Alex Pretti’s weapon status is irrelevant.
Shortly after federal agents shot and killed Alex Pretti on Saturday morning, the Department of Homeland Security quickly pushed the narrative that he was armed and posed a threat. They claimed he had a gun. However, an analysis of the video suggests that Pretti was unarmed at the time of the shooting. Instead of a weapon, he was reportedly holding a phone. Pretti was shot while on his knees, surrounded by armed Border Patrol agents, who fired multiple rounds in his direction.
The Second Amendment is a cherished right among conservatives, and Minnesota permits open carry with a permit. Pretti lived in a city where residents often face violence from masked, armed individuals, which he was observing. So why is there so much focus on the details of his actions? Why is it commonplace for law enforcement—those meant to uphold order—to take the lives of Americans? And why is the primary question often about how much the victims deserved their fate?
In July 2020, federal officers from various agencies descended on Portland, Oregon, unleashing a cloud of tear gas in downtown. This tactic didn’t quell the crowds; it only fueled their anger. The city recognized it was being deliberately tormented and chose to confront the tear gas defiantly.
During the protests, politicians and media fixated on labeling the events as “protests” or “riots,” a distinction based solely on the protesters’ actions, which seemed to ignore the broader context. On the ground in Portland, this perspective felt misguided.
Protesters blurred the lines of nonviolence, donning gas masks and wielding shields. Some used leaf blowers to redirect tear gas back at the agents, while others tossed plastic water bottles at the federal officers, not with lethal intent, but as a form of mockery. This was far from the peaceful marches of history.
If a riot was indeed happening in Portland, it was instigated by federal agents who escalated tensions with rubber bullets, pepper balls, and tear gas—tools that challenge the very definition of “nonlethal.”
These unequal expectations placed an unfair burden on civilians, and now they are being applied with even more severity in Minneapolis.
ICE’s presence in Minnesota clearly breeds conflict and anxiety. As federal agents leave chaos in their wake, local residents, lacking training or protective gear, are expected to exercise more restraint than the armed agents enforcing the law.
Initial reports suggest that Pretti was killed while trying to engage peacefully with federal law enforcement. Videos indicate he was holding a phone and moving to assist a protester when agents tackled him. They only shouted that he had a gun after he was already pinned down.
Regardless of the specifics of Pretti’s alleged weapon in the moments before his death, the ongoing turmoil in the Twin Cities is far more significant. What relevance does his demeanor or approach to the agents hold in light of this aggression? Why must victims of state violence bear the responsibility of de-escalating situations when they aren’t compensated for their efforts?
The public is being tasked with maintaining peace, expected to stand firm against federal agents who are the ones disrupting it. This is a twisted form of double taxation—your paycheck is used to fund the very agents who may harm you while you attempt to calm them. “That’s fine, dude, I’m not mad at you,” Renee Good told ICE agents moments before they shot her through the side window of her car. Did she deserve to die for not adequately managing their emotions?
What purpose does it serve to pin someone down before dousing them with pepper spray? What is the endgame here, other than to incite public outrage and then respond with even greater force? ICE, CBP, and Border Patrol have shown they cannot follow the law, let alone enforce it for others; they are incapable of self-regulation, much less maintaining peace. They are not a solution to any problem but rather a problem that needs addressing. They are harmful, ineffective, and should not exist.
