Are their links to unedited video of Alex pretti?
Executive summary
Multiple bystander videos of the Jan. 24 Minneapolis shooting that killed Alex Pretti have circulated on social media and been authenticated or replayed by major news organizations, but none of the provided reporting supplies a single publicly available link to an original, unedited master file; outlets describe and show footage, some stabilized or slowed, and verify social-media clips as genuine [1] [2] [3]. Reporting makes clear there are several angles — dash‑cam, street bystanders and cellphone clips — that newsrooms examined, yet the sources do not publish an unequivocal “unedited” source file URL for independent download or forensic review [4] [5].
1. What the footage outlets say exists
News organizations including The New York Times, BBC, USA Today and others report multiple bystander videos captured the moments before and during the shooting, and those organizations authenticated or analyzed clips taken from social platforms rather than releasing a single raw file themselves [1] [2] [3]. CNBC and The Irish Times describe a clip showing Pretti holding a phone as agents approach, and TMZ reports a close-in dashboard/inside‑car angle filmed right where Pretti was killed — all indicating several distinct recordings of the event circulating publicly [6] [4] [7].
2. How outlets handled “unedited” vs. stabilized or slowed footage
Some news outlets and commentators published stabilized, slowed or enhanced versions to clarify frames and timing, which is standard in visual verification but is not the same as providing the original unaltered file [5] [8]. The Daily Mail and other outlets explicitly describe having “stabilized” or slowed clips to expose details they say raise questions about official statements, while The New York Times and BBC note they verified social‑media videos against other sources — verification that still typically relies on copies rather than preserving and publishing raw camera files [5] [1] [2].
3. Official claims versus what videos show
Federal officials initially described an encounter in which a man “approached U.S. Border Patrol officers with a 9mm semi‑automatic handgun,” language the Department of Homeland Security put forward; multiple verified videos, as reported, show Pretti holding a phone and do not depict him brandishing a weapon before agents grabbed him, a contrast journalists flagged repeatedly [1] [6] [7]. The Guardian, New York Times and others say the circulating footage appears to contradict the administration’s account, a central reason why the clips have been scrutinized and why calls for formal investigation intensified [9] [10].
4. What is not documented in the reporting provided
None of the supplied source items publishes a direct link to a single original, unedited video file labeled as a master evidentiary recording; reporting instead documents that multiple bystander videos circulated on social platforms and were reviewed or verified by newsrooms [1] [3] [2]. The BBC reports a federal judge ordered DHS to preserve evidence related to the shooting, but that order and news coverage do not equate to public release of preserved, unedited footage in the reporting available here [2].
5. Practical next steps implied by the reporting
Given the media landscape the best path to locate raw files — if they exist publicly — is to consult the reporting organizations’ pages where they sometimes embed original clips or link to social posts, and to follow court filings and official evidence‑preservation notices that could compel release; however, the sources provided do not themselves host or point to a downloadable unedited master file for independent verification [1] [2] [3]. The evidence that matters to investigators and litigants — original camera files, device metadata, police‑bodycam and agency footage — is often retained by authorities and may only become publicly accessible through legal processes, a detail reflected by media coverage that documents verification without republishing a raw primary file [2] [5].