Pretti Shooting: Where’s the gun?

In the video, the psychologist carefully analyzes every body movement, the shuffling of feet, and each of the aggressive movements by each of the persons on the scene. He admits most of what is being said cannot be fully understood, and we don’t know what is going through the minds of those involved. Hindsight is twenty-twenty, and careful examination of the video doesn’t take into account the heat of the moment. Decisions needed to be made based on each person’s viewpoint of the situation – what they heard, what they saw or didn’t see, and what they believed to be a threat—is not being considered as a part of the analysis.

According to Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, Pretti "approached U.S. Border Patrol officers with a 9mm semi-automatic handgun" and claimed he "wanted to do maximum damage and massacre law enforcement," justifying the agent's actions as defensive. The shooting has the opposition voices calling for ICE to depart from Minnesota screaming even louder. Antifa is calling for guerilla warfare against ICE.

As the media attempts to paint Pretti as “the perfect guy,” and someone “peaceful, not violent,” video of his violent actions against ICE a little over a week before has surfaced showing otherwise—cussing at agents, kicking out their tail-light, and violently resisting as they attempt to detain him in response to his violent actions. On the day he was shot and killed, as before, Alex Pretti came to the anti-ICE protest armed and with the intention to interfere with law enforcement operations. The Border Patrol agents reacted as any human being would when they saw a weapon in the confrontation, and believed that their own lives were in danger. An investigation has been launched, and a judge has ordered the federal government to retain all of the evidence.

While I support everyone’s right to keep and bear arms, one has to ask in the case of Pretti, why did he have his weapon on his body, but not any identification on him as required by law in Minnesota when concealed carrying? Why would he carry a loaded firearm (and two loaded magazines) at a protest designed to clash with federal law enforcement, and multiple times at protests that have a history of violence? Yes, we have a right to keep and bear arms, but with our rights come responsibility. With any of our freedoms comes responsibility. Was Pretti carrying for defensive reasons, or did he plan to use the firearm against federal agents? And, when we consider he was a professional agitator in a potentially violent situation with a mission to create a confrontation in that violent situation, the only reasonable assumption is he planned to use that firearm to create chaos, or kill agents.

This is also likely what was going through the minds of the federal agents. They knew the agitators wanted confrontation. The agitators wanted the cameras to record violence. The agents knew that the protesters were shouting for the deaths of the agents. And now, suddenly, this guy is having it out with them while he has a gun?

In the heat of the moment, their senses were likely expecting the worst.

According to DHS, the Border Patrol agents were attempting to disarm the man--that was the main reason for the confrontation. It wasn’t just some random scuffle, and then a man got shot. It wasn’t a random tackle of a shouting protester. Pretti approached the officers, threatening them, with the gun in plain view. So, believing his words that he meant them harm, they began the work of disarming him because he refused to obey commands. He resisted.

Border Patrol Commander Greg Bovino explained, “The agents attempted to disarm the individual, but he violently resisted. Fearing for his life and the lives and safety of fellow officers, a Border Patrol agent fired defensive shots…about 200 rioters arrived” and “began to obstruct and assault law enforcement.”

The man that was killed, Bovino said, “also had two loaded magazines and no accessible ID…This looks like a situation where an individual wanted to do maximum damage and massacre law enforcement.”

Now, at the beginning of this article I mentioned that I saw something that nobody else has mentioned in their analysis of the video of the Border Patrol shooting of Alex Pretti. If you watch it carefully, and remember that the speed of the event for the officers on the scene was normal speed with only their personal perception available to them, two things happen simultaneously. The agent that disarms Pretti pulls the gun away, but his body is blocking the officer that fires upon Pretti from seeing the gun. At the same time, Pretti’s hand draws away from his torso area. I don’t know why the agent who disarmed Pretti did not shout that he had the gun, and I don’t know why Pretti’s hand got pulled away from his torso, but from the point of view of the officer who fired his weapon and killed Pretti, here’s what he knew at full speed:

• The individual is armed.
• The gun is out of his sight.
• The hand that may have the gun is out of his sight and being moved into a new position.
• The suspect, through his words has said, and is saying, he wants to injure the officers on the scene.
• The agent who was trying to reach the firearm shouted “gun,” and is moving away from the scene quickly.

What is the officer, in a split second, supposed to think? Remember, at full speed you don’t have the time to reason as you would normally, and you don’t have the benefit of twenty-twenty hindsight to study and analyze. All you know is the guy wants to kill you, a gun was on his hip and now it isn’t, his hand has moved from your vision, and one of your fellow officers just yelled, “gun!”

I think the answer is obvious. The shooting was justified.