Did the nure that was shot point his gun at ice
Executive summary
The available reporting does not establish that Alex Pretti — the Minneapolis ICU nurse shot and killed during a Department of Homeland Security operation — pointed a gun at federal agents; DHS says an agent attempted to disarm Pretti and a pistol was recovered, while family, local officials and bystander video described in news coverage contradict or call that account into question [1] [2] [3]. No independent or court-documented finding confirming that Pretti pointed a weapon has been published in the sources provided; the matter remains under active investigation and disputed by multiple parties [1] [4].
1. The federal account: agent says disarm attempt, weapon recovered
Department of Homeland Security and Border Patrol officials have publicly stated the agent acted in self‑defense after attempting to disarm Pretti, and DHS reported that a pistol was recovered at the scene — a core element of the federal explanation for the shooting [1] [5]. Those statements frame the encounter as a defensive response by an officer who encountered an armed individual, and they have been repeated in multiple outlets as the federal position [1] [5].
2. Family, colleagues and local leaders dispute the federal narrative
Pretti’s family and colleagues have emphatically rejected the federal account; family members told reporters they saw no evidence he was holding a gun in the moments before he was shot, and colleagues described him as a lawful gun owner with a permit and as someone who was trying to help during the incident [3] [6]. Minnesota Governor Tim Walz publicly called the DHS account “nonsense” after reviewing video circulating of the encounter, and local leaders have demanded more transparency from federal authorities [1] [2].
3. Bystander video and law enforcement reactions deepen the dispute
Multiple outlets report that bystander videos captured elements of a scuffle, showing Pretti moving to assist people who had been pepper‑sprayed and then being sprayed and pinned by agents before the shooting; Minneapolis Police Chief Brian O’Hara said “the video speaks for itself” while also noting limited official information and that more than one officer discharged a firearm, underscoring unresolved factual gaps [2] [4] [6]. Those video descriptions have driven public skepticism of the federal narrative, but the reporting does not include an independent forensic or prosecutorial determination about whether Pretti pointed a gun at agents.
4. Investigative and jurisdictional tensions complicate verification
The Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension reported being denied access to the scene by federal investigators despite a judge’s signed warrant, and state and local officials have complained about limited details from DHS — facts that complicate independent verification and heighten political tensions around the case [1] [4]. The absence of open access to forensic evidence in the reporting means outside observers cannot corroborate the federal claim that Pretti pointed a weapon.
5. What the reporting supports — and what it does not
What the sourced reporting does support is that DHS claims a pistol was recovered and that an agent says they attempted to disarm Pretti, while family, colleagues, local officials and bystander videos raise contrary impressions that Pretti was not holding a gun when he was shot and that he was assisting others [1] [2] [3] [6]. What the reporting does not provide is a definitive, independently corroborated account that Pretti pointed a firearm at ICE/Border Patrol agents before being shot; no source in the provided set supplies a confirmed, adjudicated finding to that effect [1] [4].
6. Bottom line: unresolved, contested, under investigation
Based on the reporting assembled here, the claim that the nurse pointed his gun at ICE/Border Patrol agents remains an allegation from federal officials that is disputed by family, local officials and bystander video descriptions; independent confirmation is not present in these sources and the episode remains contested pending a fuller, transparent investigation and release of forensic evidence [1] [2] [3] [4].