MEDICAL EXAMINER RULES ALEX PRETTI DEATH A HOMICIDE -1 - dead after Minneapolis shooting involving immigration agents, US Jan 24, 2026

[waldojabba]

Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the Democratic leader, emerged from a closed party meeting on Wednesday and laid out Democrats’ demands for new restrictions on federal immigration officers. In broad terms, they want roving immigration patrols to end. They also want to see agents observe conventional law enforcement standards on use of force and an end to federal officers’ wearing masks, with an additional requirement that they always carry proper identification.

Minnesota Live Updates: Federal Agents Involved in Deadly Minneapolis Shooting Now on Leave, DHS Says

The disclosure came as the administration’s handling of the shooting continued to draw criticism. U.S. Capitol Police were also investigating an attack on Representative Ilhan Omar.

www.nytimes.com

So these are all reasonabble requests IMO
-Roving immigration patrols - ding ding - we knew it - they stroll around inciting chaos and then claim people are in the way of their OP - when the OP is really just BS
-Convential ( aka legal) law enforcement standards for the icemen not what they are doing now
-End mask wearing - its only logical
- Carry proper ID on them -

ALL the above are really minimum no brainer standards - Its just madness having to ask for these

So bizarre that any of these things even have to be negotiated -

JMO

 

[JennieM]

30m ago

Schumer lays out Democrats' demands to 'rein in' ICE as condition to avoid shutdown​

The Senate minority leader, Chuck Schumer, has laid out Democratic demands for policy changes for ICE, as he pushed for DHS funding to be separated from the other funding bills ahead of a looming shutdown at the end of this week.

Let me be clear: Democrats stand ready today to pass the five bipartisan bills in the Senate, but the DHS bill needs serious work. It’s now on Leader [John] Thune to separate out the DHS bill, just as Speaker [Mike] Johnson did in the House, and start working with Democrats to rein in ice, imposing oversight, accountability and empowering local law enforcement in our communities.

Schumer said this afternoon that federal immigration agents must lose their masks, wear body cameras, observe the same use of force rules as local police, and be subject to tighter rules requiring search warrants and an end to roving patrols, as he outlined conditions that his party is seeking to extend government funding beyond Saturday’s deadline.

Schumer also said in a post on X:

The Senate is scheduled to take the first procedural vote on a funding package including DHS funding tomorrow.

Let me be clear: Until ICE is properly reined in and overhauled, the DHS funding bill won’t have the votes to pass the Senate.

Chuck Schumer at the Capitol on Tuesday. Photograph: J Scott Applewhite/AP
He told CNN:

Our number one goal is — these are three policy areas we think must be done. What we want to do is negotiate with the Republicans and come up with a proposal that, again, reins in ice and ends the violence.

Federal agents involved in fatal shooting of Alex Pretti placed on administrative leave – live

Two officers involved have been placed on administrative leave in standard protocol, says CBP spokesperson

www.theguardian.com

 

[Inthedetails]

I am certainly happy to see the massive increase in support of the Second Amendment.

Isn't it great? I have always been MASSIVELY committed Bill of Rights. The fight for the Bill of Rights during the ratification process of the Constitution is one of my favorite times to study in history. Any attention brought to the amendments, I encourage.

May the Bill of Rights survive.

jmo

 

[southgoldengirl]

I am certainly happy to see the massive increase in support of the Second Amendment.

Your perceived support in the Second Amendment is for equality for all under the Constitution, not the Second Amendment per se. IMO

But I'm sure you are aware of that.

 

[zleuther]

IMO, no LE agency, by sideline request default, let's random, unvetted civilians into an active crime scene, especially right after a shooting. That's scene security, not misconduct. You don't hand control of a volatile scene to unknown people. I suspect you wouldn't like tasers being deployed either, and masks off, with your name badge with ID # idea on doesn't turn live operations into meet-and-greets. IMO

Yikes, we call the above making-it-up-as-we-go-along.

 

[Kaley Smith]

It is not offensive to me, it is a warning and heartbreakingly so. Not even that much of a warning, it is too very close to being the same to non white, white appearing people. (((( ))))

Daughter of a German mother here. Yes, she was on the wrong side when she was a teen, but she told me what the Nazi propaganda was like. It even included books German children were given about how dangerous and evil Jewish people were. Reminds me of how immigrants of colour are being portrayed by the current administration in the USA. Just my opinion. PS. She was always grateful that she was accepted by Canada as a young adult after the war. Many Germans on the ship did not trust that they would be welcomed, so they threw all pictures of home and family overboard into the ocean. Her Dad trusted the promise that they would be accepted. He had not fought in the war and my uncle at age 16 was doing what he was told, throwing bodies of the dead in Vienna, Austria onto a wagon and throwing them into a ditch outside the city. Family pictures and artifacts were kept. Mom loved Canada. PS 2 I'm very proud of my German grandpa. He did not fall for the Nazi propaganda about Jews. In fact, when there were still Jewish farmers in rural areas outside of Lintz, Austria he would drive out there by horse and wagon to trade the homebrew he made for milk and cheese from them. Mom went along to distract and charm the soldiers at the checkpoints. Grandpa would say he knew a farmer who was a relative. He once said to Mom "War makes men into animals" as he had fought in WW1 as an 18 yr old.

 

[SouthAussie]

The two Border Patrol agents who fired their guns during Alex Pretti’s fatal shooting in Minnesota have been placed on administrative leave, according to Department of Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin.
Minneapolis live updates: Two Border Patrol agents who fired their guns in Alex Pretti’s fatal shooting have been put on leave

I think it could be only for three days. At full pay.


“three days of administrative leave are given to any agent following any officer-involved shooting per department policy.” DHS Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs Tricia McLaughlin called agents being placed on leave “standard protocol.”

Administrative leave is full pay and not a disciplinary status, the source said. If an agent had his gun and badge pulled, they would be considered on restricted duty, not administrative leave

https://www.woodtv.com/news/nexstar-media-wire/border-patrol-agents-who-fatally-shot-alex-pretti-placed-on-leave-dhs/

 

[Summerliz03]

How would that explain TEN shots?

jmo

I also wanted to add onto this (because 10 shots just makes it completely unexplainable and inexcusable to me) The officer that pulls the gun off of Alex and the officer that started shooting him are literally standing right next to each other. They are both at Alex’s hip, as he’s bent over on the ground (his butt is in the air). They know Alex is bent over and that there are several other agents wrestling him around his head/torso. The officer who fired first was literally watching the other officer pull a gun off of him, and starts shooting him within 2-3 seconds of that happening. These officers are literally directly next to each other, the officer who shot had to have seen Alex being unarmed by the officer in the green hoodie, there’s really no way he didn’t, IMO.

 

[PrairieWind]

Your perceived support in the Second Amendment is for equality for all under the Constitution, not the Second Amendment per se. IMO

But I'm sure you are aware of that.

Can you explain what you mean? The 2nd Amendment is part of the Constitution. It is a right of the People, not the government as has been argued by so many.

 

[BayouBelle_LA]

How would that explain TEN shots?

jmo

For me, the ten shots explain it. More than one agent fired, which suggests that multiple agents perceived a threat. In that chaos, a shout that he had a gun would have triggered an immediate reaction. imo

 

[dspdenver]

Tom Morello announces surprise benefit concert at First Avenue - Bring Me The News

The Rage Against the Machine guitarist will be joined by Rise Against, Al Di Meola, and Ike Reilly.

bringmethenews.com

[Dubbed "a concert of solidarity and resistance to defend Minnesota," the show will take place on the same day as a planned national strike and protest against the presence of ICE and other federal agencies in Minnesota.

The First Avenue states that 100% of proceeds will "go to the families of ICE victims Renee Good and Alex Pretti."]

 

[Inthedetails]

Can you explain what you mean? The 2nd Amendment is part of the Constitution. It is a right of the People, not the government as has been argued by so many.

It's an amendment to the Contitution, not part of the Constitition. It's true the Bill of Rights and the Constitution were ratified at the same time, thanks to the Anti-Federalists who thought the Constitution gave too much power to the Federal government and wanted protection against that.

Might sound nit-picky, but if we're going to tout support for the amendments, it's best to get it right. If the amendments were part of the Constitution, they wouldn't have needed to have been added. The Bill of Rights is 10 amendments added to the Constitution.

jmopinion

 

[statt#1]

Hey Everyone,

A friend of mine shared his thoughts with me and gave me permission to post them here. His perspective is different from what most people in this thread believe

I’m posting this because I think it’s important to understand how people think who strongly disagree with each other. I’d like to hear your responses to his views and how you would address his arguments.

As always, please respond respectfully and thoughtfully. This is a good opportunity to show that people can disagree passionately and still have a productive, civil conversation.

From my friend
I think that any LE officer in this situation could have felt threatened by this guy's movements. He is clearly resisting the officers and reaching for something. Did someone shout "gun" at some point? If so it would heighten the fear among the officers. Did the officers who fired at him know that another officer had taken a weapon from him? I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't from watching that confusing struggle. Does taking a single weapon during the struggle mean he doesn't have another weapon that could be used to kill? Of course not

So it's boils down to did the actions of the armed instigator cause these officers to fear for their lives or the safety of others. If it did then the shooting is legally justified

I wonder if you think it's possible the officers in this case really did fear for their safety during this encounter with the armed protester.

Tricia again. I would love to see your replies to my friend's message.

Thank you.

I've said similar previously in this thread, and have been lambasted for it.

 

[Inthedetails]

For me, the ten shots explain it. More than one agent fired, which suggests that multiple agents perceived a threat. In that chaos, a shout that he had a gun would have triggered an immediate reaction. imo

TEN times? Into a man on the ground? With the gun in possession of an agent? With people in the near vicinity who could've been hit?

It's ineptitude, imo.

jmopinion

 

[tlcya]

Hey Everyone,

A friend of mine shared his thoughts with me and gave me permission to post them here. His perspective is different from what most people in this thread believe

I’m posting this because I think it’s important to understand how people think who strongly disagree with each other. I’d like to hear your responses to his views and how you would address his arguments.

As always, please respond respectfully and thoughtfully. This is a good opportunity to show that people can disagree passionately and still have a productive, civil conversation.

From my friend
I think that any LE officer in this situation could have felt threatened by this guy's movements. He is clearly resisting the officers and reaching for something. Did someone shout "gun" at some point? If so it would heighten the fear among the officers. Did the officers who fired at him know that another officer had taken a weapon from him? I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't from watching that confusing struggle. Does taking a single weapon during the struggle mean he doesn't have another weapon that could be used to kill? Of course not

So it's boils down to did the actions of the armed instigator cause these officers to fear for their lives or the safety of others. If it did then the shooting is legally justified

I wonder if you think it's possible the officers in this case really did fear for their safety during this encounter with the armed protester.

Tricia again. I would love to see your replies to my friend's message.

I would first ask my friend to show me where AP is "clearly resisting the officer and reaching for something" in one of the many angles of video that captured the moments just prior to and the shooting. Was it when he was stumbling as he was being forcefully shoved backwards? Was it when his face was full of pepper spray as he tried to ward some of that off with his raised open left hand and a cell phone is his right? Was it when he was bending to try to pull the woman next to him off the ground where she had just been shoved hard by an agent?

Because I have seen a number of second by second breakdowns that do not show him clearly resisting anything, except being shoved and being pepper sprayed. Next I would show my friend the video clip that illustrates one agent removing the weapon from AP's person and leaving the vicinity with it as other officers yelled "gun" "gun" and seconds later agents firing at a man who was on his knees and then his stomach while surrounded by six armed agents who were kicking and hitting him.

I would then ask my friend to explain why he thought the additional shots fired into the prone and probably already dead man's body might also be driven by fear. I would ask my friend if he thought perhaps their training should have covered communicating effectively with one another so that misunderstandings about whether there was a gun on AP's person or not would not occur. Finally I would ask my friend what in the agent clapping gleefully after the 10 shots had been fired into AP seemed to indicate he was ever fearful of an alleged hostile "crowd" of agitators?

I think I would start there.

 

[JennieM]

17 min ago

Bruce Springsteen releases protest song dedicated to Minneapolis and in memory of Alex Pretti, Renee Good​

From CNN's Emma Tucker

Rock megastar Bruce Springsteen released a song today in protest of the federal immigration operation in Minneapolis called, “Streets of Minneapolis,” dedicating it to the city’s residents and in the memory of Alex Pretti and Renee Good, who were both killed by federal agents this month.

“I wrote this song on Saturday, recorded it yesterday and released it to you today in response to the state terror being visited on the city of Minneapolis,” Springsteen, who has previously criticized the Trump administration’s policies and federal immigration crackdown, wrote in a statement on Facebook. “It’s dedicated to the people of Minneapolis, our innocent immigrant neighbors and in memory of Alex Pretti and Renee Good.”

In the song, Springsteen sings: “A city aflame fought fire and ICE beneath an occupier’s boots. King Trump’s private army from the DHS, guns belted to their coats, came to Minneapolis to enforce the law… or so their story goes.”

“Citizens stood for justice, their voices ringing through the night,” he sings. “And there were bloody footprints where mercy should have stood. And two dead left to die on snow-filled streets, Alex Pretti and Renee Good.”

Springsteen continues: “We’ll take our stand for this land and the stranger in our midst. Here in our home, they killed and roamed in the winter of ’26. We’ll remember the names of those who died on the streets of Minneapolis… Trump’s federal thugs beat up on his face and his chest. Then we heard the gunshots and Alex Pretti lay in the snow, dead. Their claim was self-defense, just don’t believe your eyes.”

https://edition.cnn.com/us/live-news/minneapolis-ice-trump-01-28-26?t=1769635842292

 

[JennieM]

'Masks off, body cameras on': Schumer lays out Democrats' demands​

IMAGE SOURCE, BLOOMBERG VIA GETTY IMAGES

Senate Democratic Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has just been speaking to reporters in the US Capitol. He says Democrats are united in their demands for reform of federal immigration enforcement.

Here are the three main changes Democrats want:

• An end to roving patrols by federal agents
• Enforce accountability with a uniform code of conduct for federal agents
• "We want masks off and body-cameras on," Schumer says. "No more anonymous agents, no more secret operatives"

Schumer says if Republicans refuse to support these proposals, "they are choosing chaos over order."

Live: Agents involved in shooting of Minnesota man Alex Pretti put on leave

Pretti, a US citizen, was shot and killed on Saturday in an incident which has sparked ongoing protests.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[nhmemorymaker]

Moo...yes that was really strange to watch. They are just stuffing stuff in their pockets. Is that allowed? He is obviously dead it is not like he can hide anything.

I gather ICE does have the right to search for stuff on a person (?even if dead?), but do they have the right to suppress that evidence.
Do we have *facts* of what has happened to his gun??

 

[nhmemorymaker]

17 min ago

Bruce Springsteen releases protest song dedicated to Minneapolis and in memory of Alex Pretti, Renee Good​

From CNN's Emma Tucker

Rock megastar Bruce Springsteen released a song today in protest of the federal immigration operation in Minneapolis called, “Streets of Minneapolis,” dedicating it to the city’s residents and in the memory of Alex Pretti and Renee Good, who were both killed by federal agents this month.

“I wrote this song on Saturday, recorded it yesterday and released it to you today in response to the state terror being visited on the city of Minneapolis,” Springsteen, who has previously criticized the Trump administration’s policies and federal immigration crackdown, wrote in a statement on Facebook. “It’s dedicated to the people of Minneapolis, our innocent immigrant neighbors and in memory of Alex Pretti and Renee Good.”

In the song, Springsteen sings: “A city aflame fought fire and ICE beneath an occupier’s boots. King Trump’s private army from the DHS, guns belted to their coats, came to Minneapolis to enforce the law… or so their story goes.”

“Citizens stood for justice, their voices ringing through the night,” he sings. “And there were bloody footprints where mercy should have stood. And two dead left to die on snow-filled streets, Alex Pretti and Renee Good.”

Springsteen continues: “We’ll take our stand for this land and the stranger in our midst. Here in our home, they killed and roamed in the winter of ’26. We’ll remember the names of those who died on the streets of Minneapolis… Trump’s federal thugs beat up on his face and his chest. Then we heard the gunshots and Alex Pretti lay in the snow, dead. Their claim was self-defense, just don’t believe your eyes.”

https://edition.cnn.com/us/live-news/minneapolis-ice-trump-01-28-26?t=1769635842292

Back in the day.... we could not live without our musicians words....
I have asked the heavens in recent years "Where is the Music".

Hopefully the Boss is leading the way....

 

[Deleted member 369619]

Hey Everyone,

A friend of mine shared his thoughts with me and gave me permission to post them here. His perspective is different from what most people in this thread believe

I’m posting this because I think it’s important to understand how people think who strongly disagree with each other. I’d like to hear your responses to his views and how you would address his arguments.

As always, please respond respectfully and thoughtfully. This is a good opportunity to show that people can disagree passionately and still have a productive, civil conversation.

From my friend
I think that any LE officer in this situation could have felt threatened by this guy's movements. He is clearly resisting the officers and reaching for something. Did someone shout "gun" at some point? If so it would heighten the fear among the officers. Did the officers who fired at him know that another officer had taken a weapon from him? I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't from watching that confusing struggle. Does taking a single weapon during the struggle mean he doesn't have another weapon that could be used to kill? Of course not

So it's boils down to did the actions of the armed instigator cause these officers to fear for their lives or the safety of others. If it did then the shooting is legally justified

I wonder if you think it's possible the officers in this case really did fear for their safety during this encounter with the armed protester.

Tricia again. I would love to see your replies to my friend's message.

No, no, a thousand times NO! Ban me if you want to (IDK) or put me on TO. I CANNOT agree with this!