A shooting, a promised probe, and a public image problem

Shortly after federal agents shot and killed 37-year-old Alex Pretti on Saturday, Americans on both sides of the aisle debated the incident: Was the shooting an act of cold-blooded murder, or an appropriate but heartbreaking self-defense by law enforcement officers doing their jobs?

Hours after the shooting, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz called the federal agents in Minneapolis “violent” and “untrained” and demanded they be removed from the state. Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey critiqued federal immigration enforcement actions, saying that agents were not bringing peace and safety to his community. “The invasion of these heavily armed, masked agents roaming around on our streets of Minneapolis, emboldened with a sense of impunity, has to end,” he said.

Meanwhile, the same day, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem declared Pretti was “brandishing” a gun and appeared intent on killing federal agents, whom she said acted in self-defense. Border Patrol Commander-at-Large Gregory Bovino, assigned to oversee the Minneapolis operation, made a similar claim, saying that Pretti carried two loaded gun magazines and appeared ready to “massacre” federal agents.

Days later, the Trump administration is walking back its initial defense of the agents involved in the incident. Videos of the shooting circulating online appear to show that Pretti had been carrying a gun but was not brandishing it, and that he had been disarmed before he was shot. Public reaction has been sharp, pressuring President Donald Trump to reevaluate the ICE operation in Minneapolis.

Amid bipartisan calls for an investigation, Trump has promised a “very honorable and honest” review of the Pretti shooting and reassigned Bovino to California. Stephen Miller, the White House deputy chief of staff, had earlier called Pretti a “would-be assassin” but on Tuesday admitted that Customs and Border Protection agents may not have been following “proper protocol” in Minneapolis.

Experts say a full investigation is needed to appropriately understand the incident, and they note that essential pieces of evidence remain to be revealed. But some worry that the Trump administration’s initial leap to defend the shooting may have already undermined the possibility of an investigation that appears impartial to the public.

According to federal officials, Pretti had a 9 mm firearm on his person, along with two magazines. The gun was legally purchased and owned, and Pretti had a concealed carry permit. Graphic video footage of the incident does not appear to show Pretti reaching for or using his weapon.

Other video footage (caution: language) appears to indicate the fatal incident began when Pretti tried to help a woman after an agent shoved her to the ground. Agents subsequently pepper sprayed Pretti and attempted to take him into custody, while Pretti appeared to resist them.

Chuck Rylant, a former police officer, is now a certified force science analyst who specializes in the psychology of officers’ decision-making in use-of-force situations. He cautioned against forming judgments about the incident before all the details are known.

“When things are this chaotic, really one of the main and most important pieces of evidence is what nobody has. … We don’t know what that officer’s observations were,” he said. “Just because we as the public can see something in a camera, that doesn’t mean that the officer saw the same thing.”

Some conservatives have claimed that Pretti’s decision to bring a firearm to a protest shows he was willfully putting himself and others in danger. First Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California Bill Essayli, shortly after the incident, posted on social media that if someone approached law enforcement personnel with a firearm, there was a high likelihood that officers could justifiably use lethal force against him.

But other conservatives have pushed back. The National Rifle Association critiqued Essayli’s comments as “dangerous and wrong” while also blaming Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz for ratcheting up the tension in Minneapolis. The pro-Second Amendment organization said it affirms the rights of all law-abiding citizens to carry guns wherever they are legally allowed to be. Kyle Rittenhouse, who gained notoriety for killing two individuals at a protest in Wisconsin in 2020 while carrying an AR-15-style rifle (he was acquitted of criminal charges on the grounds that he acted in self-defense), said Monday that Americans should assert the right to carry everywhere.

Having a firearm on you doesn’t mean that law enforcement is more likely to kill you, according to Justin Nix, a University of Nebraska at Omaha criminology professor who specializes in police use of force.

“Local law enforcement disarm thousands of armed people probably on a daily basis in this country without killing them,” Nix told WORLD.

And while many—including Secretary Noem—have criticized Pretti for allegedly resisting arrest, Nix said that aspect was unclear to him. He pointed to the icy conditions and officers pepper spraying Pretti. “I’ve never been hit with [pepper] spray, but I imagine it would make you act a little erratic,” Nix said. “And as you’re slipping to the ground and you’ve got multiple armed agents wrestling with you, your body’s going to flail, and it’ll look a little hectic.”

On the other hand, Rylant disputed claims that CBP and Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents are armed with a sense of impunity when engaging with protesters.

“In general—I’m sure there’s a 0.001% exception—but in general, officers are extremely reluctant [to use deadly force] because it often, more often than not, destroys their lives,” Rylant said. He noted that officers who use deadly force can lose their jobs, face criminal charges, and face civil lawsuits.

“And then the aftermath of taking another human’s life, it’s extremely hard. So that narrative of trigger-happy cops, I’ve just never seen that once in my whole life,” he said.

With public emotions on the Pretti case running high, an impartial, independent investigation will be essential. But Ian Adams, a former police officer and professor in the University of South Carolina’s Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, worries any review will be overshadowed by the administration’s initial response—particularly the comments by Noem and Bovino justifying the shooting.

“I worry that the sort of initial steps from the secretary and others in the administration have sort of colored any later investigation as, well, there was already a thumb on the scale,” Adams said. “The agency already decided at the very highest levels that this was justified before there was ever an investigation. It’s too bad.”

Michael White, a professor at Arizona State University’s School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, agreed.

“At this point, given the lack of legitimacy in the eyes, certainly of the people in Minneapolis and elsewhere about ICE—about Homeland Security, even—if they do a complete investigation, will people see that as thorough and fair and unbiased? And I think the answer is no,” White said. “A lot of people, regardless of whether they do an investigation or not, are not going to put a lot of stock into that.”

If an independent entity, such as the Minneapolis Police Department or a U.S. attorney’s office, investigated the matter, that might yield more credible results in the eyes of the public, White said.

While President Trump told The Wall Street Journal that his administration would be “reviewing everything” about the shooting, Adams doubted there was a way to unwind the administration’s initial comments.

“We can’t un-ring that bell,” he said. “This points to why the best practices here involve remaining open to the investigative outcomes and not foreclosing them by immediately issuing judgment.”