The Incredible Murder of Alex Pretti by ICE Agents

On January 24, 2026, in Minneapolis, Minnesota, a citizen by the name Alex Pretti witnessed an ICE agent violently shove a woman to the ground. He immediately attempted to attend to the woman, when he was dragged away from her by the very agent that thew the woman down – and was subsequently killed when a total of six federal agents piled on top of him, repeatedly striking him, removing his concealed carry handgun, and then firing a total of 10 rounds, first into his back, and then into his immobilized bleeding body as he lay on the ground.

If you’ll read that again, you’ll note it was not written to be provocative. It was a literal and 100% factual account of what happened, established by multiple high-resolution bystander videos. The following video is the best I’ve seen that follows the footage and establishes the timeline. You can see from multiple vantage points that at no time was Mr. Pretti in any way threatening ICE agents – in fact vulnerably placing his back to them while attempting to be a Good Samaritan. The analysis culminates in a clear demonstration that his firearm was removed while he was prone and restrained; and only then approximately ten rounds were discharged while he was immobile, helpless, and in no way a threat.

Step by Step Video Analysis From Multiple Angles

Almost immediately after the shooting government officials began making claims that Mr. Pretti was a violent extremist.

Official Statements from Federal Agencies

• Department of Homeland Security (DHS): The department issued an official account stating that federal agents were conducting a targeted operation when an “individual [Pretti] approached U.S. Border Patrol officers with a 9mm semi-automatic handgun.” DHS claimed the agent “fired defensive shots” after Pretti “violently resisted” attempts to disarm him.
• CBP Commander Gregory Bovino: During a news conference at the Whipple Federal Building, Bovino stated that Pretti was armed with “magazines full of ammunition” and intended to “massacre law enforcement.” He asserted that the agents on the scene were “fearing for their lives” during a “violent encounter.”
• DHS Secretary Kristi Noem: Speaking from FEMA headquarters, Noem described Pretti as an “armed suspect” who was “brandishing” a weapon. She stated, “This looks like a situation where an individual arrived at the scene to inflict maximum damage and to kill law enforcement.”

Administrative and Political Rhetoric

• Stephen Miller (Deputy Chief of Staff): In public posts, Miller labeled Pretti a “would-be assassin.”
• Presidential Statement: The administration released an image of a handgun on social media, which the President referred to as “the gunman’s gun.”

Problems with the Government’s Claims

The government’s immediate claims of “brandishing” and “approaching agents with a gun” were almost immediately challenged by multiple bystander videos. These videos established several facts that contradicted the official narrative:

1. Phone vs. Gun: Pretti was holding a cellphone in his right hand, not a firearm, while recording the agents.
2. Direction of Movement: Pretti was not “approaching” agents but had his back to them while attempting to help a woman who had been pushed down.
3. 9mm as a Massacre Weapon: The Commander’s classification of the 9mm as a “massacre” weapon simply untrue. Any weapon could be used to massacre, but the irony is that the officers used a 9mm (or more powerful semi-auto handgun) to shoot Mr. Pretti. Indeed the 9mm semi-auto handgun is the predominant handgun caliber issued to law enforcement officers in the United States.
4. Disarming Prior to Shooting: Forensic analysis of the footage shows a federal agent in a gray jacket removed the holstered handgun (which Pretti was legally permitted to carry) from Pretti’s person while he was prone on the ground. The volley of ten shots definitively occurred after he was disarmed and restrained.

Immediate Emotional Reaction from Legal Eagle

Devin Stone, who runs the Legal Eagle channel on YouTube posted this heartfelt video in response to this shooting.

In his response, Devin asserts that Pam Bondi, the current US Attorney General, sent a letter to Governor Walz stating that she would order the removal of ICE if Minnesota turned over voter roles. I’ve looked it up and more specifically she demanded the following:

“First, share all of Minnesota’s records on Medicaid and Food and Nutrition Service programs…”

“Second, repeal the sanctuary policies that have led to so much crime and violence in your state.”

“Third, allow the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice to access voter rolls to confirm that Minnesota’s voter registration practices comply with federal law as authorized by the Civil Rights Act of 1960. “

Legal Analysis and Implications

From a legal scholar perspective, such as the one presented by Mr. Stone and other constitutional experts, these actions likely violate or implicate several federal laws and doctrines:

1. The Hatch Act (5 U.S.C. §§ 7321–7326): By conditioning federal law enforcement activity, a government resource, on the acquisition of voter rolls for what Stone characterizes as election-related purposes, the administration may be in violation of laws prohibiting the use of executive authority to influence an election.
2. The 10th Amendment (Anti-Commandeering Doctrine): The Supreme Court has established that the federal government cannot “commandeer” state officials to carry out federal regulatory programs. Coercing a state to repeal its own laws (sanctuary policies) or turn over state-held data (voter rolls) under the threat of continued “chaos” or federal “surges” is a severe breach of state sovereignty.
3. National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) & Privacy Act: Bondi cites the Civil Rights Act of 1960 as authority for the data request. However, legal scholars argue this is a “pretextual” use of the law. Using the NVRA to create an unauthorized national database for voter purges likely violates federal privacy protections and the statutory intent of the act, which is to protect – not restrict – voter access.
4. Official Bribery / Extortion (18 U.S.C. § 201): Legal commentators, including Minnesota Secretary of State Steve Simon and Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows, have labeled the demand a “ransom.” Legally, this implies the conditioning of an “official act” (the deployment or withdrawal of federal agents) on a “thing of value” (political data and policy changes), which fits the framework of extortion or illegal solicitation of a bribe.

Why Aren’t All Americans Freaking the Fuck Out?

Personally, it’s hard for me to believe what I’m seeing. Although federal troops have been sent to states previously, it was for things like forcing the racist state to desegregate schools, responding to a request from governors for assistance, or to restore order when riots and chaos took control of a city.

But until 2025, the United States has never seen a President send in federal agents and military personnel into states and cities despite the direct consent from Governors, Mayors, and the citizenry at large.

The Founding Fathers’ perspective on federal military intervention without state consent was one of profound suspicion and was the primary catalyst for the specific structural constraints found in the Constitution. They viewed a “standing army” controlled by a central executive as the ultimate tool of tyranny.

In Federalist No. 28, Alexander Hamilton, the most pro-military of the group, admitted that if the federal government were to use force against a state, it could only be justified in cases of “sedition or insurrection.” He also said:

“If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government.”

James Madison, in Federalist No. 41, warned that a standing army:

“…is an object of laudable circumspection and precaution,” and that the “liberties of Rome proved the final victim to her military triumphs.”

The Constitutional Safeguard: Article IV, Section 4

The Founders codified their requirement for state consent in the Guarantee Clause (Article IV, Section 4), which states:

“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.”

• Original Intent: This language was specifically chosen to ensure that the federal government could not unilaterally send troops into a state to quell “domestic violence” unless the state government explicitly asked for them.

Bottom line: The Founders intended for the state to be the primary judge of when its internal order was compromised. Sending 3,000 agents into Minneapolis against the Governor’s wishes directly bypasses the “on Application of the Executive” requirement.

The Checks on Executive Power

Furthermore, the Founders deliberately split military power between the branches to prevent exactly what the Bondi letter implies: using federal force for political leverage.

• The Power of the Purse: By giving Congress the power to fund the military (or ICE in this case), they ensured the President could not maintain an independent force for long-term domestic occupation.
• The Second Amendment: In the context of 1787, the “well-regulated Militia” was viewed as the ultimate check. If a federal army were sent into a state without consent, the state’s own citizens (the militia) were expected to be the counter-balance to federal overreach.

The Founders’ philosophy suggests that a federal government that uses military force to “extract” concessions from a state (such as voter rolls) has ceased to act as a federal partner and is instead acting as a consolidated national power.

Thomas Jefferson argued that when the federal government assumes powers not delegated to it, “a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy.” And he’s the same one who said:

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants”

So, in the eyes of the Founding Fathers, essentially there are two remedies:

• First, protest, demand, and exercise all the rights granted to the people and states.
• Second, if that doesn’t work – Armed Resistance is the “ultimate right” of a people when all constitutional checks failed.

So the question is – what happens if the Federal government doesn’t follow the constitution? Doesn’t honor State’s rights? And the courts and Congress don’t back them up? Because if all that goes down… the people aren’t left with a choice. I don’t want to wake up one day to hear that some state militia has gone to war with the Feds. Because that would mean we are TRULY living under tyrannical rule.