MN - Alex Pretti dead after Minneapolis shooting involving immigration agents, US media report, January 24, 2026

[Marantz4250b]

Not having ID while carrying is not a major crime anyway. It doesn't mean they can take your gun away nor imprison you. It's just a $25 fine. This issue is a red herring imo.

Fact-checking FBI Director Patel's claim that guns are barred at protests

After federal immigration agents shot and killed Alex Pretti in Minneapolis, FBI Director Kash Patel said people cannot bring loaded firearms to protests. Laws vary by state, but the law in Minnesota, and many other states, makes guns at protests legal.

www.pbs.org

State law says not carrying a permit is a "petty misdemeanor" subject to a fine of up to $25. Such a violation "does not constitute a crime," state law says.

And, as has been established by quoting the actual legislation, not carrying ID or your carry permit does NOT render the carry itself unlawful, regardless of how many times certain people claim that it does.

The "crime" is one of not carrying ID whilst lawfully carrying.

And, even if it did render the carry unlawful, the sentence is not one of extra-judicial execution at the side of the road!

 

[Marantz4250b]

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.

He is clearly resisting the officers and reaching for something.

Could your friend point out the precise points where he is "resisting" and "reaching for something", please?

I see none of that.

 

[Emerald1328]

Correct. Watching videos of the incident is totally different from and impossible to determine the perception(s) of the Federal agents during the tussle.

There was no murder or execution here. MOO

In regards to the law, it doesn’t matter what those specific agents’ perceptions of the “tussle” were. It matters how a “reasonable” officer would have handled the situation. This was decided by the Supreme Court in Graham v. Connor. In summary:

“Writing for a unanimous Court, Rehnquist ruled that an analysis of an excessive force claim should consider whether the search or seizure was objectively reasonable, based on how a reasonable police officer would have handled the same situation. The specific intent of the individual police officer who executed the search or seizure should not matter. While improper intentions do not make a reasonable use of force unconstitutional, good intentions do not shield an officer from liability if their use of force was objectively unreasonable. Thus, the Supreme Court rejected both the decisions of lower courts that had relied on the 14th Amendment and arguments that the Eighth Amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment should apply. (An Eighth Amendment standard also would be subjective.) In deciding whether an officer used excessive force in a certain situation, a court should consider similar factors to those described in the earlier decision of Tennessee v. Garner. These include the severity of the crime, any threat posed by the individual to the safety of officers or other people, and whether the individual is trying to flee or resist arrest.”

Now, whether a “reasonable” officer would have done the same thing….I have my opinion but we shall see.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/490/386/

 

[Marantz4250b]

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

And, I think that five (at least) of those were fired at a distance by a single officer when he was already clearly incapacitated and face down on the ground.

That is NOT a legitimate use of defensive force by any reasonable analysis!

 

[Inthedetails]

Was Alex a target for ICE? Is the unspoken vibe I'm picking up?

Was Alex an undocumented criminal that ICE was targeting? No.

Did Alex annoy ICE in previous days and the agents then felt justified targeting him to rough up and, ulitimately, kill?

Is ICE targeting U.S. citizens they don't like, under the guise and excuse Alex unfortunately put himself in the wrong place?

Sure wish we could trust that an investigation was happening.

jmopinion

 

[Inthedetails]

And, I think that five (at least) of those were fired at a distance by a single officer when he was already clearly incapacitated and face down on the ground.

That is NOT a legitimate use of defensive force by any reasonable analysis!

Oh, but Alex, unfortunately, put himself in that position, prone and empty handed on the ground when those additional shots were fired. Too bad, but don't be dead in front of agents. It gets in the way of their job.


jmo

 

[kuromiiiilove]

Family of Alex Pretti retains lawyers who helped prosecute the George Floyd case

The parents of Alex Pretti have retained a former federal prosecutor who helped Minnesota’s attorney general convict the police officer who kneeled on George Floyd’s neck of murder.

www.pbs.org

“The parents of Alex Pretti have retained a former federal prosecutor who helped Minnesota's attorney general convict the police officer who kneeled on George Floyd's neck of murder…. Schleicher is representing Michael and Susan Pretti pro bono, according to a family spokesman.“

 

[Inthedetails]

<modsnip: Quoted post removed>

He certainly wasn't as deliberate as the agents that morning who tackled him in a pile and shot him.

jmo

 

[Cryptic]

He certainly wasn't as deliberate as the agents that morning who tackled him in a pile and shot him.

Very true. I still would not want any of my loved ones going deliberate ala Pretti at a protest. Such deliberate actions might place them at risk.

I have taken part in a yearly protest- well, unarmed and not kicking out tail lights of police vehicles. Looking for trouble is usually not productive in the long run. jmo

 

[Cryptic]

Did Alex annoy ICE in previous days and the agents then felt justified targeting him to rough up and, ulitimately, kill?

My bet is that if I arm myself, spit at, then kick out the tail light of the next occupied police cruiser I see, the police inside may be a little more than annoyed. They might even view me as a threat. They might even think that I am seeking out a confrontation.

 

[Summerliz03]

My bet is that if I arm myself and kick out the tail light of the next police cruiser I see, the police inside may be a little more than annoyed. They might even view me as a threat.

And for that offense, you should be arrested. Unless you are waving your gun around or threatening officers with it, you are not a lethal threat to them. Their job is to legally and safely detain you for arrest. Kicking out someone’s tail light shouldn’t end in being shot 10 times in the back.

 

[Inthedetails]

Very true. But. I still would not want any of my loved ones going deliberate ala Pretti at a protest.

I have taken part in a yearly protest- well, unarmed and not kicking out tail lights of police vehicles. Looking for trouble is usually not productive in the long run. jmo

It's possible to not like Alex, to not approve of Alex, to think badly of Alex ... AND at the same time, see that the agents were wrong in their actions.

If you think the agents did wrong, it doesn't automatically mean you think Alex' behavior was acceptable to you.

Alex doesn't have to be perfect in order to see the agents killed him unjustly.

jmo

 

[Inthedetails]

My bet is that if I arm myself and kick out the tail light of the next police cruiser I see, the police inside may be a little more than annoyed. They might even view me as a threat.

They might kill you.

jmo

 

[Cryptic]

Is ICE targeting U.S. citizens they don't like, under the guise and excuse Alex unfortunately put himself in the wrong place?

Possibly, possibly.

Then again, could the real brains behind these protests be manipulating the gulliable into risking their lives ala:

- These protests need to go to the next level. Hey- legally arm yourself. Maybe start spitting at officers. When that does not get a reaction, kick out the tail light of the car. Eventually..... something might happen....

 

[Cryptic]

They might kill you.

I agree. All the more reason for me not to do it.

 

[CSIDreamer]

And for that offense, you should be arrested. Unless you are waving your gun around or threatening officers with it, you are not a lethal threat to them. Their job is to legally and safely detain you for arrest. Kicking out someone’s tail light shouldn’t end in being shot 10 times in the back.

Are the autopsy results out yet?



I've heard 10 shots with 5 wounds but posters here are saying 10 shots 10 wounds.




It doesn't change anything, but I'm curious what the autopsy showed.

 

[Inthedetails]

I agree. All the more reason for me not to do it.

May you always behave perfectly.

jmo

 

[kuromiiiilove]

Possibly, possibly.

Then again, could the real brains behind these protests be these protests be manipulating the gullable into risking their lives ala:

- These protests need to go to the next level. Hey- legally arm yourself. Maybe start spitting at officers. When that does not get a reaction, kick out the tail light of the car. Eventually..... something might happen- well, to you, not me.

Who do you think are the ‘real brains’ behind these protests?

 

[Summerliz03]

Are the autopsy results out yet?


I've heard 10 shots with 5 wounds but posters here are saying 10 shots 10 wounds.



It doesn't change anything, but I'm curious what the autopsy showed.

I don’t believe the autopsy results are out. I will also be curious about them. I personally hear 12 shots when I re-watch the video - there are a lot towards the end all at once (probably from the fact that 2 officers were shooting) that make it hard to count but that’s what I counted. To me; having 5 wounds vs 10 really doesn’t change the fact that they shot a man who was prone on the ground with his hands flat and who had been disarmed at that point.

 

[CSIDreamer]

I don’t believe the autopsy results are out. I will also be curious about them. I personally hear 12 shots when I re-watch the video - there are a lot towards the end all at once (probably from the fact that 2 officers were shooting) that make it hard to count but that’s what I counted. To me; having 5 wounds vs 10 really doesn’t change the fact that they shot a man who was prone on the ground with his hands flat and who had been disarmed at that point.

No, it definitely doesn't make him more dead or less dead.

Thank you for counting shots and establishing your own count. I'm severely hearing impaired so no sense in me even trying.

I'm interested in the details because because it's important to spread fact, not just regurgitate what others are saying.

I will definitely keep in mind your count of 12 shots.

All JMO