Was Alex Pretti holding a gun when he was shot by ice

1. The government account: agents say Pretti was armed and approached them

Department of Homeland Security and Border Patrol spokespeople publicly stated that the man shot—identified as Alex Jeffrey Pretti—was armed and “approached” federal agents with a handgun, with Border Patrol leadership saying an officer discharged his weapon in what they described as self‑defense; those statements were cited repeatedly by national officials and in agency briefings ^[5][2][6].

2. Video evidence complicates the official narrative: phone, then a removed gun

Multiple bystander videos verified and reported on by The New York Times and The Guardian show Pretti clearly holding a phone when officers first approached him, and in at least one clip an agent appears to pull an object from Pretti’s waistband before another agent fires multiple rounds; those recordings have prompted immediate public dispute over whether Pretti was holding and brandishing a firearm at the moment agents opened fire ^[1][2].

3. Media accounts and law enforcement statements diverge on timing and causality

News organizations including Fox and others have described footage that seems to show an agent removing a gun from Pretti’s waistband just before the fatal shots, even as Homeland Security officials insist Pretti “violently resisted” and “approached” armed officers—producing a sharp divergence between camera evidence as interpreted by some outlets and the summary narratives offered by federal spokespeople ^[3][6][4].

4. Pretti’s background: lawful gun owner, no known serious criminal record

Local officials and family statements reported by outlets say Pretti was a lawful gun owner with a permit to carry and worked as an ICU nurse; Minneapolis police noted his only previously known interactions with law enforcement were for traffic tickets, underscoring that he was not widely known to have a criminal history ^[2][6][7].

5. Conflicting claims, political framing, and rapid official commentary

High‑level political figures and agency leaders issued strong, immediate characterizations—ranging from labeling Pretti a “domestic terrorist” to asserting agents were assaulted by protesters—which critics say risked shaping public perception before investigations; outlets such as The Guardian document rapid social and political amplification of agency claims and counterclaims ^[5][4][8].

6. What the available reporting does and does not prove

The available, widely reported videos establish that Pretti held a phone when first confronted and that in some footage an agent appears to remove an object from his waistband before more shots are fired; that evidence does not, by itself, definitively prove whether Pretti was actively brandishing a firearm at the moment of the shooting, whether a weapon had been fully secured, or whether officers reasonably perceived an imminent threat—matters the ongoing investigations must resolve ^[1][2][3].

7. Immediate implications and the need for independent review

Because agency statements and visual evidence conflict, and because the incident occurred amid a larger, politically charged federal operation in Minneapolis, independent, transparent investigation—examining body‑camera, surveillance, ballistic, medical and witness evidence—is essential to determine whether Pretti was holding a gun at the time he was shot and whether officers’ use of force complied with law and policy; public debate will remain unsettled until investigators release fuller findings ^[2][9].