What have Pretti’s family or legal representatives publicly stated about his life and the circumstances of the shooting?

1. Family portrait: “a kindhearted soul” and an ICU nurse who cared for veterans

From the first public statement, Pretti’s parents Michael and Susan described their son as “a kindhearted soul” who “cared deeply” for family and for the American veterans he treated as an intensive‑care nurse at the Minneapolis VA, and told the public he “wanted to make a difference” — framing him as a caregiver, not an aggressor ^{[1] [6] [3]}.

2. Direct rebuttal: calling the administration’s narrative “sickening lies”

The family has been explicit and angry in response to federal officials’ rapid characterizations of the shooting: they called the administration’s statements “sickening lies” and condemned descriptions of their son in terms used by some Trump aides, phrases that included “would‑be assassin” and “domestic terrorist” in some official rhetoric ^{[7] [3] [8]}.

3. What the family says about the moments before the shooting

Family and friends — and several eyewitnesses relayed by media — say Pretti was holding a phone and appeared to be filming agents, not brandishing a firearm; the family specifically described him with his phone in his right hand and an empty left hand raised trying to protect a woman who had been pushed, a detail they cite to challenge the DHS account ^{[2] [5] [4]}.

4. On the gun and permit: family acknowledges ownership but disputes conduct

Reporting indicates family members acknowledged Pretti legally owned a handgun and held a Minnesota permit to carry, but said they had never known him to carry it and disputed the implication that he approached agents threateningly with a weapon ^{[9] [1]}. That nuance is central to the family’s rebuttal: possession, they say, is not the same as the scene DHS described ^[9].

5. Evidence and eyewitnesses: family points to videos as exculpatory

Pretti’s relatives and allies cite multiple bystander videos that circulated soon after the shooting as evidence that contradicts DHS claims — footage that, according to news analyses, shows him pinned, being pepper‑sprayed, and with an agent apparently removing a gun from his waistband before shots were fired, raising questions about whether agents knew he had been disarmed ^{[5] [10] [2]}.

6. Legal posture and calls for investigation: demands for transparency and court action

The family has demanded “the truth” and joined calls for a full, impartial and transparent investigation; courts quickly moved to limit potential evidence tampering, with a judge granting a restraining order against DHS preventing destruction or alteration of scene evidence — a legal development consistent with family and public demands for oversight ^{[6] [4]}.

7. Limits of public statements and what’s not yet claimed by family or counsel

While the family has been vocal about character and the need for truth, publicly available reporting focuses on their statements and on eyewitness declarations; specific, sustained legal arguments or a named civil‑rights lawsuit from Pretti’s lawyers were not detailed in the cited reporting, so the precise legal strategy from counsel beyond seeking investigation and preservation of evidence is not fully documented in these sources ^{[3] [6]}.

8. How the family’s narrative sits against official claims

Taken together, the family’s public statements emphasize a portrait of Pretti as a community‑minded nurse who intervened to help and who was holding a phone; they press video and witness accounts to dispute DHS and Border Patrol claims that he “violently resisted” while approaching agents with a 9mm handgun, setting up a clear clash between family witnesses and federal officials that prosecutors and investigators will now be asked to resolve ^{[4] [2] [5]}.