OPINION: The most important command

I originally had a nice, cheery column ready for today about funny differences between the U.S. and U.K. That’s going to have to wait until next week because the fear and anger I feel is too great.

It’s impossible to know what’s going on in Minneapolis right now. However, I’ve found that some people have very different views on what’s being done.

“The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most important command,” George Orwell wrote in his novel “1984.”

While most of us are not there witnessing firsthand what is happening, there are videos galore showing the truth. We can witness the shootings of multiple protestors from every possible angle and somehow still argue about what we saw. How numb have we become?

The most recent event was the murder of Alex Pretti, an Veterans Affairs ICU nurse who was filming border patrol agents acting alongside ICE in immigration enforcement action. He had a holstered handgun, which he was legally able to carry. Prior to where most videos start, Pretti had been helping direct traffic alongside filming law enforcement agents.

When a protester next to him was pushed down by ICE, he tried to help her up, at which point they were both pepper sprayed. Pretti was wrestled to the ground, with an agent taking Pretti’s gun out of its holster and away from the scene. Pretti was then shot at least 10 times within five seconds. At no point does Pretti reach for the gun or point the gun at any officer. As is seen from numerous video angles, Pretti holds his phone recording the event in one hand and has his other hand raised. This does not change until he is pinned to the ground and shot in the back.

The fact that these videos can be easily seen and are publicized everywhere shows how used to this violence we have become. Apparently, that’s the only “fact” of the case. Despite video evidence of the opposite, the Department of Homeland Security claimed in a statement that Pretti “approached U.S. Border Patrol officers with a 9 mm semi-automatic handgun” and reacted violently when they attempted to disarm him. Did we watch the same event happen? Why are we being asked to ignore what we see and instead believe what we are told?

Apparently, the fact that Pretti was at the protest with his legally-permitted gun holstered is reason enough to murder him. In fact, the head of Border Patrol, Greg Bovino, even suggested that Pretti may have been at the protest to do “maximum damage” and “massacre law enforcement.”

Weren’t these the same people proudly defending the Second Amendment once upon a time? Kyle Rittenhouse shot three people, killing two of them, at a protest in Kenosha, Wisconsin, in 2020. He is often lauded as a hero in these circles, yet Pretti, who didn’t even reach for his gun, deserves to be killed for having a gun at a protest?

Even the NRA and the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus have stepped in, speaking against the DHS’s comments regarding Pretti having a gun.

“Every peaceable Minnesotan has the right to keep and bear arms — including while attending protests, acting as observers, or exercising their First Amendment rights,” the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus said in a statement. “These rights do not disappear when someone is lawfully armed.”

When organizations around firearms are siding with “the left” on an issue, you know the world has become a scary place.

Unless something changes very soon, I have no doubt this type of thought and behavior will spread. With that being said, I’d like to remind everyone of an important part of history.

Following World War II, during the 1945-46 Nuremberg Trials, the defense argued that most of the Nazis and German citizens were innocent because they had simply been following orders. However the Allies did not accept this as a plausible plea of innocence.

The London Charter of the International Military Tribunal explicitly stated that following an unlawful order is not a valid defense against charges of war crimes. Nuremberg Principle IV, one of seven guidelines set by the United Nations following WWII on what constitutes a war crime, stated, “The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.”

I am proud of the people who go out to protest what the federal government is doing, and I am proud of those in the government who remember to follow their morals rather than simply doing what they are told.

As a reader, I’ve read a lot about fighting through tyranny and what living through World War II was like, both through fantasy and historical fiction. I never thought those lessons would come into play in my personal life until now. Stay strong.