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

[Inthedetails]

So I guess that brings us back to debating did Alex Pretti's presence on the street that day observing and filming agents constitute interfering with a federal agent engaged in protective functions? Was the act of filming interference, intimidation, impeding, assaulting or otherwise hampering them in their jobs?

Because I don't think the act of being present at some distance and filming constitutes any of those bolded things. JM own very strong O

Unless you believe that agents walking toward people to shove women on the ground was "their job" and Alex hampered them from doing more shoving.

And I don't think Alex hampered them; he was assisting the woman. The agents had the opportunity to back off and didn't.


jmopinion

 

[Gators North]

<modsnip: Quoted post was removed>

Enforcing the law is a basic responsibility of government. Law enforcement should be able to do its job without outside interference, and protesters shouldn’t be allowed to dictate whether or not the law is enforced. imo

Is there a point at which protesters should reconsider their approach?

Is there a point at which ICE should reconsider THEIR approach? IMO

 

[MrsWatson]

Yes, why were the agents shoving those women to the ground? Did the ladies say some hurty words? What is the justification for assaulting bystanders?

Standing on a public street voicing your displeasure is not a crime. In fact, free speech and the freedom to protest is one of the US founding principles.

MOO

 

[LAborn]

Not sure if this will show up for everyone, but NYT created a moment by moment, and Morning Joe shows stills and reads along with where everyone was and what happened. It's INSANE

https://bsky.app/profile/cwebbonline.com%2Fpost%2F3mddheiqzfk26

 

[nhmemorymaker]

There's also federal law, which prohibits willfully interfering with a federal law enforcement agent through the use of intimidation. It is not necessary to demonstrate that force was used against the agent, only to show that someone's willful actions constituted interference.

"Section 3056(d) of Title 18 prohibits knowingly and willfully obstructing, resisting, or interfering with a Federal law enforcement agent who is engaged in protective functions. It is a felony under 18 U.S.C. § 111 forcibly to assault, resist, oppose, impede, intimidate, or interfere with Federal law enforcement officers, including Secret Service agents, in the performance of their duties. Unlike 18 U.S.C. § 111, 18 U.S.C. § 3056(d) appears to require proof of knowledge of the victim's official status. Compare the similar distinction drawn between 18 U.S.C. § 111 and 26 U.S.C. § 7212 in United States v. Rybicki, 403 F.2d 599 (6th Cir. 1968). In prosecutions under 18 U.S.C. § 3056, it is not necessary to show that the defendant used force against a Federal law enforcement agent. It would suffice to show that the defendant's willful action constituted an obstruction or resistance to or interference with, the performance of the protective duties of a Federal law enforcement agent. See S. Rep. No. 1252, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. 14 (1970). This statute authorizes Secret Service agents to arrest persons who engage in activities which could nullify or reduce the effectiveness of security precautions taken by the Secret Service, without requiring proof that such interference was forcible or aggressive. Section 3056(d) applies only to those protective functions enumerated therein."

https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-1562-obstruction-secret-service-18-usc-3056d

yes, any of us can pull up Federal Laws, just as the POTUS has done. And I am sure his people are analyzing every work in the manual you have quoted.

I fully expect we will see both your Manual posting, AND the following Insurrection Act principles put to use to try and re-crucify both killed protesters in MN.

But outranking any of these laws is the Supremacy of the Bill of Rights:
The Supremacy Clause (Article VI) establishes that the Constitution, and by extension the Bill of Rights, takes priority over any conflicting state or federal law.

Enacted in 1792, the Insurrection Act grants the president the authority to deploy the U.S. military domestically and use it against Americans under certain conditions. While there are rare circumstances in which such authority might be necessary, the law, which has not been meaningfully updated in over 150 years, is dangerously overbroad and ripe for abuse. President Trump has threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act to deploy active-duty troops in American cities if courts shut down his efforts to federalize and deploy National Guard forces under a different law.
Key language in the Insurrection Act, particularly in 10 U.S.C. § 252, allows the president to use armed forces when "unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion" make it "impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings". Section 253 permits military force if domestic violence impedes law enforcement to the extent that constitutional rights are deprived. The act's provisions, including 10 U.S.C. § 251 (state request) and § 252 (president acts without request), require the president to issue a proclamation ordering insurgents to disperse. Trump has invoked the act or similar language concerning protests and immigration. The Insurrection Act is an exception to the Posse Comitatus Act, allowing active-duty military in domestic law enforcement.

The Insurrection Act, Explained

The vague and rarely used law gives the president broad power to deploy the military domestically — but it’s not a blank check.

www.brennancenter.org

https://policy.defense.gov/portals/11/documents/hdasa/references/insurrection_act.pdf

 

[LAborn]

AP live stream of the hearing this morning

 

[nhmemorymaker]

Yes, why were the agents shoving those women to the ground? Did the ladies say some hurty words? What is the justification for assaulting bystanders?

Standing on a public street voicing your displeasure is not a crime. In fact, free speech and the freedom to protest is one of the US founding principles.

MOO

I have been "looking for" an answer to this very question.... Why were they hurting and pushing these women.
I am certain there are witnesses who have been able to answer this.... but I have not been able to find what has been stated. Not yet anyway.

 

[nhmemorymaker]

Yes, why were the agents shoving those women to the ground? Did the ladies say some hurty words? What is the justification for assaulting bystanders?

Standing on a public street voicing your displeasure is not a crime. In fact, free speech and the freedom to protest is one of the US founding principles.

MOO

and I repeat. Pass it on.....

The Supremacy Clause (Article VI) establishes that the Constitution, and by extension the Bill of Rights, takes priority over any conflicting state or federal law.

 

[otto]

So I guess that brings us back to debating did Alex Pretti's presence on the street that day observing and filming agents constitute interfering with a federal agent engaged in protective functions? Was the act of filming interference, intimidation, impeding, assaulting or otherwise hampering them in their jobs?

Because I don't think the act of being present at some distance and filming constitutes any of those bolded things. JM own very strong

ETA and for those who might answer yes, the victim was doing those things - what differentiates this agency from secret police if the public cannot observe and film their actions without being labelled domestic terrorists and summarily shot?

That seems to be the question - what happened prior to the shooting that resulted in the shooting. Some argue that everyone has the right to interfere with federal agents undertaking their job duties. Federal law says that there are limits regarding interference. Intimidation is not allowed. Blowing whistles, approaching federal officers to confront them about the job they are doing, swearing, chanting all constitute a form of intimidation.

I don't think there is a question of whether the intimidation interferes with undertaking the responsibilities, but rather whether it exists or not. Is it reasonable to assume that intimidation does not violate federal law if the officer appears to be un-impacted by the intimidation?

If federal officers perceive an environment of intimidation, how does that shift their perspective of protesters? If intimidation of federal officers undertaking duties is a violation of federal law, is that for the safety of protesters and federal officers?

Was this a situation where peaceful protesters were not interfering with federal officers, then officers grabbed an 'observer' man, tackled him, someone said "gun" and then there were 10 gunshots? Was this a situation with heightened emotions, intimidation of federal officers, two interactions between Pretti and federal officers, an apparent altercation between the woman in the white coat and the officer, and the escalation of that intimidation resulted in a really horrific outcome where officers started shooting?

What could have been removed from the equation to change the outcome? Better trained officers is obvious, but beyond that?

In this photo, the officer appears to be pointing while Pretti is standing within inches of him. What might the officer be saying? Please get off the road - move to the sidewalk?

What's happening here? What does the body language tell us?

Here, it appears that the taller Pretti is crouched down a little to be at eye level with the federal officer. Why?

Source: video at this website

Beelden van doodgeschoten burger Minneapolis spreken kamp-Trump tegen

Uit de video's en ooggetuigenverslagen blijkt dat Pretti geen wapen in zijn handen hield, maar juist een telefoon. Deze feiten staan haaks op uitspraken van de federale overheid.

nos.nl

Is the woman in the green circle an observer? If so, why is the federal agent turned to look at her?

What are they talking about that results in the federal officer shoving her towards the sidewalk? Why is Pretti turned around to pay attention? Is he concerned about the conversation? The officer then shoves the woman in the white coat. She slips on the ice and snow. Pretti put himself between the officer and the woman in the white coat. Then it all went wrong.

Guardian News video

 

[moonglow123]

So, we have the creator of DHS, other ICE officials, various conservative organizations, and many -Republican- politicians condemning this shooting and demanding an investigation. I repeat. Even people that normally stand behind Trump are demanding an investigation and saying that this shooting was not justified.

I don’t think any lawyer would be able to successfully argue that Alex was “obstructing” ICE duties and therefore deserved to be fatally shot.

I know our leaders will be reluctant to grant an independent investigation, but I’m not seeing any other way forward when even their normally fervent supporters are demanding one.

Alex deserves justice.

 

[BayouBelle_LA]

I have been "looking for" an answer to this very question.... Why were they hurting and pushing these women.
I am certain there are witnesses who have been able to answer this.... but I have not been able to find what has been stated. Not yet anyway.

They knowingly inserted themselves into an active law enforcement operation. This was not an organic protest that coincidentally occurred at the same location agents were trying to make an arrest. imo

 

[witchway]

That seems to be the question - what happened prior to the shooting that resulted in the shooting. Some argue that everyone has the right to interfere with federal agents undertaking their job duties. Federal law says that there are limits regarding interference. Intimidation is not allowed. Blowing whistles, approaching federal officers to confront them about the job they are doing, swearing, chanting all constitute a form of intimidation.

I don't think there is a question of whether the intimidation interferes with undertaking the responsibilities, but rather whether it exists or not. Is it reasonable to assume that intimidation does not violate federal law if the officer appears to be un-impacted by the intimidation?

If federal officers perceive an environment of intimidation, how does that shift their perspective of protesters? If intimidation of federal officers undertaking duties is a violation of federal law, is that for the safety of protesters and federal officers?

Was this a situation where peaceful protesters were not interfering with federal officers, then officers grabbed an 'observer' man, tackled him, someone said "gun" and then there were 10 gunshots? Was this a situation with heightened emotions, intimidation of federal officers, two interactions between Pretti and federal officers, an apparent altercation between the woman in the white coat and the officer, and the escalation of that intimidation resulted in a really horrific outcome where officers started shooting?

What could have been removed from the equation to change the outcome? Better trained officers is obvious, but beyond that?

In this photo, the officer appears to be pointing while Pretti is standing within inches of him. What might the officer be saying? Please get off the road - move to the sidewalk?
View attachment 639819

What's happening here? What does the body language tell us?
View attachment 639820

Here, it appears that the taller Pretti is crouched down a little to be at eye level with the federal officer. Why?
View attachment 639821
Source: video at this website

Beelden van doodgeschoten burger Minneapolis spreken kamp-Trump tegen

Uit de video's en ooggetuigenverslagen blijkt dat Pretti geen wapen in zijn handen hield, maar juist een telefoon. Deze feiten staan haaks op uitspraken van de federale overheid.

nos.nl

Is the woman in the green circle an observer? If so, why is the federal agent turned to look at her?
View attachment 639822

What are they talking about that results in the federal officer shoving her towards the sidewalk? Why is Pretti turned around to pay attention? Is he concerned about the conversation? The officer then shoves the woman in the white coat. She slips on the ice and snow. Pretti put himself between the officer and the woman in the white coat. Then it all went wrong.
View attachment 639823

Guardian News video

Were 9 to 11 bullets ever justified, ever? I say no. I don’t see your point, sorry. jmo

 

[Summerliz03]

They knowingly inserted themselves into an active law enforcement operation. This was not an organic protest that coincidentally occurred at the same location agents were trying to make an arrest. imo

So then they should have been properly and legally arrested by law enforcement, not pushed to the ground, pepper sprayed and then shot in the back 10 times.

 

[tlcya]

That seems to be the question - what happened prior to the shooting that resulted in the shooting. Some argue that everyone has the right to interfere with federal agents undertaking their job duties. Federal law says that there are limits regarding interference. Intimidation is not allowed. Blowing whistles, approaching federal officers to confront them about the job they are doing, swearing, chanting all constitute a form of intimidation.

I don't think there is a question of whether the intimidation interferes with undertaking the responsibilities, but rather whether it exists or not. Is it reasonable to assume that intimidation does not violate federal law if the officer appears to be un-impacted by the intimidation?

If federal officers perceive an environment of intimidation, how does that shift their perspective of protesters? If intimidation of federal officers undertaking duties is a violation of federal law, is that for the safety of protesters and federal officers?

Was this a situation where peaceful protesters were not interfering with federal officers, then officers grabbed an 'observer' man, tackled him, someone said "gun" and then there were 10 gunshots? Was this a situation with heightened emotions, intimidation of federal officers, two interactions between Pretti and federal officers, an apparent altercation between the woman in the white coat and the officer, and the escalation of that intimidation resulted in a really horrific outcome where officers started shooting?

What could have been removed from the equation to change the outcome? Better trained officers is obvious, but beyond that?

In this photo, the officer appears to be pointing while Pretti is standing within inches of him. What might the officer be saying? Please get off the road - move to the sidewalk?
View attachment 639819

What's happening here? What does the body language tell us?
View attachment 639820

Here, it appears that the taller Pretti is crouched down a little to be at eye level with the federal officer. Why?
View attachment 639821
Source: video at this website

Beelden van doodgeschoten burger Minneapolis spreken kamp-Trump tegen

Uit de video's en ooggetuigenverslagen blijkt dat Pretti geen wapen in zijn handen hield, maar juist een telefoon. Deze feiten staan haaks op uitspraken van de federale overheid.

nos.nl

Is the woman in the green circle an observer? If so, why is the federal agent turned to look at her?
View attachment 639822

What are they talking about that results in the federal officer shoving her towards the sidewalk? Why is Pretti turned around to pay attention? Is he concerned about the conversation? The officer then shoves the woman in the white coat. She slips on the ice and snow. Pretti put himself between the officer and the woman in the white coat. Then it all went wrong.
View attachment 639823

Guardian News video

I thank you for articulating so succinctly what factors are being considered as you form your opinions on this case.

BBM I disagree that blowing whistles, yelling, chanting or even cursing trained (allegedly) and heavily armed federal law enforcement agents constitutes intimidation. If they were intimidated (JMO) they need a reminder that sticks and stones may break bones etc.

If chanting and yelling constitutes intimidation, then how on earth are citizens to employ their constitutional right to protest and dissent?

I'M ATTENDING A PROTEST

Your rights

Your rights are strongest in what are known as “traditional public forums,” such as streets, sidewalks, and parks. You also likely have the right to speak out on other public property, like plazas in front of government buildings, as long as you are not blocking access to the government building or interfering with other purposes the property was designed for

Private property owners can set rules for speech on their property. The government may not restrict your speech if it is taking place on your own property or with the consent of the property owner.

Counterprotesters also have free speech rights. Police must treat protesters and counterprotesters equally. Police are permitted to keep antagonistic groups separated but should allow them to be within sight and sound of one another.

When you are lawfully present in any public space, you have the right to photograph anything in plain view, including federal buildings and the police. On private property, the owner may set rules related to photography or video.

You don’t need a permit to march in the streets or on sidewalks, as long as marchers don’t obstruct car or pedestrian traffic. If you don't have a permit, police officers can ask you to move to the side of a street or sidewalk to let others pass or for safety reasons.

What happens if the police issues an order to disperse the protest?

Shutting down a protest through a dispersal order must be law enforcement’s last resort. Police may not break up a gathering unless there is a clear and present danger of riot, disorder, interference with traffic, or other immediate threat to public safety.
If officers issue a dispersal order, they must provide a reasonable opportunity to comply, including sufficient time and a clear, unobstructed exit path.

Individuals must receive clear and detailed notice of a dispersal order, including how much time they have to disperse, the consequences of failing to disperse, and what clear exit route they can follow, before they may be arrested or charged with any crime.
Know Your Rights - Protesting - ACLU of Illinois.

But for the sake of argument, even if I agreed that those activities constitute intimidation, the agents appear to have been very unintimidated, in fact they escalated by going closer and engaging in physical contact with their "intimidators"

Even as we disagree, I wanted to tell you I appreciate how you approach debating our differing opinions respectfully with links and illustrations to help express why you arrive at your conclusions.

 

[Inthedetails]

So, we have the creator of DHS, other ICE officials, various conservative organizations, and many -Republican- politicians condemning this shooting and demanding an investigation. I repeat. Even people that normally stand behind Trump are demanding an investigation and saying that this shooting was not justified.

I don’t think any lawyer would be able to successfully argue that Alex was “obstructing” ICE duties and therefore deserved to be fatally shot.

I know our leaders will be reluctant to grant an independent investigation, but I’m not seeing any other way forward when even their normally fervent supporters are demanding one.

Alex deserves justice.

I think the strong backlash from just about all sectors is because of the lies that were told about the shooting of Alex Pretti.

If the shooting of Alex Pretti had been handled differently and the victim not immediately blamed for being shot 10 times after being pepper-sprayed, tackled, and pinned to the ground, I think the feds would be receiving support or at least silence from their usual supporters, not widespread condemnation. imo

Finding justification for the shooting of Alex Pretti is too far for most people. imo

jmo

 

[otto]

So, we have the creator of DHS, other ICE officials, various conservative organizations, and many -Republican- politicians condemning this shooting and demanding an investigation. I repeat. Even people that normally stand behind Trump are demanding an investigation and saying that this shooting was not justified.

I don’t think any lawyer would be able to successfully argue that Alex was “obstructing” ICE duties and therefore deserved to be fatally shot.

I know our leaders will be reluctant to grant an independent investigation, but I’m not seeing any other way forward when even their normally fervent supporters are demanding one.

Alex deserves justice.

I don't think anyone believes that lethal force was justified.

The federal officers apparently didn't know what to do when they discovered a legal handgun on Pretti's body, so they started shooting. In my opinion, there is a serious problem with lack of training for the officers, a serious problem with the mandate they were given, a serious problem with the methods for arresting illegal immigrants, and more.

 

[Sundog]

Hoping that push leads to a temporary (key word) stand down on enforcement activities while additional training is developed centered on dealing with protesters while still making arrests.

Hoping it leads to state and local law enforcement doing their job of providing support to federal law enforcement during their operations, with state and local law enforcement no longer standing down, and creating a safe perimeter around the operation zone of federal law enforcement officers who are conducting their operations. Doing their job.

 

[Inthedetails]

I don't think anyone believes that lethal force was justified.

The federal officers apparently didn't know what to do when they discovered a legal handgun on Pretti's body, so they started shooting. In my opinion, there is a serious problem with lack of training for the officers, a serious problem with the mandate they were given, a serious problem with the methods for arresting illegal immigrants, and more.

And a serious problem with the head of the agency not taking responsility but instead issuing public statements about the shooting of Alex Pretti that are lies.

jmopinion

 

[Inthedetails]

Judge Katherine Menendez continues to press the DOJ on how Attorney General Pam Bondi’s letter and other threats from the Trump administration don’t show that the federal government is using a threat of officers to push through the president’s political goals.

Alex Pretti shooting: Obamas and Clinton speak out on fatal Minneapolis killing

The Obamas urged the Trump administration to ‘reconsider’ their approach to immigration enforcement

www.independent.co.uk

 

[CrimeDawg123]

That seems to be the question - what happened prior to the shooting that resulted in the shooting. Some argue that everyone has the right to interfere with federal agents undertaking their job duties. Federal law says that there are limits regarding interference. Intimidation is not allowed. Blowing whistles, approaching federal officers to confront them about the job they are doing, swearing, chanting all constitute a form of intimidation.

I don't think there is a question of whether the intimidation interferes with undertaking the responsibilities, but rather whether it exists or not. Is it reasonable to assume that intimidation does not violate federal law if the officer appears to be un-impacted by the intimidation?

If federal officers perceive an environment of intimidation, how does that shift their perspective of protesters? If intimidation of federal officers undertaking duties is a violation of federal law, is that for the safety of protesters and federal officers?

Was this a situation where peaceful protesters were not interfering with federal officers, then officers grabbed an 'observer' man, tackled him, someone said "gun" and then there were 10 gunshots? Was this a situation with heightened emotions, intimidation of federal officers, two interactions between Pretti and federal officers, an apparent altercation between the woman in the white coat and the officer, and the escalation of that intimidation resulted in a really horrific outcome where officers started shooting?

What could have been removed from the equation to change the outcome? Better trained officers is obvious, but beyond that?

In this photo, the officer appears to be pointing while Pretti is standing within inches of him. What might the officer be saying? Please get off the road - move to the sidewalk?
View attachment 639819

What's happening here? What does the body language tell us?
View attachment 639820

Here, it appears that the taller Pretti is crouched down a little to be at eye level with the federal officer. Why?
View attachment 639821
Source: video at this website

Beelden van doodgeschoten burger Minneapolis spreken kamp-Trump tegen

Uit de video's en ooggetuigenverslagen blijkt dat Pretti geen wapen in zijn handen hield, maar juist een telefoon. Deze feiten staan haaks op uitspraken van de federale overheid.

nos.nl

Is the woman in the green circle an observer? If so, why is the federal agent turned to look at her?
View attachment 639822

What are they talking about that results in the federal officer shoving her towards the sidewalk? Why is Pretti turned around to pay attention? Is he concerned about the conversation? The officer then shoves the woman in the white coat. She slips on the ice and snow. Pretti put himself between the officer and the woman in the white coat. Then it all went wrong.
View attachment 639823

Guardian News video

"Here, it appears that the taller Pretti is crouched down a little to be at eye level with the federal officer. [mod edit] Pretti didn't walk up to or approach this officer. He has the right to film. No matter how you try to spin this, given that he has a right to do what he did, it is not his fault. It's the fault of the untrained officers who pumped 10 bullets into him.