Which videos and pieces of evidence have contradicted official accounts of the Minneapolis ICE shootings, and where are they cataloged?
Executive summary
Video footage recorded by bystanders and later synchronized and analyzed by major newsrooms directly contradicted key elements of the Department of Homeland Security’s account of the Jan. 24 Minneapolis killing of Alex Pretti, showing him holding a phone rather than brandishing a gun and suggesting a firearm was removed from his waistband before fatal shots were fired [1] [2] [3]. Those clips — captured on multiple cellphones, shared with and verified by outlets including The Guardian, The New York Times, Reuters, NPR and PBS — have been published, used in newsroom reconstructions and cited in court filings and preservation orders [1] [3] [4] [2] [5].
1. The core bystander videos: vantage points that undercut the official timeline
Several independent cellphone recordings from observers across the street and immediately behind Pretti show him standing, holding up an object that reporters and investigators say is a phone, retreating after an apparent shove, and being tackled and shot minutes later — footage that directly disputes early DHS statements that he “approached” agents with a handgun and violently resisted [1] [6] [7]. Multiple outlets reported the same basic visual facts: Pretti’s right hand held a phone, his left hand appeared empty and raised, and witnesses later gave sworn affidavits saying he never brandished a gun [1] [6].
2. Video suggesting a gun was removed before the fatal shots
At least one clip published and described by reporters appears to show an agent or officer removing a handgun from Pretti’s waistband immediately before another agent fires, a sequence that complicates the DHS narrative that Pretti was actively threatening officers with a weapon when shot [2] [8]. Newsroom analyses and synchronized timelines — most notably The New York Times visual-investigations work — reconstructed multiple angles to show how close in time the disarming and shooting were, prompting widespread reporting that the footage undercuts the administration’s initial characterization [3] [9].
3. How major news organizations cataloged and authenticated the footage
The Guardian, The New York Times, Reuters, NPR, PBS, ABC and local outlets published bystander videos, timelines and expert analysis after verifying clips with witnesses and comparing angles; The New York Times published a synchronized visual-investigations package built from several eye‑witness videos, while Reuters and others explicitly stated they had verified online footage that contradicted government claims [1] [3] [4] [2] [5]. Those organizations host the clips and reconstructions on their platforms and describe their verification methods in accompanying stories, making the footage broadly accessible to the public and investigators [3] [4].
4. Court filings, affidavits and preservation orders as documentary evidence
Witness affidavits filed in a federal ACLU lawsuit accompany some of the publicly released videos and are cited by outlets reporting that witnesses swore Pretti never held a gun [1]. Local prosecutors and civil rights lawyers sought and obtained judicial relief to prevent destruction of evidence, with reports that a temporary restraining order was issued to bar federal officials from destroying material tied to the incident — a legal step intended to preserve video, body-worn camera material and other physical evidence as investigations proceed [9]. Reuters and PBS reported that verified bystander videos were already being considered by state and federal investigators [4] [5].
5. Competing narratives, official pushback and limits of the public record
Federal officials initially portrayed the encounter as an armed, violent threat to agents; the Biden-era or Trump administration spokespeople have defended agents’ split-second decisions, and some pro-agency commentators urged waiting for a full investigation [4] [10]. But the cluster of authenticated bystander videos, synchronized visual reconstructions by The New York Times, sworn affidavits in court and reporting by Reuters, NPR and others constitute the principal body of evidence that challenges the official account [3] [1] [4] [2]. Reporting to date relies on those publicly posted clips, courtroom filings and newsroom reconstructions; this account does not include any unreleased federal body‑worn or vehicle camera footage because, if such material exists, it has not been publicly cataloged in the sources reviewed [9] [3].