What We Know Now About the Killing of Alex Jeffrey Pretti

A Minneapolis Shooting, an Earlier Confrontation, and the Narratives Forming Around Them

What We Know Now About the Killing of Alex Jeffrey Pretti

A Minneapolis Shooting, an Earlier Confrontation, and the Narratives Forming Around Them

By Jim Reynolds | www.reynolds.com

Author’s Note

Before proceeding, a word about Pretti.

After writing about this story for several days, my overriding reaction is not anger, but sorrow — sorrow for Pretti.

He appears to have been an individual completely consumed by an intensely emotional opposition to deportations, the current administration, the people in it, and of course Donald Trump himself. We all recognize this syndrome, and in his case it was severe. But his descent into this narrowed, semi-thinking state was not entirely of his own making.

Pretti did not arrive there in isolation. He was encouraged, affirmed, and inflamed by some of the most skilled persuaders in the country — voices in the news media, local government officials, and possibly professional agitators who know how to find, recruit, and radicalize people exactly like him. These influences did not restrain him; they validated him. They did not cool the temperature; they raised it.

Yes, individuals are ultimately responsible for their own actions. That truth remains. But this kind of repeated, almost suicidal behavior does not emerge from a vacuum. It is cultivated. It is rewarded rhetorically. And when it ends tragically, as it did here, the responsibility does not stop with the person who paid the ultimate price.

Pretti was not a leader. He was a pawn. He was pushed forward into a role others were unwilling to play themselves — to escalate, to confront, to sacrifice. In death, he becomes a symbol, a talking point, a useful martyr in a larger political drama.

Many people helped set him on that path. And some of them, quietly, are likely satisfied with how it ended.

---

On the morning of January 24, 2026, federal immigration agents shot and killed Alex Jeffrey Pretti, 37, at the intersection of 26th Street and Nicollet Avenue in south Minneapolis during what the Department of Homeland Security described as a “targeted immigration operation.”

Pretti was a U.S. citizen, a VA intensive care nurse, and had no criminal history beyond minor traffic citations. He was transported to Hennepin County Medical Center, where he was pronounced dead.

⸻

What Authorities Say

According to DHS, Border Patrol agents assisting in an immigration enforcement action encountered Pretti as he approached them while armed with a 9mm semiautomatic handgun and carrying at least one spare magazine. DHS says agents attempted to disarm him, that he “violently resisted,” and that an agent fired “defensive” shots during the struggle.

Minneapolis Police Chief Brian O’Hara has confirmed that Pretti was a U.S. citizen and lawful gun owner with a Minnesota permit to carry, implicitly pushing back on early characterizations of him as a “domestic terrorist.”

The Justice Department has opened a federal civil-rights investigation led by the FBI, alongside an internal CBP inquiry. The two agents who fired their weapons have been placed on administrative leave.

⸻

What the January 24 Video Shows — and Doesn’t

Publicly available bystander videos and fixed-camera footage show Pretti near federal vehicles for roughly three minutes before the first shot. He appears to be filming agents as they conduct an immigration arrest. Agents repeatedly move him back toward the sidewalk; one appears to push or steer him away shortly before the takedown.

At the critical moment, agents rush Pretti, take him to the ground, and a chaotic struggle follows. In several angles, he is on or near his knees with his phone in hand while agents surround him. One agent in a gray jacket emerges holding a handgun that appears to match the weapon DHS says they recovered from Pretti. Almost immediately after that agent backs away with the gun, another agent draws his weapon and fires as Pretti remains low to the ground.

Audio captures someone yelling “gun, gun” just before the first shot. Additional rounds are fired in the seconds that follow, including shots after Pretti appears to be on his back and no longer moving.

None of the publicly released footage clearly shows a gun in Pretti’s hands at the instant shots are fired. Full, synchronized body-camera and internal federal footage have not yet been released, leaving the precise sequence of perceptions and decisions contested.

⸻

What Happened Eleven Days Earlier

Video from January 13, 2026—confirmed by Pretti’s family and attorney—shows him confronting federal immigration agents during a separate protest in south Minneapolis.

In that footage, Pretti runs toward unmarked federal vehicles, yells at agents, spits toward at least one of them, and twice kicks the rear of an SUV hard enough to shatter a taillight. Agents exit the vehicle, tackle him, and release him without arrest after a brief scuffle.

From some angles, what appears to be a handgun is visible in his waistband, though he is not seen drawing or pointing it. Later reporting indicates Pretti suffered a broken rib during the takedown and told a confidant he thought he might die in that encounter.

Former federal prosecutors have said that spitting on an agent and damaging a federal vehicle would ordinarily support charges such as assault on a federal officer and destruction of federal property, though no charges were filed.

Taken together, the January 13 and January 24 videos establish a pattern: Pretti was not a one-time bystander. He had previously sought out a similar federal operation, closed distance on armed agents, and engaged in aggressive conduct.

⸻

Guns, Protests, and Judgment

Pretti held a valid Minnesota permit to carry and was lawfully armed on January 24. Gun-rights groups note that carrying a handgun with spare magazines is legal and not unusual among permit holders, including some who attend protests.

At the same time, pro-gun commentators have emphasized that approaching law enforcement at close range while armed is extremely dangerous. In such circumstances, even ambiguous movements during a physical struggle can reasonably be perceived as an imminent lethal threat.

Within eleven days, the same man twice inserted himself into close-quarters confrontations with federal agents conducting immigration enforcement. On the second occasion, he did so while armed, in a city already tense over federal operations. Whatever his intent, these were high-risk choices that dramatically narrowed the margin for error.

⸻

Agency Versus Duty: The Missing Fulcrum

One underexamined dimension of this case is the distinction between agency and duty.

The federal agents present on January 24 were employees of the United States government, sworn to uphold and enforce laws passed by Congress and signed by the President. Whatever one’s views of immigration policy, their presence at that location was not a spontaneous personal choice. It was the execution of assigned duties. The only alternative available to an agent who fundamentally objects to those duties is resignation from federal service.

The protesters present on January 13 and January 24 were in a different position. They were under no legal or professional obligation to be there. Their presence was voluntary, driven by political opposition to ICE and to Trump-era immigration enforcement.

That asymmetry matters. By choosing to insert themselves into active law-enforcement operations—closing distance, shouting, filming at arm’s length, and in one case physically striking a federal vehicle—protesters knowingly elevated the risk profile of already volatile situations. Such actions are not cost-free expressions of dissent; they materially increase the likelihood of confrontation, misperception, and violence.

This does not resolve the legal question of whether force was justified on January 24. But it does complicate narratives that treat all “presence” as morally equivalent. One group was there because the law required it. The other was there because it chose to be.

⸻

How His Image Was Softened

Alongside disputes over facts, a parallel fight has emerged over perception.

One major outlet ran an AI-enhanced portrait of Pretti that warmed skin tone, smoothed blemishes, sharpened the jawline, brightened eyes and teeth, and subtly broadened shoulders—standard “professional polish” techniques now common in corporate headshots. Research shows such adjustments can significantly increase perceived trustworthiness, health, and competence within milliseconds, before any text is processed.

At the same time, much of the early coverage minimized or omitted Pretti’s January 13 confrontation. The result was a coordinated effect: language that downplayed prior aggression, paired with an image calibrated to maximize sympathy, nudging viewers toward a default interpretation of “credible victim” before contrary facts appeared.

⸻

What Is Not in Dispute

Several points are now reasonably established:

• Pretti was not a random passerby; he had previously confronted federal agents during immigration protests.

• On January 13, he yelled at agents, spit toward one, and kicked out the taillight of a federal SUV before being tackled and released.

• On January 24, he approached another federal operation while armed with a loaded handgun and spare ammunition.

• During the struggle, agents recovered that gun from his person.

• Public video shows him holding a phone—not a gun—at the moment shots are fired, though his body is partially obscured.

• A federal civil-rights investigation and internal CBP review are ongoing; full body-camera footage has not yet been released.

• Major outlets presented an algorithmically enhanced portrait that increased perceived sympathy before readers encountered contested facts.

These facts do not answer the central legal question. But they undermine both the claim that Pretti was a peaceful bystander gunned down for filming, and the claim that he was a would-be assassin stopped mid-attack.

⸻

Two Stories, One Event

The Pretti shooting has produced two incompatible narratives rather than a shared fact-finding process.

On the left, Pretti is framed as a compassionate nurse killed by a militarized immigration crackdown. Emphasis falls on his profession, lack of convictions, and ambiguity in the January 24 footage. In that framing, the polished portrait fits seamlessly.

On the right, he is framed as an armed, radicalized protester whose own actions forced agents to defend themselves. Emphasis falls on the gun, spare magazine, anti-ICE activism, and the January 13 confrontation.

Each side signals its conclusions with loaded language before all evidence is in, elevating the facts—and even the pixels—that serve its priors.

⸻

What We Still Don’t Know

Despite hours of video, one sentence remains accurate: we do not yet know exactly what happened in the final seconds before the first shot.

Until full body-camera footage and investigative findings are released, key questions remain unresolved: when his handgun left his control, what individual agents perceived, what commands were issued, and why shots continued after he appeared to be down.

What is clearer now is that this was not a chance meeting between a neutral citizen and a faceless state. It was the second collision in less than two weeks between the same protester and the same category of armed federal officers—against a backdrop of escalating political conflict and a media ecosystem willing to shape not just the story, but the face attached to it.