video, when it gets to the part where he gets shot, you hear a shot, you know, pop, and then there's like a half second pause and then it's pop pop pop pop pop pop. I think like eight or ten shots go off, right, So there's a theory and it's backed up pretty well. Another conservative buddy of mine actually made me aware of it that some people from one of these angles. Obviously when you slow it down, you can, slowing it down doesn't it doesn't indicate real time, but slow it down and when what you see is so it's a sig P three twenty, which I guess notoriously have like shoddy, like not the best safety mechanisms to the point where like you can drop them and they'll just go off like it's not a it's not a very safe gun. So the theory that this buddy presented me. Was you see this guy run in hands empty. You see Alex's shirt get pulled up, you could see the holster. You see him grab the gun and pull and so that first pop when he pulls it around because you see him turn and go to like scamper away, I guess to get the gun out of the situation. But you see his hand from my opinion, he is not having good trigger safety control whatever it's called. Like his fingers are all over the trigger. And you see that gun look like it goes off like you see it jerk like it fired. And so to me, and again you know he brought this to my attention, I looked into it. I kind of believe it that the first shot that was fired was from Alex's gun. When this dude disarmed him and went to run, he pulled the trigger and shot the ground, and that's spooked the other guys who then said gun and shot the guy. So like I think, what if they do a proper investigation, which hopefully they will, I would not be surprised to see that what happened was the dude that disarmed him in it vertinally fired Alex's weapon that then caused the chain reaction response of the other officers shooting Alex. So let me ask you this, based on that information, is the agent that pulled the trigger in response to that gun going off? Is he responsible? No, So who's the. Agent that disarmed him improperly and in it vertuinly pulled the trigger. He would be the catalyst for the death of this individual. So we're so we can. Also debate on was ten shots enough once? Well it's the dude, excuse me. Well, I think I think the thing to look at is is that. I think this was bad across the board, like just people. Well, but again, one of the things that I think law enforcement does not do a good job with its prevention, Like I think we, I think we are slow to change how we do things. I think we we if you look at the way law enforcement is done, We've introduced a lot of technology, but we still do things basically the same way we just which is just our presence and all that. And like, don't get me started about prevention, Like, well, a mass shooting happens, two hundred officers show up, but they won't assign one or two officers in an area to do prevention type work. They just won't do it, you know, and so you know, obviously I have a problem with that from our from my standpoint, but from one of the other things is in situations like that, I think it's really easy to blame people who react. And so I think we agree that they're they're based on what you just said, which I've heard the same thing, and that it does make more sense that like you hear that first pop, and that's that is when you hear the word gun. You don't hear gun until you hear that first pop. So I think you likely are onto something I can't say with one hundred I don't think anybody can. But again, again, I think one of the problems with cameras is it does not allow the perspective of the officers, because that's one of the things that they do in a violent encounter is they take you've got physical evidence, which obviously in this case is going to be the the individual that was shot, of the fires that were used by the agents that pulled the trigger, all video and everything else, and like you can't but you also have each one of those officers having to do a report on like, well, why did you do this? Why did you do that? Like I want you to articulate. And I'm one hundred percent sure every one of those agents was trying to gain like if you look at it, they're trying to gain control. A lot of times what happens in those pig piles is you're on almost working against each other because if you and again like you have all these other things that are going on. You know, you've got these whistles going on, you got that you're you're worried about somebody coming in, and so I think that's one of the problems. One of the problems is that we we say, hey, we're gonna we're gonna increase pressure in the pressure cooker on these agents, and then we're gonna act like we're surprised when they when they react to something that any one of us with training would react to. I hear a gunshot, I see them struggling. Yeah, that's probably it probably is gonna happen. So that exact point, if I may, is why then you know ICE is in this community or this city. The people there are unhappy, they don't want them there. We can agree or disagree on on their reasonings or this, that and the other, but why are we now in a position where we are expecting. We are holding untrained emotional civilians to a higher level of standard and expectation than we are trained federal agents who have passed all these qualifications with firearms, pasted, all these training procedures, past all this stuff to be where they are hopefully, and yet they're allowed to react emotionally or based on this, that and the other. But if a civilian gets mad and gets in a cops face, oh well, he shouldn't have been there. Like to me, that's so like. That's where I think so much of the frustration from my side of things as a civilian is that we are seeing time and time again these videos. You know, one came out not too long ago of six dudes pinning this guy down and one of the officers is standing there holding him and just kneeing this guy in the face on the ground three or four times. This this video with Alex, he gets five or six or seven dudes dogpiling him. He's hunched up in the fetal position. You've got the dude that pepper sprayed him now using the pepper spray cand and smashing him in the head. And you know, people say, oh, well he was trying to get up. No, he was pulling his hands up to protect his head. The dude was a va ICU nurse, like he immediately went when when they pushed the lady, he immediately went to care. He went to render eight what he was getting dog piled, he was protecting his vital organs. And so but that's that, that is that is your opinion based on the video. That doesn't necessarily mean that's because I didn't like I think that's that's the problem, And the problem is that I think you're like, I don't disagree, but I also think like he had he had a chance to continue caring for that woman, but he chose to like engage the agent. But that's what he didn't. They pulled him away from her. He's literally in the one video, so she gets pushed down, he turns around, goes to her, and you see that he's grabbing her arm to try and stay with her, and those agents are pulling him back into the street. Right, but at some point he goes towards like without them pulling he's still engaged. Once I'll simplify what would have happened if he was just laid on the ground like done nothing, put his hands straight out to the side and laid down. May have still been shot, but that's not what he did. Here's the people. Texting himself because he was getting hit in the head with a can. Of mace because he wasn't. Again, if your hands are out to the side and you're complying, okay, you get like let's say, worst case scenario. Worst case scenario, you get hit in the head, but you live, and then you have all these you have all this video of everything and everything else to like protect you. And Monday morning quarterback. Yeah, it's easy to say here, you know, lay with your arms out if you get hit in the head. Yeah, it's gonna hurt, but you'll be a lot like super easy to do in the moment with adrenaline instinct is gonna say. We talk about it at work where you know, if if you get you know, don't yank if you have an have an injury situation because it makes things worse. But then people who are still you know, been doing our job for years and years and years, it's still just a natural instinct to do that. I'm not disagreeing, but I'm saying, like we can't just apply like Okay, well he had the training. He had Again, the only people that were there because they were told to be there were the Ice agents and the board patrol guys. Like they don't get to pick and choose. And so from my standpoint, if you are in a situation where you continue to see the same car over and over again and all these different things, what I'm saying is is, like, here's a simple solution to anybody that's in Minnesota. If you see an ice agent, stay on the sidewalk, get out of their way. It is a simple solution. But that's the problem. Is people want to introduce themselves into a violent situation, which is arrest or have a tendency to be violent. People are throwing frozen water bottles at these agents and everything else. Why in the world would you, like I agree with you one hundred percent, Like it's a horrible ideal, Like I don't think we should celebrate somebody that voluntarily goes into a hostile area has to use their firearm. We shouldn't celebrate that. That was a dumb decision. His mom, dumb decision, Like I would never send my kid, like, hey, here's a rifle, go over there and see what you can get into like it's ignorant, and in the same way, in my opinion, that's ignorant. That is not like, that's not to be celebrated. I understand that he survived a violent inctent. What I'm saying is, if you want to prevent the violent incident, stay away from the ICE operations if you have a problem with it. Like so, I think this gets to that umbrella point that I was brought up earlier, because I think where it is now becoming very where the conversation becomes very complicated, is we are now having the debate or the conversation between legality and morality. You are one hundred percent correct that in most of these instances that we've seen, ICE and CBPD may one hundred percent be as much as I might disagree, I don't know the law. I'm just some Joshmo that you met at work. I'm not a cop. They might be well within their legal parameters to do every single thing they've done so far. Absolutely, that doesn't make it right. It makes it legal. But morally I look at it and I go, if you take the situation in Minneapolis, you pull it out and you drop it in. You know, Caracas or Baghdad, or Sydney or Soul, South Korea, or you know, any of take it out and put it in any other city non American. Would we be defending their federal agents with the same vigor morally that we are ours because I look at it and go, Yes, they may be well within their legal rights to do what they're doing, but morally, it feels wrong watching six people dogpile someone and nehim in the face. Feels wrong seeing two Americans get killed because an officer was an imminent threat of his life. When it's the George Orwell Orwell nineteen eighty four of the government told you not to believe what you see with your own eyes. I'm looking at something and we have two different perspectives, two different backgrounds, so we view it differently. But I sit there and go morally, my soul hurts. This doesn't feel good, This doesn't feel right, This doesn't look like how things are supposed to go. And legally it could be fine. So where is the morality when you have million billions of dollars of aid that you, as a taxpayer, as a taxpayer, sent to a group of people to that this money was sent for a particular purpose to help people, and all they did was build their own empire. Morally, I feel the exact same way, like the people that took money that was supposed to go to feeding the hungry, helping the poor, helping veterans and the homeless, and used it for the dude that just got busted in California for like was it like seven million or seventy million something dollars? Like he's a piece of shit, He's a scumbag. Like those people need to be prosecuted and found because that is morally, not just legally, but morally abhorrent. And so and again this story with finding fraud in Minnesota, and we aren't even talking about fraud in Minnesota anymore because Americans are dying. Well, no America. Two Americans have died. As that's too too many in my opinion, you're exactly immigration and fraud. But again, if we're going to go on the morality, and we're going to go on there, like how many people have died? Like from my standpoint, one of the biggest problems is that we have to pick I am a huge believer and believe it or not, I actually read a book that was written by a guy that be right up your ally, and it was nothing. It was talking about the moral the morality of capitalism as it relates to immigration. And one of the things one of his points is is that capitalism expands because it doesn't have any that like basically the United States, because of decisions we've made, trade deals that we've made, have created the problem that we have in immigration. And like, I'm not educated enough to know whether that's the case, but I do think think that's an interesting view of things. Is because it is true in a true market of capitalism, it should work that like the more you produce, the more you make, but that's not how the system works. And I think what I wish if I could be in a situation is is that instead of having discussions like this, I would rather like, and I know we have to have these discussions because I do think it's important for people to hear both sides and see that like you can have a you have a conversation, and I would hope I know in talking to you, it's given me the opportunity to open up new areas of looking at it from a different direction, because like I said, it's just it is helpful and it is helpful. Like I might not understand it, I might not agree with it, but like it is another perspective. My perspective isn't deeper perspective. It is a perspective. But one of the things that I think we're both in agreement in is that the people at the very top financially that benefit the most from what the United States stands for and what we stand for as far as a financial giant and stock market, all those different things. I can't imagine because I think about it. The people that are funding both sides of it, you know, the ones on the left that are funding stuff, the ones on the right, they're funding discourse. They really are, and they're funding discourse like to me, to keep people from ignoring the fact of like part of the reason why people, I think are so pissed off is because like everything costs more money, everything, all these different things that we have in our lives, Like it's more expensive to live. We aren't getting ahead, we're falling behind. And then we look at it and we see something like that, and exactly what you said, from a morality standpoint, we're like, holy smokes. Like the government that we have is like out here beat innocent people on the side of the road, and like, this world is crazy, it's horrible. I don't think we slow down and think about the fact of Like, no matter what you view of immigration, if I think we are in agreement that the top one percent of this country are making good money, They're making a lot of money, and they're and they're making it on the backs of immigrants and citizens. And I think if we can, like if we could just pause for a minute and go okay, from my standpoint, when I look at it, I go, yeah, we can get distracted with this event, or we can look at like the like who's pulling the strings? And I think there are I think there are evidence on both sides that there are people that are influenced decision makers on both sides of the political aisle that are beneficial not to the average American citizen and certainly not for immigrants. It's to benefit like themselves. And so like, from my standpoint, I wish that people would take more time and go this is it's not a distraction. It's never a distracts when people lose their lives. But I think, like what I would like to do, like just what we talked about like I don't know. I mean, I guess it's a great idea because I thought of it. I'm being sarcastic, but like I do think it would be amazing if these Sansbury cities say, President Trump, give us a list of your hundred worst of the worst and let us prove good faith and we will deliver these hundred people to you. And I think that that's like the left of it is sticking with this idea of morality. Is that and what we started with this on episode one of us talking, which is like the belief of just helping people. So like, to me, the morality when it comes to give show me the hunt the thousand worst of the worst that you want to get rid of morality, It is not the twenty five year farmer who's supporting a family and has done nothing wrong. If you will get you know, healthcare, it's like the morality is, yes, we should be giving healthcare pre healthcare to every veteran for forever whatever they need. Health care for the people that need it. It needs to be affordable. But the morality of that is okay, then we need to do something about pharmacy and insurance companies that are you know, it is immoral to kick someone off because they have a genetic pre existing condition that they don't have any control over and insurance just doesn't want to pay for it. Like that is immoral to me. And so that, I think is so much of what the left comes at it from is this standpoint of legally it might be fine. Financially it might not be beneficial, but overall, like does it feel good at the end of the day, Like do you feel like you're being a better person by taking these things away, by tackling these people in the street. And I think when you look at places like Minneapolis, you're at a point where the common citizenry, I've had enough, They're just fed up with it. And it's and this is to go back to the point of maybe this is where the cooler heads need to prevail type thing, because it's the and I kind of I made the joke to a friend of mine when I saw that Kim wall Send in the National Guard with doughnuts and coffee. And my joke was mom and dad got back from a ski trip and saw that the kids had been fighting all weekend, and they said, okay, calm down. The parents are home. Let's figure this out, because it does to me just feel like you have two bickering partners fueling each other and until someone steps in and says, hey, you go to your corner. You know, it's the referee of a of a UFC fight. They those fighters keep going until someone pulls them off. You go to your corner. You go to your corner. We're taking a break, I think to your point, like it absolutely has the you know, Ice could go, hey, we're gonna take Ice out of Minneapolis, could you you know, on the request of help us find these hundred people, these criminal worst are the worst. Like there's a way to go about this where both sides save face. You know, Ice and Bavino and Gnom get to have their immigration cracked down, and Minneapolis gets to look like, hey, we you know, I did something for the people of my city and got this antagonistic force out. Because like I sit there and just go like to say that Ice isn't being antagonistic and it's all just response to protesters. It's just disingenuous in my opinion. I mean, I mean, we can go we can dig into that at another time, but I think I will I will wrap it up with this as like, I think you feel like that, and I think the majority of the people in your party feel like that. Unfortunately, the leadership on both sides don't feel like that. The toble doesn't feel like that because they are actually sponsoring chaos on both sides, a sponsoring high volume of enforcement, and then we have the other side that is demonizing the people that decided, and so like, it's much better if like the dominions underneath are fighting. And I think that's the difference is is that you have two really bad parents that are coming home and they want to see him fight because they want to have a night off. And I think that's the problem. I think the problem is on both sides of the aisle, we have leadership that are more more interested in padding their own pockets and making more money for themselves than they are of actually representing the people that they've been elected to represent, and they're more interested in like saying those one liners to get the other side. And I just think, like you said, I think it's disingenuous. I know you're talking about my side, but I mean, yeah, I think it's disingenuous on both sides to try to act like, hey, we're trying to know you're not like you're trying to keep. Different politicians and people eyeside that are like, oh, we're doing this for the poor or whatever, like because they get the headline or whatever, and then like behind closed doors, know they vote the other way or they do it because like people just don't look at how folks vote. Like the example of those I've used is like, you know, oh, the right is for the military, and then you look at how they have voted down bills that exclusively support veterans and whatnot. But you know, for the wrap up part of this, I'll leave it with the view of the people with one of the best movies of all time, Men in Black one Tommy Lee Jones saying, a person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals, and you know it. And that's the thing. If the politicians can keep us in a dumb, panicky group, if the big players can keep us in a dumb, panicky group, we care more about what's going on around us, and we don't take the time to remember that each one of us is a person because individually we are smart. Of us. I think I think that's. Where it's we are we as people are so easy to manipulate as a group. But I think I think the reason we're easy to manipulate is because what you said, which is we have a sense of morality. The people that are pulling the strings, they have a sense of what can pad their pockets further, and I think that's the difference. So anyway, I appreciate you coming on, buddy, and a good weekend or warm stay warm, it's pretty cold air too, so
