The killing of 37‑year‑old Alex Pretti by federal agents in downtown Minneapolis — captured on multiple bystander videos — contradicts official claims that an agent acted in lawful self‑defense. The footage shows Pretti filming officers, stepping in to shield a woman, being sprayed, tackled, pinned, disarmed, and then shot while immobilized. The article situates this incident within a longer history in which appeals to 'self‑defense' have masked state and racial violence, and argues that legal and cultural reforms are needed to ensure accountability.
Don’t Let Officials Call It Self‑Defense: The Video and History Behind Alex Pretti’s Death
Early on a Saturday morning in downtown Minneapolis, federal agents killed 37‑year‑old Alex Pretti in full view of witnesses. Within hours, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) issued a familiar statement — an agent had acted in lawful self‑defense against an armed, violent agitator. Multiple bystander videos shot from different angles present a different and more troubling picture.
What the Video Shows
The footage shows Pretti holding his phone and recording as masked ICE and CBP officers shove demonstrators and spray chemical irritants into the crowd. It shows an agent pushing a woman in the street and Pretti stepping forward, without striking anyone or reaching for a weapon, to shield her from the blows. The tape then shows an agent spraying Pretti directly in the face; he is tackled and driven to the pavement.
While Pretti lay immobilized, six or seven agents appear to pile on top of him and strike his body. One agent is seen removing a licensed handgun from Pretti's waistband — a weapon he was carrying lawfully under state law. With Pretti pinned beneath a mass of armed bodies, gunshots ring out. Agents disperse. Pretti does not get up.
Official Claim: An agent acted in self‑defense.
What The Video Suggests: A man shielding another person was subdued, disarmed, and shot while immobilized.
A Pattern, Not An Isolated Incident
This incident echoes other recent cases. On January 7, Renee Good was shot three times and killed by an ICE agent as she tried to flee in her car. Officials described that killing as justified self‑defense, even as video and eyewitness testimony — including an agent muttering an obscenity after the shooting — raised serious doubts about that explanation. The Department of Justice under the current administration reportedly declined to treat Good’s killing as a homicide and opened an investigation into her widow instead. The pattern is clear: a ready claim of self‑defense can be used to absolve the shooter while recasting victims as perpetrators.
Historical Roots of a Rhetorical Shield
Claims of self‑defense have long been deployed to justify extraordinary state and private violence. From colonial campaigns that labeled Indigenous resistance as 'savage' to the Ku Klux Klan's post‑Civil War justification of terror as protection of 'white womanhood,' appeals to defense have masked political and racial agendas. Ida B. Wells documented how the 'rape‑lynch' mythology was a 'threadbare lie' used to rationalize lynchings; the Equal Justice Initiative estimates roughly 4,400 lynchings occurred between Reconstruction and the mid‑20th century. These historical abuses show how 'defense' language can be a veil for domination.
Law, Culture, and the Expansion of Immunity
In recent decades, that defensive rhetoric has been codified and broadened. 'Stand Your Ground' statutes and permissive firearms regulations reduce duties to retreat and elevate subjective fear into legal justification. That legal framework encourages escalation and provides a path to immunity for those — private citizens and, increasingly, armed agents — who claim they felt threatened.
When state actors adopt similar language and tactics, the result is especially dangerous: institutions with military‑grade weapons and broad discretionary authority operate on public streets while invoking a timeworn rhetorical shield that has historically absolved violence against marginalized communities.
Why Sequence and Context Matter
The order of events in the Pretti footage — recording, shielding, spraying, tackling, piling on, disarming, and then shooting — undermines a straightforward self‑defense claim. Pretti, by most accounts, was a licensed gun owner, a registered nurse, and a military veteran. Witnesses and video evidence indicate he never drew his weapon before he was disarmed and shot. That sequence matters not only for legal accountability but for how society understands the difference between legitimate self‑defense and state‑sanctioned violence.
What Needs To Change
Accountability requires independent investigations, transparent procedures for reviewing use of force, and legal standards that prevent subjective fear from becoming an automatic exoneration. More broadly, we must confront the cultural habit of equating authority with innocence and violence with virtue. Otherwise, rhetorical shields like 'self‑defense' will continue to protect the powerful while silencing victims.
Bottom line: The video of Alex Pretti’s killing raises grave questions about the official narrative. It should prompt independent inquiry, not reflexive exoneration.
Help us improve.
