Since you asked in a civil matter without the typical personal attacks. (Much appreciated BTW). Here is my take on the situation.
If you lean left, if you care deeply about civil rights, human dignity, abuse of power, and protecting vulnerable people, these questions are for you too. They are not an attack on compassion or empathy, and they are not a demand that you abandon your values. They are an invitation to slow the moment down and ask whether the way we act in the street actually aligns with the outcomes we say we want. Caring about people and thinking critically are not opposites. Wanting safer communities, fair laws, and humane treatment does not require chaos, escalation, or putting lives at risk. If the goal is justice, accountability, and fewer people harmed, then common sense, restraint, and clear thinking belong in the conversation just as much as passion does.
If I am protesting the arrest of people with criminal histories, do I fully understand what those histories are? Do I know the difference between a civil immigration violation and a violent or repeat criminal offense? Am I reacting to a headline, or to verified facts about the individual cases involved? Would I be willing to personally take responsibility for one of the people being arrested? Would I adopt one of these individuals into my home if the alternative were detention or deportation? Would I be willing to be legally responsible for their actions while their case is pending? Would I provide food, shelter, transportation, and daily supervision? Would I transport them back and forth to court dates or immigration hearings? Would I guarantee they appear in court if released into my care, and if they failed to appear, would I accept legal consequences for that failure? Would I allow them to sleep under my roof with my children in the house? Would I feel comfortable leaving them alone in my home? Would I trust them around my spouse, my kids, my neighbors, or my pets? Would I install locks, cameras, or safeguards, and if so, why would those be necessary? Would I accept financial liability if they caused harm or property damage? Would I still defend my position publicly if the person I sponsored reoffended? If I would not take one person into my own home, why do I expect society to absorb unlimited risk? Is compassion meaningful if it never requires personal sacrifice? Is it moral to demand outcomes I would not personally participate in?
What business is this of mine, right now, in this moment? Am I directly involved in what is happening, or am I inserting myself into something that does not concern me legally or practically? What do I believe will actually change because I am standing here today? Am I confusing feeling strongly with thinking clearly? If I walk away right now, does anything meaningful get worse, or do I just lose the feeling of being involved? What is my specific goal here? Is my goal emotional release, public visibility, moral signaling, or an actual policy outcome? Can I clearly explain what law I want changed and how that change would realistically occur? Do laws change because of street interference, or because of legislation, courts, elections, and sustained pressure? If my actions today succeed perfectly, what does success actually look like tomorrow morning? Am I assuming everyone else will stay calm while I act impulsively? Am I relying on someone else’s restraint to protect me from the consequences of my own choices? Do loud noises, crowds, and adrenaline usually improve judgment, or do they make mistakes more likely? If something goes wrong, am I prepared to accept responsibility for my role in it?
Why am I standing this close to armed professionals performing a job I do not control? Do I believe proximity increases my moral authority, or does it just increase risk? If a vehicle moves unexpectedly, if someone panics, if someone stumbles, what happens next? Is this moment worth someone getting hurt? Is it worth me getting hurt? What am I hoping the officers will do differently because I am here? Do I believe yelling, blocking, or interfering causes better outcomes, or just faster escalation? If I believe enforcement is wrong, am I creating evidence and records, or am I creating chaos, and which one actually helps courts, oversight, and accountability? If I care about people being arrested, have I supported legal aid, court navigation, or lawful advocacy? Have I spent time understanding the legal process I am trying to disrupt, or am I performing concern in public?
If I were writing the law myself, what would it actually say? How would it handle violent offenders, repeat offenders, and due process? What resources would it require, where would that money come from, and what unintended consequences would it create? Do I believe laws stop applying when enough people disagree with them, and if that were true, which laws would still exist tomorrow? Would I want that standard applied to issues I care about less? Have I ever called 911? Do I expect law enforcement to exist when I need help, and if so, how do I reconcile that with believing all enforcement is illegitimate? If I am not a citizen, do I believe street chaos improves my legal outcome, or would calm legal counsel and verified support help more than confrontation?
Am I here to save lives, or to feel righteous? If someone is injured today, will I still believe this was worth it? If nothing changes at all, will I admit this accomplished nothing? Am I thinking, or am I reacting? Am I acting out of principle, or out of anger? If I walk away, does that make me weak, or does it make me rational? What happens after today, after the crowd leaves, after the cameras are gone? What does my future look like if this escalates instead of resolves? Is common sense cowardice, or is it how people go home alive?
These questions are not meant to shame, silence, or score points. They exist to interrupt reflex and replace it with thought. Before stepping into the street, before escalating a moment that cannot be taken back, before assuming righteousness guarantees safety, it is worth sitting with these questions honestly. Not to prove anything to others, but to be clear with ourselves. Lives are not improved by confusion, noise, or impulse. They are improved by clarity, responsibility, and choices that reduce harm rather than multiply it. If thinking carefully keeps even one person from getting hurt, then asking the questions matters.
I don't believe it was necessary to have shot and killed Alex Pretti. I also don't believe it was necessary for him to show up as an armed protestor. I also wasn't at the scene and don't know the exact circumstances that led to his death. Neither was anyone else on this message board.
