The following debate originally took place on my Facebook wall…
Rayn:
Eartha M.: I never said that🤣 in conceal carry class, you do NOT escalate when you have a weapon on you. It’s one of the first things they teach you 🤓…That is all 🥱😴
Rayn:
Eartha M.: …and that’s why I left the Democrats 😎🇺🇸. Charlie Kirk was executed. These other people are resisting arrest and not following the law 🤗
Rayn:
Eartha M.: also true. Keep the hands to yourself 🤗. MLK was about peace, not breaking hotels…🥰. Have a GREAT day 🇺🇸‼️
Rayn:
Rayn:
Eartha M.: https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1MsE4vAg38/?mibextid=wwXIfr
🤗
Allen N.: Libertarians are obsessed with speaking for everyone else
Nelson E.: Most obedient people are obsessed with living cowardly in their bubble and not rocking the boat unless it directly effects them , and ignor the blatently wrong things that are happening around them.. FACTS
Nelson E.: Second amendment is there for a good reason, so is the first Amendment. All people should be exercising both in a peaceful yet forceful manner. Keeping their rights at the forefront while speaking the truth.. If everyone wasn’t a cowerd and paid attention to the truth and not propaganda that divides us, we’d be much better off..
Rayn: As a libertarian, I embrace all Individual Sovereignty, as evidenced by my strict adherence to the Non-Aggression Principle and my interactions with others taking place through the performative equality and justice of Voluntaryism – in full love for and devotion to consent, recognizing very clearly through my lived experiences that Voluntaryism is Peace. Voters are the ones “obsessed with speaking for everyone else”, Allen. They’re also typically obsessed with enforcing their collectivist will upon various minority groups using the “legally” protected coercion and violence of the State, while calling their illegitimate jurisdiction over their innocent and peaceful neighbors “democracy”.
Allen N.: Physical removal of people from places, even for the most arbitrary and immoral reasons, would be a core element of a voluntarist society, would it not?
Thomas K.: Eartha, the whole point of all gun control laws are to prevent escalation – on the part of people, giving the government a monopoly on escalation and violence. Conceal carry laws were made under Jim Crow (racist) era oppression, specifically to hinder non-white people from protecting themselves against governmental and social abuse. MLK Jr applied for a concealed carry permit in Alabama, but was denied by the local sheriff because he didn’t think that it was “necessary” for one of the most prominent (black) freedom fighters in the USA to conceal carry a firearm after his home was firebombed. In response to such oppression from KKK-controlled laws and law enforcement, the Black Panthers attended many rallies, town halls, and other such places and events in groups, armed with openly-displayed guns, to counterbalance the abuse of law enforcement. The very concept of gun control in the USA is a white supremacist control tactic that goes all the way back to preventing slave revolts. As you can see from the informative picture that Rayn provided in the comments, MLK Jr and Rosa Parks both broke the law, on purpose, because the laws they broke were inhumane – breaking the Law of our Creator, which is referenced in the US Constitution, where all men and women are created equally in the image of YHWH.
Eartha M.: Thomas, he lost that amendment the minute he started to agitate. The video shows him go from protester, losing his 2amendment right and becoming what we call a ‘violent criminal’ because criminals do crimes, violent criminals have weapons and do crimes.
The officer who shot is still working, because he did nothing against his law. Cry all ya want, don’t throw and kick things just because you’re mad…
https://www.facebook.com/share/v/16KXPQ3ShF/?mibextid=wwXIfr
Rayn: I’m not sure what you’re implying, Allen, but Individual Sovereignty the Non-Aggression Principle and Consent are the cornerstones of Voluntaryism, as I already explained, above. “Physical removal of people from places”, on the other hand, is a core tenet of most varieties of Statism. Some easy examples of this would be the USA’s displacement of 60k indigenous residents during the tax-funded “Trail of Tears”, the Third Reich’s “expulsion” of 1.7 million Polish residents, the USSR’s “dekulakization” of millions of minority ethnic groups into spetsposeleniya (“special settlements”), and the Khmer Rouge regime’s “forced evacuation” of the entire city of Phnom Penh plus other major cities to the tune of 2 million displaced residents.
Joe M: No, incorrect, we believe that carrying a gun while obstructing justice and fighting with police is really stupid and might get you killed, because it’s idiotic. People need to learn common sense.
Chuck E.:
Chuck E.: https://www.facebook.com/ChuckyTooToo/videos/1219971656769506/
Flora S.: For Real. How quick they switched.
Andrea T.: Thomas 💯
Andrea T.: Exactly 👍
Rayn: Comply or die? Reality check, Joe: when a law enforcement officer is the one “carrying a gun while obstructing justice” through his willful violation of constitutional due process (the right to a fair trial, notice, and an unbiased decision-maker), he’s a dangerous criminal engaging in “deprivation of rights under color of law”. (Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242)
If said costumed criminal engages in kidnapping, or even attempted kidnapping, under “color of law”, according to federal law, he “shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death”.
Deprivation Of Rights Under Color Of Law:
https://www.justice.gov/crt/deprivation-rights-under-color-law
To quote:
“TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, … shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.”
To be clear, I do not condone destruction of private property, and I also don’t believe that breaking someone’s taillight (whether a week prior, or that very day) is a crime worthy of summary execution by a gang of armed, masked, nameless federal agents. This is especially apparent when considering all of the details of the incident that took place a week prior – in particular, how members of said federal agency immediately jumped out of their vehicle to confront the perpetrator moments after he committed his crime, yet did not choose to arrest him, nor even disarm him of his legal back-holstered firearm, at that time.
https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1AaQvFQ6bn/
Rayn: Chuck, I do not condone destruction of private property, and I also don’t believe that breaking someone’s taillight (whether a week prior, or that very day) is a crime worthy of summary execution by a gang of armed, masked, nameless federal agents. This is especially apparent when considering all of the details of the incident that took place a week prior – in particular, how members of said federal agency immediately jumped out of their vehicle to confront the perpetrator moments after he committed his crime, yet did not choose to arrest him, nor even disarm him of his legal back-holstered firearm, at the time.
Here’s the incident from two different angles:
https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1AaQvFQ6bn/
Rayn: Eartha, can you highlight the portion(s) of this video that you believe justifies Pretti’s summary execution by a gang of armed, masked, nameless federal agents? Thanks. 🕊️
Eartha M.: Rayn sure! The part where he placed his hands on the officer and resisted. It’s against conceal carry rules and throws out his 2nd amendment and instead immediately turns him into a violent criminal 
Didn’t they ask him to leave?
Didn’t they ask him to leave last week
Rayn: Eartha, when “he placed his hands on the officer and resisted” 11 days earlier, right after he kicked and broke a tailgate, Pretti was not summarily executed by a gang of armed, masked, nameless federal agents. Instead, members of that same federal agency immediately jumped out of their vehicle to confront him moments after he committed his crime, yet did not choose to arrest him, nor even disarm him of his legal back-holstered firearm, at that time. Comparing the two events clearly illustrates that lethal force was not only an unnecessary escalation, but that this particular group of masked armed agents forced Pretti to his knees, confiscated his back-holstered firearm, then immediately shot him in the back multiple times – exactly in the fashion of an execution.
https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1AaQvFQ6bn/
Rayn: Also, Eartha, according to your screenshot, “duty to retreat” is a “legal requirement” which “mandates that an individual make a reasonable effort to withdraw or escape from a threatening situation before using force, especially deadly force”. The part that’s highlighted with red paragraphs is: “In jurisdictions with duty to retreat laws, you are expected to remove yourself from a threatening situation – provided it’s safe to do so – before resorting to physical defense.” As per rules of engagement, “duty to retreat” applies to conceal carry in certain states, while “stand your ground” applies to open carry in certain states.
Either way, “duty to retreat” is irrelevant to Pretti, since he did not attempt to use his holstered legal firearm during either one of his two altercations with federal agents, even as he was being subdued and summarily executed by them.
Eartha M.: Rayn it doesn’t matter. There was no ground to stand. He wasn’t home- he was following ICE with his terror group friends 
So it’s only a duty with plenty opportunities to ‘retreat’. when the cop said ‘get back’. I can’t conceal a gun and GO to my ex house to fight my ex girlfriend with it on me. Simply having it turns the assault into a violent assault with a deadly weapon, and it doesn’t even have to be used.
No you cannot conceal a weapon and GO to fight cops. The first week he lost his 2nd amendment when he spit at the officer WALKING AWAY. The next week he then became a ‘repeat offender’ and lost his life being disarmed because he’s an idiot.
Please stop pretending that you don’t understand this. This is why the officer is not fired and won’t be. Keep your hands to yourself. Keep your hands to yourself. Keep your hands to yourself. Cry all you want. Yeah, you don’t charge and kick and vandalize federal property with a gun on you. Not only is it dumb, your second amendment is gone, and now you are a violent criminal.
Have you heard much in the news after this? No, because he’s a lefty looney and now they have to let it go. You should too
Thomas K.: Eartha: You: “The officer who shot is still working, because he did nothing against his law.”
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People’s law firm, the Legal Defense Fund:
“Throughout the United States, law enforcement officers have stolen money and valuables, shot children, attempted to harm family pets, killed vulnerable people, and, worst of all, they have gotten away with it — all because of qualified immunity.
The doctrine of qualified immunity… [i]n practice, … often means that, unless there’s a case with nearly identical facts on the record, these officials — including law enforcement — can flagrantly violate a person’s rights without being held personally responsible.
….
The reality is that… qualified immunity … simply shields law enforcement from civil suits, which are often one of the only tools victims of police violence … have to hold law enforcement accountable for their harmful actions.
And, of course, let’s also remember that defending qualified immunity means defending instances like this: [read article for 5 examples].”
This video shows him on his hands and knees, being disarmed of his holstered weapon, and shot in the back only a single second later.
https://www.facebook.com/share/v/17odbK6B8Z
“[D]on’t throw and kick things just because you’re mad” is good advice, thanks. Don’t shoot an unarmed man in the back while he’s in the “all fours” position.
The agents who shot Alex Pretti in the back violated basic gun safety against their fellow agents who were penning Alex Pretti down at the time they unloaded on him. What did your concealed carry instructor teach you about “backstop?”
Thomas K.: Chuck, we don’t do bipartisanship (false dichotomy) thinking. Liberal/Conservative, left/right, Democrats/Republicans – two sides of the same coin. Both sides of a coin have a script stamped into them. Scripted think is the “what to think.” Thinking as an individual is “how to think.” We don’t like that either of them were murdered. We believe that all murderers are murderers; regardless of whether or not they have a badge or government authorization, are from a different culture, entered legally or illegally, or how “legal” the murder was in the eyes of a non-living government “body” that psychopaths flock to in order to position themselves superior over others through force.
Rayn: Chuck, “You do not murder.” – Shemoth (Exodus) 20:13
https://bible.com/bible/316/exo.20.13.TS2009
______________________________
“You shall not have in your bag differing weights, a heavy and a light.” – Deḇarim (Deuteronomy) 25:13
https://bible.com/bible/316/deu.25.13.TS2009
______________________________
‘‘Do no unrighteousness in right-ruling. Do not be partial to the poor or favour the face of the great, but rightly rule your neighbour in righteousness.’ – Wayyiqra (Leviticus) 19:15
https://www.bible.com/bible/316/LEV.19.15
______________________________
‘“Do not distort right-ruling. Do not show partiality, nor take a bribe, for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise and twists the words of the righteous.’ – Deḇarim (Deuteronomy) 16:19
https://www.bible.com/bible/316/DEU.16.19
______________________________
‘He would certainly reprove you if you secretly show partiality.’ – Iyoḇ (Job) 13:10
https://www.bible.com/bible/316/JOB.13.10
______________________________
‘These also are for the wise: It is not good to show partiality in right-ruling.’ – Mishlĕ (Proverbs) 24:23
https://www.bible.com/bible/316/PRO.24.23
______________________________
‘So they asked Him, saying, “Teacher, we know that You say and teach rightly, and You are not partial to any, but teach the way of Elohim truly,’ – Luqas (Luke) 20:21
https://www.bible.com/bible/316/LUK.20.21
______________________________
‘And opening his mouth, Kĕpha said, “Truly I see that Elohim shows no partiality,’ – Ma`asei (Acts) 10:34
https://www.bible.com/bible/316/ACT.10.34
______________________________
‘And if you call on the Father, who without partiality judges according to each one’s work, pass the time of your sojourning in fear,’ – Kĕpha Aleph (1 Peter) 1:17
https://www.bible.com/bible/316/1PE.1.17
______________________________
“The one who overcomes shall inherit all this, and I shall be his Elohim and he shall be My son. [8] “But as for the cowardly, and untrustworthy, and abominable, and murderers, and those who whore, and drug sorcerers, and idolaters, and all the false, their part is in the lake which burns with fire and sulphur, which is the second death.” – Ḥazon (Revelation) 21:7-8
https://bible.com/bible/316/rev.21.7-8.TS2009
Thomas K.: Joe, if your idea of “really stupid” is to put oneself in a position to be killed by law enforcement for activities that even a criminal law judge could not sentence the death penalty for, and are in alignment with the revolution/patriot activities that the founding laws came from, then that necessarily means that you believe all instances of resistance to tyranny is “really stupid.” If that is the case, then that would show that you value cowardice over bravery because it’s “the smart thing to do.” It also would mean that you think that the founding fathers were also “really stupid.”
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
– Benjamin Franklin
“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.”
– Thomas Jefferson
“I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.”
– Thomas Jefferson
“It is the duty of every good citizen to use all lawful means to prevent the Constitution from being violated.”
– Thomas Jefferson
“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animating contest of freedom, — go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!”
– Samuel Adams
“A free people ought not only be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.”
– George Washington
“Let us therefore animate and encourage each other, and show the whole world that a Freeman, contending for liberty on his own ground, is superior to any slavish mercenary on earth.”
– George Washington
Rayn: Eartha, as I explained, “Stand Your Ground” is a rule of engagement for open carry, while “duty to retreat” applies to conceal carry. My position is that 𝙣𝙚𝙞𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙧 of these apply to Pretti, because he was 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙚𝙣𝙜𝙖𝙜𝙞𝙣𝙜 anyone with his firearm, and it 𝙧𝙚𝙢𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙚𝙙 𝙝𝙤𝙡𝙨𝙩𝙚𝙧𝙚𝙙 in both of his altercations with federal agents.
As for “terror group friends”, that better describes the alphabet boys who came to violate Muh Constitution, while wearing military garb with executioners masks on. I’d be very interested in seeing what sorts of tattoos the trigger-men are bearing on their arms.
Your claim that Pretti “lost his life being disarmed because he’s an idiot” is patently false. He was first disarmed by federal agents, and then only 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙣 did they 𝙞𝙢𝙢𝙚𝙙𝙞𝙖𝙩𝙚𝙡𝙮 summarily execute him via the many bullets that they rapidly pumped into his body from behind while he was already forced down onto his knees and being held in place by multiple agents.
I’m not pretending that I don’t understand you, nor am I crying. I’m exposing the hypocritical compartmentalized doublethink of red-blue duopolists, as well as the dangers inherent to faith in the imagined “authority” of a “ruling class”. Statism is a disease. Renounce Statism Now.
“There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root”. – Henry David Thoreau (from Walden, 1854)
Eartha M.: Rayn Kleipe-McSwain He. Doesn’t. Have. To. Engage. WITH. His. Firearm.
He doesn’t have to engage WITH his firearm.
He doesn’t have to engage WITH his firearm.
He doesn’t have to engage WITH his firearm.
What I sent you is stuff he learned in a conceal carry class- for his LICENSE to carry. He knows better. He brought one, that’s ALL that counts, and he had a duty to retreat. Because. He. Doesn’t. Have. To. Engage. WITH. His. Firearm. What if it falls while he’s kicking the car and someone else uses it while he’s being an idiot. It’s still reckless which is why you don’t ENGAGE. What if he’s impeding traffic and someone attacks him in road rage? You cannot HAVE it and be a reckless terrorist.
Like I said Dems have a problem understanding the law. They break it, then they want to bend it. You understand, you just don’t want to because the LAW says you’re wrong 
No one cares about stupid slogans and pictures while real stuff is going on. That is why Trump won and Pretti is dead. Because of dumb slogans in his head that make him think he’s above the law 
. That tattooed TRAINED Law Enforcement doing their job. Alex is not.
Please tell me when is it OK to impede on someone else’s arrest. Please do.
Eartha M.: Look at what you just said he didn’t have it because it was holstered…you mean…concealed? Because if its holstered it’s also concealed and so he has a duty to retreat like YOU just said
Stop bending rules! Now people have been simply lying on behalf of the Democrats and it sad. I don’t have to do this much convincing to myself since Republicans believe in facts and law.
Rayn: Eartha, HE 𝑫𝑶𝑬𝑺 HAVE TO ENGAGE IN SELF-DEFENSE FOR “DUTY TO RETREAT” TO APPLY, AS IT IS A SELF-DEFENSE LAW. As your own source above, (USConcealedCarry) stated, “duty to retreat” is a “legal requirement” that “mandates that an individual make a reasonable effort to withdraw or escape from a threatening situation 𝒃𝒆𝒇𝒐𝒓𝒆 𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒇𝒐𝒓𝒄𝒆, 𝒆𝒔𝒑𝒆𝒄𝒊𝒂𝒍𝒍𝒚 𝒅𝒆𝒂𝒅𝒍𝒚 𝒇𝒐𝒓𝒄𝒆”. The law is clear on this point. In the US, the “rule of law” and the “vagueness doctrine” require the intent and scope of every law to be both “explicit” and “unmistakably clear”, rather than implied. Your effort to apply a self-defense law to Pretti, when he was not engaging in self-defense, is not supported by law, or else you would simply 𝒒𝒖𝒐𝒕𝒆 such a law, rather than loosely referencing your conceal carry instructor. The ChatGPT is in full agreement with this interpretation of the law, as you can see in the screenshot I’ve included in this reply.
Rayn: As for your hypothetical question, “what if [Pretti’s holstered gun] falls while he’s kicking the car”? There’s already a state law covering such behavior called “reckless endangerment” with a “dangerous weapon” (Minnesota Statutes §609.66). As for your other hypothetical question, “what if [Pretti’s] impeding traffic”? There’s already a state “public nuisance” law that criminalizes such conduct (Minnesota Statutes §609.74). All of your hypotheticals indicate that you are struggling with the legal concept of “presumed innocence”, and how foundational it is to US law. The “duty to retreat” is a self-defense law which clearly lays out grounds for the legal engagement of self-defense. It does not explicitly designate itself with the intent to police acts of reckless engagement and disorderly conduct, or else such terms would be clearly stated in the law.
Rayn: By the way, I’m not a DemoCrackPot, nor a RepubliConArtist, but I’m very well-versed in both civil and criminal law. For example, back in the summer of 2022, months after the police, detectives and district attorney of Richmond County, NC refused to arrest Thomas‘ criminal family member for forging legal and financial documents in his name, claiming it to be a “civil matter”, I crafted a five-page document for him to take before the small claims court and when the magistrate heard his case, she asked him, “why are you here and not the criminal court?”, then immediately and effortlessly found in favor of his claim, while also issuing a warrant for the perpetrator arrest, bearing THREE FELONY CHARGES for forgery of instrument. So, unsurprisingly, I’m actually smarter than the entire Richmond County Sheriff’s Department, though they are all paid professionals who apparently don’t even have the first clue about the laws they enforce. Sad and pathetic… Either way, I’ve got receipts, if you’re interested in them.
My resume is thick when it comes to understanding US law. I was just 11 years old when my family’s home was first raided by NJ sheriff’s department to arrest my parents for possession and distribution of narcotics, and by the time I was 13, it was the FBI raiding my family’s residence in the H.E.L.P. Bronx homeless shelter we lived. Circumstances in my childhood have given me a very unique view of the State, their police and their laws,. Being autistic, it’s been a very special interest of mine for most of my life. And, in case you forgot, we also went to the same high school, together, and I got a 91 on my US Government History Regents – the highest score in our school. I’m far from stupid, I DO understand US law, I haven’t bent any rules, I’m not convincing myself of anything, I don’t care which of the two war criminals you voted for, and I’m not a liar. Unless there’s a murderer on the loose, or someone actively attempting to commit murder or rape, I do not support the summary execution of my fellow human beings by the State, regardless of whether the victim is team blue, team red, team green, a non-voter, an “illegal” immigrant, or any other irrelevant designation, for that matter. Morality, when correctly applied, is universal. 
Eartha M.: Rayn ….so does holstered mean conceal because there is no self defense when you’re…..agitating
But duty to retreat refers to a concealed or in your case holstered weapon.
But let’s use your logic. Since he resisted detainment he engaged in self defense. With a deadly weapon. Bingo!!
Why is he being detained? For reckless endangerment and being a public nuisance. (609.66 and 609.74) Bingo!!
Don’t forget that part 
Rayn: “Please tell me when is it OK to impede on someone else’s arrest”, you ask, Eartha? Here’s a recent example:
Police Chief Steps in to Stop ICE Arrest: ‘I Gave Her a Ride Home’:
https://www.rawstory.com/ice-2675065557
Besides this, there’s “Cariol’s Law”, a Duty to Intervene law that legally obligates police in Buffalo, NY to intervene in another officer’s arrest if that officer is using excessive force:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cariol_Horne
While it’s your prerogative to view police as infallible “authority”, state legislators all over the US do not tend to agree.
As a matter of fact, according to ChatGPT:
“States with explicit duty-to-intervene statutes
These states have enacted legal duties on law enforcement officers to intervene in or report excessive/unlawful force by fellow officers:
Confirmed statutory duties (intervene + sometimes report)
Colorado – Officers must intervene to stop unlawful force and report it; failure can carry penalties (misdemeanor, decertification).
Connecticut – Requires officers to intervene against unreasonable/excessive force and report it; includes anti-retaliation protections.
Illinois – Officers must intervene to stop unauthorized/excessive force and render medical aid; also must report the conduct.
Oregon – Requires officers to intervene and report misconduct/excessive force; failure can be grounds for discipline and decertification.
Virginia – Law requires intervention to stop excessive force where feasible, render aid, and report.
Other states with statutory language imposing a duty to intervene or similar requirements
Information from legislative databases and legal summaries indicates additional states have enacted duty-to-intervene laws, though specifics vary (some focus on reporting rather than a blunt duty to physically stop force):
Minnesota – Duty to intervene on excessive force; failure may lead to disciplinary action by certification board.
Nevada – Requires officers to intervene (limited to ordering cessation of excessive force).
New Mexico – Law doesn’t itself mandate intervention but triggers decertification for failure after unlawful force.”
Rayn: Eartha [regarding your screenshot of my comment here], PRETTI 𝑫𝑶𝑬𝑺 HAVE TO ENGAGE IN SELF-DEFENSE FOR “DUTY TO RETREAT” TO APPLY, AS IT IS A SELF-DEFENSE LAW. As your own source above, (USConcealedCarry) stated, “duty to retreat” is a “legal requirement” that “mandates that an individual make a reasonable effort to withdraw or escape from a threatening situation 𝒃𝒆𝒇𝒐𝒓𝒆 𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒇𝒐𝒓𝒄𝒆, 𝒆𝒔𝒑𝒆𝒄𝒊𝒂𝒍𝒍𝒚 𝒅𝒆𝒂𝒅𝒍𝒚 𝒇𝒐𝒓𝒄𝒆”. The law is clear on this point. In the US, the “rule of law” and the “vagueness doctrine” require the intent and scope of every law to be both “explicit” and “unmistakably clear”, rather than implied. Your effort to apply a self-defense law to Pretti, when he was not engaging in self-defense, is not supported by law, or else you would simply 𝒒𝒖𝒐𝒕𝒆 such a law, rather than loosely referencing your conceal carry instructor. The ChatGPT is in full agreement with this interpretation of the law, as you can see in the screenshot I’ve included in this reply.
Eartha M.: Rayn Kleipe-McSwain let’s use your logic. Since he resisted detainment he engaged in self defense. With a deadly weapon. Bingo!!
Please don’t tell me he didn’t resist now…
Why is he being detained? For reckless endangerment and being a public nuisance. (609.66 and 609.74) Bingo!!
He didn’t scream, ‘arrest me arrest me’
He said ‘Assault me! Assault me!! I guess he was looking for self defense 
Btw, duty to retreat is for concealed and holstered carry
Rayn: Incorrect, Eartha. And, apparently, the main reason your interpretation of law is faulty is because your very definition of “self-defense” is dubious, and not at all in alignment with US law. ChatGPT also does not agree with you, as you can see in the screenshot I’ve included in this reply.
Eartha M.: I hate chat gpt, but whatever…
Eartha M.: Rayn …oh and look, I put it ‘what if it’s concealed and legal…
It’s says, ‘you must disclose that you have it..
Rayn: Eartha, the top of your screenshot shows that you asked ChatGPT, “what happens if I resist with a firearm can I get shot mn?”, meaning that you overgeneralized your inquiry by failing to state the specific circumstances with respect to the case we’re discussing. And, the AI very apparently interpretated your inquiry to mean that you were actively 𝙪𝙨𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙖 𝙛𝙞𝙧𝙚𝙖𝙧𝙢 𝙩𝙤 𝙧𝙚𝙨𝙞𝙨𝙩 𝙖𝙧𝙧𝙚𝙨𝙩. To prove this point, the answer given to you by ChatGPT states that “Minnesota law 609.66 strictly regulates dangerous weapons, and 𝙪𝙨𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙖 𝙛𝙞𝙧𝙚𝙖𝙧𝙢 𝙩𝙤 𝙧𝙚𝙨𝙞𝙨𝙩 𝙖𝙧𝙧𝙚𝙨𝙩 can lead to felony charges and justified use of deadly force against you.”
With that in mind, just now I asked ChatGPT, “What happens if I resist arrest by I.C.E. while having my holstered conceal carry firearm on me and never touching it, as a resident of Minneapolis? Can I legally be shot by I.C.E.?”
ChatGPT’s answer is clear: “Can ICE Legally Shoot You for Resisting?
Legally, under U.S. and Minnesota law:
No — ICE cannot lawfully shoot you just because you resist arrest with your firearm holstered.
They can only use deadly force if they reasonably perceive that you pose an immediate deadly threat to them or another innocent person. If there is no imminent threat, using deadly force could violate federal policy and your constitutional rights .”
Rayn: Here is a screenshot of my inquiry to ChatGPT.
Eartha M.: I hate chat gpt, but whatever…my gpt has a self defense clause, yours doesn’t but I guess you can get what you want from it…
Mine says if you bring brandish a weapon while resisting, you can get shot and its legally justified. I’m not relating it to Alex Pretti but MN law. Enjoy…
Eartha M.: Rayn why would I put, ‘if I never touched it’ if he did?
Then you’d have to put in all details from beginning to end to be fair…
The more generalized, the more it applies to ALL people.
Eartha M.: Rayn see? If MN law states using a firearm can lead to deadly force, then what the specifics for? To try and bend the law ? You want to add I never touched it but omit, I was an idiot just minutes prior…
I’m actually getting a better understanding of why he’s an idiot and why the officers WILL get off. It’s justified. Ah!
Rayn: Eartha, I watched the videos of Pretti being disarmed by law enforcement for myself, and his gun was still holstered behind his back when it was taken away from him. Over a week before that, he had an altercation with police, and didn’t reach for his weapon at any point, then, either. Even according to the Wiki article on Alex Pretti, “in reviewing video evidence, Reuters, the BBC, The New York Times, CNN, and The Guardian all concluded that he was holding a cell phone, not a gun, in the moments before being tackled and pinned to the ground.” And, this information is cited as being reported in the following locations:
BBC:
https://www.bbc.com/news/live/c3ve67195gyt
New York TImes:
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/24/us/minneapolis-shooting-federal-agents-video.html
CNN:
https://www.cnn.com/2026/01/25/politics/trump-officials-shifting-rhetoric-alex-pretti
Eartha M.: Rayn but remember he violated PCP when he did not disclose he had a gun. See? Law.
The OFFICER said ‘Gun’, then he resisted again and got shot.
And it only has to be brandished…just flashed and it’s over for him.
