Was Alex Pretti armed when ICE killed him? I'm finding conflicting reports, and claims that they had already disarmed him before beating and executing him.

1. The federal account: agents say Pretti approached with a 9 mm

The Department of Homeland Security and Border Patrol publicly stated the man shot by federal agents “approached” officers with a 9 mm semiautomatic handgun and officials displayed a photo of what they said was the weapon recovered at the scene ^{[1] [6]}. Border Patrol commanders framed the use of lethal force as a response to an immediate threat and emphasized the training and experience of the agent who fired ^{[7] [6]}.

2. Eyewitness video and protesters tell a different immediate story

Independent bystander video circulated in the hours after the shooting and multiple outlets reported that the firearm is not visible in the footage and that some clips appear to show agents stepping back from Pretti after he fell rather than immediately rendering aid ^{[2] [1]}. Those visual records became central to local protests and the argument by many observers that the federal narrative did not fully match the raw footage ^{[2] [8]}.

3. Family statements and background: gun ownership but no evidence of prior violence

Pretti’s parents and acquaintances confirmed he legally owned a handgun and possessed a permit to carry in Minnesota, while records searches reported by outlets found no serious criminal history beyond traffic tickets and noted his career as an ICU nurse—facts that shaped reactions and raised questions about motive and profile ^{[4] [7] [5]}. Family members said they did not know him to be carrying that day, which does not prove he was unarmed but complicates claims that he posed a predictable threat ^[4].

4. Independent analysis: Bellingcat’s findings and the “disarmed” claim

An open‑source investigation cited by reporting—Bellingcat—says its review “clearly contradicts the DHS narrative” and suggests Pretti may have been disarmed before the first shot, a claim picked up by some outlets and commentators as evidence the federal account is incomplete or misleading ^[3]. That analysis is presented alongside video evidence but, as of the current reporting, has not been validated by a completed criminal or independent official investigation ^{[3] [2]}.

5. Investigations, access disputes and political context

State authorities, including the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, have been involved and political leaders demanded state‑led inquiries after clashes over scene access and fast public statements from federal figures; media reports say federal agents initially limited state investigators’ access to the scene and that the investigation’s jurisdiction and transparency have been points of contention ^{[5] [9]}. The shooting unfolded amid intensified protests over earlier ICE‑involved shootings, and senior federal political voices immediately framed the event in national security terms, a framing critics say may shape the early narrative ^{[7] [9]}.

6. Bottom line: the public record is contradictory; no definitive answer yet

Contemporary reporting establishes three competing sets of claims—DHS’s assertion that Pretti approached agents with a handgun, multiple videos and observers that do not clearly show a firearm at the moment of shooting or suggest delayed aid, and an independent online investigation alleging Pretti had been disarmed before shots were fired—none of which have been fully reconciled by an independent, completed forensic or prosecutorial investigation as reported so far ^{[1] [2] [3]}. Therefore, available reporting does not allow a definitive determination in the public record that Pretti was—or was not—armed at the exact instant he was shot; the question remains the central fact to be resolved by the ongoing state and federal inquiries ^{[5] [8]}.