Alex Jeffrey Pretti was an ICU nurse at the Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Medical Center. He spent his career caring for the veterans this country sent to war. Saturday morning, January 24, federal agents shot and killed him on a Minneapolis street.
The Department of Homeland Security said Pretti “violently resisted” agents and approached them with a handgun. Multiple bystander videos analyzed by CNN, NPR, and The New York Times tell a completely different story: Pretti was recording agents with his phone when he was pepper-sprayed, tackled, and shot – with his own gun that an agent removed from his waistband seconds before another agent fired.
A 37-year-old U.S. citizen who cared for dying veterans is dead. Federal agents’ account of what happened doesn’t match the video everyone can watch. And the Senate just launched an investigation into whether the Department of Homeland Security lied about killing an American citizen.
Discussion
And has no one heard you don't go to a protest with a gun???? There is video available showing an attorney, a gun expert telling about the deficiencies of the gun this nurse had…."it has a huge problem with self /going off without trigger being pulled…" "Very unreliable gun. The attorney goes thru entire footage of the "shots" after which this nurse protestor was determined to be dead….he shows that the gun discharged first….and that is what set this whole episode off!!! Posted on Rumble. Will make you think a little differently….
First of all, it is a tragic loss whenever anyone is killed. My condolences go to Alex Prettiâs family. Unfortunately, Alex should have exercised more common sense than to bring a gun to a protest which, according to the news, had turned into a violent riot. To add fuel to the fire, he inserted himself into an altercation between ICE and a protester.
He did not inform ICE that he had a gun, nor did he cooperate with the officers. Instead, he resisted their requests, which escalated a situation that could have ended peacefully into one that resulted in Pretti being killed. Now we have a family suffering an immense loss and a national incident tearing the country apart. Common sense could have saved his life and spared our country from this nightmare. Pretti should have stayed home â they all should have stayed home.
I have been to protests. I have never blocked streets, disturbed the peace, thrown a brick, damaged a vehicle, or carried a gun. I may have waved a flag and sung âGod Bless America.â I lived to see another day because I chose to peacefully protest instead of rioting and fighting with authorities.
This is truly heartbreaking and concerning. A nurse dedicated to serving veterans, and this is how it ends?
This one is tricky.because I do believe in the ICE inforcement but I am not so sure of their training. I do believe that Rene was an agitator and problably hit the agent so he fired in self defence. HOwever due to the increasing violence and the nature of the anger agaisnt the ICE agents, they should have been pulled from here until the tensions calmed down; leave and then come back again later when there is more calm with warrants.
This was a bad decision on her part.
Just from the picture above I question Mr. Pretti's motives. LOOKING at the picture, I see him, what appears to be pushing up to a law enforcement officer. The OFFICER is holding Pretti back. This is evident by the officers hand on Pretti's jacket. At this point nothing has happened. WHY DID PRETTI KEEP PRESSING THE ISSUE WHEN HE COULD HAVE BACKED OFF INSTEAD OF ESCULATING THE SITUATION? NO, she should not be terminated.
Leave a Comment
Leave a Comment
Who Alex Pretti Was
Alex Jeffrey Pretti worked as an ICU nurse at the Minneapolis VA Medical Center. Intensive careâthe unit where the sickest veterans go, where split-second decisions mean life or death, where you hold someone’s hand while they die far from family.
He was 37 years old. U.S. citizen. No criminal record. Registered nurse with years of experience caring for the most vulnerable patients in the VA system.
By all accounts, he was good at his job. ICU nursing requires technical skill, emotional resilience, and genuine compassion. You don’t last years in VA intensive care without all three. Veterans are complicated patientsâcombat injuries, PTSD, substance abuse, homelessness. Caring for them requires patience and empathy that not everyone has.
Pretti had it. His colleagues described him as dedicated, skilled, and deeply committed to veteran care. He’d chosen one of the hardest nursing specialties in one of the most challenging healthcare systems.
Saturday morning, he went to a protest against federal immigration enforcement operations that had turned Minneapolis into a warzone. He brought his phone to record what was happening. He was legally carrying a handgun – Minnesota allows open carry, and Pretti had a valid permit.
By noon, he was dead. Shot by federal agents. The Department of Homeland Security called it justified. The video suggests otherwise.
What Happened Saturday Morning
Federal immigration enforcement operations were underway in Minneapolis. The city had been tense for days after the Sunday shooting where ICE agents and residents exchanged gunfire. Two ICE agents were wounded. One immigrant was critically injured. The city erupted in protests.
Saturday, Border Patrol agents – deployed to assist ICE operations – were conducting enforcement in south Minneapolis. A crowd gathered. Some protesters. Some community members documenting federal actions.
Some legal observers ensuring constitutional compliance.
Alex Pretti was there. According to witnesses, he was using his phone to record federal agents’ activities.
Multiple bystander videos captured what happened next. The videos, analyzed by CNN, NPR, and The New York Times, show consistent sequence of events:
Pretti was standing at distance from agents, phone in hand, recording. An agent approached him. Pretti did not advance on agentsâvideo shows agents approaching him. Pretti was pepper-sprayed. He was tackled to the ground by multiple agents.
While Pretti was on the ground being restrained, one agent removed a handgun from Pretti’s waistband. Seconds later, a different agent shot Pretti.
He died at the scene.
The Federal Account That Video Contradicts
The Department of Homeland Security released statement Saturday afternoon defending the shooting:
“During immigration enforcement operations, a civilian violently resisted federal agents and approached Border Patrol officers while brandishing a handgun. Agents gave multiple commands to drop the weapon. When the individual refused to comply and continued advancing in threatening manner, an agent discharged his firearm in self-defense.”
(Al Drago/Getty Images)
That statement contains multiple claims video evidence contradicts:
“Violently resisted”: Video shows Pretti standing with phone, not physically resisting until agents approached and pepper-sprayed him.
“Approached Border Patrol officers while brandishing a handgun”: Video shows agents approaching Pretti, not Pretti approaching them. Video does not show Pretti brandishing or even holding a gunâit shows him holding a phone.
“Agents gave multiple commands to drop the weapon”: No audio on released videos clearly captures commands about dropping weapon. Witnesses say they heard agents yelling but not specific commands about a gun.
“Individual refused to comply and continued advancing in threatening manner”: Video shows Pretti being tackled and restrained, not advancing. The shooting occurred while Pretti was on the ground.
“Agent discharged his firearm in self-defense”: Video shows agent shooting Pretti after another agent had already removed the gun from Pretti’s waistbandâmeaning Pretti was unarmed when shot.
Every major claim in DHS’s justification is contradicted by video evidence from multiple angles captured by multiple bystanders.
The Gun That Became the Justification
Pretti was legally carrying a handgun. Minnesota law allows open carry of firearms. Pretti had valid carry permit. He was exercising Second Amendment rights in state that explicitly protects those rights.
The gun was in his waistband. Video shows it was not in his hands. He was holding his phone – recording federal agents, which is constitutionally protected First Amendment activity.
Video analysis by news organizations shows the sequence clearly:
- Pretti recording with phone
- Agents approach and pepper-spray him
- Agents tackle him to ground
- While Pretti is on ground being restrained, Agent A removes gun from Pretti’s waistband
- Agent B shoots Pretti seconds later
The critical fact: Pretti did not draw the gun. He did not point it at agents. He did not brandish it. An agent removed it from his waistband while other agents were restraining him. Then a different agent shot him.
If the gun was never in Pretti’s hands and another agent had already removed it from his waistband, what justified the shooting? DHS claimed self-defense against armed threat. But Pretti was unarmed when shot – his gun was in another agent’s possession.
The Constitutional Rights Pretti Was Exercising
Pretti was exercising multiple constitutional rights when he was killed:
First Amendment: Recording law enforcement in public is constitutionally protected. Courts have repeatedly held that citizens have right to record police and federal agents performing public duties. Pretti was doing exactly what the Constitution protects.
Second Amendment: Minnesota law allows legal gun owners to carry firearms. Pretti had valid permit. He was legally armed. Possessing a legal firearm while exercising First Amendment rights does not forfeit constitutional protections.
Fourth Amendment: Federal agents cannot seize or use force against citizens without reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. Recording agents and legally carrying a firearm are not crimes.
Pretti wasn’t committing any crime. He was recording federal agentsâprotected speech. He was legally armedâprotected right. He was standing in public spaceâprotected by Fourth Amendment against unreasonable seizure.
Federal agents approached him, pepper-sprayed him, tackled him, removed his gun, and shot him. For exercising constitutional rights on video.
Minnesota’s Response: “Cover-Up”
Minnesota Governor Tim Walz used the word publicly: “cover-up.” He accused federal authorities of blocking state investigators from the scene and refusing to cooperate with state-level investigation into the killing.
Senator Tina Smith echoed the accusation: “The federal government is preventing Minnesota from investigating the killing of a Minnesota citizen by federal agents on Minnesota soil. That’s a cover-up, and it’s unacceptable.”
The jurisdictional dispute creates constitutional problem: Federal agents operating in states are generally subject to federal investigation for misconduct, not state prosecution. But when federal agents kill citizens, states have interest in ensuring accountability.
Minnesota authorities arrived at the scene Saturday to begin investigation. Federal agents blocked their access. DHS claimed federal jurisdiction over the incident and refused to allow state investigators to process the scene, interview witnesses, or collect evidence.
By the time Minnesota gained access, the scene had been cleared. Evidence was in federal custody. Witnesses had dispersed. The opportunity for independent investigation was lost.
Walz’s accusation of cover-up stems from this obstruction. If federal agents killed a citizen unjustly, preventing state investigation ensures only federal government investigates itselfâwhich creates obvious conflict of interest.
President Trump’s Defense
President Trump tweeted Saturday evening: “Border Patrol agents were attacked while performing dangerous duty protecting our country. They acted in self-defense. The individual was armed and threatening. Our agents showed incredible restraint. We will not tolerate attacks on federal law enforcement.”
The statement defended agents before any investigation and characterized Pretti as attacker rather than victim. It made no mention of Pretti being U.S. citizen, ICU nurse, or legally armed.
DHS Secretary Kristi Noem released similar statement: “Our agents face constant danger from violent individuals who refuse to comply with lawful orders. Saturday’s incident is tragic but justified. The individual was armed and posed imminent threat. Our agent had split-second to make life-or-death decision.”
Both statements frame incident as justified self-defense without acknowledging video evidence contradicting that narrative.
The immediate presidential and DHS defense before investigation creates problem: If administration has already determined shooting was justified, what’s the point of investigation? The conclusion came before evidence analysis.
The Senate Investigation Announced
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman announced Sunday that committee will investigate the killing. The investigation will examine:
- Whether DHS’s public statements about the incident were accurate
- Whether video evidence contradicts official account
- Whether federal agents used excessive force
- Whether DHS obstructed state investigation
- Whether administration prejudged investigation by immediately defending agents
Bipartisan support for investigation is unusual. Multiple Republican senators expressed concern that video evidence appears to contradict federal account. Several noted that if private citizens had shot someone under similar circumstancesâperson on ground, already disarmedâthey’d face murder charges.
The investigation will compel testimony from agents involved, DHS officials who crafted public statements, and witnesses present during shooting. Committee will analyze all video evidence and compare it to official accounts.
Key question: Did DHS knowingly make false statements about the shooting to justify killing of U.S. citizen?
The Video Evidence That Changes Everything
Multiple bystanders recorded the incident from different angles. News organizations obtained videos and conducted frame-by-frame analysis. The analysis is damning for federal account:
CNN analysis: “Video clearly shows Pretti holding phone, not gun. Agents approach him. He is pepper-sprayed without visible provocation. Gun is removed from waistband by Agent A while Pretti is being restrained. Agent B shoots Pretti approximately 4 seconds after gun is removed. At no time does video show Pretti holding or brandishing the weapon DHS claims he threatened agents with.”
NPR analysis: “The sequence of events captured on video directly contradicts DHS’s characterization of Pretti as advancing on agents with gun. Video shows agents advancing on Pretti. Video shows Pretti being disarmed by one agent, then shot by another. If shooting was self-defense, it was defense against threat that had already been neutralized.”
New York Times analysis: “Video evidence raises serious questions about whether federal agents fabricated justification for shooting after the fact. The gun DHS claims Pretti brandished was in another agent’s possession when Pretti was shot. That’s not self-defenseâthat’s shooting an unarmed, restrained man.”
Video evidence doesn’t just contradict federal account. It suggests federal account was deliberately falseâconstructed to justify killing rather than accurately describe what happened.
The Legal Standard for Use of Deadly Force
Federal agents can use deadly force when they reasonably believe they or others face imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm. The standard is objective reasonablenessâwould a reasonable agent in the same circumstances believe deadly force was necessary?
Applied to Pretti shooting:
Was there imminent threat? Video shows Pretti was restrained on ground when shot. His gun had been removed by another agent. He was unarmed. Multiple agents were controlling him. What imminent threat justified deadly force?
Was force reasonable? Even if Pretti had been armed when agents first approached (which video doesn’t show), once he was tackled, restrained, and disarmed, the threat was neutralized. Shooting an unarmed person being held down by multiple agents is difficult to characterize as reasonable force.
Did agents reasonably believe threat existed? The agent who shot Pretti should have known another agent had already removed the gun. If agents communicate during operationsâwhich they’re trained to doâthe shooting agent should have known Pretti was disarmed.
The legal analysis suggests the shooting fails objective reasonableness standard. That doesn’t automatically make it criminalâbut it makes it legally unjustified, which means federal government could face civil liability and agents could face criminal charges.
The First Amendment Implications
Pretti was killed while exercising First Amendment right to record law enforcement. That fact has chilling implications for every American who’s ever recorded police or federal agents.
If federal agents can claim someone recording them with phone was “brandishing weapon” (even when gun was in waistband, not hands), and use that false claim to justify killing the recorder, First Amendment right to record law enforcement becomes deadly.
Citizens have constitutional right to record agents performing public duties. Courts have repeatedly affirmed this right. But if exercising that right while legally armed makes you target for federal agents who can kill you and fabricate justification afterward, the right becomes theoretical rather than practical.
The message Pretti’s killing sends: Record federal agents at your own risk. If you’re legally armedâwhich is your Second Amendment rightâagents can claim you threatened them with weapon you weren’t holding, kill you, and face no consequences.
That’s not constitutional protection. That’s constitutional extinction through federal violence.
The Veteran Community’s Response
Pretti cared for veterans. He was killed by federal agents. The veteran community’s response has been swift and angry.
Veterans groups issued statements condemning the killing. Multiple statements noted bitter irony: Pretti dedicated his life to caring for veterans the government sent to war. The same government killed him for exercising constitutional rights.
Veterans Service Organizations called for independent investigation and accountability. Several demanded agents involved be fired immediately and prosecuted.
The Minneapolis VA Medical Center held vigil Sunday evening. Colleagues, veterans Pretti cared for, and community members gathered to honor his memory. Multiple speakers noted he died exercising rights veterans fought to protect.
One veteran said it simply: “Alex took care of us. We watched him save lives. Now federal agents killed him and lied about it. If they’ll do this to someone who served veterans, they’ll do it to anyone.”
The Pattern Across Multiple Incidents
Pretti’s killing isn’t isolated incident in Minneapolis’s federal immigration enforcement operations:
January 19: ICE agents shot three people during enforcement operation. Two agents wounded, one suspect critically injured. Federal account claimed agents came under unprovoked fire. Video evidence remains disputed.
January 24: Border Patrol agents shot and killed Alex Pretti. Federal account claimed he brandished weapon and advanced on agents. Video evidence directly contradicts that account.
The pattern: Federal agents conducting immigration enforcement operations in hostile environment. Violence erupts. Federal accounts justify force as self-defense. Video evidence contradicts or complicates official narratives.
The repetition suggests systemic problem. Either federal agents in Minneapolis are repeatedly facing genuine threats requiring deadly force (which raises questions about tactics and preparation), or they’re using excessive force and fabricating justifications afterward.
The Minneapolis Context That Makes It Worse
Minneapolis has been flashpoint for federal-local conflict over immigration enforcement:
- City declared sanctuary policies refusing ICE cooperation
- Mayor ordered police not to participate in immigration operations
- Community organized rapid response networks and legal observers
- Trump deployed Border Czar Tom Homan to personally oversee Minnesota enforcement
- Multiple violent confrontations between federal agents and residents
Pretti was killed in this contextâcity at war with federal government over immigration enforcement.
Federal agents operating without local support in hostile environment. Communities terrified and organizing resistance. Violence escalating on both sides.
The context doesn’t excuse killing Pretti. But it explains why federal agents might be quick to use force and quick to justify it afterward. When you’re conducting operations in city whose government opposes you and whose residents document your every move, the temptation to control narrative through force becomes powerful.
Pretti became victim of that dynamic. He was recording agentsâexactly what organized resistance trains people to do. He was legally armedâwhich is constitutional right but makes agents nervous. He was U.S. citizen exercising constitutional rights in city where those rights had become resistance to federal authority.
The Department of Justice Conflict
Typically, FBI investigates shootings involving federal agents. But there’s conflict-of-interest problem: The Justice Department oversees both DHS (whose agents killed Pretti) and FBI (which would investigate). DOJ has incentive to protect federal agents from prosecution.
That conflict is why Minnesota demanded state-level investigation. State has no institutional interest in protecting federal agents. State investigators would be independent.
Federal government’s refusal to allow state investigationâblocking state authorities from scene, claiming federal jurisdiction, preventing independent evidence collectionâsuggests consciousness that independent investigation might reach different conclusion than federal investigation.
When government investigates itself for killing citizen and prevents independent investigation from accessing evidence, that’s not justice system functioning properly. That’s cover-up, exactly as Governor Walz alleged.
What the Framers Would Say
The Framers fought a revolution partly because British soldiers killed colonists with impunity. The Boston MassacreâBritish soldiers shooting civilians and facing no consequencesâwas propaganda victory that fueled revolution.
They wrote the Bill of Rights specifically to prevent government agents from killing citizens without accountability. Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable seizuresâwhich includes deadly force without justification. First Amendment protects right to criticize government and document its actions. Second Amendment ensures citizens can be armed without that fact alone justifying government violence.
Alex Pretti was exercising all three rights when federal agents killed him. Then those agents lied about why they killed him. Then federal government blocked state investigation and defended the killing before any investigation.
The Framers would recognize this pattern. It’s exactly what they fought againstâgovernment agents using force against citizens, fabricating justifications, and facing no accountability because the government investigates itself.
They wrote a Constitution to prevent it. That Constitution failed Alex Pretti.
Here we go again with the liberal media twisting stories to push their fake agenda! You trust CNN, NPR, and NYT?