Was the man who was shot and killed by ice on jan 24 2026 armed with a gun
Executive summary
Federal authorities say the man shot and killed by U.S. Border Patrol agents in Minneapolis on January 24, 2026, was armed and that a handgun and magazines were recovered at the scene [1] [2] [3], while multiple bystander videos and family statements depict Alex Pretti holding a phone and having an empty hand raised during the struggle—images that callers for accountability say do not show him brandishing a weapon when agents detained and then shot him [4] [5]. Available reporting therefore presents competing narratives: an official DHS claim of an armed, “violent” approach that justified “defensive shots” [1], and contemporaneous audiovisual evidence and eyewitness interpretation that raise serious doubt about whether Pretti was actually holding a gun at the time he was subdued and killed [4] [5].
1. Official account: DHS and federal spokespeople say the man was armed
The Department of Homeland Security and Border Patrol officials publicly stated the individual approached agents with a 9mm semi-automatic handgun, that officers attempted to disarm him, and that an agent fired “defensive shots,” with follow-up statements that two magazines were recovered and that a firearm was recovered at the scene [1] [2] [3]. Local and national outlets relayed DHS’s claim that the man “violently resisted” and was armed, and federal spokespeople reiterated that characterization as part of explaining the agent’s decision to use lethal force [1] [6].
2. Video and eyewitness record complicate the federal narrative
Multiple bystander videos circulating from the scene show agents taking Pretti to the ground while he appears to have a phone in his right hand and an empty left hand raised, with no clear footage of him holding or brandishing a firearm during the takedown; several angles show agents securing what appears to be a handgun moments before Pretti was shot, but the clips are not definitive about ownership or timing [4] [5] [7]. Family statements and local reporting emphasize those videos to argue that the visual record does not show Pretti with a weapon while he was being struck and restrained, and protestors and community leaders cited the footage in calling for independent scrutiny [5] [8].
3. Conflicting claims on who had the gun and timing of recovery
News outlets described a sequence in which agents are seen standing back from a scrum and an officer walks away with what appears to be a firearm in hand, at which point shots ring out—reports differ on whether the firearm had been in Pretti’s possession prior to the struggle or whether agents secured it during the altercation [4] [7]. Some federal statements assert the gun belonged to the man and was recovered at the scene [2] [9], while eyewitness-centric reports and video descriptions stress ambiguity about whether agents removed the weapon from his person before or after the first shots and whether the recovered gun was ever clearly in Pretti’s hands on camera [4] [5].
4. Investigative access and independent verification remain limited
State officials said federal personnel at the scene initially blocked Minnesota investigators from accessing evidence, and calls for a full, transparent state and federal investigation were immediate—meaning independent confirmation of key forensic facts, such as ballistic traces, fingerprints on the recovered weapon, and precise sequencing of events, was not yet publicly available as of initial reports [7] [1] [8]. Open-source researchers and commentators urged skepticism of government claims pending transparent evidence-sharing, pointing to the unresolved questions raised by earlier federal shootings in Minneapolis this month [10] [11].
5. Bottom line: available reporting is contradictory; the claim is unproven on public evidence
The factual record in public reporting is split: federal DHS/Border Patrol statements assert the man was armed and that a gun and magazines were recovered [1] [2] [3], while contemporaneous videos and family accounts shown in multiple outlets do not clearly show him holding a firearm during the restraint and instead depict him with a phone and empty hand, leaving the timing, possession, and ownership of the recovered weapon contested [4] [5] [7]. Because independent forensic confirmation and unimpeded investigative access had not been reported at the time of these stories, the assertion that the man was armed—while repeatedly made by federal officials—remains contested by the visual record and unverified by publicly available independent evidence [1] [4] [8].