Ask For My Quick and Easy to Read Study 3 Pages Guide 773-809-8594

A disciplined book for lawful carriers, this book confronts glamor, teaches restraint, and demands accountability—essential reading for anyone serious about the 2nd Amendment and responsible public carry.

Comments: educatorsocialscience@gmail.com

Community Lesson Plan

Pretti: Interference Isn’t Self‑Defense

Learning Objectives (3)

1. Understand why civilians—especially permit holders—must not interfere with arrests.
   • Example: A permit holder steps toward officers to “help,” increasing danger for everyone.
2. Distinguish proper control tactics from misconduct.
   • Example: A knee strike to gain control is proper; kicking a cuffed subject is misconduct.
3. Identify key control‑tactic failures that escalate force.

• Example: No one calls “arm control” or “cuffing,” causing confusion and unnecessary force.

Learning Outcomes (3)

1. Participants can explain why interference is unsafe and unlawful.
2. Participants can identify proper vs. improper officer actions.
3. Participants can recall essential review questions used in evaluating incidents.

Lesson Sequence (3)

1. Thesis & Context: Interference isn’t self‑defense; Pretti placed himself in the situation.
2. Control Tactics vs. Misconduct: Standard tactics explained; misconduct behaviors identified.
3. Failures & Review Questions: Communication failures, lack of “Gun!” announcement, and key review questions.

Assessment Tools (3)

1. Scenario Discussion: Participants explain why an armed civilian approaching an arrest is unsafe.
2. Quick Knowledge Check: Five short questions on tactics, misconduct, and review standards.
3. Verbal Summary: Participants restate the thesis and identify one proper and one improper action.

For a Copy of The Book email: educatorsocialscience@gmail.com

To give you an idea about my book—as many have requested—I’ve provided an e‑book interlude.

For a copy go any bookstore online after January 2026 and/or email: educatorsocialscience@gmail.com

Join my podcast. https://rss.com/podcasts/3ps-positive-people-podcast/

However, We Demand Accountability and Equal Enforcement.

Five Ways ICE Can Improve Accountability in Black Neighborhoods

(grounded in the article’s issues and your community theme)

1. Mandatory, always‑on body‑camera use Ensuring cameras are activated during all enforcement actions would prevent disputes over what occurred and protect both residents and officers.
2. Independent oversight and misconduct review A civilian‑led board could review use‑of‑force incidents, false statements, and complaints, preventing situations like Bovino’s contradictory testimony.
3. Respectful coordination with local police ICE agents should be required to follow protocols that reinforce—not undermine—the work of local officers who already have community relationships.
4. Transparent reporting of operations Regular public briefings, data releases, and community meetings would reduce fear and confusion about enforcement actions.
5. Equal enforcement standards applied to all individuals' Immigration enforcement should focus on conduct—fraud, overstays, criminal activity—without bias or selective targeting, reinforcing fairness and trust.

Conclusion

The controversies surrounding “Operation Midway Blitz” highlight the consequences of unchecked federal power, unreliable testimony, and excessive force. Judge Ellis’s findings, the appeals court’s intervention, and the emergence of a new lawsuit all point to a system in need of reform. Strengthening accountability, transparency, and respect for Black communities is essential for rebuilding trust. Black Lives Matter, and our community supports fair and accountable ICE enforcement. We expect agents to respect the hard‑working police officers who serve our neighborhoods, and we want immigration laws applied evenly to anyone committing fraud or overstaying visas, without bias or favoritism.

Help Others:

Copy and paste the link to this encouraging episode to friends, family, and across your social media platforms. KEEP THIS message moving forward. Ask for my message "God Can't Work with Lazy People". email: educatorsocialscience@gmail.com

“If you go to a problem expecting to lose—if you wake up thinking the worst and expecting failure—why wake up at all? Wake up in power. Say it. Say it out loud: I did not wake up to fail.” —Mr. Positive

Somewhere I read: If you see ten problems coming down the road, keep watching—nine will fall into a ditch.

Are you doing something positive that you would like to be interviewed as a guest on this podcast?

To be a guest on the podcast email: educatorsocialscience@gmail.com

To be a guest on the podcast to share something positive that you are doing call 773-809-8594

🟦 1. JIIVE — Justice Impact Individuals Voting Effectively (Nonprofit)

This is the nonprofit organization.

📌 Core Mission

• Advocates for justice‑impacted individuals (JIIs) in Minnesota.
• Focuses on voting rights, civic participation, and political empowerment.
• Works to ensure JIIs can reclaim their voices and participate fully in democracy.

📌 Legal Status

• Registered as a 501(c)(4) social welfare nonprofit.
• Does not support or oppose political candidates (per its disclosure).

📌 Key Issues They Work On

• Voting access for formerly incarcerated or justice‑impacted people.
• Broader social issues tied to justice, including environmental justice and food sovereignty.

📌 Location

• Minnesota (statewide advocacy).

Mr. Positive-State Registered Wedding Officiant.

I’ve provided tips to help you create meaningful wedding vows. I’m also available to officiate your wedding—and help you save money in the process.

Contact me at 773-809-8594.

Love, joy, safety and peace from God, surround you and family.

This content provides a clear overview of legal doctrines used to determine fault and compensation in auto accidents. It explains:

Learning Objectives (with Examples)

By the end of this lesson, learners will be able to:

• Define and distinguish between negligence per se, comparative negligence, and contributory negligence. Example: Learners will explain how running a red light qualifies as negligence per se.
• Analyze fault and compensation using real-world scenarios. Example: Learners will calculate damages when a driver is 40% at fault in a two-car collision.
• Identify jurisdictional differences in negligence rules. Example: Learners will compare Minnesota’s modified comparative rule to Virginia’s contributory rule.

✅ Learning Outcomes (with Examples)

Learners will demonstrate:

• Accurate definitions of each doctrine. Example: “Negligence per se occurs when a driver violates a traffic law and causes harm.”
• Application of fault percentages to determine compensation. Example: “If a driver is 25% at fault and suffers $10,000 in damages, they can recover $7,500.”
• Jurisdictional awareness of legal doctrines. Example: “In Maryland, a pedestrian who jaywalks and is hit by a speeding car may receive no compensation due to contributory negligence.”

📝 Assessment Activities

• Quick Quiz: Match each doctrine to its definition.
• Scenario Analysis: Learners evaluate fault and compensation in sample cases (e.g., a texting driver hitting a cyclist).
• Discussion Prompt: “Should contributory negligence still be legal? Why or why not?”

🧪 Teaching Examples

• Negligence Per Se: A driver runs a stop sign and hits a pedestrian. This is negligence per se because the driver violated a traffic law.
• Comparative Negligence: A speeding driver hits another who failed to signal. Under comparative negligence, fault is shared—if Driver A is 60% at fault and Driver B is 40%, Driver B can recover 60% of their damages.
• Contributory Negligence: A jaywalking pedestrian is hit by a distracted driver. In contributory negligence states, the pedestrian may be barred from recovering damages—even if the driver was mostly at fault.

Comments: educatorsocialscience@gmail.com or call 773-809-8594