What do frame-by-frame video analyses say about who fired first in the Alex Pretti shooting?

1. What multiple frame-by-frame reviews agreed on

Independent visual investigators and newsrooms — including BBC Verify, CBS, CNBC, KSBW and Bellingcat — reviewed bystander footage from several angles and consistently report that Pretti is not seen brandishing a firearm or firing before agents engaged him, and that he is observed on video with empty hands in the moments leading up to the confrontation ^{[6] [3] [1] [2] [7]}. Those same reviews reconstruct that agents physically engaged Pretti, used chemical spray, wrestled him to the ground, and that shots were fired during the ensuing scuffle and as agents retreated, contradicting early departmental statements that he had “violently brandished” a gun immediately before being shot ^{[1] [2] [3]}.

2. What frame-by-frame timing reveals about the sequence

Detailed frame-by-frame study reported by The New York Times times the encounter: roughly 31 seconds elapsed from initial physical engagement to the last shot, a period that included taser/pepper-spray deployment, wrestling, a gun being taken from Pretti’s person and agents giving medical aid — all of which complicates simple narratives about an immediate, reactive shooting ^[5]. Other outlets corroborate that there was at least a brief interval of struggle and movement before multiple rounds were fired, with analysts noting bursts of follow‑up shots in the seconds after the first discharge ^{[4] [8]}.

3. Why analysts cannot conclusively show which officer fired first

Multiple reports emphasize a forensic gap: while video shows agents firing and indicates who was near Pretti when shots rang out, the camera angles, occlusions, smoke and rapid movement make it impossible to unambiguously tie the very first audible or visible shot to a single agent’s muzzle flash in the publicly released footage ^{[4] [5]}. Some outlets report that different agents opened fire nearly simultaneously — one in a black hat and another who had earlier deployed spray — but they stop short of an incontrovertible, single‑shooter identification from the videos alone ^{[4] [5]}.

4. Contradictions with official accounts and the evidentiary stakes

The visual analyses directly challenge aspects of the Department of Homeland Security’s early public account, which framed the shooting as defensive after Pretti allegedly brandished a weapon; reporters and investigators note that at no point in the reviewed footage does Pretti appear to threaten agents with a gun, and that the weapon later located was not seen being brandished on camera ^{[1] [2] [9]}. Journalistic pieces and independent analysts also flag the broader stakes: the inability to visually confirm which agent fired first matters for legal, disciplinary and public‑trust questions, and several outlets call for forensic, ballistic and body‑cam evidence beyond crowd video to resolve that question ^{[5] [7]}.

5. Alternate readings and remaining uncertainties

Some commentators and law‑enforcement sources argue that the officers’ perception of threat could justify rapid use of force and point to sounds and motions in video as supporting their account, yet those readings remain contested by visual analysts who stress the absence of a clear, pre‑shooting threat on camera ^{[1] [10]}. Crucially, reporting notes a persistent evidentiary limit: publicly released bystander footage, even when slowed and synced frame‑by‑frame, cannot definitively attribute the first shot to a named agent without additional forensic tools (ballistics, weapon‑camera correlation, officer statements and body‑worn sensor data) that have not been disclosed in the material reviewed by newsrooms ^{[5] [4]}.