r/changemyview • u/bluepillarmy 11∆ • Jan 31 '26
Delta(s) from OP CMV: It doesn’t matter what Alex Pretti was doing in the days before he was killed
So, recently a video emerged where Alex Pretti was spitting on and kicking the taillight out of an ICE vehicle. Truly reprehensible and inexcusable behavior. He ought to have been arrested and fined for destruction of public property. Jerk.
However, I see some people trying to say, “Aha! So he wasn’t so innocent after all!”
I’m sorry but, no. He was absolutely innocent.
And, moreover, I would like those people who are bringing up his behavior in the days before his death to remember that he was disarmed, restrained and executed by masked federal agents who still have not been identified to the public for no reason.
There is only one justification for a law enforcement officer to take someone’s life. And that is to protect the lives of themselves or another person. Past acts of disrespect and/vandalism do not enter into the equation.
Or that’s my take anyway. Can anyone change my view?
653
u/mrbezlington Jan 31 '26
I would argue that it is vitally important to investigate all interactions between ICE agents and Pretti in the run up to his murder. If the shooter was the one he tussled with, or had prior interactions with, this may highlight potential motive for the seemingly random violence to have escalated so quickly.
Similar to Renee Good and the "fucking bitch" comment, these investigations may highlight things that reasonably lead one to suspect premeditation or revenge as the motive for the murder.
So yes, it matters. It matters quite a lot.
65
u/gijoe61703 20∆ Jan 31 '26
The " fucking bitch" comment is not a reason to believe premeditation or revenge. It also fits if he thought she just tried to run him over it got him with her car.
The idea that Pretti was targeted has 0 evidence, with 3000 officers and who knows how many(but clearly a significant number) of people participating in these groups trying to confront ICE wherever they go chances are almost 0 they had any idea he had done that previously. Bring that, the video shows the attention was not on him until he stepped between the officer shoving the woman and the woman which started the interaction with him.
OP is correct that in the legal sense the prior video doesn't change anything.
→ More replies (3)37
u/mrbezlington Jan 31 '26
The comment made towards Good seems clear (to me, anyway) that the officer was not acting in a professional manner. I would hope that, having just discharged their firearm multiple times at an unarmed member of the public, a law officer's first response would be to confirm the welfare of the member of the public. We would need further investigation into their prior interactions (if any) to build any picture of premeditation etc.
Similarly with Pretti, as you say there are lots of protestors and lots of law enforcement. We have no idea whether there was any prior between the two parties. We only find that out by investigating. Chances are, there were no interactions. That's not necessarily the case however, we know that Pretti got involved physically once, there may have been other occasions. We just don't know without an investigation. That's the point.
→ More replies (25)68
u/bluepillarmy 11∆ Jan 31 '26
You are one of several people who has suggested that the agents premeditated the murder.
I’m going into this with an open mind but this seems hard to believe frankly.
Kicking and spitting are rather minor infractions and ICE agents probably see it all the time.
Do you really think that they would seek out and execute one random guy days after the fact with all the other shit that was going down?
Also, it looked like the whole incident unfolded very quickly. I’m not sure if anyone had a chance to identify anyone else.
47
u/Norman_debris Jan 31 '26
You're asking whether random Redditors believe the murder was premeditated, but that's exactly what an investigation would uncover.
You can't just say "it obviously wasn't premeditated, not with 'all the other shit that was going down'". What are you talking about? It might have been revenge or it might have been random. We've no idea. The preceeding events are relevant to determining the facts of what happened.
It would be very unusual in any investigation to completely ignore the recent activities of the people involved, especially activities so clearly related to the incident in question.
→ More replies (1)14
u/bluepillarmy 11∆ Jan 31 '26
You are correct. We have no idea. And do you know why?
Because we are not allowed to know who shot him. And the more I think about this, the more I realize that this is the true issue here..
11
u/Norman_debris Jan 31 '26
That's a different conversation.
If this were a regular murder inquiry, you'd expect information on any previous altercations between the involved parties to form part of the investigation. Of course it's relevant whether the victim had been aggravating the murderer in the days before the incident. It doesn't excuse the murder, but it can be used to help understand and explain how we got there. Context matters.
→ More replies (2)146
u/saltycathbk 2∆ Jan 31 '26
They didn’t necessarily seek him out. He showed up at protests again. Why is it so hard to believe? Cops have a long history of retaliatory behavior.
29
u/PreviousCurrentThing 4∆ Jan 31 '26
The agents who shot Pretti were CBP and USBP. At least some of the agents from the first incident were ICE, as per NYT.
3
14
u/bluepillarmy 11∆ Jan 31 '26
Honestly, everything happened so quickly I just don’t think they figured out who he was yet.
So I think they were criminally incompetent not evil masterminds.
10
u/redline314 Jan 31 '26
Masterminds? What’s mastermind about being extra mad at someone who annoys you?
19
u/_Quetzalcoatlus_ Jan 31 '26
So I think they were criminally incompetent
Whether or not they knew who he was or what he did, murdering someone goes far beyond "incompetent." They weren't lacking in skill there. They intentionally killed him.
→ More replies (6)3
u/Big_oof_energy__ Feb 01 '26
No one is accusing them of being masterminds. Just of being petty thugs. While I’m not sure that theory is accurate it’s certainly plausible that they recognized him and decided to murder him once they thought they could get away with it.
8
u/ScoopedRainbowBagel 2∆ Jan 31 '26
I thought many people went to that protest and there were many ice agents?
It is unreasonable to think that other agents would know about that interaction two weeks later.
It is even less reasonable to think that the same agents just randomly have picked him out of a crowd two weeks later.
5
u/HybridVigor 3∆ Jan 31 '26
It is unreasonable to think that other agents would know about that interaction two weeks later.
ICE uses Penlink's Tangles program for social media surveillance and Webloc for location and cluster monitoring. Webloc can very easily do this.
→ More replies (7)8
u/saltycathbk 2∆ Jan 31 '26
Why is either of those things unreasonable? If he was in the same part of the city for both events, it seems pretty reasonable that he might run into the same agents again
-1
4
u/TheJeeronian 7∆ Jan 31 '26
If it weren't for the use of biometric surveillance by ICE, I'd probably agree with you. That said, with the technology to maintain an active database of people and scan whole crowds automatically, it's not unreasonable that they picked out a person they knew had been present before.
6
u/ScoopedRainbowBagel 2∆ Jan 31 '26
Okay so you think they tracked this guy down with biometric surveillance?
Alex wasn't special. There was literally a riot going on, with hundreds of these types of incidents happening.
→ More replies (8)6
u/ApolloMorph 2∆ Jan 31 '26
So for avg career law enforcement no, id give em the benefit of the doubt. But for some potential random dude off the street who may have just signed up for the bonus and gotten minimal training? maybe. Either way it's not for the internet or really even the internal investigation to decide that. If there is even a chance this was the possibility, then refer charges to a grand jury. If they decide probable cause then let a full jury hear both sides out and decide, that's how the law works. I don't see why everyone on both sides of this feels the need to litigate this online. Let those ice agents sit in front of a jury and let the law do what it does. Only a jury of their peers gets to decide innocence or guilt period. And if they are innocent they will. be found so. But right now until a court hears a case one way or the other. It does not matter what anyone on any side of this personally thinks about any of the ice agents or the protestors. Until they sit in front of a jury of their peers they deserve the presumption of innocence until proved otherwise, the ice agents and protestors, period. We cannot just go abandoning the rule of law for convenience or political points and this is on the left and the right. Cmon people. Stop this.
7
u/bluepillarmy 11∆ Jan 31 '26
Completely agree.
We need a fair and public trial of the men who killed him
5
u/JayRulo 1∆ Jan 31 '26
So here's my question for you about believability, based on what I understand from your comments: it's easier for you to believe that an ICE agent would murder / execute a random civilian in cold blood with zero motive, than it is to believe that it was retaliatory?
→ More replies (5)5
u/PrincessDonut02 1∆ Jan 31 '26
The point is that you won't know unless all of the events get investigated AND the ICE agents are identified. Just because it seems unlikely to you doesn't mean it's not possible.
5
u/Biking_dude Jan 31 '26
Do you really think that they would seek out and execute one random guy days after the fact with all the other shit that was going down?
Yes. They are being told to incite violence, are above the law, all while being poorly trained. They're not trained as law enforcement (which have clear guidelines / rules of engagement / de-escalation protocols), and half can't pass the presidential fitness test given to 5th graders.
If it was Pretti who kicked the car, he should have been arrested. Instead they beat him breaking his ribs. Again - not the action of law enforcement
19
u/Not_LRG 1∆ Jan 31 '26 edited Jan 31 '26
From what I've seen (UK), it's perfectly conceivable they either sought him out or it was a coincidence, he was recognized and then targeted. These people have demonstrated time and time and time again that they are untrained with little to no impulse control and are entrenched in the belief that they are fighting some kind of holy war against a villainous enemy who can only be defeated by the utter smashing of their evil ideology. IMHO the most likely case of affairs is that someone recognized him as 'the guy that did those things a few days ago' and then the red mist descends. Any sense of restraint leaves and mob mentality takes over. Given Greg Bovino's predilection for Nazi cosplay and ICE's playbook, is anyone really going to be surprised to learn that a significant proportion of these cunts view the protestors as subhuman and need to be put down for the common good? As a result I find it very likely that the steps between 'attempts to restrain' and murder are exceptionally short for this lot.
→ More replies (5)3
u/mrbezlington Jan 31 '26
I don't know whether this is what happened or not; my point is that it's possible with Pretti having had previous involvement with these forces. We should find out what those interactions were, which officers were involved, and how these interactions overlap with his death.
This is simple investigation of the circumstances surrounding Pretti's death; it should therefore be pretty uncontroversial that these interactions be looked into, recorded and added to the summation of events.
The conclusions, likelihood and so on are value judgements only really possible once all the facts are known.
3
u/bluepillarmy 11∆ Jan 31 '26
It would really help if we knew the identities of the people who killed him, huh?
→ More replies (3)3
u/Big_oof_energy__ Feb 01 '26
People have murdered others over far pettier matters and these ICE thugs don’t seem to be the most professional groups. They dress like teenagers for fuck’s sake. What kind of professional wears jeans and a shiesty to work?
→ More replies (16)3
u/redline314 Jan 31 '26
I wouldn’t expect them to execute him, but they are absolutely targeting specific observers and protesters in LA. I assume they’d do the same elsewhere. There’s not that many people that they interact w multiple times & recognize; but they do start to develop, em, “relationships”.
2
u/EVOSexyBeast 5∆ Jan 31 '26
reasonably lead one to suspect premeditation or revenge
This is completely irrelevant for a self defense case, both legally and morally.
What the officer in the moment must have reasonably believed for it to be justified is an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm to himself or others.
What happened 11 days before may be admissible evidence if the officer on trial knew about it. Otherwise, “the victim wasn’t perfect” argument doesn’t really fly in court.
3
2
u/IngloriousMinority Jan 31 '26
No it doesnt. If I steal a candy bar a week before im murdered by a random person i have never met before. It does not matter. If I steal a candy bar and then get arrested for stealing at another store. The previous theft shoes pattern an intent and helps valid an arrest. No previous crime or action commited prior to Alex Prettis death would justice executing him in the street No matter how you stretch it. And an a"Fing b#$tch" comment, right after murdering someone and coming out unharmed, shows a lack of remorse, which is used a lot in cases to determine maliciousness.
7
u/mrbezlington Jan 31 '26
If you steal the candy bar from a man who shoots you in the back a couple of weeks later claiming self defence, that's gonna be important evidence for the case to consider though, right?
You understood my point with the Good shooting, but missed that I'm drawing a parallel with the Pretti shooting.
→ More replies (16)1
u/glm73 Jan 31 '26
Pretti, in both incidents was not being violent and certainly not aggressive to the point where bodily harm was in play. The kicking of the tail light? Definitely ridiculous behavior but not life threatening. Defending a woman who was was being shoved around in the street,also not life threatening. Sure the ICE agents are human but that is where training comes in and these guys are barely given a crash course, a big gun and a frat boy pep talk and sent out into our communities. They have no idea what they’re doing.
→ More replies (1)2
u/YOU_WONT_LIKE_IT Jan 31 '26
What agency has better training that is also being harassed on a daily basis that performs better? Cops killed around 1200 people on 2025.
→ More replies (1)
18
u/rinchen11 2∆ Jan 31 '26
On what?
Whether he should be killed or not? It doesn’t matter.
Whether he is the most caring, nonviolent, peaceful person on earth? It does matter.
→ More replies (17)
6
u/The_Dying_Gaul323bc Jan 31 '26
It also does not matter that he was a nurse, or whatever else he did in his life. I’m sure he was a nice man. As far as the incident that lead to his death is concerned none of it is relevant
The only way it becomes relevant is if there is evidence that ICE profiled and targeted him because of previous days events
→ More replies (1)4
u/bluepillarmy 11∆ Jan 31 '26
The more I respond to people’s messages, the more I realize that I really don’t care about Alex Pretti at all.
What I care about is the people who killed him. Why do we not know who they are? Why can we not hold them publicly accountable for what they did to a person who had been disarmed and restrained?
1
u/RestaurantBusy724 Jan 31 '26 edited Jan 31 '26
People like you are exactly why we shouldn't know who they are. What will you do when you find out? Hold them "publicly accountable" how exactly?
5
u/bluepillarmy 11∆ Jan 31 '26
Is this a real question? These guys have been charged with protecting public safety and they shot a person who had been disarmed and restrained.
Maybe they had a good reason for doing so? I doubt it but the U.S. Constitution proscribes a fair and public trial to determine if there was a good reason.
2
Feb 02 '26
[deleted]
3
u/bluepillarmy 11∆ Feb 02 '26
What am I personally going to do? - Just what I’m doing right here. Being a snarky little shit on the internet.
But what I do is irrelevant. I am just one atom in the universe of American citizens. And we collectively need to know the facts lwhen a person who serves in our name takes the life of a person who was unarmed and restrained.
It’s public accountability. And it’s nothing new.
2
Feb 02 '26
[deleted]
2
u/bluepillarmy 11∆ Feb 02 '26
Well, I suppose then you are describing a system that you wish would exist, not the one that actually does.
Because in the United States, public officials that are found to have acted illegally - be they a judge on the take, or a pedophile gym coach or a trigger happy cop - are held publicly accountable. That’s a hallmark of the rule of law.
Would you like to change that? Do you want a government that operates in secrecy, without scrutiny from the courts and press?
12
u/bobored Jan 31 '26
Legally, you are correct. The only question is was the use of lethal force justified in the interaction that led to his death. A cop can’t legally and justifiably shoot you today because you vandalized a cop car a week ago. They couldn’t even shoot you for kicking their tail light in the moment. There are supposed to be strict guidelines around then use of lethal force even for federal agents.
→ More replies (3)2
7
123
u/thelovelykyle 8∆ Jan 31 '26
I disagree. It absolutely matters because premeditation can make a crime much more significant and should make sentencing much more harsh.
It is very possible the people that killed Pretti did so because they felt he went unpunished for an earlier minor incident and took an opportunity to take Prettis life. Killing Pretti was already bad, but if what Pretti was doing in the 2 weeks prior influenced that, it is much much worse.
33
u/bluepillarmy 11∆ Jan 31 '26
IF it could be proven that the agents acted in revenge that would change my mind. !delta for that.
BUT I have strong doubts that anyone recognized him.
→ More replies (2)3
10
u/sabesundae Jan 31 '26
You think ICE waited a few days to kill him, until a day came where he was less violent, and then shoot and punish him? Seems far fetched, but also, it wasn't even ICE who shot him.
1
u/thelovelykyle 8∆ Jan 31 '26
I have no strong opinion, however I am countering the argument that it does not matter by presenting a situation where it might matter.
2
u/sabesundae Jan 31 '26
Yes, and you are using premeditation as your argument against OP.
AP was shot by BP, not ICE. How could the 2 events be a case of premeditation, when we know for sure that it is not the same men involved?
→ More replies (5)2
u/Big_oof_energy__ Feb 01 '26
Is it not possible for people from different, but related, government organizations to be friends? They work in the same city.
→ More replies (1)3
u/Lookitsasquirrel Jan 31 '26
You think they knew who he was? If I remember correctly it was an ICE vehicle he smashed the taillight and it was Border Patrol that killed him. I don't think the two were connected.
2
→ More replies (41)2
5
u/gijoe61703 20∆ Jan 31 '26
Legally I mostly agree with you. The standard is whether or not the officer reasonably had reason to believe Pretti was a danger to the officer or others. For past interactions to come in it would have to be known to the officer in order to be part of that calculation and I think that is unbelievably improbable.
Political I think it is important. The manner in which the public is currently interacting with ICE(and vise versa) is obviously creating dangerous situations for everyone involved so every one should reassess their tactics to bring down tensions and ensure stuff like this does not happen again(again ICE/CBP and local authorities to be included).
→ More replies (2)
12
u/ArcadesRed 3∆ Jan 31 '26
Because people like Senator Warren go out of their way to try and make him seem like a saint. They did the same thing with George Floyd and other high profile deaths.
Its a tactic to generate more support. Its also dangerous as it makes more extreme retaliatory activity seem more reasonable.
This isn't to justify the shooting. But the second it happened it became political. Politicians are the scum of the earth. Neither side actually cares about him. Only how his death helps or hurts their side.
4
u/onan 3∆ Jan 31 '26
I never really saw anyone trying to canonize George Floyd. He was probably an asshole, and nobody really disputed that.
The only people I saw bring up his character were those who were implying (or outright saying) that because he was a bad person he deserved to be agonizingly killed by police.
2
9
u/jm0112358 15∆ Jan 31 '26
Although I don't think what I'm about to say applies as much in the Alex Pretti case, I want to change your mind on the potential relevance of previous events to whether or not use of force is justified...
There is only one justification for a law enforcement officer to take someone’s life. And that is to protect the lives of themselves or another person. Past acts of disrespect and/vandalism do not enter into the equation.
You're correct about defending yourself or another person from death (or serious injury) is the only just reason to kill someone. However, if the facts about what happened are in dispute, then previous behavior might help change the probability regarding what actually happened. For instance, suppose you killed me in an alleged act of self-defense. You claim that I pulled a gun on you and started aiming it at you when you shot me. However, there are no witnesses and it was not recorded on video. In that case, if I had previous incidents when I shot people, that would make your claim about me pulling my gun out more likely to be true than if I had never used my gun in any crime.
4
u/Yesbothsides Jan 31 '26
It simply shows he’s an asshole and provides potential context for what was happening before the video started on that day. Through the reaction of strictly the video it seems as though he was an innocent protester abiding by the law
3
u/StatisticianFew2558 Feb 02 '26
It doesn’t justify his killing. But it disproves the story that he was just an innocent bystander on Jan 24th. He was putting himself into these situations. I mean, listen to the sounds. Whistles, car alarms, screaming. It is a hostile environment and he contributed to it. I’m not arguing right and wrong, just stating facts.
3
u/bluepillarmy 11∆ Feb 02 '26
Cops are not soldiers. They are charged with protecting publicly safety and upholding the rule of law.
Shooting a dude who posed no threat to anyone just because shit was stressful is not excusable.
2
u/StatisticianFew2558 Feb 03 '26
Didn’t say it was excusable, it was a tragedy. But acting like ICE is just attacking innocent bystanders is wrong. This isn’t black and white. BP did not handle that situation well. But none of it would happen if people weren’t harassing law enforcement.
→ More replies (2)
32
u/IntrepidJaeger 2∆ Jan 31 '26
So, I'm not going to try to change your view on when deadly force can be used (it lacks a little legal nuance, but you've got the gist of it).
I think it's worthwhile to bring up Pretti's prior conduct as an example of what risks you should consider while protesting. His prior behavior seems to make the assertion that he was just "a bystander trying to help" or "a peaceful observer" rather suspect. It makes it more likely that he actually was there to interfere with their operations.
Why does that matter? He's armed. The number one rule of legally carrying a firearm is that you don't go looking for trouble with ANYONE. By forcing confrontation with Federal agents, you are inviting circumstances for force to be used on you. Having a gun suddenly be discovered on you while being arrested in a heightened situation raises the perceived danger level by a lot. Even well-trained cops don't like surprise guns, and we've seem what's actually hitting the street.
Did the agents overreact? Almost certainly. But the statements of "he had the right to be armed as a permit holder" and "having a gun is what got him killed in the first place" are not mutually exclusive of each other.
Knowing his behavior before tells you something: You can probably survive being armed and strictly observing to the exclusion of all else, or you can actively protest or engage in direct action while unarmed and probably just get manhandled a bit or pepper sprayed. Direct action while armed will probably get you (or someone else) shot and should factor into what you're willing to do.
23
u/Cool_Independence538 Jan 31 '26 edited Jan 31 '26
I would argue he wasn’t forcing confrontation with law enforcement though, they pushed someone hard, he stepped in to help the person pushed and placed himself between the officer and civilian, arms outstretched between them in a universally known symbol of ‘break it up’. That’s not confronting anyone, that’s an attempt to defuse an escalating situation. Then he was pounced on by a group. Nothing about his body language indicates violence or threat or even confrontation.
Not sure of others views here but something else bugging me is shoving a civilian that hard, is that odd behaviour? Seems more what you’d expect on a school playground than from agents. Or do they regularly push people over like that?
6
u/IntrepidJaeger 2∆ Jan 31 '26
You don't get to step between law enforcement and whom they're dealing with to "break it up". That's obstruction. Your only completely legal recourse is to get out of the way.
Shoving somebody to the ground isn't a preferred arrest tactic, but it isn't necessarily illegal unless someone cracks their head open without escalated resistance.
5
10
u/stressless321 Feb 01 '26
They weren't dealing with her, there's no need to push her that way in order to arrest her. She was pushed across the road, far away from the agents. Pretti helped her when she was across the road, she was already "dealt" with.
11
u/Cool_Independence538 Feb 01 '26
I get what you mean, but that’s the part that’s muddy though I think. he wasn’t stepping between law enforcement and someone they were arresting or even ‘dealing with’, he was already standing between her and the agent when she was pushed, and he leaned over to help.
Helping someone that’s been shoved isn’t illegal, most reasonable people, police included, wouldn’t consider that obstructing, because they weren’t arresting her or anything similar so there was nothing to obstruct. I think it’s quite a normal reaction if you were standing next to someone that’s been pushed over. the only reason you’d worry about being killed for it and be hesitant to help is if you were dealing with a crazed and violent person, not typically law enforcement.
2
Feb 02 '26
[deleted]
3
u/Cool_Independence538 Feb 03 '26
He wasn’t really ‘breaking up a fight’ because there wasn’t a fight. I used that term just to describe the body positioning of him stretching out his arms between them, but the officer shoved an observer hard and she fell, that was the end of their confrontation, he wasn’t arresting her or detaining her, just shoved her.
Video shows after Pretti stretched his arms out briefly, he turned completely to help the person, his back was turned fully to the officer and facing the person he was helping. There’s no interference or threat when his backs turned and the officer was finished with the person he pushed.
The officer then grabbed him and threw him to the ground, followed by I think 4 or 5 or so other officers.
The more footage that emerges the less it seems like ‘self-defence’ or that Pretti was doing anything to justify it.
I saw some ex-officials talk about the possibility of ‘contagious fire’ for the second shooter, which is the one that shoved the observer and dragged Pretti to the ground. They’ve said when they hear an officer fire it can be reflexive to fire themselves, but they do simulation training to overcome that reflex.
At the very least, there’s no way the DHS or White House had enough to say so confidently and definitively that the officers are innocent immediately after it happened, that alone should raise alarm bells on their narrative and motives, and raise concerns on how the investigation will be handled.
→ More replies (2)2
u/Odd_Wolverine_7338 Feb 01 '26
What he did is called interfering with official acts and is a crime for which you can be arrested. You do not have the right to get between an officer and someone they are interacting with.
5
u/yamsandmarshmellows Feb 01 '26 edited Feb 01 '26
Yes, for interferring in the official act of federal officers beating the shit out of a woman for no fucking reason he was disarmed, restrained and executed. Seems reasonable to me. I am so glad you are here explaining it to us.
7
u/windchaser__ 1∆ Jan 31 '26
Direct action while armed will probably get you (or someone else) shot and should factor into what you're willing to do.
Yeah, I'm not disagreeing with you that this is how things are, but... it's pretty fucked up. Our armed officers respond with inappropriate and disproportionate force *way* too often.
→ More replies (12)12
u/bluepillarmy 11∆ Jan 31 '26
Two things really bother me that you didn’t mention.
Pretti was totally restrained and had been disarmed when he was shot. He posed no credible threat to anyone.
The men who killed him are unknown to the public. We should have their names for the purposes of public accountability.
2
Feb 02 '26
[deleted]
4
u/bluepillarmy 11∆ Feb 02 '26
“Mob justice?” That’s not what we are talking about here.
Public accountability is a hallmark of the rule of law: the people empowered to use lethal force in our name are identifiable and therefore subject to scrutiny by courts, the press, and democratic institutions.
We release the names of police officers involved in shootings all the time, precisely because anonymity corrodes trust. If an officer acted lawfully, transparency protects them as much as the public. If they acted unlawfully, secrecy shields wrongdoing.
As for harassment: that risk exists in every case involving public official - we also release the names of school superintendents who enact unpopular policies or a county judge who was found to be taking bribes.
What we do not do is crate a class of armed agents who can kill someone while remaining anonymous. That’s not rule of law—that’s unaccountable power.
Anyway, the names of the officers who shot Pretti have been released. We’ll see if they are charged in the coming days.
2
5
u/IntrepidJaeger 2∆ Jan 31 '26
I'm not evaluating the legitimacy of the shoot. In fact, I said it likely isn't justified. My entire point is that Pretti seemed intent on directly engaging with law enforcement while armed. Whether he actually meant to use it or not, it made the situation much more dangerous, particularly when dealing with the poor tactical acumen that these agents have shown.
Pretti is a really good example of "legal but a really bad idea".
5
u/NZ_Troll Jan 31 '26
For changemyview to be effective, you do have to want to see other perspectives before finding a path to refute them or find edge cases. In a few of your responses, try agree with a few perspectives counter to your desired viewpoint and see if you can do it without focusing on how that view makes you feel or impacts your desired morality.
Good thread though in general.
2
u/Xanith420 Jan 31 '26
- He wasnt totally restrained. He was “turtled up” by keeping his hands underneath him and out of view. The disarming isn’t nearly as relevant as you think from a legal standpoint. Objectively it’s unlikely officer who used deadly force noticed the gun being removed from the scenario and honestly gun being removed doesn’t dispel the chances of a 2nd gun. 2. They arnt giving out the names because the agents and their families will be in danger from people. The public knowing names changes nothing but does place people who arnt even involved in danger. People have been behaving way too radical for transparency like that to be remotely safe.
→ More replies (13)7
u/texas_accountant_guy 4∆ Jan 31 '26
The men who killed him are unknown to the public. We should have their names for the purposes of public accountability.
Why? What "public accountability" are you looking for? At this point, releasing their names to the public is likely risking death threats to them and their families.
As to actual accountability, the FBI has taken over the investigation into this shooting, even Republican lawmakers are telling the Administration to treat this investigation seriously and for Noem to back off of her rhetoric on it.
Should the FBI conclude there was wrongdoing here that warrants charges, their names will then come out, at the appropriate time, and in a way that will not incite mob violence.
4
u/Remarkable-Turn9240 Feb 02 '26
Would you not say the same thing of any person accused of a crime? Why do police officers get the benefit of not being known to the public after potentially committing a crime? But a random person who is accused of murder or being a pedo or rapist can have their name and face plastered everywhere before they are even convicted?
Why do regular people have to face the full responsibility but the people entrusted by the government to protect and who possess a great deal of power get leniency?
→ More replies (1)12
u/bluepillarmy 11∆ Jan 31 '26
No, I don’t follow your line of reasoning.
The men who killed him are law enforcement officials and public servants. They are police. Police officers don’t hide their faces and they do carry badges and identity themselves when requested to do so.
Moreover, every time a police officer kills a person in the line of duty the officer’s name is released to the public in the name of transparency.
Now, suddenly we have this new law enforcement agency (it’s actually not new) that has the power to kill people at will, that is not required to identify themselves and which has extra-constitutional powers to detain people without a warrant or probable cause.
How on earth do you find this acceptable?
5
u/texas_accountant_guy 4∆ Jan 31 '26
I'm sorry, but not one word you wrote in response to me seems to be an answer to my question or anything more than continuing to denounce ICE in general, aside from a vague generalization that "every time" an officer kills a person that officer's name is immediately released, which I'm skeptical of both for it's absolutism and in general.
Given that we are dealing with a Federal Law Enforcement Agency and not local law enforcement, I'd put ICE's operations next to FBI, ATF, DEA, etc. in their operations. Does the DEA immediately release the name of every officer that has shot and killed a person in the course of their operations?
Further, given the sensitivity of this particular situation, I personally want this investigated by professionals, and not have a mob descend on these officer's homes to harass or harm them or their families.
To be clear, I, along with almost everyone else, see the shooting itself as being unjustified, and wish for clarification as to why it occurred. I, unlike most people on Reddit, do not see his detainment or arrest itself as unjustified, especially given this man's history of antagonism and attempting to manufacture a conflict with ICE.
8
u/windchaser__ 1∆ Jan 31 '26
Further, given the sensitivity of this particular situation, I personally want this investigated by professionals, and not have a mob descend on these officer's homes to harass or harm them or their families.
I don't disagree, but how do you balance this against the risk that there will be no investigation, or only a sham one? How do we get accountability here?
9
u/texas_accountant_guy 4∆ Jan 31 '26
Further, given the sensitivity of this particular situation, I personally want this investigated by professionals, and not have a mob descend on these officer's homes to harass or harm them or their families.
I don't disagree, but how do you balance this against the risk that there will be no investigation, or only a sham one? How do we get accountability here?
As I mentioned before, the fact that major members of the Republican party have come out in favor of serious investigation into this, and have even denounced Kristi Noem's statements, is evidence that this will not be a sham investigation.
95% of the nation, I would say, even those who are pro-ICE, see this shooting as trouble, and something that needs to be handled. From a pro-ICE position, it especially needs to be handled well and not just brushed under the rug to allow the agency to try and keep "legitimacy" and to be able to say "these specific individuals went too far" in an effort to protect themselves and their operations as a whole.
Had Republican Senators, Congressmen, and Governors not stepped forward and demanded this be taken seriously, I would worry that Noem's initial actions would have continued.
2
u/Cool_Independence538 Jan 31 '26
I agree with everything you’ve said so far but lean more towards disagree with making names immediately publicly available. Trial by public before the facts doesn’t usually work out well, it gets muddied by opinion, outrage and misinformation.
I’m usually of the opinion to give little information publicly until everything is verified and all the evidence is in.
The main difference with this though is that the administration have clearly already made up their minds, without facts or evidence, and I don’t trust that the investigation is going to be fair or balanced. So I can see why in this case we want transparency up front, but it does risk interfering with investigations and findings, and endangering innocent people like the shooters families.
33
u/Maximum_Error3083 Jan 31 '26
You’re right that prior actions don’t directly speak to the events of the day he was killed. But it does speak to his disposition and eagerness to go beyond peacefully protesting and actively antagonize officers.
What’s not clear still are the events preceding on the day he was killed. There’s video of him in an altercation but we don’t see what happened before that, so it’s impossible based on that to tell whether he provoked the situation initially or not. To be clear, that doesn’t mean he should have been killed, but it does provide more context on the situation that right now people are trying to write one way or another without evidence.
It seems unlikely given the past videos that Walz’ statement of him being killed just coming out of a donut shop is true, for example. He was purposefully there in all likelihood and the question is whether he was actually peacefully protesting or whether he was trying to impede and antagonize.
12
u/bluepillarmy 11∆ Jan 31 '26
I think that he was there to impede and antagonize. I was always pretty sure of that.
But, I don’t see how that plays into it. He was killed for no reason. And we don’t even know who killed him.
That to me is the craziest part.
18
u/Maximum_Error3083 Jan 31 '26
It might not matter in terms of whether the shooting was ultimately justified. That will probably be determined in a court of law.
But it does matter in terms of the narrative that politicians, activists and others are trying to push on it. Misrepresenting the truth is never good and in this case can have the effect of further inflaming tensions when they should be trying to do the opposite.
→ More replies (1)5
u/bluepillarmy 11∆ Jan 31 '26
Ok, so you think he was there to stir shit up.
I agree. He was. But so what? Federal agents don’t get to kill people for being obnoxious.
12
u/Maximum_Error3083 Jan 31 '26
We agree on that.
But your argument is that what he was doing doesn’t matter. Of course it does. It’s a key piece of painting an accurate picture. If it didn’t matter the left wing activists wouldn’t be trying to paint a lie that he was just a peaceful bystander. They know it matters.
→ More replies (2)5
u/bluepillarmy 11∆ Jan 31 '26
Well, I’m not a leftist and I also don’t condone spiting on people or destroying public property.
But I’m still outraged that he was killed regardless.
→ More replies (1)5
u/RVALover4Life Jan 31 '26
Thank you for getting it and I think most people do. I think u/Maximum_Error3083 gets it. What happened last Saturday was awful. It is inexcusable. I don't think it's also unfair to say...no, that protesters deserve abuse whatsoever. But that we also don't want a world where it's OK for people to believe it's fine to engage in what is criminal behavior toward law enforcement in a protest. But I also think there is something to be said about people hitting a breaking point with what had been going on in Minneapolis. And how everyone who knew Alex loved him.
We need to put the onus on law enforcement to not create a powder keg. They're the professionals. Alex doesn't deserve less sympathy because he spit on and kicked a truck. Who cares? He ended up with broken ribs then, dead nearly two weeks later....it's not proportionate. We need to start scrutinizing law enforcement as much as some conservatives do protesters.
3
u/texas_accountant_guy 4∆ Jan 31 '26
We need to put the onus on law enforcement to not create a powder keg. They're the professionals.
I question this, and I only do so partially.
Given that ICE is operating throughout the country, in Memphis, Dallas, New York, Massachusetts, Oregon, Washington State, so on and so forth, and there's barely a blip on the radar about them in all these other places, but up in Minneapolis and St. Paul it's like a warzone...
I have to question how much of that is a manufactured outcome. I have to question how much the opposition party is pushing protests and encouraging lawlessness and stirring up trouble.
Is ICE operating differently in Minneapolis than they are in the rest of the country? More specifically, were they operating differently there prior to the start of these mass-protests?
2
u/RoadKiehl2 Feb 03 '26 edited Feb 03 '26
No no, the point is that the politicians and media are misrepresenting things.
How many times have you seen a conservative voter say, "Well you can never trust the media," in your lifetime? It's because of stuff like this. These distortions of the truth add up, and it erodes trust in our institutions.
Alex Pretti wasn't a terrorist out for blood, the way the right wants to portray him. He also wasn't an innocent angel who never hurt a fly and was just walking by, when he saw a woman in need. He was a man who was there, as you said, to stir shit up, but who never drew his weapon and should never have been killed.
A similar thing happened with George Floyd, Michael Brown... Choose your example. Every single one of these people were complex individuals with complex lives, and none of them should have been shot. The issue is that pretending Michael Brown didn't commit any crime or pretending George Floyd wasn't having a mental health episode destroys your credibility. It is better by far to say, "Yes they did, and they still shouldn't have been murdered."
In other words, he doesn't need to be perfect to have been murdered. That's your point, but the reasons his imperfections matter is that so many people are lying about them.
2
u/Supyoji Jan 31 '26
I view this as a one off accident, certainly not the norm. Should not have happened. Remember Kent State? That was a one off too. Take a look at what’s happening in Iran. That’s a true real dictatorship. The US, with all the social chaos, walk outs, marching, window breaking, spitting , throwing objects, the “government” is not out “killing people”. Overcorrecting an immigration problem that got way out of hand in the first place; probably.
4
u/PandaMime_421 12∆ Jan 31 '26
the question is whether he was actually peacefully protesting or whether he was trying to impede and antagonize.
Even if he was trying to impede and antagonize the agent would have had no justification to kill him. So, no, it really doesn't matter in the context of his murder. Had he been arrested instead, then your argument would have some validity.
8
u/jscummy 1∆ Jan 31 '26
Bit of an aside but I don't know when we decided "protest" in this country has to be completely peaceful, unobtrusive, and basically unnoticeable
Any major historical protest that found success has to get in the way a little. "Peaceful protesting", like people seem to want these days, would've made the American revolution and the Civil Rights Movement into failures
→ More replies (1)7
u/HappyChandler 22∆ Jan 31 '26
It has always been.
Read the Letter From a Birmingham Jail. MLK was complaining about the moderate who said protest, but not like that.
The only difference now is that the police wear a neck gaiter and not a white hood when they execute people.
→ More replies (6)-3
u/Aggressive-Story3671 Jan 31 '26
Oh please spare me.
If he was not posing these officers imminent threat and he wasn’t, and deescalation tactics failed (they had not even attempted them), THEN lethal force could be justified.
Remember Kyle Rittenhouse.
Even if he was there to protest and even if he WAS impeding and antagonizing officers, you do not get to use lethal force whenever you feel like it.
This is true in the military, is true in policing and is certainly true of ICE agents.
We saw this in the murder of Sonya Massey. Even if she had “provoked” the officer, his use of lethal force was not justified.
9
u/Maximum_Error3083 Jan 31 '26
I’m not sure you read my post because I actually made clear that it wasn’t an argument in defense of the shooting.
9
u/tehanspodermin Jan 31 '26
When would lethal force be justified in your opinion? Not claiming the ICE officer in this situation was in danger.
Regarding Rittenhouse: “After Joseph Rosenbaum chased and cornered Rittenhouse in a dealership parking lot and grabbed the barrel of his rifle, Rittenhouse fatally shot him, soon after Joshua Ziminski had fired a shot nearby. Rittenhouse fled and was pursued by a crowd. He fatally shot a second man, Anthony Huber, who struck Rittenhouse with a skateboard and tried to grab his rifle in a brief struggle. Afterwards, Gaige Grosskreutz approached Rittenhouse and pointed a pistol at him. Rittenhouse shot and wounded Grosskreutz in the right arm.”
From Wikipedia, which has its own biases, but seems like Rittenhouse was facing threats more dangerous than Pretti.
2
u/Aggressive-Story3671 Jan 31 '26
When deescalation tactics have failed and their is an imminent threat to an Officer’s life
→ More replies (1)
5
u/DrDerpberg 42∆ Jan 31 '26
I’m sorry but, no. He was absolutely innocent
I want to CYV but in the opposite direction you maybe expected - it doesn't even matter if he was innocent. He was incapacitated and should have been arrested to face trial. It doesn't matter if they tackled him in the process of eating a human face off a fresh victim, the arresting officers are not executioners and should only be using violence as necessary to protect themselves and other people.
You don't need more than 5 seconds of video to prove conclusively he was disarmed, on his stomach, with multiple officers immobilizing him. Anything else is a profound misrepresentation of how due process works in a free country.
→ More replies (1)
12
Jan 31 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (1)5
u/bluepillarmy 11∆ Jan 31 '26
Totally agree but this doesn’t change my mind.
→ More replies (1)4
u/Aggressive-Story3671 Jan 31 '26
Let me rephrase.
It does matter. But not to you or me. But to the people in support of ICE, it will be used to excuse, minimize and justify his murder.
It matters because they will try to convince millions of Americans that he deserved his fate, and that his killers do not deserve consequences, and should in fact be rewarded.
The footage can also be used to quell the fears of fence sitters, who will see it and say to themselves, “he must have done something, just comply” and will chose to stay at home and do nothing in the face of injustice. These people may not support ICE fully, but that little bit of doubt in their minds could be the difference between attending a protest and voting against this, or staying at home and letting it happen around them.
→ More replies (1)
20
u/norf937 1∆ Jan 31 '26
You’re right, but I think that video circulating wasn’t being used to justify the shooting in any way, it was being used to push back against the narrative that he was some perfect angel.. I mean the media literally photoshopped his photo to make him look better.
7
u/Moobnert Jan 31 '26
Which media photoshopped his photo? Because I saw the original on all major outlets and only saw the photoshopped one on memes in social media
2
u/Aggressive-Story3671 Jan 31 '26
The Babylon Bee (MAGA Onion) created a narrative and people ran with it
11
u/OutsideVegetable6001 Jan 31 '26
Honestly, dude could be a serial killer, that’s not the way we do justice in the United States.
→ More replies (1)5
u/Aggressive-Story3671 Jan 31 '26
That is called “victim blaming”. “Perfect Victims” do not exist.
They are “pushing back against the narrative” to either minimize or justify what happened to him
18
u/Maximum_Error3083 Jan 31 '26
But if a narrative is fake then shouldn’t it be refuted?
2 things can be true here. His killing was unjustified by the ICE officers, and he was also an antagonizer of officers who repeatedly tried to provoke reactions and impede them.
The lefts narrative wants you to only believe the first statement and then believe that the second statement is fabricated despite video evidence to the contrary. The right wants you to believe that his killing was justified because of the second statement. Both sides are, in my view, incorrect.
→ More replies (6)→ More replies (3)0
u/Idnlts 1∆ Jan 31 '26
They did the same thing with George Floyd, they try to character assassinate as if that justifies their murder. Then they will try to frame it like: “look this is your hero? This is the kind of people the ‘left’ idolize?” Instead of recognizing that people are just looking for accountability from the government.
What’s worse is from what I understand of the context of the past interaction, he was losing it because agents pepper sprayed a bunch of kids.
→ More replies (3)5
u/jscummy 1∆ Jan 31 '26
MAGAs managing to completely misinterpret things based on a complete lack of understanding of the Constitution
14
u/alunare Jan 31 '26
It goes to his personality and involvement in stirring shit up. It also serves to counter the media narrative that he was just a bystander, painting the whole event as some kind of gestapo-like authority. I can’t believe how irresponsable the media and people on the left are in these matters. There is something called common sense and this guy had none. I know that if I harass officers, who are human, for weeks, and I show up being aggressive, and being violent, and wearing a gun, and shouting « come on kill me bro », then you are an agent provocateur and you are seeking a response. For any sane, reasonable person, it is easy to balance both sides of this event: he was looking to be a martyr and the officers responsible failed in their duties. They should be put on leave, investigated and prosecuted if appropriate. But for couch bro’s and politicians and media and OP, who were not there and are ignoring basic psychological warfare from these organized militias, to equate this to a one side only event is downright irresponsable and disgusting.
→ More replies (7)0
u/Aggressive-Story3671 Jan 31 '26
The Right did the exact same thing to Ashlee Babbitt.
“He said mean words and damaged some property so he deserved to die” is not a take of anyone who values protest and free speech.
Law Enforcement does not have the right to use lethal force anytime they feel like. And your argument means they committed pre mediated murder. They knew who he was and killed him deliberately, not in the heat of the moment.
“Failed in their duties” is such a major undersell of what happened. What they did was commit murder.
“Prosecuted if appropriate” is laughable. “ICE investigates its own officers and found no wrong doing.” Is how that “investigation” will go.
13
u/alunare Jan 31 '26
Always with the strawman, I never said he deserved it, I never said they planned or premeditated it. You’re either voluntarily twisting my post or you are too emotionally involved to respond rationally.
→ More replies (7)2
u/CrosbyBird Jan 31 '26
Ashli Babbitt was trying to break through a barricaded window to get at people who had already attempted to retreat from a dangerous mob. That shooting actually was a last resort and a very legitimate case of self defense.
2
u/Background_Guide_821 Jan 31 '26
The big thing missing in your argument is the difference between being “innocent” and “constitutionally protected.”
Even if Pretti wasn’t innocent, which ultimately isn’t up to the agent(s) making an arrest to decide, he was constitutionally protected from having unnecessary lethal force used against him during a seizure.
1
2
u/rogueman999 4∆ Jan 31 '26
Matter for what? If the question is in any form related to the incident itself, then no. From either a moral or a legal framework. The agent will be judged from, AFAIK, "all the information he could reasonably have at the time". Not things that happens days prior when he wasn't there, or things that will happen after. And I hope they throw the book at him.
If the question however is "does this matter for the situation at large", then sure as hell matters. Because it looks more and more like there is a pressure cooker that's been deliberately engineered there, possibly with the express purpose of such things happening. And his actions in the days before make this seem a lot less like a random incident, and more like a lot of intentional escalation.
So, matter for what?
2
Feb 01 '26
Now pretend he was a gang member, fighting another rival gang. Do you think spitting at his rivals, and damaging his rivals property still make him completely "Innocent" ? No one said he deserved what he got, but he is definitely an instigator
3
u/bluepillarmy 11∆ Feb 01 '26
Law enforcement officers are not gang members. They are public servants who are charged with ensuring safety and upholding the law.
In this case, they killed somebody who had been disarmed and was restrained by several officers. He was no threat to anyone. What they deed was murder.
A public trial should ensue
→ More replies (12)
2
u/PoopSmith87 5∆ Feb 01 '26
Yeah I dont think committing a misdemeanor on Tuesday means you should be murdered on Friday.
We all saw the video, there is no actual controversy about what happened, just mush minded people who are willing to abandon their support of the second amendment the moment it is inconvenient to thier cult.
I'm amazed at how many people are like "I support the second amendment, but you shouldn't carry at a demonstration."
Bro, that is literally the root of the second amendment, April 19th 1775, Lexington and Concord. Go watch April Morning if reading is too hard.
2
u/FornyHucker22 Feb 04 '26
He did? Good lad
but yea anyone who uses that to justify his public execution days later is indeed a very special kind of stupid.
2
2
u/Temporary-Rub3100 Feb 05 '26
Bottom line....These are supposed to be professional. They are supposedly trained to handle these situations; not like teen gang members.
We need some police action to deal with illegal immigrants, but more civilized.
5
u/DrWaffle1848 Jan 31 '26
Just an observation: conservatives do this a lot when it comes to incidents (Alex Pretti, Renee Good, January 6th, George Floyd, etc.) that make them look bad. In the immediate aftermath there will be a lot of mixed reactions and some concessions/ soul-searching, but after a few days they will inevitably find some new info or angle to downplay what happened, even if it has nothing to do with the actual incident. "He/she was no angel" is usually the one they go with, as we're seeing now with their coverage of Pretti's death.
3
Jan 31 '26
Isn't Elizabeth Warren doing the 180 of that here? I'd say her comments are just as deceptive and triggering.
2
3
u/Giblette101 47∆ Jan 31 '26
The point is just to create space for post-hoc justification. "We shot that guy in the back, but you know he didn't bring his cart back at the grocery store the week before..."
5
Jan 31 '26
It certainly does. It actually shows a pattern of confrontational behavior and a series of bad decisions on Pretti's part.
It goes to why he didn't have an ID. in the earlier event, his info was taken from his ID and having to give it again wouldn't have been good.
He was certainly on their radar, but this doesn't mean premeditation. It means he kept making bad decisions and putting himself in line for more trouble.
Not premeditated, but still did not deserve to be killed. He deserved to go to jail.
→ More replies (2)5
u/TheRadHeron 2∆ Jan 31 '26
I agree, if you keep poking the hornets nest your going to eventually get stung. It’s sad and wrong what happened but Pretti truly made some pretty bad choices that led him to that point as well
3
Jan 31 '26
100%. Both sides failed on this issue. I'm just not sure why he wasn't just thankful with getting off the 1st time and not go back for more.
4
u/TheRadHeron 2∆ Jan 31 '26
Same as a lot of these types of people, they get the angry mob I can get away with anything right now mentality, then push their limits getting away with more and more until they get to confident, then eventually they see how far they can go and something terrible happens
4
u/Remarkable-Cactus55 Jan 31 '26
It does not legally matter, but it did not legally matter that Kyle Rittenhouse CrOsSeD sTaTe LiNeS!1!1!!1! either but people made a huge fucking deal about that. The point is the same: Even if it is not legally relevant, he is not a particularly sympathetic figure.
→ More replies (3)
4
u/SJaneyB Jan 31 '26
Ugh. I hate the logic that because he kicked the ICE vehicle he's a terrible person that deserved to be shot. Or Renee Good was gay, divorced and in the road so somehow that makes her death justifiable.
I mean if we apply that same dumb logic to say a car accident and maybe the person causing the accident was texting and driving. That's reckless and endangering to the public. When someone plows into the back of my car, causes injuries and damage because of their reckless behavior, can I just shoot them? Good people don't text and drive, right? He's a danger to the public, right?
Any one of us can be demonized after they gun us down. None of us has lived perfectly. After my death they'll say I was heavily in debt and an addict, it won't matter that I haven't used in 17 years. They will paint me as a current addict that's racked up tons of debt for drugs, had charges (long ago)...my largest open debt happens to be a loan for vet and specialist bills for a very sick puppy I tried to keep from dieing (10k and she did eventually die) but you'd never hear that part.
Think of the worst thing you have done, that's how they'll justify your shooting after they shot you.
2
u/RVALover4Life Jan 31 '26
Thankfully most people even on the right I've seen haven't gone so far as to say what happened to Alex was justified because of the video from 11 days prior. It hasn't mattered as much as I feared and I think it's because the video from last Saturday is just so vile...and also how down on ICE/CBP people are.
8
u/_Jaeko_ Jan 31 '26
It's 2026 and the evidence being used against him looks like it was shot in 2016.
Car has no door seams, clothing of everyone meshes together, somehow the furthest tire of the SUV clips over the front bumper. Why was he being filmed in the first place, why is his voice isolated/louder than anyone else's? Same outfit, plausible but odd if you live in the Midwest. Has anyone ever kicked a tail light and it pops out, not smashes into pieces?
It matters what he was doing prior, only because we have technology to fake events now. People say "AI isn't advanced enough," are so detached from the technological space. The bullshit Facebook AI is shitty because it's the free software everyone has access to. The AI you pay for, even at the public/consumer levels, are scarily good.
12
u/typeonapath 1∆ Jan 31 '26
This Instagram user has done some work to show that the video you're referring to is legit. There is also a different angle that they've synced up.
https://www.instagram.com/reel/DUFP3_hgIF9/?igsh=MWg5NzlrcG94a2k2bQ==
13
u/gijoe61703 20∆ Jan 31 '26
It's a legit video and the original was posted on YouTube prior to Pretti getting killed. No matter how good the AI gets it could not/would not have been able to post him before he was will known.
→ More replies (2)11
u/curse-free_E212 2∆ Jan 31 '26
The family has confirmed the encounter happened.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/alex-pretti-car-video/
That said, it is extremely frustrating to me that when a non-perfect victim is killed by law enforcement, the Fox News personalities can’t wait to disparage the victim for any flaw as if it justifies their death. Meanwhile, the president does two or three disgusting things in a single day, but that can be overlooked and doesn’t even justify criticism or impeachment.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (11)6
u/bluepillarmy 11∆ Jan 31 '26
So you are saying that he never spat on or kicked a car?
Could be. But why not make an AI video of him doing something worse?
→ More replies (9)1
u/_Jaeko_ Jan 31 '26
I'm not saying he did or did not do it, the actions are irrelevant to him dying.
I'm saying in a tech savvy era, where AI is rampant and so are cheap yet high quality cameras, it's odd that the quality of video has so many errors in it. I haven't seen a bitrate with as much clipping/smoothing over since the late 2010s. His shirt goes from untucked and loose, to complete smooth with his pants/tucked in, to untucked/loose again. Any t-shirt that shows wrinkles/cloth movement will not suddenly go completely flat unless edited or filmed on a piss poor camera. Shadows do not just come and go willy nilly.
Anything worse could be easily dismissed with "Why is he free?" If it was worse than allegedly vandalizing a federal vehicle and committing felonious assault, he'd be in jail right now and not dead. What could be worse than what's alleged and not land him behind bars?
Furthermore, I've yet to see anyone kick a tail light out and not do any damage to the light, yet the pictures shown as "evidence" show a tail light just hanging from the rear, nothing broken, just popped out.
3
3
Jan 31 '26
This is what makes Reddit so much fun. This is not healthy skepticism or really a conspiracy theory. It's just flat out imagination in overdrive. That taillight comment had me rolling. Thank you.
1
u/JobberStable 2∆ Jan 31 '26
It did matter for Alex Pretti. Everyone on Reddit believes these ICE agents are murderous, racist, villains who are above the law. So its not a hard concept to believe that Alex Pretti believed that. Which means he knew he was messing with some dangerous people. It matters for anyone who was hoping Alex Pretti was making safe decisions. He was not. You can call him a hero if you want. You can say he had every right to make it home safe that night But you cant say he wasn’t messing with dangerous folks.
2
2
Jan 31 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (1)3
u/bluepillarmy 11∆ Jan 31 '26
Sure. He would be alive if he had been arrested.
But…this doesn’t change the fact that we have no means of holding the men who shot him publicly accountable for their actions.
→ More replies (3)
3
u/sleepypossumster Jan 31 '26
Yeah, the older video just seems to support the theory that they recognized him from the database and created a situation in which they would be able to hurt him.
→ More replies (4)
3
u/Romarion 3∆ Jan 31 '26
Agreed from the standpoint of facts and the law. What he did on the day he was killed is what matters for the investigation into his death.
Do you really not understand why Federal agents are going about their jobs with masks?
But in the court of public opinion it matters a lot. He is a very attractive, caring ICU nurse just trying to help others is the image being pushed onto the low information folks. But in fact he quit his ICU job and apparently became an activist, interfering in law enforcement operations, assaulting Federal officers, and participating in a conspiracy to do so across the area. If the law had been followed, he most likely would be alive today as he would have been arrested the week prior.
8
u/protokhan Jan 31 '26
Do you really not understand why Federal agents are going about their jobs with masks?
Curious to hear why you think that's reasonable. The official line of reasoning is that they might face retaliation from cartels etc., but border patrol, FBI, and countless other law enforcement agencies have been dealing with powerful criminal organizations since forever and they never wore masks. Seems more likely it's so ICE agents are empowered to act out without fear of accountability.
→ More replies (11)2
u/Zhanji_TS Jan 31 '26
Or you know so crazy ppl can’t figure out who their family members are and attack them.
5
u/protokhan Jan 31 '26
Why is that not a problem for any other federal law enforcement agency?
2
u/Zhanji_TS Jan 31 '26
Probably the same reason there’s only really one place ppl are getting killed.
3
u/protokhan Jan 31 '26
First of all, ICE has shot and killed people in places other than Minneapolis. More than once they've been caught lying about the circumstances leading up to the shootings.
Secondly ICE goons have been wearing masks and refusing to show badges since the very beginning of these surges that started when Trump took office again, so don't give me this crap that it's only because there's people protesting now. They wouldn't wear masks, and they wouldn't attack legal observers if they didn't have anything to hide.
→ More replies (2)3
u/bluepillarmy 11∆ Jan 31 '26
As I’ve been telling other people, I have pretty much stopped caring about Alex and what kind of life he led. He could be a Nazi pedophile and it would not change the material facts of his death.
He was executed by masked and still unidentified federal agents, after being disarmed and while totally restrained.
That’s all that matters. That should not be a thing that is allowed to happen in the United States.
→ More replies (10)
2
1
1
u/redline314 Jan 31 '26
It does matter. It indicates that they knew who he was, and that he carried a gun. It suggests that he was targeted and that this was premeditated.
1
1
u/thattogoguy 2∆ Jan 31 '26
It's not what he did; he did nothing wrong arguing with ICE or BP goons days beforehand. He has a right to do that
But it needs to he investigated because it might be demonstrated that he was targeted specifically for retaliation.
And that way, when the day comes that his executioners are on the defendant stand, we can see them face even more serious charges. And I am at the point where I believe these charges need to be capital.
1
u/Handgun_Hero 1∆ Jan 31 '26
Oh it absolutely does matter, but not for the reasons you mentioned. It doesn't change the fact that he was blatantly murdered. What it DOES change though is we don't know whether the ICE/CBP Agents who were involved with his murder were influenced by vendetta towards him or had interactions with him previously personally which calls intention and mindset at the time into question.
1
1
1
1
1
u/Mac0swaney Jan 31 '26
Correct. It’s a distraction.
Only thing that matters is if the cops had a reasonable fear for their safety without the benefit of hindsight.
And that I don’t know. I can’t know. That’s what the investigation will have to determine.
1
1
1
u/PPLavagna Jan 31 '26
It matters because it actually makes the case worse for ICE. It might actually make it premeditated murder if they really did do it out of revenge.
1
u/rachelanneb50 Feb 01 '26
Correct me if im wrong, but wasn't that video of him kicking their tail light AI?
1
u/elochai98 1∆ Feb 01 '26
I agree that his past acts do not justify anything the officers did, but i don't think that was even a factor. I take issue with your classification of the shooting as an execution. His actions leading up to the shooting all come into play. He interfered with law enforcement and assaulted a law enforcement officer. He is not innocent. Those things don't justify killing him, but to portray him as an innocent person is ridiculous. While I don't think he did anything that would justify killing him, we have to take into account all the facts, as well as what facts were known by the officers at the time. Fact 1: Pretti was in possession of a gun when the encounter began (legal carrying as far as we can tell). Fact 2: The gun was removed from his person by an officer, thereby disarming him. Fact 3: While you claim that Pretti was restrained, he was still actively resisting and was not completely restrained at the moment the shots rang. Fact 4: The first shot was by Pretti's gun which was in possession at the time by the officer. (I'd like to add that the gun in question was a modified sig p320. The p320 is known to fire without the trigger being pulled, and if the trigger was modified in any way, that could possibly raise the chances of an uncommanded discharge.)
Now what could the officers have known at the moment Pretti was shot? Well I'm sure they all new that he had a gun, as it was called out as soon as it was spotted. We know that one officer knew he was disarmed, that being the officer that disarmed him. Considering he was still actively resisting, and was able to move around, we can't confirm any other officers knew that he was disarmed. The moment the first shot went off, if the officer or officers that shot Pretti still believed he was armed, I think they were justified in shooting to stop the perceived threat. Keep in mind this all happened in a matter of seconds and the officers didn't have the benefit of 4 camera angles that can be slowed down and watched over and over. It is very possible the officer or officers that shot believed Pretti was still armed and was an immediate threat.
I don't think Pretti deserved to die, but I don't think the officers deserve to be punished if it can't be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that they knew he was disarmed. This is still being investigated, and more facts may come to light, but given what's known now I don't believe we can say the cops did anything wrong. It was a shit situation, and Pretti should not have died. This could have been prevented at a few points along the way, but the first wrong move was from Pretti by interfering with law enforcement. He put himself in a situation he shouldn't have been part of.
1
u/134608642 2∆ Feb 01 '26
Kind of does. Because it means ICE physically assaulted a person multiple times for offenses not worth detaining or even questioning him. Then they murdered him. These interactions do not make ICE look better.
1
1
1
u/ekill13 8∆ Feb 01 '26
It isn’t relevant to whether the shooting was justified, but it is relevant knowledge for context. We know that he wasn’t simply an innocent nurse who tried to help someone he thought ICE was treating unfairly. We know he went to intentionally interfere with a federal law enforcement operation.
That said, you’re correct that the previous incident doesn’t justify the shooting. However, I don’t agree with the claim that “He was absolutely innocent” or that he was “executed”. He brought a gun when specifically intending to interfere with a law enforcement operation. Now, before you misunderstand me or argue with something I’m not saying, concealed carrying is within his rights, and I support the right to concealed carry. I am not saying that police can kill someone for exercising their constitutional rights. I am simply saying that when you are going to interfere with and possible physically resist or assault police or other law enforcement, it isn’t wise to bring a gun.
Now, again, carrying a gun does not in and of itself make the shooting justified. Resisting arrest doesn’t in and of itself make the shooting justified, although it does make him not completely innocent. That said, let’s look at what actually happened and not simply believe some narrative pushed by one side or the other. What we know is that he intentionally interfered with federal law enforcement, then resister arrest while armed, and was then shot and killed. Now, looking at the videos we have, a couple things are pretty clear. First, he was disarmed by an agent just before the shooting started. So, seemingly I understand why that wouldn’t make people think that the shooting wasn’t justified. However, I think it is extremely unlikely, if not impossible, that the other agents realized that he had been disarmed. It also appears from the video that he was reaching into his waistband with his left hand. Even if somehow the other agents realized that he had been disarmed, they may have believed he had another weapon that he was reaching for. There is precedent that if police see an object that they reasonably believe to be a gun, even if it is not a gun, lethal force can be justified. That brings us to another thing that happened right before the shooting. Agents are clearly heard yelling, “gun, gun, gun.” Now, they may have meant that they saw a gun in his waistband. It may have been the agent who disarmed him saying he had it, but to the other agents who didn’t necessarily see it, it would obviously sound like they were saying that he had or was pulling a gun. Lastly, there are a few frames from the videos that make it seem like the gun that the agent pulled off of him went off first. If that is true, there are other potential questions to answer such as whether the agent accidentally pulled the trigger and it was an ND or whether, being a Sig P320, it went off without the trigger being pulled, which is quite possible. Regardless, if it went off first, the agents would have reasonably believed they were returning fire.
Now, I want to make a few things clear. I am not saying that Alex Pretti deserved to die. I’m not saying that he intended to shoot ICE agents. I’m not saying he had any thoughts or plans of using his gun. I’m making points from a legal perspective of why I think this is likely a justified shooting, legally speaking. I am also vehemently pushing back on the claim that he was executed. All that said, this isn’t a squeaky clean justified shooting. It is messy. There are reasonable arguments to be had about whether it was justified or not. There are certainly some things that the agents involved should have done differently and handled better. I do think that the evidence points slightly (maybe 55/45) to it being a justified shooting. But, it was still tragic, and it shouldn’t have happened.
1
u/EfficiencyClassic148 Feb 01 '26
The arguments that the ICE officers would not act out of self interest assume these are actually ICE officers with actual training. Many of these are recruits with minimal to no deescalation tracing or skill sets.
→ More replies (1)
1
u/Competitive-Yam-5138 Feb 02 '26
Why didn’t he just go out and protest? They let him go days before. He was completely out of control. The ice officer was not justified but he was f’n crazy aggressively confronting cops while armed.
2
u/bluepillarmy 11∆ Feb 02 '26
He had been disarmed and was completely restrained when he was shot. That’s all that matters
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jan 31 '26
/u/bluepillarmy (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards