Editor,
Charles Stone’s recent opinion piece defending Alex Pretti exemplifies a troubling trend in public discourse: selective fact presentation masquerading as objective truth.
Editor,
Charles Stone’s recent opinion piece defending Alex Pretti exemplifies a troubling trend in public discourse: selective fact presentation masquerading as objective truth.
Mr. Stone opens with the confident assertion that his facts are “undisputed,” yet conveniently omits crucial context that might complicate his narrative. Video from days before his death shows a deranged Pretti striking a federal vehicle before being tackled by officers, hardly the behavior of the “benign traffic monitor” Stone portrays. Similarly, Stone describes a woman being “shoved to the ground without cause” while failing to mention that officers repeatedly ordered people to clear the road during an active enforcement operation.
This selective omission of inconvenient facts serves a predetermined conclusion rather than informing readers. When an attorney, someone trained to understand the weight of evidence and the danger of inflammatory rhetoric, engages in such manipulation, it raises serious questions about intent.
Stone warns against “lack of credibility and integrity” while demonstrating precisely these flaws in his own argument. More concerning, this type of curated outrage risks real-world consequences by misleading citizens into escalating situations they don’t fully understand.
Complete context doesn’t mean defending all police actions, but it does mean presenting facts honestly. Readers deserve better than carefully crafted narratives designed to inflame rather than inform. In matters of public safety and justice, half-truths serve no one’s interests except those seeking to exploit public emotion for personal or political gain.
Grace Xuereb
Burlingame
Please purchase a Premium Subscription to continue reading.
To continue, please log in, or sign up for a new account.
We offer one free story view per month. If you register for an account, you will get two additional story views. After those three total views, we ask that you support us with a subscription.
A subscription to our digital content is so much more than just access to our valuable content. It means you’re helping to support a local community institution that has, from its very start, supported the betterment of our society. Thank you very much!
Only subscribers can view and post comments on articles.
Already a subscriber? Login Here
Sorry, an error occurred.
Already Subscribed!
Cancel anytime
Thank you .
Your account has been registered, and you are now logged in.
Check your email for details.
Submitting this form below will send a message to your email with a link to change your password.
An email message containing instructions on how to reset your password has been sent to the email address listed on your account.
No promotional rates found.
Secure & Encrypted
Thank you.
Your gift purchase was successful! Your purchase was successful, and you are now logged in.
| Rate: | |
| Begins: | |
| Transaction ID: |
A receipt was sent to your email.
(2) comments
A great letter to the editor, Ms. Xuereb, detailing the tactics that many on the left attempt in gaslighting others. These folks on the left are hoping that people are too lazy to learn the context or the truth and instead will swallow without question whatever soundbite is given to them. Fortunately, based on past history, regular readers of the SMDJ know which folks we should listen to and take seriously versus which folks we should ignore.
I agree with Ms. Xuereb cautioning about inflammatory remarks, but I did not see that in Mr. Stone’s column. Mr. Stone cited the accounts of raw video and eyewitnesses in an honest manner. And I agree with Ms. Xuereb that all of this needs to be taken in context. I don’t know the reason Pretti struck the police car days earlier, but I don’t see what that has to do with him getting shot to death. And I don’t know why the woman was shoved to the road by law enforcement. Perhaps Mr. Pretti didn’t know either when he went in her defense. So I don’t believe Mr. Stone’s piece was meant to inflame public outrage with an intentional false narrative for personal gain or otherwise. Ms. Xureb’s conclusion was an eloquent statement that we should all adhere to. Something’s different from past immigration actions that’s causing ICE agents to shove people to the ground and use obscenities when ordering people out of their cars. Or stand with a drawn weapon in front of a vehicle about to move forward. I know they don’t teach that at the academy. What’s different this time? It’s the leaders of ICE. A former border patrol agent gives her account in a Substack post with a link to a telling promotional/recruitment ICE video: https://jennbudd.substack.com/p/border-patrol-ice-and-christian-nationalism.
In another example, an ICE recruitment post used the image of a man riding in the mountains in the snow with a stealth bomber flying above. The text accompanying the phrase was: “We’ll have our homeland again,” which is from a white nationalist anthem. And this is not a fluke. The SPLC, last year, reviewed Homeland Security posts and found them using “white nationalist and anti-immigrant slogans in recruitment materials” https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2026/01/13/department-labor-post-nazi-slogan/88156878007/.
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.