The new January 13 footage matters for one reason: it proves the “gun = he had to die” story is not automatically true.
In that earlier clip, Pretti is volatile, yelling, spitting, kicking out a taillight, then a masked, armed agent chases him and he’s wrestled to the ground while other officers pepper-spray observers. And after they release him, the gun is still just a gun-in-a-waistband, visible, holstered, not drawn, and he walks away alive.
That’s why the second encounter is a credibility test.
Within hours of the fatal shooting, officials framed Pretti as the aggressor—“approached with a 9mm,” “domestic terrorist,” “would-be assassin.” But Reuters reports an initial CBP review does not mention brandishing, notes the gun was holstered, and says video shows an agent removing the gun from his waist before the shooting.
So the narrow claim isn’t “they’re lying” as a feeling. It’s a specific contradiction:
- Claim: he brandished / posed an immediate gun threat.
- Evidence described in the initial review: gun holstered, removed, then shots.
Yes, he carried a gun. But the January 13 video already shows a gun can be present, officers can control the encounter, and nobody has to die.
Supplemental context (not the core claim): reporting also indicates agents in Minneapolis were instructed to use an “intel collection non-arrests” form to capture identifying information on “protesters/agitators,” and that Pretti was “known” to federal agents (unclear if that form was used for him). Reuters has documented a broader pattern where video and court records contradict initial DHS narratives.
Standard: for “brandished” to be true, you need clear evidence he had the gun in hand/aimed in the kill-shot window, not just that he owned one.
What would change my mind: unedited bodycam showing a draw/aim at the moment shots were fired.
If the system can disarm him and let him leave on January 13, why does it end in bullets after he’s disarmed in the fatal encounter?
The variable are the officers involved. In the first instance, the officers either didn't see his weapon or they didn't see it as a reaction trigger for them to act. In the second, clearly the gun was a focal point for their reaction. People will point to training, but it's also the officer personalities, particularly as a group/squad. I've seen huge variation in officer behavior when acting individually as well as when in a squad.
The shooter sees him being disarmed and appears to have a hand on the disarming agent’s shoulder. Then the agent who disarms him is seen firing into the pavement, and shots immediately ensue. You can also see the agent who disarms him look back after firing Pretti's weapon into the pavement (source).
Clarifying in case you misinterpreted me. When I refer to the "first instance" I'm talking about the incident days before Pretti was killed.
Appreciate the clarification. I was talking about the shooting moment: he appears to be disarmed in front of the shooter, then a shot into the pavement, then the volley. That’s why I’m focused on training/intent/decision-making in that second more than anything else.