When a US judge has to issue a restraining order[1] against DHS preventing them from altering or destroying evidence - as they have done numerous times in Chicago[2,3] - we've already crossed the Rubicon.
"What does it mean, exactly, if the federal government chooses a policy of killing Americans it does not like and then—as JD Vance might say—“creating stories” about its victims?
Well, it means that the federal government is at war with the citizenry. Or at least the part of the citizenry it deems undesirable. These citizens—the ones the president dislikes—no longer enjoy the full rights and protections of the Constitution. They belong to a subclass which may be abused, subjugated, or murdered, at the president’s discretion, with no recourse.
It also means that the federal government is no longer bound by law. If agents of the state may kill people in public without being investigated; if they have—again, per Vice President Vance—“absolute immunity” from prosecution then we are living in an authoritarian regime subject to “rule by law” rather than the “rule of law.”
I get the sense that most Americans do not want to follow these ideas to their logical conclusions. They think that if their life in New York, or Tulsa, or Phoenix still looks normal then it can’t be real authoritarianism.
But if people in Minneapolis can be treated this way then Americans anywhere can be treated this way. Your world only looks free because the regime has not yet sent its agents to your door."
I think the thin line you're describing isn't between civilized policing and a police state—it's the boundary between a lawful society and the lawless mob rule the Framers explicitly warned against.
Your story illustrates the careful chain of trust, judgment, and procedure that safeguards liberty: a judge's signature on a warrant, officers' discretion, and accountability through the system. When functioning correctly, it protects everyone from arbitrary force. But when protests escalate to disrupting services in a house of worship or assaulting law enforcement, they actively destroy this system. There's no justification for such rioting or attacks unless one rejects the laws' legitimacy outright. Justify it however you like—this isn't reform; it's embracing the mob rule the Founders feared would destroy civilization.
A society without enforced laws offers no true freedom. It exists precisely because of guardrails like calling 911 during a threat or seeking recourse for violations. Without them, might makes right, leaving no one safe—citizen or immigrant alike. Consider Haiti's failed state, where "complete freedom" without laws or governance means gangs rule through violence, services collapse, and daily life becomes a survival struggle amid unchecked power grabs. Hope for the future dies there. That's not liberty.
You cannot advocate for lawlessness and then demand lawful prosecution against the individuals attempting to maintain the laws when they enforce them. America's greatest strength hasn't been perfection, but our legal system, which evolves through debate and amendment.
The real threat to that "thin thread" isn't judges signing warrants or officers executing them—it's the erosion of respect for law itself. Defending lawlessness as protest invites the very breakdown you're cautioning against. Civilization stands where your fist stops at my nose, not where it crosses into anarchy.
Allow the People of Minnesota to marshal their evidence and present the case that ICE agents murdered Good and Pretti, and allow ICE to defend Ross and Pretti's killer, and let a jury of their peers decide.
The Law doesn't exist as long as there's a class of people for whom it does not apply.
To your initial point, I couldn't agree more—but first everyone in this country should take a basic civics course or better yet an intro criminal law class.
It is staggering how many people confuse misdemeanors with felonies, assault with battery, or even actually understand how prosecutions actually happen.
The bedrock of our system is presumed innocence and, in criminal cases, the requirement for a positive verdict is that of a unanimous jury—beyond a reasonable doubt. I am sorry, these are tragic events, but there is at least reasonable doubt in both of these cases.
When the evidence doesn't support a realistic path to meet that high bar of proof, prosecutors (especially federal ones) simply don't pursue charges—or at least they shouldn't. It's not immunity; it's fidelity to the most basic rule of law—presumption of innocence!
Chasing unwinnable cases wastes scarce public resources and erodes trust in the system.
Demanding exceptions just because we "wish things were different" or "ICE is evil" isn't justice—it's lawlessness dressed up as outrage. True reform starts with respecting the process we've built, not bending it to fit emotions or narratives. If we abandon that foundation, we invite the very chaos the Framers designed the Constitution to prevent.
Let's give the State of Minnesota access to the evidence and let THEM decide whether to present the case to a grand jury. The accused working for the federal gov't are defendants in this case, not the prosecution.
If the State of Minnesota says that they don't meet the bar to prosecute Ross and the other fellow - I'm happy to abide by that. But that's not what's happening here.
State of Minnesota has no standing in this federal case. A party must have a direct, personal stake in the outcome—suffering actual harm or having a legal interest—to bring a lawsuit. Here, federal agents acting in official capacity fall squarely under federal jurisdiction, not state. States can’t just muscle in because they want to. Claiming this is political theater from people who benefit from this unrest.
All cases are divvied up by jurisdiction and expertise. You don't prosecute a murder in traffic court.
Generally City Attorneys handle local ordinances like municipal violations. District Attorneys prosecute state-level crimes in their counties, including murder under Minnesota Law. Federal Attorneys tackle violations of federal statutes, like civil rights abuses, especially involving federal agents.
BTW, these federal prosecutors, they are real people—often your neighbors who work at the local federal courthouse. They are the experts you want prosecuting the case, they have specialized training in federal procedures, evidence rules, and nuances of the court. If there’s a winnable case against either of these officers, they would pursue it vigorously, but not in Minneapolis, because even if a verdict was won, the case would be thrown out for lack of a fair trial, free from local bias.
Demanding that Minnesota “get access” and decide on a grand jury ignores this structure—it’s not their call. If evidence supports charges, a federal grand jury will review it objectively. Handing it to the city or county, who are not equipped for federal intricacies, is selective justice at its worst, bending rules for emotional satisfaction.
Let's consider the alternative worst-case scenarios: What if Good had actually run over the officer, or if Pretti had accidentally shot one? Would the officers’ families get a fair trial under the City Attorney of Minneapolis? No—they would insist on following the rule of law, ensuring the Federal Attorney with proper jurisdiction pursues the case.
The processes are just as much part of the law as the statutes themselves, and selective justice under the law is unlawful, undermining the equality it promises.
Let me be clear: these are heartbreaking stories that demand accountability. But pushing for unique exceptions to the law because we are outraged and crowds are in the streets throwing rocks? That is the definition of anarchy, plain and simple and the mob ruling.
Murder is certainly within the jurisdiction of the state. It is specifically delegated to states as police powers. The State of Minnesota has standing to investigate, potentially charge, try, convict, and punish federal agents for murder even in the course of their work. Therefore in service of this public responsibility, Minnesota has standing to file suit in federal court to preserve or obtain evidence in its investigation.
If federal prosecutors actually had a chance to examine the evidence and were free to let let the law and the facts take them where it led them - to prosecute or not - you'd have a point. However, those federal prosecutors' bosses have repeatedly proven themselves to NOT be good faith actors in this regard, so there's actually no chance for justice to be served.
This gets back to my original point - if the Law is not enforced (and it's not by Bondi, Noem, Bovino, all the way up to Trump) - then it does not exist. Fundamentally, this Law is premised on a social contract - when the State (the federal gov't in this case) fails to honor its obligations, then what obligation do the People (individuals, actual States like Minnesota) have to hold up their end of the agreement? None.
I think no-knock warrants and civil asset forfeiture severed the thread between law and a police state long ago.
ICE is imperfect but no more so than the rest of society. I recently read an article that attempted to use an argument by Milton Friedman to justify illegal immigration. Friedman stated that illegals provide cheap labor while enriching the USA's treasury by paying into benefit programs and taxes that would never benefit them. He was very careful to mention that it applied only if illegal immigration remained illegal so that illegal immigrant troublemakers could be rounded up and deported. We passed that point during the Biden administration, maybe even a few years earlier. The problem is that illegal immigration became de facto legal with no enforcement of the border and because of sanctuary states and cities. Illegals now share some of our benefits thanks to some state and local governments or by fraud. And they have become too numerous to round up and deport. Even if they are detained, deportation is a far greater ordeal because local judges act outside their boundaries and unnecessarily extend the process.
The media and left-wing protesters and sanctuary locale politicians have managed to turn a civil administrative process into a judicial nightmare. They are to blame.
That's pretty iffy. If the penalty for misjudgment is not limited or if the salary is not enough to pay for liability insurance (which I can't imagine being affordable), we could not hire any honest, reliable cops. I would never have done any structural engineering work, even for a Fortune 500 company, if I could be sentenced to the electric chair for misplacing a decimal point. All design work is double checked by a PE so who gets the chair? In the case of a cop, does the psychologist who determines his fitness for duty share responsibility? It's easy for a high IQ booleanista who has no peril in this regard to criticize others.
If the risk of cops violating someone's rights and committing crimes against the communities they served wasn't so high, then liability insurance wouldn't be so expensive.
If I make a misjudgement and someone is hurt or killed by that misjudgement, then I don't get a "Get Out of Jail Free" card. Why should we hold those responsible for enforcing the law to a lower standard than the community they're enforcing it for? It seems that by NOT hiring honest and responsible cops, insurance prices are being driven up, creating a chicken-and-egg problem.
And how does that make you in peril for that in your profession? Yeah, you can drive drunk or mishandle a firearm but that is not what you do for a living every day.
Yep. I knew one of you guys would comment on that. Just left it in to see who was paying the most attention. Of course, I meant that no one drives drunk daily to make a living. But I could have said that most people probably might be required to use force to combat a threat if required on a daily basis thereby subjecting themselves to second guessing.
Asylum claimants are legal until determined to not have a valid claim. Biden followed the law, and then when Congress was ready to pass a bill to change the law Trump came out against it - and the GOP went along with his desires.
So far it appears we just needed a new president - not new laws. Mr. Trump has pretty much stopped illegal crossings and detained those that are caught. President Biden had that authority, but his controlling cabal did not allow him to function.
Remember how Biden changed the entry requirements for claiming asylum, forcing claimants to go through ports of entry? That started the reduction in illegal crossings, whereas the rise in illegal crossings started under Trump in 2020.
I remember Biden's handlers granting automatic parole to illegals if they used the online application. It hugely increased the number of unvetted illegals.
It’s more complex than that. Asylum claims can take years to decide. The U.S. has (even under Democrats) a policy of prioritizing these claims and it’s not mandatory to allow pending asylum claimants to remain in the USA. In fact the Trump admin has (legally) negotiated third country visas while these claims are decided. So claiming asylum is not enough to allow an immigrant to stay here.
The bar for officers of the state must always be much, much higher than the bar for citizens even if they are breaking the law. If there was no immediate threat to officers, the shooting is never ever justified and you cannot blame the victim.
I'm a member of a local ICE Watch group, and I assure you that we watch our neighborhood and alert our neighbors to ICE's presence for free.
I still don't understand why folks insist that this opposition is financed by a shadowy cabal - and fail to present any evidence for that theory - when it's people looking out for their neighbors. Are those accusing everyone else of being paid so devoid of their own sincerely-held principles that they can't imagine anyone bothering themselves do do anything unless compensated? That says more about the accusers than the accused.
Should ICE show up, we blow whistles to alert the neighborhood, film the interaction and detention, and try to get enough information to pass on to a lawyer about the person being detained so that they can get their due process before being disappeared to another state.
I saw aggressive resistance to whatever the ICE officers were directing Pretti to do. Don't know what those orders were but it should not matter if he were interfering or threatening.
As shown in the link you have above - they had disarmed him before they shot him. It'd be easy to state "mistakes were made" - especially as it looks like the.agentnthat disarmed him may have negligently fired the confiscated weapon - but the admin decided to say he was looking to massacre federal agents.
When a US judge has to issue a restraining order[1] against DHS preventing them from altering or destroying evidence - as they have done numerous times in Chicago[2,3] - we've already crossed the Rubicon.
[1] https://www.cbsnews.com/minnesota/live-updates/reported-shooting-south-minneapolis-federal-agents-protesters/
[2] https://www.404media.co/two-weeks-of-surveillance-footage-from-ice-detention-center-irretrievably-destroyed/
[3] https://www.cnn.com/2025/10/16/us/chicago-car-ramming-case-ice-protests
Amen Steve, Amen.
Similar take from JVL at https://www.thebulwark.com/p/emergency-triad-another-american-murdered-dhs-minneapolis-alex-jeffrey-pretti?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web:
"What does it mean, exactly, if the federal government chooses a policy of killing Americans it does not like and then—as JD Vance might say—“creating stories” about its victims?
Well, it means that the federal government is at war with the citizenry. Or at least the part of the citizenry it deems undesirable. These citizens—the ones the president dislikes—no longer enjoy the full rights and protections of the Constitution. They belong to a subclass which may be abused, subjugated, or murdered, at the president’s discretion, with no recourse.
It also means that the federal government is no longer bound by law. If agents of the state may kill people in public without being investigated; if they have—again, per Vice President Vance—“absolute immunity” from prosecution then we are living in an authoritarian regime subject to “rule by law” rather than the “rule of law.”
I get the sense that most Americans do not want to follow these ideas to their logical conclusions. They think that if their life in New York, or Tulsa, or Phoenix still looks normal then it can’t be real authoritarianism.
But if people in Minneapolis can be treated this way then Americans anywhere can be treated this way. Your world only looks free because the regime has not yet sent its agents to your door."
If we could chalk it up to poor training it'd be one thing, but a lot of these agents have many years of experience with ICE and/or CBP and still fail to follow policy - and then take this into account: https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/us-border-agents-intentionally-stepped-front-moving-vehicles-justify-shooting-them/
I think the thin line you're describing isn't between civilized policing and a police state—it's the boundary between a lawful society and the lawless mob rule the Framers explicitly warned against.
Your story illustrates the careful chain of trust, judgment, and procedure that safeguards liberty: a judge's signature on a warrant, officers' discretion, and accountability through the system. When functioning correctly, it protects everyone from arbitrary force. But when protests escalate to disrupting services in a house of worship or assaulting law enforcement, they actively destroy this system. There's no justification for such rioting or attacks unless one rejects the laws' legitimacy outright. Justify it however you like—this isn't reform; it's embracing the mob rule the Founders feared would destroy civilization.
A society without enforced laws offers no true freedom. It exists precisely because of guardrails like calling 911 during a threat or seeking recourse for violations. Without them, might makes right, leaving no one safe—citizen or immigrant alike. Consider Haiti's failed state, where "complete freedom" without laws or governance means gangs rule through violence, services collapse, and daily life becomes a survival struggle amid unchecked power grabs. Hope for the future dies there. That's not liberty.
You cannot advocate for lawlessness and then demand lawful prosecution against the individuals attempting to maintain the laws when they enforce them. America's greatest strength hasn't been perfection, but our legal system, which evolves through debate and amendment.
The real threat to that "thin thread" isn't judges signing warrants or officers executing them—it's the erosion of respect for law itself. Defending lawlessness as protest invites the very breakdown you're cautioning against. Civilization stands where your fist stops at my nose, not where it crosses into anarchy.
Allow The Law to be enforced then.
Allow the People of Minnesota to marshal their evidence and present the case that ICE agents murdered Good and Pretti, and allow ICE to defend Ross and Pretti's killer, and let a jury of their peers decide.
The Law doesn't exist as long as there's a class of people for whom it does not apply.
To your initial point, I couldn't agree more—but first everyone in this country should take a basic civics course or better yet an intro criminal law class.
It is staggering how many people confuse misdemeanors with felonies, assault with battery, or even actually understand how prosecutions actually happen.
The bedrock of our system is presumed innocence and, in criminal cases, the requirement for a positive verdict is that of a unanimous jury—beyond a reasonable doubt. I am sorry, these are tragic events, but there is at least reasonable doubt in both of these cases.
When the evidence doesn't support a realistic path to meet that high bar of proof, prosecutors (especially federal ones) simply don't pursue charges—or at least they shouldn't. It's not immunity; it's fidelity to the most basic rule of law—presumption of innocence!
Chasing unwinnable cases wastes scarce public resources and erodes trust in the system.
Demanding exceptions just because we "wish things were different" or "ICE is evil" isn't justice—it's lawlessness dressed up as outrage. True reform starts with respecting the process we've built, not bending it to fit emotions or narratives. If we abandon that foundation, we invite the very chaos the Framers designed the Constitution to prevent.
Let's give the State of Minnesota access to the evidence and let THEM decide whether to present the case to a grand jury. The accused working for the federal gov't are defendants in this case, not the prosecution.
If the State of Minnesota says that they don't meet the bar to prosecute Ross and the other fellow - I'm happy to abide by that. But that's not what's happening here.
Standing is another bedrock of lawful society.
State of Minnesota has no standing in this federal case. A party must have a direct, personal stake in the outcome—suffering actual harm or having a legal interest—to bring a lawsuit. Here, federal agents acting in official capacity fall squarely under federal jurisdiction, not state. States can’t just muscle in because they want to. Claiming this is political theater from people who benefit from this unrest.
All cases are divvied up by jurisdiction and expertise. You don't prosecute a murder in traffic court.
Generally City Attorneys handle local ordinances like municipal violations. District Attorneys prosecute state-level crimes in their counties, including murder under Minnesota Law. Federal Attorneys tackle violations of federal statutes, like civil rights abuses, especially involving federal agents.
BTW, these federal prosecutors, they are real people—often your neighbors who work at the local federal courthouse. They are the experts you want prosecuting the case, they have specialized training in federal procedures, evidence rules, and nuances of the court. If there’s a winnable case against either of these officers, they would pursue it vigorously, but not in Minneapolis, because even if a verdict was won, the case would be thrown out for lack of a fair trial, free from local bias.
Demanding that Minnesota “get access” and decide on a grand jury ignores this structure—it’s not their call. If evidence supports charges, a federal grand jury will review it objectively. Handing it to the city or county, who are not equipped for federal intricacies, is selective justice at its worst, bending rules for emotional satisfaction.
Let's consider the alternative worst-case scenarios: What if Good had actually run over the officer, or if Pretti had accidentally shot one? Would the officers’ families get a fair trial under the City Attorney of Minneapolis? No—they would insist on following the rule of law, ensuring the Federal Attorney with proper jurisdiction pursues the case.
The processes are just as much part of the law as the statutes themselves, and selective justice under the law is unlawful, undermining the equality it promises.
Let me be clear: these are heartbreaking stories that demand accountability. But pushing for unique exceptions to the law because we are outraged and crowds are in the streets throwing rocks? That is the definition of anarchy, plain and simple and the mob ruling.
Murder is certainly within the jurisdiction of the state. It is specifically delegated to states as police powers. The State of Minnesota has standing to investigate, potentially charge, try, convict, and punish federal agents for murder even in the course of their work. Therefore in service of this public responsibility, Minnesota has standing to file suit in federal court to preserve or obtain evidence in its investigation.
If federal prosecutors actually had a chance to examine the evidence and were free to let let the law and the facts take them where it led them - to prosecute or not - you'd have a point. However, those federal prosecutors' bosses have repeatedly proven themselves to NOT be good faith actors in this regard, so there's actually no chance for justice to be served.
This gets back to my original point - if the Law is not enforced (and it's not by Bondi, Noem, Bovino, all the way up to Trump) - then it does not exist. Fundamentally, this Law is premised on a social contract - when the State (the federal gov't in this case) fails to honor its obligations, then what obligation do the People (individuals, actual States like Minnesota) have to hold up their end of the agreement? None.
I think no-knock warrants and civil asset forfeiture severed the thread between law and a police state long ago.
ICE is imperfect but no more so than the rest of society. I recently read an article that attempted to use an argument by Milton Friedman to justify illegal immigration. Friedman stated that illegals provide cheap labor while enriching the USA's treasury by paying into benefit programs and taxes that would never benefit them. He was very careful to mention that it applied only if illegal immigration remained illegal so that illegal immigrant troublemakers could be rounded up and deported. We passed that point during the Biden administration, maybe even a few years earlier. The problem is that illegal immigration became de facto legal with no enforcement of the border and because of sanctuary states and cities. Illegals now share some of our benefits thanks to some state and local governments or by fraud. And they have become too numerous to round up and deport. Even if they are detained, deportation is a far greater ordeal because local judges act outside their boundaries and unnecessarily extend the process.
The media and left-wing protesters and sanctuary locale politicians have managed to turn a civil administrative process into a judicial nightmare. They are to blame.
"I think no-knock warrants and civil asset forfeiture severed the thread between law and a police state long ago."
Add qualified immunity to that list and we're in 100% agreement.
That's pretty iffy. If the penalty for misjudgment is not limited or if the salary is not enough to pay for liability insurance (which I can't imagine being affordable), we could not hire any honest, reliable cops. I would never have done any structural engineering work, even for a Fortune 500 company, if I could be sentenced to the electric chair for misplacing a decimal point. All design work is double checked by a PE so who gets the chair? In the case of a cop, does the psychologist who determines his fitness for duty share responsibility? It's easy for a high IQ booleanista who has no peril in this regard to criticize others.
If the risk of cops violating someone's rights and committing crimes against the communities they served wasn't so high, then liability insurance wouldn't be so expensive.
If I make a misjudgement and someone is hurt or killed by that misjudgement, then I don't get a "Get Out of Jail Free" card. Why should we hold those responsible for enforcing the law to a lower standard than the community they're enforcing it for? It seems that by NOT hiring honest and responsible cops, insurance prices are being driven up, creating a chicken-and-egg problem.
And how does that make you in peril for that in your profession? Yeah, you can drive drunk or mishandle a firearm but that is not what you do for a living every day.
Wait - where does the drunk driving come in here? I don't think you are arguing that cops should have immunity for drunk driving.
Yep. I knew one of you guys would comment on that. Just left it in to see who was paying the most attention. Of course, I meant that no one drives drunk daily to make a living. But I could have said that most people probably might be required to use force to combat a threat if required on a daily basis thereby subjecting themselves to second guessing.
Asylum claimants are legal until determined to not have a valid claim. Biden followed the law, and then when Congress was ready to pass a bill to change the law Trump came out against it - and the GOP went along with his desires.
Change the law.
So far it appears we just needed a new president - not new laws. Mr. Trump has pretty much stopped illegal crossings and detained those that are caught. President Biden had that authority, but his controlling cabal did not allow him to function.
Remember how Biden changed the entry requirements for claiming asylum, forcing claimants to go through ports of entry? That started the reduction in illegal crossings, whereas the rise in illegal crossings started under Trump in 2020.
I remember Biden's handlers granting automatic parole to illegals if they used the online application. It hugely increased the number of unvetted illegals.
Again: claiming asylum is legal immigration.
It’s more complex than that. Asylum claims can take years to decide. The U.S. has (even under Democrats) a policy of prioritizing these claims and it’s not mandatory to allow pending asylum claimants to remain in the USA. In fact the Trump admin has (legally) negotiated third country visas while these claims are decided. So claiming asylum is not enough to allow an immigrant to stay here.
Here's Shipley's take:
https://open.substack.com/pub/shipwreckedcrew/p/the-law-on-excessive-use-of-force?r=d2084&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Seems like a good time to join ICE and go out and settle some scores.
Of interest...
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2026/01/what-we-know-so-far.php
The bar for officers of the state must always be much, much higher than the bar for citizens even if they are breaking the law. If there was no immediate threat to officers, the shooting is never ever justified and you cannot blame the victim.
Mostly true but LEOs must also guard against threats to other officers and to civilians (even the obnoxious ones) in the area.
I'm a member of a local ICE Watch group, and I assure you that we watch our neighborhood and alert our neighbors to ICE's presence for free.
I still don't understand why folks insist that this opposition is financed by a shadowy cabal - and fail to present any evidence for that theory - when it's people looking out for their neighbors. Are those accusing everyone else of being paid so devoid of their own sincerely-held principles that they can't imagine anyone bothering themselves do do anything unless compensated? That says more about the accusers than the accused.
You probably blow whistles and wave signs and do not demonstrate physical aggression against LEOs. Not everyone is in your category.
https://redstate.com/streiff/2026/01/25/the-anti-ice-demonstrations-look-more-like-maos-peoples-war-doctrine-than-civil-disturbances-n2198506
Should ICE show up, we blow whistles to alert the neighborhood, film the interaction and detention, and try to get enough information to pass on to a lawyer about the person being detained so that they can get their due process before being disappeared to another state.
That's what an ICE Watch does.
And that's what I would expect of you. It's not what I see in Minneapolis.
So tell me Curtis; what did you see from Alex Pretti that was different from what Chris said he does in his community?
I saw aggressive resistance to whatever the ICE officers were directing Pretti to do. Don't know what those orders were but it should not matter if he were interfering or threatening.
Three different angles:
https://x.com/TheJFreakinC/status/2015087091055575289?s=20
https://x.com/TheJFreakinC/status/2015129419615277153?s=20
https://x.com/DropSiteNews/status/2015131503622021472?s=20
As shown in the link you have above - they had disarmed him before they shot him. It'd be easy to state "mistakes were made" - especially as it looks like the.agentnthat disarmed him may have negligently fired the confiscated weapon - but the admin decided to say he was looking to massacre federal agents.
"Agents had already pulled Pretti’s gun from his waistband."
How do you know this?
Video.