Minneapolis ICE Case: Law vs “Unarmed” Narrative on Alex Pretti @RekietaLaw

Quick Overview

The discussion confirms that an officer's mistaken belief about the law, such as incorrectly believing they have the right to use force to clear a lawfully assembled protest, does not automatically justify the use of force, especially if the force used was excessive or led to death, which would constitute a federal felony like murder.

Key Points: The guest attorney argues that an officer's mistaken belief that a cordon is lawful does not justify the use of excessive force to clear a lawful assembly, potentially leading to felony charges like murder if death occurs. The attorney contrasts the situation with the Alex Pretti case, noting that Pretti was allegedly carrying a deadly weapon (a gun) and reaching for it, which might change the self-defense analysis compared to the current scenario. The concept of 'presumptively lawful' government action is challenged, as the attorney implies that if the underlying action (the cordon) is unlawful, the subsequent use of force cannot be justified by that initial mistake. The commenter @skullleader-hw9hi points out that CBP training is 12-18 months and subduing a non-compliant person usually requires multiple officers, suggesting a single officer might not have the physical capacity to subdue someone alone. The attorney agrees that if the initial action (like cordoning off an area or using pepper spray) is unlawful, the officer's subsequent use of force based on that unlawful premise is also problematic. The discussion suggests that even if the officer genuinely believed their actions were legal (a mistake of law), it may not provide full immunity or justification for excessive force, especially if the resulting action is a serious crime.

Context: The discussion features an attorney (Andrew Branca, visible in the lower banner) analyzing a hypothetical or real-life scenario involving law enforcement officers cordoning off an area where people are protesting lawfully. The core legal question revolves around whether an officer's mistaken, but sincerely held, belief in the legality of their actions (like establishing a cordon or using force to clear it) shields them from liability for subsequent excessive force or unlawful actions.