What has been published from body-camera or surveillance footage in the Alex Pretti case and which outlets provide original clips?
Executive summary
Public reporting has brought multiple bystander and surveillance-angle videos into the record: a Jan. 13 altercation clip published by The News Movement and redistributed by outlets including the BBC and New York Times, separate bystander footage published by the Minnesota Star Tribune and AP-linked images, and multiple cellphone videos of the Jan. 24 killing shared with The New York Times and on social media [1] [2] [3] [4]. No government body‑worn‑camera footage has been publicly released so far, though U.S. reviewers say their internal review relied on body‑worn camera footage and CBP documentation [5] [6].
1. What has been published: the Jan. 13 altercation clip and its variants
A cluster of videos from Jan. 13 showing an altercation between a man later identified by the family as Alex Pretti and federal agents was first published by The News Movement and has been republished or reported on by major outlets; that footage shows Pretti shouting, spitting at an unmarked vehicle, kicking a taillight, and being tackled by a heavily armed agent before other officers crowd around and ultimately release him [1] [7] [3]. The BBC and Euronews reported that The News Movement’s clip was shared with them and confirmed by the family that the person in the footage was Pretti [2] [8]. The Guardian and the New York Times published the same videos or screenshots and noted the footage adds context to Pretti’s interactions with federal officers days before his death [3] [1].
2. Bystander videos and localized reporting: who filmed what
At least one separate bystander video taken by Max Shapiro and published in local outlets such as the Minnesota Star Tribune shows a different angle of the Jan. 13 encounter and captures officers tackling Pretti and members of the crowd reacting; the Star Tribune’s version was cited by national outlets as corroborating the scene shown in The News Movement clip [3] [9]. National compilations and aggregations — Yahoo, Daily Mail and Fox News among them — have republished or analyzed those bystander clips and stills, sometimes framing the material differently according to editorial stance [10] [11] [12].
3. Footage of the fatal Jan. 24 shooting: witness cellphone videos versus official bodycams
Multiple cellphone videos of the Jan. 24 killing were shared with The New York Times and circulated on social media, and those witness videos have been central to reporting that agents fired many rounds in a few seconds and that parts of the video appear to contradict initial federal statements [4]. News organizations have used these bystander clips to document the shooting sequence; at the same time, reporters note that the government has not publicly released any body‑worn camera footage of the incident even though the U.S. review of the killing relied on body‑worn camera footage and CBP records [4] [6]. The Hill and other outlets explicitly report that no body camera footage has been released to the public while some officials say footage exists and is being reviewed [5].
4. Which outlets provided original clips and what “original” means here
The News Movement appears to be the original publisher of the Jan. 13 altercation clip that set off the latest wave of reporting, with major international outlets (BBC, New York Times, Guardian, Euronews) reproducing or reporting on that original posting [1] [2] [3] [8]. The Minnesota Star Tribune published at least one distinct bystander video (Max Shapiro’s) that offers a separate angle [3]. The New York Times published witness‑provided cellphone video of the Jan. 24 shooting and has been a primary outlet for the witness footage of the killing [4]. Other outlets — Reuters, Fox News, Yahoo, Daily Mail, Washington Post and others — have republished, analyzed, or summarized those original clips, sometimes adding frames, commentary, or legal interpretation [6] [7] [10] [11] [13].
5. Gaps, contestations, and why official bodycam footage matters
Reporting consistently notes a key gap: while multiple bystander and News Movement‑published clips are public, official body‑worn camera footage has not been released publicly, and federal reviews that reference bodycam material have not made that footage available for independent scrutiny; outlets differ on whether cameras were worn and when footage will be released [5] [6]. That gap fuels competing narratives — family lawyers and local outlets emphasize the bystander clips to challenge federal accounts, while some national commentators and officials point to internal bodycam materials and agency claims not yet shown to the public [1] [6] [7].