The similarity lies in how the officers' actions (failure to communicate/coordinate) caused his death.

So, you believe the officers action were the cause of his death and not the fact that a man with a history of uncontrolled rage when confronting ICE decided to obstruct officers trying to subdue another troublemaker?

i think you need to revisit what "cause" really means, and then learn what '"result' means.
hint;  The man was shot AS A RESULT of his own actions, thereby making his actions the CAUSE of his death.  Remove his poor judgement and rage against ICE from the situation, and he would still be alive.  i mean, how unhinged does someone have to be to kick and destroy the entire tail light assembly of an SUV as it's trying to drive away?  This is not normal behavior for an adult with good judgement and mature thinking.

The bullet/s caused his death, but the situation he created caused the bullets to be fired.

i find it troubling how quickly you are to blame law enforcement.  Most of the video analysis i've seen clearly lays the blame at the deceased's feet.  I put it in the same category as a man getting shot reaching for his cell phone when 3 cops have him at gunpoint and have warned him repeatedly to keep his hands in plain sight.  FAFO.

The similarity lies in how the officers' actions (failure to communicate/coordinate) caused his death.

1. I saw a video of him (allegedly) kicking an ICE vehicle, causing the tail light to break. I would hardly call that uncontrolled rage. Is there other examples I am unaware of?

2. Initially the officer shoves the woman back and Pretti places himself in-between the woman on the ground and the agent.  The agent then sprays Pretti. Pretti turns away and tries to help the woman up at which point additional officers grab Pretti. Was the agent actually trying to arrest the woman or was it just a shove? If she was actually subject to arrest then maybe he was obstructing but if not then an obstruction charge would be hard to make.

This begs an additional question, if the officer's use of force against the woman pushed down was not justified then Pretti's actions in intervening is arguably the right thing to do. I don't know the context of why the officer shoved the woman so I am not going to litigate that, only pointing out that if it wasn't justified then Pretti's actions wouldn't be obstruction.

Now if you want to make the strictest argument that if Pretti had stayed at home or didn't intervene with the woman who got shoved then yes, by the purest view of things, his action ultimately lead to his death but that is an overly simplistic view of things. If you drove without a seatbelt and a drunk driver hit you, causing you to be ejected and die, do we just blame you and say your action caused your death? Yeah, you chose not to wear a seatbelt which would have saved your life but an incident like this isn't a single variable thing, a poor initial decision doesn't then justify everything that happens after. The drunk driver was still in the wrong despite your choice.

The tail light is also, ultimately irrelevant because cops can't retroactively justify their force by going into someone's record and finding bad behavior before. Unless the agents who fired could say "I recognized him as the person who kicked out tail light out last week" then it doesn't matter what he did previously. If you want to sit here and judge the character of Pretti then sure, you can use that property damage in your judgement but my comments focus on the agent's actions in deciding to shoot him. So maybe Pretti was full on TDS, a trouble maker, an angry emotional person, etc etc etc but the relevant question is whether he was doing something that justified the use of lethal force.

Think of it this way, imagine you have a CCW firearm and officers stop you for speeding. They find a warrant for an unpaid ticket and they arrest you. In the process of handcuffing you, one officer sees a gun on your waistband and yells "gun!". The officer then removes it from your waistband. Officer 2 and 3 then pull out their guns and shoot you because they hear you have a gun and maybe they even see it briefly. Yes it was your fault for speeding and for not paying your prior ticket but does that justify cops shooting you after the gun was removed from you safely by the first officer? No, the initial poor decision made by you doesn't then justify every use of force decision by the cops after that and it doesn't automatically excuse all of their mistakes either.

At the point the officers initially fired, did Pretti pose a deadly threat to officers? Since he was disarmed he obviously couldn't shoot anyone. Was there cause for thinking he might be armed? Sure, someone yelled gun so it would be reasonable for officers to draw their firearms but merely hearing the word gun is not a very good justification to start firing. What did they actually see that would justify them firing and continuing to fire? Obviously I don't know what they put in their reports and I only have what is in the video to go off of but I can't see anything to justify pulling the trigger. Maybe there is something more not audible or something the officer saw, like him grabbing a knife (made up example) which could justify the shooting but again, I am only going on what we can see from the videos. And since two officers fired, each officer has to justify his own decision, they can't simply say "I saw my partner firing so I fired too".

The Good shooting wasn't great, there were mistakes made all around, but it was a more justifiable shooting than this. They shot him thinking he had a gun after an officer had already removed the firearm, that is a  mistake on the part of the officers, not of Pretti. Pretti had little to no control at that point and since he was disarmed there wasn't an actual lethal threat present. This is why officer's screwed up. Does the chaos factor into it all to where officers could have reasonably believed they were in imminent danger? It sure does, but they also made mistakes along the way, actions which if they had handled better might not have lead to the shooting. That is why I have said I don't think criminal charges are appropriate but there is room to make the case that the agents made mistakes.

Your "initially" isn't the initial start. It began when he was in the road, thus no longer protesting on a public sidewalk.

So "initially", he was in the middle of the road.  Had he not done this, ICE would have not approached him.

1. I saw a video of him (allegedly) kicking an ICE vehicle, causing the tail light to break. I would hardly call that uncontrolled rage. Is there other examples I am unaware of?

2. Initially the officer shoves the woman back and Pretti places himself in-between the woman on the ground and the agent.  The agent then sprays Pretti. Pretti turns away and tries to help the woman up at which point additional officers grab Pretti. Was the agent actually trying to arrest the woman or was it just a shove? If she was actually subject to arrest then maybe he was obstructing but if not then an obstruction charge would be hard to make.

That's stupid.  What the officer intended -- arrest or not -- doesn't change the fact that Pretti was trying to confront and interfere with the officer's actions.  How can the legality of HIS actions be contingent on the intentions of the AGENT?  It's a stupid argument.  It's analogous to shooting someone who points a gun at you and later finding the gun wasn't loaded.  Does your action then become unjustified based on unknowable facts?

This begs an additional question, if the officer's use of force against the woman pushed down was not justified then Pretti's actions in intervening is arguably the right thing to do. I don't know the context of why the officer shoved the woman so I am not going to litigate that, only pointing out that if it wasn't justified then Pretti's actions wouldn't be obstruction.

Since when does the law allow protestors to attack cops based on their personal perception of whether or not the cop's actions are justifiable force?  You're attempting to justify Pretti's actions based on facts that could only be known after the fact -- unless, like you, Pretti is also a mind reader.

Now if you want to make the strictest argument that if Pretti had stayed at home or didn't intervene with the woman who got shoved then yes, by the purest view of things, his action ultimately lead to his death but that is an overly simplistic view of things. If you drove without a seatbelt and a drunk driver hit you, causing you to be ejected and die, do we just blame you and say your action caused your death? Yeah, you chose not to wear a seatbelt which would have saved your life but an incident like this isn't a single variable thing, a poor initial decision doesn't then justify everything that happens after. The drunk driver was still in the wrong despite your choice.

Being simplistic is not proof that the reading of a situation is incorrect.  The simplest explanation is often the correct one -- I believe you've taken refuge in that truism more than once.

The tail light is also, ultimately irrelevant because cops can't retroactively justify their force by going into someone's record and finding bad behavior before. Unless the agents who fired could say "I recognized him as the person who kicked out tail light out last week" then it doesn't matter what he did previously. If you want to sit here and judge the character of Pretti then sure, you can use that property damage in your judgement but my comments focus on the agent's actions in deciding to shoot him. So maybe Pretti was full on TDS, a trouble maker, an angry emotional person, etc etc etc but the relevant question is whether he was doing something that justified the use of lethal force.

Show me where anyone here said agents who shot him were even aware of the tail light vandalism much less that they used it as justification.  The whole reason the tail light incident is relevant is it goes to the irrational and rage-fueled actions of Pretti.  That's not someone who needs to be armed when "protesting" ICE.

Think of it this way, imagine you have a CCW firearm and officers stop you for speeding. They find a warrant for an unpaid ticket and they arrest you. In the process of handcuffing you, one officer sees a gun on your waistband and yells "gun!". The officer then removes it from your waistband. Officer 2 and 3 then pull out their guns and shoot you because they hear you have a gun and maybe they even see it briefly. Yes it was your fault for speeding and for not paying your prior ticket but does that justify cops shooting you after the gun was removed from you safely by the first officer? No, the initial poor decision made by you doesn't then justify every use of force decision by the cops after that and it doesn't automatically excuse all of their mistakes either.

At the point the officers initially fired, did Pretti pose a deadly threat to officers? Since he was disarmed he obviously couldn't shoot anyone. Was there cause for thinking he might be armed? Sure, someone yelled gun so it would be reasonable for officers to draw their firearms but merely hearing the word gun is not a very good justification to start firing. What did they actually see that would justify them firing and continuing to fire? Obviously I don't know what they put in their reports and I only have what is in the video to go off of but I can't see anything to justify pulling the trigger. Maybe there is something more not audible or something the officer saw, like him grabbing a knife (made up example) which could justify the shooting but again, I am only going on what we can see from the videos. And since two officers fired, each officer has to justify his own decision, they can't simply say "I saw my partner firing so I fired too".

Look at it this way.  There were multiple agents trying to subdue Pretti.  If one or two agents knew his gun was secured and no longer on his person, how does that translate to others who only heard "Gun! Gun!"?  You are looking at it after the fact and with video you can study over and over.  In that instant, not all the of the agents were aware the gun was removed from the holster.  One video seems to illustrate it was Pretti's gun that discharged first after it was removed.  That prompted the officers who killed him to open fire.  Until there's a complete analysis of the shooting, anything you believe happened is just hearsay -- you weren't there.

The Good shooting wasn't great, there were mistakes made all around, but it was a more justifiable shooting than this. They shot him thinking he had a gun after an officer had already removed the firearm, that is a  mistake on the part of the officers, not of Pretti. Pretti had little to no control at that point and since he was disarmed there wasn't an actual lethal threat present. This is why officer's screwed up. Does the chaos factor into it all to where officers could have reasonably believed they were in imminent danger? It sure does, but they also made mistakes along the way, actions which if they had handled better might not have lead to the shooting. That is why I have said I don't think criminal charges are appropriate but there is room to make the case that the agents made mistakes.

no, "initially" began when he left house without ID and CCW license
then continued when he was confronting police without identifying that he had a firearm and a permit to carry...

Your "initially" isn't the initial start. It began when he was in the road, thus no longer protesting on a public sidewalk.

So "initially", he was in the middle of the road.  Had he not done this, ICE would have not approached him.

That's stupid.  What the officer intended -- arrest or not -- doesn't change the fact that Pretti was trying to confront and interfere with the officer's actions.  How can the legality of HIS actions be contingent on the intentions of the AGENT?  It's a stupid argument.  It's analogous to shooting someone who points a gun at you and later finding the gun wasn't loaded.  Does your action then become unjustified based on unknowable facts?

Since when does the law allow protestors to attack cops based on their personal perception of whether or not the cop's actions are justifiable force?  You're attempting to justify Pretti's actions based on facts that could only be known after the fact -- unless, like you, Pretti is also a mind reader.

Show me where anyone here said agents who shot him were even aware of the tail light vandalism much less that they used it as justification.

The whole reason the tail light incident is relevant is it goes to the irrational and rage-fueled actions of Pretti.  That's not someone who needs to be armed when "protesting" ICE.

Look at it this way.  There were multiple agents trying to subdue Pretti.  If one or two agents knew his gun was secured and no longer on his person, how does that translate to others who only heard "Gun! Gun!"?  You are looking at it after the fact and with video you can study over and over.  In that instant, not all the of the agents were aware the gun was removed from the holster.  One video seems to illustrate it was Pretti's gun that discharged first after it was removed.  That prompted the officers who killed him to open fire.  Until there's a complete analysis of the shooting, anything you believe happened is just hearsay -- you weren't there.

My take is this, and some of you out there will disagree:  If I decide to conceal carry, it is for my SELF PROTECTION AND PROTECTION OF MY LOVED ONES.

Knowing I am carrying, I take all my actions (what I do, where I go, what I say, and how I act amongst people) seriously.

I simply won't engage in illegal activity, no matter how small, even if it just involves a slap on the wrist, a simple misdemeanor, or a citation.  I won't do it WHILE ARMED.

Pedestrian in roadway is a minor offense and not something ICE even addresses unless he is blocking their vehicles. They didn't even focus on him until he tried to help the lady up. Either way it doesn't factor into whether the shooting is justified or not.. Yeah he is breaking some law but he is in the camp of those protesters who daisy chain themselves to block roadways. Arrestable offense sure but not a lethal force one.

I fully agree with this sentiment with one caveat as it relates to the actions of law enforcement. There is always the possibility that someone with a CCW could be mistaken for a suspect (match description / in same area / etc.) which would lead to an officer detaining the individual. In such a situation, officers may discover the person is armed and it is upon them to react appropriately. Imagine if Officer A saw your CCW, announced it and Officer B then opened fire... This is where officers need to handle the situation correctly, where the agents in the Pretti shooting made a mistake.

This is precious.

The whole thing is.

Are you confused about where you are posting this shit?

Every damn one of us viewed multiple videos of this shit-bag insurgent intervening in, and grappling with, the officers, while they were involved in an arrest - KNOWING HE WAS CARRYING!

Then, we learned HE DID THIS SHIT REGULARLY - carrying while assaulting officers carrying out their duty to arrest criminals.

Get the fuck out of here with this IDIOT REVISION SHIT!

Thank you

He left out, "then you (the CCW holder) fights/resist officers."