What videos and forensic analyses exist showing the moments before and during Alex Pretti’s shooting?
Executive summary
Multiple witness-shot videos from several angles and independent visual-forensic analyses by major news organizations document the moments before and during the fatal shooting of Alex Pretti; those recordings have been scrutinized by The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN, NBC, USA Today, The Guardian and local outlets, and their reviews broadly corroborate that bystanders filmed agents wrestling Pretti to the ground and that he held a phone, not an obvious firearm, in the immediate lead-up to the shooting [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6].
1. What raw videos exist and where they were sourced
At least four distinct bystander videos circulated publicly and were verified by outlets including NBC News and local reporters; those clips were filmed from multiple vantage points around East 26th Street and Nicollet Avenue and were shared by eyewitnesses, posted on social media, and turned over to news organizations and open-source investigators such as OSINTdefender [4] [7] [5] [1].
2. Major media visual-forensic reviews and timelines
The New York Times produced a moment-by-moment timeline and verified footage to map the sequence of events, concluding that Pretti was already restrained when the fatal shots were fired [8] [1]. The Washington Post’s analysis emphasized that agents secured a handgun from Pretti moments before officers opened fire, based on its review of multiple-angle video [2]. CNN’s visual forensics team and NBC’s verification unit each examined several clips, reconstructing positions, movements and audible gunfire counts to contextualize the shooting and test the federal account [3] [4]. Local Hearst affiliate KOCO reviewed three angles and published an analysis situating where Pretti’s legally owned firearm was located during the scuffle [9].
3. Independent findings that converge across reviews
Across outlets, the publicly available footage consistently shows Pretti filming or holding a phone while at the scene, intervening after a demonstrator was shoved, being pushed or pulled to the ground by multiple federal agents, and then being shot in a rapid volley of rounds as several agents were on or near his body; reporters heard at least ten shots in some videos and noted agents wrestled him before the shooting [5] [1] [10] [11]. The Guardian, BBC and USA Today highlighted that the recordings appear to contradict early administration statements that framed Pretti as an armed “massacre” threat, because he is seen with both hands visible and a phone in hand in key clips [6] [12] [5].
4. Conflicting interpretations and the government’s position
The Department of Homeland Security publicly stated the encounter began after an individual “approached US Border Patrol officers with a 9mm semi-automatic handgun,” a claim that officials said justified an officer firing in self-defense; media analyses note that DHS did not specify whether the gun was in hand at all times and that video evidence has been interpreted differently by sources [1] [8]. The Washington Post’s scene reconstruction, which reported agents had secured a handgun from Pretti before the shooting, represents a version of events that some outlets say could align with DHS’ broader claim even as other visual analyses emphasize that Pretti’s hands and phone were visible prior to being wrestled down [2] [5].
5. Forensic limits, unanswered questions and ongoing inquiries
Open-source video analysis can document visible actions, audio and relative timing, but cannot on its own determine the internal perceptions, intent, or moments not captured on camera—such as whether an officer perceived an imminent threat in an obscured instant—nor does it replace official ballistic, autopsy or body-camera evidence that federal investigators may hold and have not been fully released to the public; reporting to date makes clear which elements are based on footage and where official forensic reports remain private [3] [2]. News organizations continue to collect, authenticate and analyze additional angles and to compare them with statements from DHS and Border Patrol, and those parallel threads—video reconstruction versus agency narrative—remain the central evidentiary tension in coverage [4] [8].