Has the Department of Homeland Security released photographic evidence or body‑cam footage related to the Pretti shooting?
Executive summary
The Department of Homeland Security has publicly shared a photograph that it says is the handgun recovered in the fatal Jan. 24 encounter that left Alex Jeffrey Pretti dead, but it has not released body‑worn camera footage or other agent video of the shooting; instead, multiple bystander videos circulated on social media and were analyzed by news outlets [1] [2]. Those independent videos appear to contradict DHS’s initial account that Pretti “approached US Border Patrol officers with a 9 mm semi‑automatic handgun,” and they form the basis of much of the public dispute over what happened [2] [3].
1. DHS’s public disclosure: a photo of an alleged firearm, not bodycam video
DHS officials have made public a photograph they say shows the gun recovered from the scene and have repeatedly asserted that a firearm and two magazines were recovered, but reporting and the agency’s statements describe that disclosure as a still photo rather than any body‑worn camera or in‑vehicle video release [1] [4] [5].
2. What the independent videos show and why they matter
Multiple bystander videos posted to social media and later verified and analyzed by outlets including The New York Times and others show Pretti apparently holding a phone, moving toward or filming agents, being taken to the ground and then shot, and in some angles a handgun only appearing after he is restrained — footage that critics say undermines DHS’s timeline that he “approached” with a gun in hand [2] [6] [7].
3. DHS’s narrative versus visual evidence: competing accounts
DHS officials and spokespeople have framed the shooting as an agent response to a person armed and resisting disarmament, language repeated by news reports citing DHS; by contrast, bystander footage and frame‑by‑frame analysis by newsrooms raise questions about whether the gun was in Pretti’s hands when the use of deadly force began, a central factual dispute driving calls for an independent probe [1] [2] [6].
4. Local officials, unions and lawmakers reacting to the evidence available
City and state leaders, members of Congress and labor representatives have cited the circulating bystander videos in demanding independent investigations and transparency while DHS and some federal officials have defended agents’ actions and pointed to the recovered firearm as corroboration — a clash that reflects differing priorities: local accountability and public footage scrutiny versus federal assertions about officer safety [8] [1] [9].
5. What remains undisclosed and the limits of public reporting
None of the reporting reviewed documents that DHS released body‑worn camera footage or other agency video of the shooting; news organizations rely on bystander footage and the DHS photograph of the alleged firearm to reconstruct events, and public records or official releases of agent cameras are not reported in the available sources, which limits definitive public confirmation of the agents’ visual perspectives [2] [1] [3].
6. Why the distinction between a photo and bodycam footage matters
A single agency photo of a recovered object addresses whether a gun was on scene but does not show the dynamic seconds before, during or after shots were fired from an agent’s viewpoint; bystander videos, which currently drive most public scrutiny, capture those interactions from external angles and are the primary visual record in circulation — a fact that shapes both legal scrutiny and the political reaction [1] [2] [10].
7. Alternative explanations and the path forward
DHS’s claim that agents acted in defense of their lives and the agency’s presentation of a recovered firearm is the federal position; independent footage and analysis suggesting the weapon surfaced only after restraint is the countervailing account and has prompted demands for unencumbered, independent investigation and for any government-held video to be released so forensic timelines can be fully established [1] [3] [6].