alt Hacker NewsDifferent state; in the state Pretti was shot the state charges were acquitted when a guy with an AK lit up on cops during the BLM riots. []
[] https://minnesotareformer.com/2021/09/01/jaleel-stallings-sh...
--------- re: below due to throttling -------
Everything I've said is factually accurate. Hilarious how some commenters are saying I am "lying" or assume I disagree with the verdict when it could not be further from the truth. I'm only pointing out that armed fire upon police might be legal in Minnesota, and there is recent case example of that.
--------------------
>This is a silly way to have a conversation, but as for your response: every single word you picked was as misleading as possible. "AK" implies an assault rifle but it was a pistol. "Lit up on cops" implies that he started the conflict by attacking cops, rather than it being one of self-defense against people indistinguishable from thugs. You invoke "BLM riots", but there is no evidence he was involved in that at all. Your words are clearly chosen in such a way as to prime people towards a certain belief about the event. With the most charitable interpretation of your words possible, they might factually describe the events, but I think it crosses the line to the point where you would have to be so charitable as to actively misinterpret what words mean in order for them to remain factually accurate. At any rate, that level of charity is absolutely unwarranted given how intentionally uncharitable the selection of those words was in the first place.
AK implies an AK family firearm. IIRC it was a draco or draco like "pistol." Anyone with familiarity with firearms will consider that "pistol" to be in the AK family; it does have as shortened barrel and no stock but otherwise looks like and has nearly same components as the most common form of AK (In US, AK doesn't imply it is select fire assault rifle, if you go to a gun show and someone is selling an AK it is assumed it is semi-auto unless they advertise it as an NFA AK).
"Lit up" means he opened fire. I linked the case so you could read the facts, I agree it was in self defense, not sure why you assumed otherwise. I would have linked to some other news source if I wanted bias against him.
I said "during" the BLM riots, not that he was a rioter.
I can assure you I probably have a nearly similar opinion on this as you do, it appears you just jumped to conclusions and drawn ones that didn't exist so you could go on your rage against me.
My point here is the people he shot at acted a lot like ICE did in Minneapolis -- rolling up in unmarked cars, masked, shooting people (like goode). It's not clear to me citizens of Minnesota would actually be found guilty if they were to find themselves in a case of self defense.
Replies
> when a guy with an AK lit up on cops during the BLM riots.
It is certainly a bold choice to use this wildly misleading framing when you link to a news article that directly contradicts it. A more accurate framing would be "when a guy returned fire against a gang of thugs who were firing on random passerby from an unmarked van".
Court documents and transcripts reveal a far different story than the one officers told investigators, as well as the tales police and prosecutors offered up to the media.
Before the white, unmarked cargo van of the Minneapolis Police Department drove down Lake Street, an officer gave Sgt. Andrew Bittell his orders: “Drive down Lake Street. You see a group, call it out. OK great! Fuck ’em up, gas ’em, fuck ’em up.”
At 17th Avenue and Lake Street, around 10 p.m., the SWAT team saw a group of people outside the Stop-N-Shop gas station. Bittell told the driver to head toward the station and said, “Let ’em have it boys!”
They later learned they were shooting at the gas station owner, neighbors and relatives guarding the station from more looting, as well as bystanders, including a Vice News reporter who had his hands up and was yelling, “Press!”
About an hour later, three blocks to the west, they opened the sliding door of the van and began firing plastic rounds at people in a parking lot.
They hit Jaleel K. Stallings, 29, a St. Paul truck driver, who says he didn’t know they were cops because they were inside an unmarked white cargo van with the police lights off. [...] Stallings, an Army veteran, returned fire with his mini Draco pistol, for which he had a permit.
---
> Everything I've said is factually accurate. Hilarious how some commenters are saying I am "lying" or assume I disagree with the verdict when it could not be further from the truth. I'm only pointing out that armed fire upon police might be legal in Minnesota, and there is recent case example of that.
This is a silly way to have a conversation, but as for your response: every single word you picked was as misleading as possible. "AK" implies an assault rifle but it was a pistol. "Lit up on cops" implies that he started the conflict by attacking cops, rather than it being one of self-defense against people indistinguishable from thugs. You invoke "BLM riots", but there is no evidence he was involved in that at all. Your words are clearly chosen in such a way as to prime people towards a certain belief about the event. With the most charitable interpretation of your words possible, they might factually describe the events, but I think it crosses the line to the point where you would have to be so charitable as to actively misinterpret what words mean in order for them to remain factually accurate. At any rate, that level of charity is absolutely unwarranted given how intentionally uncharitable the selection of those words was in the first place.
He was right to be acquitted, the cops were doing drive by shootings from unmarked vans (using non-lethal bullets but hard to tell when being shot at in the night).