Rights Aren’t Partisan — Even When It’s Uncomfortable. You Don’t Get Different Rights Based on Who You Support.
Quick disclaimer: I’m mad at both sides right now. Cut the fucking shit — because selectively applying rights is how we lose them.
Dragging the Rittenhouse case into this doesn’t make yesterday clearer — it muddies it. And it gives bad actors cover to say, “See? It’s all the same.”
It’s not.
This isn’t about liking outcomes. It’s about not lying.
And here’s the part that makes me the angriest: the selective outrage.
You don’t get to scream “constitutional rights” and then conveniently ignore them
To the Trump supporters rushing to say “Alex Jeffrey Pretti had a weapon” as if that alone justifies what happened — be serious.
You spent years defending Kyle Rittenhouse carrying a rifle openly, around his neck, in public. You argued it was his right. You argued legality mattered. You argued that presence alone wasn’t intent.
But now a man carrying a legally concealed, holstered firearm, untouched, at the small of his back — a textbook example of lawful carry — suddenly forfeits his right to live?
That’s not constitutional consistency.
That’s convenience.
If a visible rifle didn’t automatically make Kyle a threat, then a holstered weapon absolutely does not make Alex Jeffrey Pretti one.
You don’t get it both ways.
And to my own side — stop flattening the law because you hate Kyle
I’m anti-Trump.
I do not like Kyle Rittenhouse.
I do not think he made good choices.
But here’s the hard truth: we do not need to pretend that case didn’t meet a legal standard in order to condemn what happened yesterday.
Kyle’s case was litigated around imminent threat during an active attack.
Alex Jeffrey Pretti was not attacking, not advancing, not armed in hand, and not a threat.
We do not strengthen accountability by abusing precedent.
We weaken it.
You can believe:
•Kyle made reckless decisions and
•His case met a specific legal standard and
•What happened to Alex Jeffrey Pretti was unjustifiable
All three can be true.
What you can’t do — on either side — is selectively apply rights, facts, and standards based on who you sympathize with.
That’s how rights die.
Not all at once — but through hypocrisy.
What I’m seeing online right now — comparing Kyle Rittenhouse to what happened yesterday with Alex Jeffrey Pretti — is either ignorance or intentional manipulation.
They are not the same.
The Kyle Rittenhouse case is legally resolved — whether we like it or not
You don’t get to rewrite this case because it makes you uncomfortable.
Here are the facts:
•He did not cross state lines with a weapon
•The rifle was already in the state, stored at a friend’s house
•He worked in that state and traveled there regularly
•The rifle was technically legal due to a poorly written, outdated Wisconsin law tied to hunting
Like it or not, he was legally allowed to possess it.
When the shooting happened:
•He was chased
•He was cornered
•He was physically attacked
•People attempted to disarm him
A jury found that, in that moment, he reasonably feared for his life and acted in self-defense.
Do I agree with his choices? No.
Do I think he should have been there with a rifle? Absolutely not.
Do I think reckless judgment automatically makes someone a murderer? Also no — and neither does the law.
That case hinged on imminent threat — and the jury ruled accordingly.
What happened to Alex Jeffrey Pretti is not that — at all
Now let’s talk about yesterday.
Federal agencies are already pushing a narrative that Alex Jeffrey Pretti was:
•armed
•aggressively approaching agents
•posing a threat
That narrative collapses the moment you look at the evidence.
What video and eyewitness accounts show:
•Alex Jeffrey had a cell phone in his hand, recording
•His other hand was **empty and raised
At the end of the day, this isn’t about who you like, who you hate, or which political team you’re on.
It’s about whether constitutional rights mean anything when it’s inconvenient.
Kyle Rittenhouse made reckless choices and survived because a jury found the legal standard for self-defense was met in that moment — not because people liked him, not because his choices were good, and not because the outcome felt fair.
Alex Jeffrey Pretti was unarmed, restrained, and killed while exercising the same constitutional rights people claim to care about.
If you’re using Kyle Rittenhouse to justify what happened to Alex Jeffrey Pretti, you’re not defending the Constitution — you’re hollowing it out.
You don’t get to support open carry one day and treat a holstered weapon as a death sentence the next.
You don’t get to demand due process for people you sympathize with and deny it to someone you don’t.
That isn’t law.
That’s hypocrisy.
And that hypocrisy — the selective application of rights, facts, and standards — is how rights disappear. Not all at once, but quietly, selectively, and with applause.
This was not “another Rittenhouse.”
And bad comparisons don’t justify murder
Video analysis of what occurred with Alex Jeffrey Pretti - https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=pfbid02mJKwKddugccWWMNWCGLSrTgCnXmRgF5dNmP87p1K6VvYCUv86ifx7j7PT9DHFGVgl&id=100064382930580
Update since my original post: One officer reportedly removed Alex Jeffrey’s legally concealed firearm, and it discharged during that process. That is cited as the reason the other officer opened fire.
Here’s the problem. The officers were the aggressors. They physically assaulted protesters who did not touch them, did not brandish weapons, did not threaten them. Protesters blew whistles. They held cell phones. Some lawfully carried concealed firearms and made no motion to reach for them.
If officers had not unlawfully assaulted the protesters,Alex Jeffrey would not have been on the ground being detained and disarmed in the first place. Yes—when officers are lawfully detaining someone, removing a weapon is standard. And if, in that lawful context, a weapon accidentally discharged, I could understand how another officer might believe they were being fired upon.
That is not what happened here. And firing that many times under these circumstances?
Hard no.
