Shortly after federal agents shot and killed Alex Pretti on Saturday morning, the Department of Homeland Security began to circulate claims that he was armed and dangerous. DHS asserted he had a gun. However, a Bellingcat analysis of video footage indicates that Pretti was unarmed when he was shot. They also claimed he approached the agents with a firearm, but reports from The New York Times suggest he was actually holding a phone. Pretti died on his knees, surrounded by armed Border Patrol agents, as they fired multiple shots in his direction.
America’s Second Amendment is highly regarded among conservatives, and in Minnesota, open carry with a permit is permitted. Pretti lived in a city where assaults and even fatal attacks are regularly perpetrated by armed individuals he was observing. So why is there so much focus on the specifics of his behavior? Why is it so commonplace for law enforcement—who are meant to uphold law and order—to kill Americans? And why does the conversation often boil down to how much the victims deserved to die?
In July 2020, DHS deployed over a hundred federal officers from various agencies to my city, Portland, Oregon. They inundated downtown with a thick mist of brownish tear gas, which didn’t calm the crowds but instead incited anger. The city recognized it was being deliberately tormented and chose to walk into the tear gas in defiance.
During the protests, politicians and media figures became fixated on labeling the events in Portland as either “protests” or “riots.” This distinction was made based on the behavior of the protesters but ignored the larger context at play.
The protesters’ actions blurred the line of nonviolence. Many wore gas masks and even carried shields, while others blew the tear gas back at the agents using leaf blowers. Some threw plastic water bottles at the heavily armed agents, not out of a desire to harm but perhaps as a form of rebellion. No one was looking to kill the federal agents, but this was a far cry from the peaceful demonstrations seen on the streets of Selma.
If there was indeed a riot occurring in Portland, the feds had ignited it—escalating the situation with rubber bullets, pepper balls, and gas canisters that questioned the very meaning of “nonlethal.”
These uneven expectations put an unfair burden on civilians. Now, they are being revisited, even more harshly, against the people of Minneapolis.
ICE’s presence in Minnesota clearly causes conflict and anxiety. As federal agents leave a trail of disorder and fear, local residents—lacking training or protective gear—are expected to show more restraint than the armed agents supposedly enforcing the law.
Initial reports suggest Pretti was violently killed while approaching federal law enforcement nonviolently. Videos show he was holding a phone and attempting to assist a protester when agents took him down. They shouted about a gun only after pinning him to the ground.
Why are victims of state violence burdened with the responsibility to de-escalate the situation?
Regardless of what transpired, the specifics of Pretti’s supposed gun just moments before his death are far less significant than the ongoing turmoil in the Twin Cities. In light of this aggression, why does his demeanor or attitude before his death take precedence? Why must victims of state violence bear the responsibility of not escalating the situation, especially when they aren’t receiving a paycheck, health benefits, or a pension funded by taxpayers?
Citizens are being tasked with maintaining peace while federal agents disrupt it. This is a disturbing form of double taxation—your earnings are reduced so someone in a mask can attack you while you try to calm the situation. “That’s fine, dude, I’m not mad at you,” said Renee Good to ICE agents moments before they shot her through the side window of her car. Did she deserve to die because she didn’t sufficiently manage their emotions?
What is the reasoning behind pinning someone to the ground and then dousing them with pepper spray? What is the point of all this, other than to provoke public anger and then respond to that anger with more force? ICE, CBP, and Border Patrol have shown themselves to be incapable of following the law, let alone enforcing it for others; unable to manage themselves, let alone maintain peace. They are not a solution; they are a problem with only one resolution. They are harmful, ineffective, and should not exist.
