Affidavit from Pretti witness

1. What the affidavits say, in plain terms

The two affidavits assert that Pretti was filming and helping others at the scene, that he did not brandish or reach for a firearm, and that agents shoved a woman to the ground, pepper-sprayed observers, and then pulled Pretti down before multiple agents fired into him while he was on the ground ^{[2] [5]}. One affidavit — from the woman who recorded the clearest video and identified herself as a community observer — states she was about five feet away when agents “threw him to the ground” and began shooting, and that she “didn’t see him with a gun” ^{[6] [1]}.

2. The physician’s affidavit: medical aid and observations

A second affidavit, from a 29-year-old resident identified in reports as a physician or pediatrician, says they were initially prevented from rendering aid, later performed CPR, found Pretti with multiple gunshot wounds and no pulse, and observed agents apparently counting bullet wounds rather than checking for a pulse — a detail repeated in contemporaneous media accounts ^{[4] [7]}. That affidavit also emphasizes the witness saw “absolutely no need for any violence, let alone lethal force by multiple officers” from their vantage point in a nearby apartment ^{[4] [8]}.

3. How the affidavits contrast with DHS and CBP statements

DHS and Border Patrol have said agents fired “defensive shots” after an individual approached officers with a 9mm semiautomatic handgun and “violently resisted” arrest; the agency released a photo of a handgun it says belonged to Pretti ^[7]. The sworn bystander statements directly contradict that account by asserting they never saw Pretti reach for or hold a weapon and instead watched agents disarm or retrieve a gun from his waistband after he was on the ground, according to several outlets summarizing the filings ^{[8] [2]}.

4. Legal context and the ACLU filing

The affidavits were lodged late on Jan. 24 as part of an emergency motion by the ACLU of Minnesota tied to a class-action lawsuit seeking to reinstate a federal judge’s order restricting immigration agents from arresting protesters or using nonlethal weapons in Minneapolis; the filings aim to show intimidation and excessive force and to persuade an appeals court to restore limitations ^{[3] [9]}. Media outlets report the witness names were redacted in public court documents, and the statements were used to buttress claims that the government’s tactics chill First Amendment–protected activity ^{[1] [9]}.

5. Corroboration, public video and unanswered questions

News organizations note that videos from the scene exist and that one witness provided the clearest recording that captured both the lead-up and minutes after the shooting, lending corroborative value to the affidavits though interpretation remains contested ^{[3] [2]}. At the same time, DHS maintains its narrative and has produced a photo of a firearm, and federal investigation details — including the precise sequence of any weapon retrieval or whether the weapon was visibly brandished at any moment — remain contested in public reporting ^{[7] [6]}.

6. Interpretation, implicit agendas and limits of available reporting

The affidavits, filed by witnesses who say they fear retaliation or arrest, advance a narrative of unprovoked lethal force and are being used by the ACLU to press judicial limits on federal operations ^{[4] [3]}; DHS and Border Patrol, by releasing a photo of a gun and describing defensive gunfire, advance a public-safety and officer-safety justification for the shooting ^[7]. Reporting to date relies on the sworn statements, bystander video and agency releases, but does not yet include publicly released body‑camera footage or a completed independent investigation that definitively reconciles these competing accounts — a gap that constrains firm conclusions from available sources ^{[2] [6]}.