Why did ice shoot another person?
Executive summary
Federal Border Patrol agents shot and killed 37-year-old Alex Jeffrey Pretti during a January operation in south Minneapolis; federal officials say the man approached agents armed and an “armed struggle” ensued, while multiple bystander videos and several news outlets show Pretti holding a phone and being pepper‑sprayed and wrestled to the ground before shots were fired [1] [2] [3]. The clash has become the latest flashpoint in a wave of aggressive immigration‑enforcement operations and multiple federal shootings in Minneapolis this month, prompting protests, official disputes over access to the scene and competing narratives about whether the use of lethal force was justified [4] [5] [6].
1. The federal account: agents fired because he posed an armed threat
Department of Homeland Security spokespeople and Border Patrol officials have said the agents fired in self‑defense after a man approached them with a 9mm handgun and engaged in an armed struggle, and DHS released a photo they say shows the weapon involved [1] [7]. Federal authorities announced that the Department of Homeland Security would lead the shooting investigation with FBI assistance, framing the shooting as the result of an imminent threat to officers during a targeted operation [5] [8].
2. The bystander evidence and conflicting visuals: phone, pepper spray and a man on the ground
Multiple bystander videos independently verified by outlets show agents pepper‑spraying a man who appears to be holding his phone, then wrestling him to the pavement, with at least one agent firing while the man was on the ground and several subsequent shots audible; news organizations including The New York Times, TIME and Bring Me The News reported that video appears to contradict the DHS account that the victim approached while visibly armed [5] [2] [3]. Local reporting and statements from Minneapolis officials emphasized video evidence and eyewitness descriptions showing the man with a phone and with empty hands raised while trying to assist a woman, raising questions about whether a gun was in his possession or accessible at the moment of shooting [7] [8].
3. Investigative access and institutional friction: who probes federal agents?
Minnesota state investigators reported being initially blocked by federal agents from accessing the public sidewalk where the shooting occurred, prompting the state bureau to obtain a search warrant and warning about obstruction of evidence preservation; federal officials, however, have maintained that DHS will lead the probe with FBI support, a posture that has fueled concerns about a self‑investigation and limited independent oversight [5] [7]. The Justice Department’s civil‑rights division was reported not to be expected to open an independent inquiry into the Minneapolis shooting, according to senior law‑enforcement sources, further heightening scrutiny over which institutions will review the use of force [5].
4. Political context and patterns: a surge of federal shootings and local outrage
This killing is the third reported shooting involving federal immigration agents in Minneapolis in a short span, and is being viewed through the larger lens of an intensified federal immigration enforcement campaign that critics say has led to an unusually high rate of shootings by immigration agents nationally since the new administration took office [4] [2]. Local and national politicians, civil‑rights advocates and residents have reacted angrily—Minnesota’s governor called the presence of federal agents an “occupation” and protests swelled at the scene—while federal officials defend the operations as targeted enforcement, revealing competing agendas between state/local authorities and DHS [6] [8].
5. What can be concluded now — and what remains unresolved
Based on available reporting, the immediate reason DHS gives for the shooting is an alleged armed threat and an “armed struggle” with agents, while contemporaneous video and eyewitness accounts documented by multiple outlets show the man being pepper‑sprayed and subdued with a phone visible, leading to a clear factual dispute about whether a gun was presented or accessible before the shooting [1] [3] [2]. The legal and investigative resolution depends on forensic evidence, ballistics, body‑camera and other footage, and independent review—material that state investigators say they were initially prevented from collecting and that federal authorities have not yet fully released or reconciled with bystander video in public reporting [5] [7].