Talk:Killing of Alex Pretti/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Killing of Alex Pretti. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Clarification of Alex being disarmed

I recommend changing the wording from the current WSJ; "show an agent removing a gun and moving away from Pretti less than a second before another agent fires at him". To WSJ; "show an agent confiscating Pretti's holstered waistband firearm less than a second before another agent yells "Gun!", instantly followed by multiple agents firing at Alex". FireguyRJM (talk) 07:57, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Current wording is an exact quote from the source. The proposed wording is not in the source Placeholderer (talk) 12:46, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

The problem is the source/citation then. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 19:59, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Why must it be an old quote from what has now expanded to multiple different journalist sites that "verified the video" all with different wording? The sources were expanded but that "quote" didn't update to more accurate wording. Many of the sources have been caught lying. What is shown isleftymen's view of the video and withwritten editorial interpretation. That's not p iraseology that Law Enforcement writes their reports. As a r or presented in a Court of lawetired First Responder, it's not adselike a sloppy intern. FireguyRJM (talk) 08:26, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Here are some News sources that state his firearm was "Confiscated" before Alex was shot & killed.

https://www.justsecurity.org/129654/investigation-alex-prettis-killing/

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/1/26/trump-administration-maga-allies-spread-misinformation-on-pretti-killing FireguyRJM (talk) 08:34, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Failing to carry I.D. ?

This text in the Analysis section says:"Multiple members of the Trump administration, including Kristi Noem, Gregory Bovino, Kash Patel, and Tricia McLaughlin, repeatedly asserted or implied that Pretti was in violation of the law by failing to carry identification while carrying a firearm. Is cited to 3 excellent sources, but, while the 3 sources accuse Noem etc of making a host of assertions (Pretti was brandishing a gun, attacking agents etc etc), the least consequential of these accusations is the assertion that he failed to carry ID along with his weapon. CNN gives a detailed account of govt assertions, but no mention of ID. The Guardian gives a similar breakdown of govt claims, quotes McLaughlin saying that he had no ID, but it is only implied in her statement that this could be improper. Fox KTVU repeats McLaughlin's statement about 'gun but no ID' but again it is only mildly implied that there is anything incorrect about him doing this (Fox even says that Pretti is not holding a gun in any video footage)

That so many govt officials have made so many (contradicted) assertions about Pretti is obviously highly important, but at present we are mis-describing those assertions (and possibly in the wrong part of the article). Pincrete (talk) 19:21, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

The CNN source says Noem claimed Sunday on Fox that Pretti had been improperly carrying the gun with “no ID.” If that were true, it would be a petty misdemeanor in Minnesota, not a crime, punishable by a fine of up to $25.. This aspersion, and sometimes explicitly stated claim, regarding the failure to carry an ID has been repeated ad nauseum by the regime puppets and, IMHO, should therefore be given due coverage. The MN gun-rights group also got upset about it, pointing out (in an un-citeable shouldn't-be-used tweet) that the statute requires dismissal of the charge if the gun carrier later provides the identification, similar to how charges for driving without a license or proof of insurance are customarily dismissed upon the defendant's provision of proof of the license or insurance.--Orgullomoore (talk) 22:33, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Noem said "We can’t have individuals that are impeding law enforcement operations and then showing up with guns and weapons and no ID and confronting law enforcement" (CNN). She did not say that failing to carry identification while carrying a firearm is illegal. She said that "we" "can’t have" certain individuals which she then went on to describe. Her description of the individuals "we" "can't have" comprises: (1) the individual is impeding law enforcement operations; (2) the individual is showing up with guns and weapons; (3) the individual is not carrying an ID; (4) the individual is confronting law enforcement. That does not mean she meant to say that not carrying an ID while carrying a gun is a violation of the law. —Alalch E. 22:53, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

OK. So would you be more comfortable with Multiple members of the Trump administration, including Kristi Noem, Gregory Bovino, Kash Patel, and Tricia McLaughlin, repeatedly alleged that Pretti failed to carry identification while carrying a firearm.? --Orgullomoore (talk) 22:59, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

According to the sources currently used, only Tricia McLaughlin and Noem mention the ID, and as Alalch E. says She did not say that failing to carry identification while carrying a firearm is illegal. If we want to say that govt officials are claiming that it is illegal, we need to find new sources and exclude from the list of names those govt officials who don't make this claim OR we need to amend the text to what named officials actually did say.

The two main sources used (CNN & Gdn) are excellent 'fact check' type articles about various claims made by this list of govt individual, but the articles can only be said to imply that McLaughlin and Noem thought that there was anything wrong/illegal in being armed without having ID, which would probably be WP:SYNTH to include.

We can't say repeatedly alleged that Pretti failed to carry identification while carrying a firearm.?. How do you allege something which is true (that he didn't carry ID). What these two women (not Bovino or Patel AFAIK) did was imply that what Pretti did by 'carrying a gun without ID', was wrong and/or illegal and/or would somehow have made any difference to the outcome of a situation in which the agents clearly didn't know/care whether he was armed and/or had ID. But that again would be SYNTH to include.

As currently worded and sourced, we need to remove this text. Elsewhere in the article, the two main sources could be used as excellent summaries of the claims made by these four individuals, but at present there is little alignment between our claims and the sources used. Pincrete (talk) 08:29, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Is it true? AFAIK, we only have the administrations word for it. Traditionally, that would be enough but they have lied so much that no one particularly trusts anything they say. So AFAIK the "no ID" thing is the sort of thing which is probably true, but we can't know if it's true and may never know if it's true so alleged is fair to say. It may be over time sources come to accept the no ID thing as true but I'm not sure if we're there yet. As many governments have learnt, that the trouble when you lie so much. Even when you say things which are true, people no longer believe you. Nil Einne (talk) 08:46, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

The CNN does explicitly say 'Noem claimed Sunday on Fox that Pretti had been improperly carrying the gun with “no ID.”'. so it wouldn't be synth to say something along those lines since it's how CNN has interpreted their words. Still it's only one source. The Guardian mentions no identification but doesn't interpret what was said. Do we have other sources which make that connection? Ultimately it's not up to us to interpret what the various people have said but for sources. Note this largely includes us not challenging those interpretations. If we have sufficient sources which have interpreted what the various people have said as implying that Pretti's actions in not having an identification were a significant crime, then it's not up to us to second judge that even if individuals don't interpret their comments that way. Reasonably the two main interpretations of their comments are either that it was already was a significant crime, or that they felt it should be i.e. they wanted Congress and/or the states to make it a significant crime. 09:03, 27 January 2026 (UTC) Nil Einne (talk) 09:03, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

(edit conflict)But the central consideration is that (according to the sources we use), only the two women have even implied that Pretti ought to have had ID. None of the four has actually said that carrying ID was a legal requirement for a gun owner. What we say at present about the four is simply untrue/not in sources given. Even people who "cry wolf" on the scale these 4 do are covered by BLP! Pincrete (talk) 09:43, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

But we don't say they "said it". We say "repeatedly asserted or implied that Pretti was in violation of the law by failing to carry identification while carrying a firearm". If multiple sources have interpreted their statements in that way, that's not for us to judge. So far we have CNN about Noem implying it was "improper", do we have other sources? And do they also simply say implied it was improper or implied it was illegal? Again that's the key thing, not how editors are interpreting what they said. Sources can judge what their statements assert or imply, not us. Also while I don't know if Orgullomoore's proposal is the best myself it's unclear to me what your objection to it is if we remove the other two names. You originally said it was because you can't allege something which is true but as I said, AFAIK we don't know if it's true. Nil Einne (talk) 17:21, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

There is clearly some misunderstanding here, but basically CNN alone claims that Noem alone, on only one occasion claimed … that Pretti had been improperly carrying the gun with “no ID.”. Inserting an 'alleged' does nothing to remedy that the other 3 have not ever asserted or implied that Pretti was in violation of the law by failing to carry identification while carrying a firearm" and even Noem has not done this 'repeatedly' as we accuse her of.

I posted here in part because others seemed convinced that the accusations were substantiated in other sources and because our phrasing is tied into other aspects which may be hard to disentangle, but I will do my best to do so. Pincrete (talk) 10:41, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Kristi Noem: skipped because you acknowledge it.
Gregory Bovino: From KTVU: Border Patrol Commander-At-Large Gregory Bovino claimed Pretti was armed, had two loaded magazines and no identification. Bovino did not state if Pretti pulled a gun or where the gun was when he was shot.
Kash Patel: I did not find any sources indicating Kash Patel made this allegation.
Tricia McLaughlin: From the Guardian: “This looks like a situation where an individual wanted to do maximum damage and massacre law enforcement,” McLaughlin said, noting that Pretti had two magazines and no identification.

--Orgullomoore (talk) 11:26, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Neither McLaughlin nor Bovino say that there is anything illegal or even improper about having no ID when you are carrying a gun. None of their comments have been made 'repeatedly' AFAIK. None of the sources interpret their comments as even implying illegality or impropiety in not having ID, (it may very well be true that all 4 'sought to imply wrong-doing' by linking guns and ID, but that claim simply isn't in the sources used).

CNN's description of Noem's comment is explicit that she said doing so was 'improper'. I'm sorry but IMO there is a very novel level of 'inference' at work here. We really don't need to imply things about what they are deemed to have implied. Pincrete (talk) 16:38, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

I had removed “repeatedly”. And I don’t see our prose implying that Bovino/McLaughlin were implying illegality or impropriety. We just say that they said it. They did say it. Mikewem (talk) 16:50, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Because you can't 'accuse' somebody of doing something true and ordinary, the very word implies something which is 'improper' and likely to be disputed. I accuse you of editing WP and having an internet connection? I'll change the text to 'said' or similar since everybody seems determined to keep this content. Pincrete (talk) 17:00, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

The word “accuse” is not present in our prose. We use “allege” and “assert”. Mikewem (talk) 17:03, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes apologies I was about to correct my post, but everything I say about 'accuse' is also true of 'allege'. Pincrete (talk) 17:11, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

I went ahead and changed it to "alleged" and removed the language explicitly calling out the implicit charge of criminality for now. Happy to discuss further to settle on something you guys think is better. As for "How do you allege something which is true?", allegations can be false or truthful. See, e.g., wikt:allege, "To make a claim as justification or proof; to make an assertion without proof."--Orgullomoore (talk) 02:45, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

I have now modified the text and the used sources, attributing to CNN the claim that Noem said Pretti had been improperly carrying the gun with “no ID.”.

I can't help feeling though that this is not meaningfully 'analysis' of anything , nor is much of the content in that section. Pincrete (talk) 11:17, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

See above for Bovino and McLaughlin. I agree that it's not analysis. It falls in wherever we are discussing the initial DHS cover-up theme before they realized they had been caught fabricating a narrative. --Orgullomoore (talk) 11:28, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Although, on second thought, the reason it's tenuously "analysis" and was placed in that section initially is because it explains, with reference to the state statute, that even if he wasn't carrying ID, it's not a big deal, and it's very weird for this allegation to be made in the same breath as Pretti was painted as a "domestic terrorist" intending to "massacre law enforcement." --Orgullomoore (talk) 11:30, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Just find me a source that interprets either Bovino & McLaughlin's remarks as implying they were saying there was anything either illegal or improper about Pretti not having ID. At present it's pure WP:OR- because Bovino & McLaughlin both said gun and ID in the same sentence they must have meant that Pretti should have had ID. It may well be true that all of them sought to make that implication, but it's editors here reaching that conclusion, not the sources used. Pincrete (talk) 16:53, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

The clear implication about the "no ID" claims is that the statements have always been aligned with the weapon (Noem even stated weaponS) & ammunition (TWO magazines!) & the "domestic terrorist" characterizations of Alex Pretti. "He did this awful thing, and THIS awful thing, and oh, by the way! he *ALSO* did THIS AWFUL THING [that the speaker wanted to cast aspersions on]." Whether or not a reliable source or sources can be found that states explicitly that which is implicit in the administration's various pronouncements is another matter. - Shearonink (talk) 17:34, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

PLUS the public doesn't even know if this claim is true. The only people asserting the No ID claim are administration mouthpieces. - Shearonink (talk) 18:24, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, that is the inference I would draw. That by mentioning the lack of ID, they are by some bizarre logic of their own 'victim blaming' - (of course you'll get shot if you don't have some trivial piece of paper on you). BUT it's us drawing that conclusion, not the sources used, except in the case of Noem who CNN records as explicitly stating it was 'improper' to not have your ID when you are carrying a gun.

Perhaps it's because I come from a country (UK) where no one is even required to have ID, let alone carry it, but the key element here is not whether Pretti had ID or not (who cares if it isn't required?). The key element IMO is that senior official(s) sought to claim that not carrying ID while carrying a weapon was 'improper', but only Noem explicitly does that.

Editors here seem determined to keep this as covering all 3, and I've edited out the worst errors of the original text, so I'll drop the matter. But I can't help feeling that we've chosen to 'fire blanks' (forgive metaphor). The most senior govt official in this powerful US govt dept makes 'inaccurate' statements about the need to carry ID when you have your firearm on you, and we choose to say "these 3 alleged he didn't have ID". (did they also say that the front light on his bicycle wasn't working properly ⸮⸮⸮) Pincrete (talk) 09:30, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Please consider mentioning the reaction of Nursing associations

Numerous nursing professional associations published statements expressing regret over the killing of nurse Pretti. The International Council of Nurses called for a thorough investigation of the incident. The American Nurses Association expressed concern for the safety of nurses against the backdrop of an increase in violent incidents involving federal law enforcement agencies.

Sources for 1st sentence: 1 2 3 4

Source for ICN statement https://www.icn.ch/news/icn-statement-death-american-icu-nurse-alex-pretti

Source for ANA statement https://www.nursingworld.org/news/news-releases/2025/statement-from-the-american-nurses-association-regarding-the-death-of-registered-nurse-alex-pretti/ ~2025-43352-30 (talk) 02:46, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

And National Nurses United is sponsoring actions around the US:

https://www.nationalnursesunited.org/week-of-action-in-honor-of-alex-pretti-rn-and-all-others-killed-by-ice

FactOrOpinion (talk) 03:48, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Not a good idea considering Prettu was FIRED from his Nursing job more than 3 months prior to his death. ~2026-63152-4 (talk) 12:18, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

You'll need to present a reliable source backing up your claim. I doubt you can, given all of the reliable sources that would have reported it had it been true. FactOrOpinion (talk) 12:52, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

wth is this

What is this and why is it in the article? Just airing out random criticisms of the administration??

"Bovino was reprimanded by a federal judge in late 2025 for lying about his use-of-force justification for throwing a gas canister without warning at protesters in Chicago, Illinois. According to MSNOW, the choice to have Bovino go on to be the face of Operation Metro Surge "could only have bolstered a message of impunity to the officers working under him"."

This is about an unrelated person it confused the heck out of me! ~2026-32457-3 (talk) 20:13, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Done He has his own article. A broader analysis of his background belongs there and not here. GMG ^talk 20:20, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
See the discussion above (under "Bovino was reprimanded by a federal judge in late 2025 for lying?") regarding this specific issue and why another editor (not me) added back this information. Remember (talk) 22:03, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Yes, and @Mikewem: I have removed it once again, now the third time it's been taken out. The sources added hardly make a compelling WP:DUE argument. The first barely mentions the reprimand in all of five words. The second doesn't mention the shooting at all given that the article is two months old. The third is an opinion piece/blog post and barely mentions the shooting, even then lumping both the Pretti and Good shooting together in all of four words.
If we're piecing together passings mentions and unrelated stories then it's probably a good indication we're the ones trying to make the sources say something in particular, instead of the sources compelling us to do so. This goes doubly for content on a living person related to a potential crime involving contemporary politics. GMG ^talk 13:23, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
Please find a way to learn not to make tendentious edits on contentious topics. Go participate in the original discussion. Mikewem (talk) 16:13, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

To all, please be mindful...

We don't need multiple sections vaguely complaining about length, there is already one above. PackMecEng (talk) 16:40, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

We are almost at the same length as Battle of Waterloo, a subject which is all together more historically important and better covered. Real estate here is getting expensive. Overly lengthy articles cause not only barriers to readability but can cause technical problems for those with old hardware or poor connection. GMG ^talk 13:50, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

GreenMeansGo, it appears to be roughly half the length of Battle of Waterloo. Is your glass half-full or half-empty? — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 14:55, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Please add your input to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Killing_of_Alex_Pretti#Statement_by_corporations as well. A massive chunk of this article is reactions from various fortune 500 companies which seems off topic and irrelevant. skarz (talk) 16:30, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: 171k vs 196k? What kindof glass are you using? GMG^talk 16:47, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
- GreenMeansGo, page down key presses. (which is the internationally recognized official unit for Wikipedia article length) I need roughly twice the key presses to get to the notes (Waterloo) or references (Pretti) section. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 16:57, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
- Putting it in word document, Waterloo is about 165k words and this one is about 82k words. ~2025-38536-45 (talk) 16:59, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reference correction/amendment

This edit request to Killing of Alex Pretti has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

What I think should be changed (format using {{textdiff}}):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Alex_Pretti#cite_note-Intercept-Apple-226 link - change from https://theintercept.com/2026/01/27/apple-tim-cook-melania-trump-ice-shooting/ to https://theintercept.com/2026/01/27/apple-tim-cook-trump-alex-pretti/

Why it should be changed:

https://theintercept.com/2026/01/27/apple-tim-cook-melania-trump-ice-shooting/ gives a 404.

References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

CarloTheCurious (talk) 23:47, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

References

Done Umby 🌕🐶 (talk) 00:37, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

given medication ... according to records

@GreenMeansGo The CNN source does kind of say what records, those about what medication was given.—Alalch E. 20:32, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Maybe go back to medication records? The family spox says "did not go to doctor" basically (paraphrase), which is entirely consistent with the existence of records about medications sold but not prescribed. Edit: There are always records about medications sold or provided by those authorized to sell and provide them, and all such records are at the very least "medication records" or, as we could also call them, "pharmaceutical records".—Alalch E. 20:33, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes, but they could for example be a record of something a friend told them. GMG ^talk 20:37, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, technically. I think it's a shame to lose the info that CNN effectively corroborated that there was some painkiller-worthy injury if we're in the business of even writing about that, but okay. —Alalch E. 20:40, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

He tells a friend. Law enforcement interviews friend. Law enforcement makes a record. CNN reviews the record. I would be nice to have something more definitive, but we'll have to wait until we do. GMG ^talk 20:42, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

I honestly think that CNN went to a pharmacy and got the relevant proof that he got painkillers. But, yeah, okay, agreed. —Alalch E. 20:44, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

It seems unlikely (and illegal) that a pharmacy would give a news organization protected medical information without a signed release. GMG ^talk 21:25, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

It isn't protected medical information if it's just transaction records for an OTC medication consistent with the discussed injury. —Alalch E. 21:34, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

It would be kindof odd to describe Advil as a medicine consistent with a broken rib. GMG ^talk 01:34, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Claims by federal security apparatus in lede

In light of Special:Diff/1334704588 and BLPCRIME concerns from Rjjiii, how do we proceed in dealing with claims from various organs of the federal security apparatus (DHS, etc.) about this incident? Independent of their veracity, the claims themselves are driving core developments in this event. What should be included? (For example, the lone sentence A review by The New York Times of available video found him holding a cell phone, not a gun, in the moments before the shooting. doesn't really read sensibly without the formerly preceding sentence with claims from DHS.) Einsof (talk) 04:53, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

I removed "not a gun" and merged that into the above paragraph. There may not be strong sources or enough information yet to give context. The sections under Killing of Alex Pretti § National are much more clearly about the United States government. It's important in other sections of the article to avoid presenting unfounded claims about the recently-shot BLP. The New York Times source cited says, "videos show Mr. Pretti was holding his phone, not a weapon, when they pulled him to the ground." so we should not use that to write something that could be easily misread to mean he was shot after drawing a firearm. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 05:06, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Thank you for bringing this up. I was wondering the same thing just now. We have official statements from the white house and DHS calling Pretti a "gunman" or "domestic terrorist" and claiming that he approached agents while "brandishing" a gun and threatening "maximum damage", and a lot of news sources are quoting those statements. Meanwhile multiple analyses of multiple videos from multiple angles show that those statements are, at best, grossly misleading. What kind of weight should we give those official statements? ~Awilley (talk) 05:15, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

"On the day of the killing, several Trump administration officials released statements saying that Pretti was carrying a gun and implying that he intended to attack federal agents. However videos show Pretti moments before the shooting with his hands up holding a cell phone, not a gun.^[1] Although Pretti was legally carrying a concealed handgun, videos of the incident never show him holding it.^[2]" Is that a fair assessment? ~Awilley (talk) 06:41, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

@Awilley: (On mobile) I'd be okay with that. The removed text began "The United States Department of Homeland Security claimed that Pretti approached agents with a handgun," which was more ambiguous. Rjjiii (ii) (talk) 06:53, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

The lede drifted away a bit over the last 12 hours, but I have tried to work in (slightly modified) versions of Awilley's latter two sentences. Someone still needs to work the first one in. Einsof (talk) 14:17, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

In my view, the only due weight would be to represent something like the wording in this Star Tribune. Federal officials on Saturday, Jan. 24, offered a forceful account of the fatal shooting […] But several of the central claims made by federal officials remain unverified and are contradicted in part by video and witness accounts.

A judge ordered the administration not to destroy evidence. Which appears to be a highly irregular order to have to issue and speaks to a certain presumption against the government that is not regularly present in these cases. Mikewem (talk) 15:35, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

"Bystander video verified and reviewed by Reuters and the Wall Street Journal appears to show an agent removing a gun from Pretti less than a second before another agent fires at him.[6][7] According to The Guardian, while Pretti was legally licensed to carry a handgun, the publicly available video evidence reviewed by the paper does not show him holding one.[8] In reviewing video evidence, both Reuters and The New York Times concluded that Pretti was holding a cell phone, not a gun, in the moments before being tackled." This is the current treatment in the Lead. That works too, I suppose. Instead of bringing up the gun in the context of administration officials' misleading claims about a "gunman", this introduces it as something that was seen being removed from Pretti before he is shot. It is necessary to discuss the gun upfront because it has been such a focus of the early reactions to this, but that can be done without parroting the original misleading statements. ~Awilley (talk) 17:07, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

I would like to see those three sentences combined and summarized and sooner than later, but we may not be there just yet. Mikewem (talk) 17:21, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Obviously we need to at least summarize official statements, regardless of whether or not they're true. Ekpyros (talk) 18:49, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

The way Fred Hampton handles it is to frontload the hard facts, later legal outcomes, and scholarly analysis. The government's original, official account is presented in terms of their statements straightforwardly under Fred Hampton § Aftermath. Obviously, the sources here are much more limited, and the situation is far from resolved. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 19:24, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

"Frontload the hard facts, later legal outcomes, and scholarly analysis" ← This. ~Awilley (talk) 02:53, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

I suggest the addition of the following two sentences given Mikewem's comment above, to be placed after the expository paragraph on the shooting (per Rjjiii): The Trump government defended the shooting. Its narrative hinges on several claims that, in the assessment of the Minnesota Star Tribune, are uncorroborated or contradicted by witnesses and video evidence.^[3] It leaves room between the two sentences for summary material on the government narrative, if that is eventually desired. Einsof (talk) 19:44, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Support as the best npov we can come up with given the circumstances. With the one change that we would say Trump administration rather than Trump government. Mikewem (talk) 23:15, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Ok, added. Einsof (talk) 00:23, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

I removed the phrase "claiming that Pretti was an aggressor" from the lede in favor of BLPCRIME. Einsof (talk) 14:41, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

References

[1]
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/24/us/minneapolis-shooting-federal-agents-video.html
[2]
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jan/24/minneapolis-shooting-ice
[3]
Barnett, Sofia. "Fact check: Video, witnesses contradict critical claims of federal officials in Pretti shooting". Minnesota Star Tribune.

Impact continuing

Edit warring over plain facts in lead

@Natemup: you’re edit warring. Please stop edit warring. Do you have anything to say in defense of your choice to edit war? Or is there something I’m not seeing? Are you able to produce quotes from the source to support the point you’re trying to push? Mikewem (talk) 20:26, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

My point is that there are no claims in the cited NYT article concerning Pretti's position when "10 shots" were fired. That's the rough total of shots fired in the whole incident, from when he was kneeling to when he fell over to when he was lying still. The article does not get specific in the count based on his position. Moreover, the body of the Wiki article doesn't make this "on the ground" claim at all, which precludes this original research from being included in the lede. natemup (talk) 20:32, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

I’m wholly unmoved by this response. The body of our article says “pinned to the ground”. The NYT says Several agents tussle with Mr. Pretti before bringing him to his knees. He appears to resist as the agents grab his legs, push down on his back and strike him repeatedly. The footage shows an agent approaching with empty hands and grabbing at Mr. Pretti as the others hold him down. About eight seconds after he is pinned, agents yell that he has a gun, indicating that they may not have known he was armed until he was on the ground. The same agent who approached with empty hands pulls a gun from among the group that appears to match the profile of a firearm DHS said belonged to Mr. Pretti. The agents appear to have him under their control, with his arms pinned near his head. As the gun emerges from the melee, another agent aims his own firearm at Mr. Pretti’s back and appears to fire one shot at close range. He then appears to continue firing at Mr. Pretti, who collapses. A third agent unholsters a weapon. Both agents appear to fire additional shots into Mr. Pretti as he lies motionless. In total, at least 10 shots appear to have been fired within five seconds.

According to the NYT, which of the 10 shots were not fired while he was “on the ground”? At what point from the first shot til 5 seconds later for the final shot does the NYT report that he got up off the ground? Which words lead you to think he got up off the ground during those 5 seconds? Mikewem (talk) 20:48, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

@Natemup: with no response to the plain text from the NYT and to the plain text from the article body, I’m going to assume you are willing to drop this. If you make any other edit to this article that suggests he was not on the ground during the shots, we’re going straight to ANEW. This is a top, breaking story and we just simply don’t have time to litigate and re-litigate the easy things that are settled and plain. Mikewem (talk) 21:06, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Again, the "on the ground" claim is not made in the body of this Wikipedia article. And it's entirely vague what an editor may have meant by "on the ground", since anyone in contact with the ground is "on the ground". The NYT, as you note, appears to mean by that phrase "on his knees" or "no longer standing", but that's not intuitive. The most likely implication of the phrase in this case, appearing baldly in a lede related to a viral video, would be what viewers saw when he's lying on the ground motionless—which in this case is not the point when 10 shots were fired at him. It is far more clear to just use the terminology of the NYT and others, which is that at least 10 shots were fired in 5 seconds. natemup (talk) 21:57, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

If your argument is that “pinned to the ground” (quoted from the text of the article body) is not synonymous with “on the ground”, then I don’t have anything left to say here. Mikewem (talk) 22:06, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

A second ago you argued that "on the ground" just means not "up off the ground", i.e. not standing up. I said "on the ground" can mean many things and doesn't belong independently in the lede. People are not reading that whole NYT article just to figure out exactly what they meant by that vague phrase in this case. And they aren't going to necessarily think it means "pinned to the ground". Besides, the ~10 shots were not fired while he was "pinned", nor does the NYT say that. It says at one point he was briefly pinned and later gets shot ~10 times. From the NYT, other reports, and videos, we know he was first shot while on his knees, then several more times while laying motionless (on the ground). So saying independently in the lede that he was shot ~10 times while "on the ground" is without merit and potentially misleading. (Moreover, In your second consecutive revert, you said you would self-revert if there was opposition to your edit, which you described as "conclusive" based solely upon your individual conclusion. I remain in opposition to your edit.) natemup (talk) 22:39, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

It is stated several times in this article that Alex Pretti was pinned to the ground while he was shot. This is not true. Videos filmed by bystanders show ICE agents backing away after someone yelled "He's got a gun". While the ICE agents are backing away, Alex Pretti is getting up on his knees, reaching behind his lower back to approximately the same area his firearm had been retrieved by an ICE agent moments before. This is when he is shot. The first shot heard right before that, is coming from Alex Pretti's firearm which the ICE agent had just retrieved, as the ICE agent is moving away. Alex Pretti's firearm accidentally discharges while being pointed to the ground by the ICE agent.

So the correct order of events to be included in the article is:

Alex Pretti is wrestled to the ground by ICE agents.

An ICE agent removes Alex Pretti's firearm.

Alex Pretti's firearm discharges while in the hands of the ICE agent as he is moving away with the firearm, pointing the firearm to the ground.

Someone yells "He's got a gun".

The ICE agents begin moving away from Alex Pretti.

Alex Pretti gets up on his knees and reaches behind his lower back to approximately the same area where his firearm was retrieved by an ICE agent moments earlier. Alex Pretti is holding something in his hand.

Alex Pretti gets shot by ICE agent(s).

Also, all references to being shot while being pinned down needs to be deleted.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/live/rPpylyOZQhg

BTW, this is exactly the reason why news don't belong on Wikipedia. There is a huge risk of spreading false information. Better to wait for the proper investigations. ~2026-64787-4 (talk) 04:54, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

The "Liz Wheeler Show" is not a reliable source. ~2026-32351-0 (talk) 04:58, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. If you're interested in a frame-by-frame analysis by a newspaper of record, you can try: New Video Analysis Reveals Flawed and Fatal Decisions in Shooting of Pretti – A frame-by-frame assessment of actions by Alex Pretti and the two officers who fired 10 times shows how lethal force came to be used against a man who didn’t pose a threat (NYT, 2026-01-26). You can also read the CBP's official report to Congress based on review of their own BWC footage here: Montoya-Galvez, Camilo (January 27, 2026). "'2 federal agents fired their weapons during Alex Pretti shooting, government report to Congress says". CBS News. Retrieved January 27, 2026.

If instead you prefer Liz Wheeler, that's your prerogative, but it's a little ironic for you to preach about news not belonging on Wikipedia because of the risk of spreading misinformation at the same time as you advocate for a random conspiracy theorist's narrative being favored over the analyses of multiple reliable sources, and the CBP's own report. --Orgullomoore (talk) 05:10, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 January 2026

Political bias in editing

Omitted from sequence of events

Personal tribute of a childhood best friend

Head or second paragraph should clearly state that the man is local to the area and was known to be actively protesting.

Pretti Kicking Out Tail Light 11 Days Before

It recently came out that Alex Pretti kicked out an ICE car's tail light eleven days before being killed. Now, some Republicans are using this incident to justify the ICE agents' actions in shooting him while he was facedown on the ground defenseless. Should this be added to the page?

https://nypost.com/2026/01/28/us-news/alex-pretti-appears-to-spit-at-ice-kick-out-tail-light-in-previous-minneapolis-confrontation-before-he-was-shot-by-border-patrol/ TorahRight (talk) 13:32, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

that is a disingenuous and politically charged way to put things. "some Republicans" is a weasel word statement, and you are assuming intentions not borne out by facts. The facts are that Pretti had an estaliblished history of being hostile and violent towards law enforcement - there is not much more personal than spitting on someone, and that is what he did in a well documented earlier encounter. These facts change the character of his shooting. They do not justify anything, but they do suggest he had actively encouraged physical encounters with LEOs. One of the videos circulating now clearly showing him yelling "assault me, motherfucker."~2025-31128-01 (talk) 21:37, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

If that last sentence isn't verifiable then it's a BLP violation Placeholderer (talk) 23:18, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Upon looking harder it is verifiable with WP:NATIONALREVIEW at the very least so this shouldn't be struck. Undoing strike from another editor Placeholderer (talk) 00:38, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

It's already on the page. Remember (talk) 13:35, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for telling me. I couldn't find it when I looked, so I made this request. I'll look again. TorahRight (talk) 19:03, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Also, just FYI TorahRight, but the New York Post is definitely not a reliable source. ~2026-32351-0 (talk) 23:46, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

It's reliably sourced, but the level of coverage of the previous incident is tiny compared to the text we have now (nearly 50% of the biography section)., even after extensive pruning. Pincrete (talk) 12:59, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Brevity is the soul of wit

@Orgullomoore: This isn't a book or a term paper. You need to be more judicious in the level of detail you are adding. GMG ^talk 20:09, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

And The simplification of anything is always sensational. But by all means, if you would like to make bold changes or discuss specific means by which optimal brevity may be achieved, I'm all eyes and ears. --Orgullomoore (talk) 20:41, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

I already did to some extent in the training section. "Details about paper. Details about person. Thing 1 person said. Thing 2 person said. Repeat for person 2. Repeat for person 3. Repeat for source 2. Repeat for source 3." is well beyond the level of depth of an encyclopedia article. It is however a great deal more ideal if you contribute without relying on others to properly summarize the contents. GMG ^talk 21:33, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate your concern, as well as your efforts to improve the article and summarize the sources. My initial response was a reaction to what I experienced as a general, vague "do better/be briefer" command. These sources do not come through at the same time. I added the experts' analyses as they came in, fully anticipating that others would come in and propose or make changes to improve conciseness and length. And also, that others' good-faith attempts to improve length will inevitably introduce spelling/grammar errors that others still will have to come around and tidy up. That is the nature of Wikipedia. There is also the concern that if you simply say, e.g., "various experts said", you'll get slapped with a {{who}} tag. So, I guess what I'm trying to get at is, in general, I welcome all constructive criticism, but didn't find your initial comment to be particularly actionable. I doubt you would find it very helpful if I said "you need to be more judicious in the grammar and spelling when you make changes" such as here or expected you to "contribute [to grammar/spelling correctness] without relying on others to properly phrase and spell the contents you introduce." --Orgullomoore (talk) 22:19, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Typos are unintentional errors. "Be brief" is precisely the point, made as concisely as possible. If it helps to be more long-winded, an article on a single event does not warrant the level of detail we might dedicate to a fine point in an article for an entire war, country, or demographic group. GMG ^talk 13:37, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Deletion of analysis

For clarity, the following was deleted. I'm posting it here for consensus on whether to include or exclude all this information. Remember (talk) 22:01, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

NBC News consulted multiple policing experts on the propriety of the use of lethal force, all of whom opined either that the shooting was unjustified or that further information was needed to reach a conclusion. Specifically, Chuck Wexler, executive director of the Police Executive Research Forum, stated that a video of the killing "raises a lot of questions" and the reason the officers perceived a threat required further investigation; former Boston police commander and criminology professor Tom Nolan stated that the shooting evidenced a broader pattern of poor training and inexperience exhibited by immigration officers, especially with respect to interacting with demonstrators, and characterized the shooting as "a stone-cold murder"; former DHS counterterrorism official and ICE chief of staff Jason Houser similarly opined that the shooting fits within a broader pattern of undertraining and a lack of coordination; criminologist and former police officer Tod Burke questioned the necessity of lethal force after Pretti's firearm was removed from reach; former New Jersey state trooper and use-of-force expert Mickie McComb stated that deadly force was not justified in light of Pretti being disarmed; and retired police officer and criminology professor David Klinger opined that additional information regarding why the immigration officers felt threatened was necessary for a complete understanding of whether the use of force was justified, indicating that the officers may have believed that Pretti had a second firearm.^[1]

The Minnesota Star Tribune also reported on opinions offered by use-of-force experts. Citing the Supreme Court case of Graham v. Connor, use-of-force expert Emmanuel Kapelsohn noted that the use of lethal force is justified only in cases where officers form an objectively reasonable perception of the threat to life or serious bodily harm. University of Wisconsin law professor John Gross told The Minnesota Star Tribune that the policing tactics observed in the incident were "extremely violent, and unnecessarily so", criticizing the officers' spraying Pretti with pepper spray at close range and prematurely escalating tensions by aggressively shoving bystanders instead of asking them to step back. Commenting on police reform trends, Lauren Bonds, executive director of the National Police Accountability Project, remarked that "even the worst-trained police officers in this country aren’t doing stuff like this now."^[2]

The New York Times interviewed six experts in police training and use of force regarding the shooting. Marc Brown, former police officer and instructor at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers, where he taught classes on defensive tactics and use of force, called the tactics employed "disturbing", suggesting that the Border Patrol agents "need to reassess and regroup in terms of what they’re actually doing and what the mission is". Brown also questioned why shots were fired after Pretti had been disarmed and stated that the focus should have been on handcuffing Pretti. Another use-of-force expert, Seth Stoughton, criticized the officers' shift of focus from their primary law enforcement goal to Pretti and other protesters, even though it did not appear that they were doing anything to impede the enforcement activity. Stoughton added that communication between officers regarding the presence of a weapon is standard and useful, continued updates regarding where the weapon is and whether a subject has been disarmed is essential, and it was not evident whether the officers involved in Pretti's shooting did this. Stoughton rejected the notion that the mere fact that officers interact with a person carrying a weapon justifies lethal force, noting that such interactions are commonplace in everyday policing, and adding that federal agents' conduct in Minneapolis caused widespread dissatisfaction in the law enforcement community. Ed Obayashi, a California deputy sheriff, attorney, and advisor on use-of-force policies, opined that the officers' actions demonstrated inadequate training. Another expert, Kenneth Quick, a former precinct commander at the New York Police Department and a criminal justice professor at DeSales University, commented that whether Pretti was complying with officers' commands could be a relevant factor in determining whether the officers had an objectively reasonable belief that Pretti posed a threat. All experts interviewed by The New York Times agreed that the information available to them was limited.^[3]

[1]
Schapiro, Rich; Schuppe, Jon (January 25, 2026). "One called it murder. Some need more information. How policing experts see the Pretti shooting". NBC News. Retrieved January 26, 2026.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: deprecated archival service (link)
[2]
Lukitsch, Bill (January 26, 2026). "Investigation of Alex Pretti shooting would rely on evidence beyond videos, experts say". Minnesota Star Tribune. Retrieved January 26, 2026.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: deprecated archival service (link)
[3]
Thebault, Reis; Coleman, Maia (January 26, 2026). "Policing Experts Question Agents' Conduct in Lead-Up to Shooting of Alex Pretti". The New York Times. Retrieved January 26, 2026.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: deprecated archival service (link)

Thank you, Remember. I took a crack at re-organizing and summarizing the content thematically. I don't know if it will meet GreenMeansGo's standards, but I think it is a step in the right direction toward balancing conciseness and completeness.--Orgullomoore (talk) 23:15, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

It might be better combined with analysis from the other two shootings and moved to the Operation article. --Super Goku V (talk) 01:56, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Pretti's prior interaction with agents

On a separate, but similar matter, almost half of the section on Pretti is now about his previous interaction with agents (when he seems to have kicked their rear car lights in and broken them). I will attempt to prune it down to a reasonable length, though technically of course it's irrelevant to his shooting.Pincrete (talk) 09:47, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

At least I've removed the "video" angle, so now it's some statements about the killed man's actions days prior. I've added that he was at the protest in a capacity of a protester, which is fully supported by sources. —Alalch E. 20:29, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

I've substantially reduced the text, but it is still nearly half of 'his' section, which is disproportionate to its importance relative either to his life or to the level of coverage in sources.Pincrete (talk) 12:51, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Performance issues?

User:GreenMeansGo shared performance concerns in #To all, please be mindful.... GMG said "word count doesn't matter for technical problems" in an edit summary which had initially escaped my otherwise watchful eye.

It's not that simple, these are various different issues. GMG said "Real estate here is getting expensive. Overly lengthy articles cause not only barriers to readability but can cause technical problems for those with old hardware or poor connection."

Real estate = word count. Lengthy articles = word count. Barrier to readability = word count. Technical problems due to old hardware = typically caused by an abundance of elements, e.g. templates/links/tables/markup/images. Rarely by word count. Technical problems due to poor connection: 144KB is transferred for the main HTML page which would take a little over a second at 1Mb/s or about half a minute using a 56 kbit/s line.

I'm currently not quite convinced 170K wikitext or even, say, 250K wikitext would cause serious problems in and of itself. This article probably has more sources than usual because it is so contentious. If this causes problems and splitting the article is not possible, the solution perhaps needs to be technical. For example only loading references as needed on mobile, assuming MediaWiki doesn't already do that. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 00:09, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Around 2m is where the software totally starts to fail regardless of anything else. But plenty of people even in the developed world have for example metered connections or bad reception. Using the app/a mobile browser in general is hard to predict without actually testing it. GMG ^talk 04:18, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Come on, people watch YouTube and stream music to their mobile devices all the time. A page of text is next to nothing in terms of data usage. ~2026-32351-0 (talk) 04:55, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

GreenMeansGo, in Zimbabwe you pay 98 Zimbabwean ZiG (about $4 US) for 700MB/month. Average wage is unclear, but probably >$200.
Using 5% of that monthly 700MB to load lengthy Wikipedia article HTML would allow someone to read roughly 250 lengthy articles/month. They have bundles for Instagram and X, I think lengthy Wikipedia articles have a better bang for the buck. I imagine they download content to their devices and share it offline with friends.
I don't think bandwidth is a good argument to cull an article. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 12:38, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Well, this is all in the context of being long winded because we're doing rote transcription instead of thinking critically about sources, digesting their meaning, and succinctly summarizing it. Know your audience. Know your format. The reader of a book or technical manual is settled in for some grueling detail. This is an encyclopedia. Making it intellectually digestible is the goal, and making it more technically accessible is icing on the cake. GMG ^talk 13:23, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 January 2026

This edit request to Killing of Alex Pretti has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

It is stated several times in this article that Alex Pretti was pinned to the ground while he was shot. This is not true. Videos filmed by bystanders show ICE agents backing away after someone yelled "He's got a gun". While the ICE agents are backing away, Alex Pretti is getting up on his knees, reaching behind his lower back to approximately the same area his firearm had been retrieved by an ICE agent moments before. This is when he is shot. The first shot heard right before that, is coming from Alex Pretti's firearm which the ICE agent had just retrieved, as the ICE agent is moving away. Alex Pretti's firearm accidentally discharges while being pointed to the ground by the ICE agent.

So the correct "Order of events" to be included in the article is: Alex Pretti is wrestled to the ground by ICE agents. An ICE agent removes Alex Pretti's firearm. Alex Pretti's firearm discharges while in the hands of the ICE agent as he is moving away with the firearm, pointing the firearm to the ground. Someone yells "He's got a gun". The ICE agents begin moving away from Alex Pretti. Alex Pretti gets up on his knees and reaches behind his lower back to approximately the same area where his firearm was retrieved by an ICE agent moments earlier. Alex Pretti is holding something in his hand. Alex Pretti gets shot by ICE agent(s).

Also, all references to being shot while being pinned down needs to be deleted.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/live/rPpylyOZQhg ~2026-64787-4 (talk) 04:07, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Not done: YouTube is not a reliable source, nor is BlazeTV, and original research is irrelevant. ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 04:16, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Since you are obviously already citing an unreliable source, maybe now would be a good time to get off the high horse and look into the matter.

Maybe next time don't write news articles on Wikipedia. There is a huge risk of spreading false information. Better to wait for the proper investigations.

Unless of course the purpose isn't objectivity. To be honest, when reading this article that's the impression I got. And my thought was, I'm not going to donate the next time I'm requested to. I might not be the only one thinking that. ~2026-64787-4 (talk) 06:04, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

omg if you don't donate, then how will we get paid for all of the volunteer work we do here ?? ~2026-32351-0 (talk) 06:23, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

The fact that you're locking the article for edit so people can't change the errors as they are encountered in real time - and then reject attempts to correct errors - shows you obviously have an agenda other than the truth.

Nobody needs your volunteer propaganda. If this isn't a place for objectivity, people won't trust the information. Then the platform will die. You may not care, but others might. ~2026-64787-4 (talk) 11:10, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Firstly, we need to find more reliable, non-news sources for these claims, ~2026-64787-4, and secondly, it's not called 'locking', it's called protecting. Theeverywhereperson talk here 11:32, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

The claims have been here all along from various sources. Even if you don't trust the sources, video footage that you can se for yourself should be enough to make you want to proceed with caution and not make bold claims that are likely to be wrong. If you are not sure exactly what happened, the right thing to do is to change the current description from "was shot while being pinned down" to "was shot during attempted arrest", or something more general in nature like that.

People are seeking information and forming opinions right now, and even if wrong information is corrected later, it will still have had lasting effect on some people. And on the trustworthiness of the platform. ~2026-64787-4 (talk) 12:10, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

The claims have been here all along from various sources If the only source for Pretti seeming to sit up is BlazeTV, which is labelled as generally unreliable for facts, then that's not worth including. Are there other sources to back this? If so, feel free to share. Placeholderer (talk) 12:38, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

There are currently 2 partial descriptions of the shooting in the lead, until recently, one of them said he was shot while he was pinned down. The sources used don't state that explicitly. He was certainly pinned down, he was certainly shot while still on the ground, then further shots after the agents 'sprung up', but whether he was actually shot while agents were still holding him down is not clear either in the video, nor in the sources used. (this is also affected by the accidental discharge hypothesis)

I've kept the text largely intact but removed 'while' ie it now reads such that he could have been held down then shot. Pincrete (talk) 13:26, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

See WP:NOTGONNADONATE Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 11:47, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Reactions, add MTG

Lead On Right to Carry arms

SRA condemns shooting

Deleted response from parents

An editor deleted the response from Pretti's family (below). I think it is notable and worth inclusion. Bringing it here for discussion. 14:28, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Pretti's parents released a statement saying they were "heartbroken but also very angry". The statement continued, "the sickening lies told about our son by the administration are reprehensible and disgusting", and said: "Alex is clearly not holding a gun when attacked by Trump's murdering and cowardly ICE thugs. He has his phone in his right hand and his empty left hand is raised above his head while trying to protect the woman ICE just pushed down all while being pepper sprayed."^[1] They urged people to push back against government claims about Pretti, saying "Please get the truth out about our son."^[2]

The deletion was done here, for reasons of brevity (not by me). I agree that we should include some, if not all of this. we could edit out details which they are not really qualified to comment on (holding a phone etc). Pincrete (talk) 16:45, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

More information Sources ...

Sources

[1]
"'Alex wanted to make a difference in the world' | Family of man shot and killed by federal agents releases statement". kare11.com. January 24, 2026. Retrieved January 25, 2026.
[2]
Bekiempis, Victoria; Walters, Joanna (January 25, 2026). "Minneapolis shooting latest: Alex Pretti's parents say 'please get the truth out' after son fatally shot by federal agents". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved January 25, 2026.

Close

Here's a first pass at shortening it:

Pretti's parents released a statement saying they were "heartbroken but also very angry" about the administration's statements, which they characterized as "reprehensible and disgusting" lies. They urged people to push back against government claims about Pretti, saying "Please get the truth out about our son."

I don't think we need their description of his actions; we already have that from independent sources. FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:52, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

I like this revision and support its inclusion. Does anyone not support its inclusion? Remember (talk) 18:25, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Support this version. Out of all the topics to remove from that section, this one is significantly more relevant and due. TheAlienAdventures (talk) 18:43, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

This should not have been removed. It is significant and unusual for a family to publicly scorn the federal government in this fashion. (For comparison, nothing equivalent has come from Renée Good's family, as far as I know, which is the more common response.) This is not the location to trim the response section. Einsof (talk) 17:02, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

(@Kizor:
There's certainly things that seem more frivilous in that section. GMG ^talk 18:58, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Original was fine, should not have been removed. “The administration’s statements” is a bit vague.

I prefer including more of the quote:

Pretti's parents released a statement saying they were "heartbroken but also very angry". The statement continued, "the sickening lies told about our son by the administration are reprehensible and disgusting", They urged people to push back against government claims about Pretti, saying "Please get the truth out about our son." Mikewem (talk) 19:01, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Per unanimity here, I reverted and trimmed slightly. Mikewem (talk) 19:07, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Support this abbreviated revision. Agree it is significant for many reasons.Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 19:09, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm the editor who deleted this section. I still don't understand the logic behind the section, but nobody died and made me king. Was hoping to finish what I started by restoring FactOrOpinion's version (with a slight tweak to specify which lies the family is talking about). I'm on phone and calling this a snail's pace would be an insult to snails, so by the time I finished circumventing a reference's geoblocking and figuring out I needed to switch to an external text editor app, Mikewem had had to take care of it. --Kiz o r 19:47, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Broken refs

MOS:CONFORM and MOS:US

Bovino was reprimanded by a federal judge in late 2025 for lying?

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 January 2026 (2)

This edit request to Killing of Alex Pretti has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

THis page needs updated to include his firing, his run-in with ICE the week prior, his dragging of the woman he is claimed to have been protecting by the orange backpack she was wearing just moments before they started pepperspraying him, and the gun in his right hand, which he was able to grab after the agents let go for a second, due to the misfire of the retrieved agents gun away from the struggle. ~2026-64332-3 (talk) 16:38, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want made. PackMecEng (talk) 16:41, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

His firing is a hoax (this is why we vet sources), the ICE run-in is already included, the "dragging" isn't reported in reliable sources, the gun was widely reported as having been taken off his person prior to the shooting, and the misfire is currently just a theory. ^EF⁵ 18:50, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

"and the misfire is currently just a theory.", Everything regarding the first shot one way or the other is a theory at this point because as far as I've seen NONE of the multiple video angles clearly show who shot it or where it came from.

My issue with reading this article is that it doesn't give the impression that nothing is proven; instead it seems to overwhelmingly imply the first shot was the Federal agent.

Personally, I do think there is a chance Pretti's gun unintentionally discharged as the agent was walking away with it. Right as the shot is fired the agents hand holding Pretti's removed gun suddenly moves from pointing downward for safety to flaring to the side, almost as if there was recoil, and while the footage is very grainy the gun looks oddly 'pointed' right as the first shot is heard as if the slider could be recoiling back from a shot revealing the barrel, but then doesn't look so pointed a moment later. Pretti's gun, a Sig P320, is also rather infamous for having this unintentional discharge problem to the point it is banned from gun ranges and even many diehard Sig fans don't recommend owning one.

The standard the NYT article also uses to say the agent 'appeared' to fire the first shot is a movement of his elbow that they interpret as recoil from the gun while the gun itself is not in view; the issue really being that this same standard is then NOT being applied equally to Pretti's gun that also 'appears' to recoil in the agent's hand as the first shot is heard as least as much as the agent's elbow with the footage being too grainy to say for certainty. At any rate, I think it is worth noting essentially no other news outlet I've seen other than the NYT has made that claim of the agent 'appearing' to fire the first shot and presenting the NYT version as the primary one in the article might be undue weight to one news outlet over most others. Considered this is such a contentious partisan topic that is very recent with little in the way of reliable information beyond the videos I'm not sure why it is focusing so much on a lopsided biased look at how things 'appear' vs what is actually established and what is still not confirmed.

I'd also be very interested in an audio analysis of the first shot compared to the all the rest, because even if it is the same caliber bullet a different model gun firing from a different location with different bodies/angles for the sound of the shot to reach the microphone should look slightly but notably different under sound wave analysis. Guile's Theme (talk) 08:37, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Note that the article also includes analyses by Bellingcat, BBC, ABC, and CBS (not just the NY Times) that conclude Pretti had his gun removed before agents fired the first shot. The CBP report obtained by CBS News does not claims that Pretti opened fire.

It would indeed be concerning if the NY Times were the only source cited. This does not appear to be the case. Bremps... 15:56, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

I believe there is a potentially serious misrepresentation here; looking through all the sources you mentioned this is how it racks up:

NYT) claims the agent 'appeared' to fire the first shot.

BBC) consists of video where a commentator says verbally the agent fired the first shot; both this and the NYT are based off the same video where the gun of the agent the moment the first shot occurs is not visible.

CBS) Actually contradicts this completely and says Pretti's gun was the source of the first shot, and that source is cited in the article; quoting from it, "In slowed down video, sources say it shows an agent in possession of Pretti's gun. That's when they believe it goes off. It's absolutely clear that prior to the shots, Alex Pretti was disarmed. I believe that that gunshot came from Alex Pretti's firearm from the agent that was carrying it away." https://www.cbsnews.com/minnesota/news/rob-doar-minnesota-gun-caucus-alex-pretti-shooting/?intcid=CNR-02-0623

ABC) does not make any claim who fired the first shot, only saying "before the first shot is fired, another agent can be seen drawing his own handgun, while another repeatedly hits Pretti."

There are other sources that talk about this possibility of Pretti's gun doing an uncommanded discharge and go into it in more detail like:

https://unherd.com/2026/01/alex-prettis-weapon-of-misfortune/

https://www.military.com/feature/2026/01/29/new-video-adds-context-death-of-alex-pretti.html

I firmly believe if you even watch the BBC video I'm speaking about above where they say the officer shot him first (https://www.bbc.com/news/videos/cg4e0r1el5yo) at 1:06/1:07 you can actually see the gun shoot right as the video is paused and the white outline drawn around it; the slider is cocking back revealing the barrel, ie the gun is shooting. The hand holding the gun also jerks in response, ie potential recoil. There were 2 guns drawn the moment the first shot is heard, one is visible and potentially looks to have fired, the other is not visible at any angle. And the CBS article literally says that Pretti's gun was the one that fired based on a video analysis by the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus president who you'd think would be knowledgeable given his title. Guile's Theme (talk) 10:41, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

From the CBP report to Congress: CBP personnel attempted to take Pretti into custody. Pretti resisted CBP personnel’s efforts and a struggle ensued. During the struggle, a BPA yelled, “He’s got a gun!” multiple times. Approximately five seconds later, a BPA discharged his CBP-issued Glock 19 and a CBPO also discharged his CBP-issued Glock 47 at Pretti. After the shooting, a BPA advised he had possession of Pretti’s firearm. The BPA subsequently cleared and secured Pretti’s firearm in his vehicle. See The Intercept (which contains the full report). Nothing about a misfire. --Orgullomoore (talk) 11:28, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Rib incident vs 11-days-prior incident

Picking a photo

"...a northwest suburb city of the Chicago metropolitan area..."

ProPublica has identified the officers who shot Pretti

ProPublica article here. But I think we need more widespread coverage of their names before naming them in this WP article. I'm guessing that it won't be long before other outlets confirm the identities and start referring to them by name, but we'll have to wait and see. FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:39, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Wow. I half-suspected that not even DHS knew their identities.

We can look to the Good article precedent for when/if to publish shooter names. Mikewem (talk) 21:56, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Wow Indeed! Ever since my first viewing of the incident I have wondered why no mention has been made about how stealth fully the grey jacked agent who retrieved the weapon was acting. He left the scene like a thief. Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 22:08, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

And I will say that I doubt the names will improve the article, but I expect to be in the minority on that one. --Super Goku V (talk) 00:22, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, for the moment WP:BLPNAME cautions should apply. EvansHallBear (talk) 00:59, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

I also agree that adding the names with no further information is not a good idea. However, I certainly think we can mention that ProPublica identified the agents, and link to that article. Einsof (talk) 01:23, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

I think that's fine. FactOrOpinion (talk) 02:13, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Agreed.Dogru144 (talk) 02:16, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

I added a single sentence under a new subsection "Media investigations". Einsof (talk) 02:50, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Their names should be added to the article. Multiple news outlets are reporting it now. Megathonic (talk) 02:35, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm all for careful inclusions that comply with WP:BLP and reflect what the sources actually say. It's still early, and journalists are being careful, e.g., The Guardian ("Two federal agents reportedly identified in fatal shooting of Alex Pretti . . . Government documents have identified the two federal officers who fatally shot Alex Pretti in Minneapolis as Jesus Ochoa, a border patrol agent, and Raymundo Gutierrez, an officer with Customs and Border Protection (CBP), according to ProPublica."); similarly, The Times, MPR, and The Daily Beast all carefully attribute to ProPublica. ProPublica is considered generally reliable by "strong consensus" per WP:PROPUBLICA. --Orgullomoore (talk) 03:49, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Include. I think we can include their names at this point. Daily Beast, Guardian, The Times of London, and Minnesota Public Radio have identified the killers. We should phrase something like "ProPublica has identified the killers as Jesus Ochoa and Raymundo Gutierrez, employed by Customs and Border Protection. ProPublica used government documents to identify Pretti's alleged killers."

We should use alleged to mean that ProPublica has alleged that Ochoa and Gutierrez allegedly were the killers. Bill Heller (talk) 04:07, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

ProPublica is careful to say "The two federal immigration agents who fired on Minneapolis protester...", presumably to avoid making an implication without evidence about whose bullet was ultimately lethal. Einsof (talk) 04:13, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Second amendment discussion

There is some online debate regarding how the government is responding to this shooting and justifying it due to the victim having a gun. For example, F.A. United States Attorney Bill Essayli stated in a tweet : “If you approach law enforcement with a gun, there is a high likelihood they will be legally justified in shooting you. Don’t do it!”, which lead to the Gun Owners of America stating "We condemn the untoward comments of U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli. Federal agents are not 'highly likely' to be 'legally justified' in 'shooting' concealed carry licensees who approach while lawfully carrying a firearm. The Second Amendment protects Americans' right to bear arms while protesting—a right the federal government must not infringe upon.” I couldn't find this in a news article yet and I wasn't sure whether we can cite to the tweets themselves. Any thoughts on whether to add or wait? The only source I could find was this . Remember (talk) 23:32, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Not the second amendment per se, but there was New York Times coverage of the legality of open carry in Minnesota. I added it to the article but it was removed by JordiGH under the rationale that analysis sections are POV (in that case, we have a lot of article sections to delete across the encyclopedia...). I think there is nothing wrong with having all of this material in an analysis section. Einsof (talk) 23:35, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

I added it to the article. Remember (talk) 00:07, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

As far as I can understand, there is no issue with having an analysis section. If JordiGH does not respond, then I plan to restore it tomorrow morning. --Super Goku V (talk) 11:40, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, I just restored it. Einsof (talk) 14:45, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

I was reading in CNN https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/ice-minneapolis-shooting-01-24-26?post-id=cmkszpd7y00003b6pdh3xraog something similar, but seem it's a different groupIberia-Tao (talk) 03:14, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, I see now it's in the article too. Iberia-Tao (talk) 03:17, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

But now the previous one has been deleted... https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Killing_of_Alex_Pretti&diff=prev&oldid=1334695329 Iberia-Tao (talk) 03:28, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

I have restored the text. @TheAlienAdventures: If you meant to delete this text, then please clarify. Your edit summary implied fixing an edit conflict, but it removed content instead. --Super Goku V (talk) 11:37, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

I'll @Bremps: as my edit here Special:Diff/1334692140 was the first in an attempt to fix my erroneous reversion (I had intended to just wikilink something here Special:diff/1334691581, must've missed edit conflict) of an edit pushed by that user here Special:Diff/1334691547 right before mine, with the edit summary remove GOA as no independent source, add NRA with independent source. I interpreted it at the time to be unfortunate submission timing. If that's not the case, then my apologies. I hold no opinion on the text at issue. TheAlienAdventures (talk) 11:59, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

I won't be removing this but feel at the moment it's sort of disconnected from the main thrust of this article. Bill Essayli may be part of the US federal government, but he's not a part directly connected to what happened here. He's not part of the main administration, nor a representative for any agency involved nor is he from the jurisdiction where any of this happened. It's not clear whether his views are in any way representative of any of those. IMO, it would be better to concentrate more on what others more directly involved in this say, so Trump & those spokespeople for him & for the agencies involved and the Justice Department and attorneys from whatever jurisdiction covers. If all of them are more circumspect in what they say, so be it. Nil Einne (talk) 01:26, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

There is another section where Kash Patel's related comments are mentioned, IMO these are much more significant. While the FBI wasn't involved in the shooting AFAIK, Patel's represents a federal agency which would have interactions with protestors & so his views on carrying firearms & how that would interact with his agency's interactions are much more germane than Essayli IMO. Nil Einne (talk) 01:31, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

The moment Mr. Pretti approached a law enforcement officer during a legal operation with a loaded weapon, his permit to carry was immediately revoked. Add to that, Mr. Pretti had two fully loaded additional clips. I believe that after his weapon was removed in the video, Mr. Pretti reached into his waistband and retrieved an additional clip. In the heat of the moment, I believe it is possible that the officers may have mistaken the clip for a weapon. It was a tragedy that Mr. Pretti lost his life. It could have been avoided if more time was taken to assess the situation more carefully. StephanieMGarza1 (talk) 18:41, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

It's not true that "The moment Mr. Pretti approached a law enforcement officer during a legal operation with a loaded weapon, his permit to carry was immediately revoked." As for "I believe ...," you can believe what you want, but the contents of the article comes from what reliable sources have written, not from our personal beliefs. FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:26, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Obstruction and Resisting Arrest: Obstructing legal process or resisting a peace officer can be charged as a felony or gross misdemeanor. Under Minn. Stat. § 624.714, a permit becomes void if the holder is convicted of an offense that prohibits them from possessing a firearm. StephanieMGarza1 (talk) 19:43, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

What's your point? He had not been convicted of any offense whatsoever besides traffic tickets before he was shot. --Orgullomoore (talk) 20:09, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

There are no reliable sources AFAIK stating that he "reached into his waistband and retrieved an additional clip", and the CBP's own preliminary report based on BWC review doesn't say anything about that. Same for the notion that a permit is revoked upon arrival at a protest. --Orgullomoore (talk) 20:58, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

The moment Mr. Pretti approached a law enforcement officer during a legal operation with a loaded weapon, his permit to carry was immediately revoked. that is self-evident nonsense. Were it true, simply walking up to or past any LEO while 'carrying' would be illegal. Of course it is illegal use a weapon to threaten anyone (LEO or not) without good reason. All the US gun associations have made that point.

I live in a country where even most of the police are not armed (so we have a fraction of the murders and accidental killings that the US has), but even I know that historically part of the justification for the 2nd amendement was that citizens should be able to protect themselves from arbitary authority, which the founders thought they had suffered under Britain. Pincrete (talk) 12:28, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

if he had been properly investigated and then jailed for his earlier stalking of ICE and kicking their vehicle then he would have temporarily had his gun license on hold? He would also probably still be alive. The current version of the Wikipedia article fails to mention that where it says "Pretti was legally licensed to carry a handgun" and this highlights one of the reasona wby Wikipedia has been losing its brand luster in recemt years. Tell the truth. ~2026-70887-7 (talk) 21:35, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Following ICE isn't stalking and isn't illegal. Damaging their vehicle tailight is, but I doubt if it would incur jailtime, (not even in the most authoritarian countries anywhere).

But if he had been jailed and if his gun licence had been cancelled, and if, if, if, it would then be inaccurate to say "Pretti was legally licensed to carry a handgun", but as it is he wasn't, it wasn't and it isn't. You want us to report all the hypotheticals imaginable: "if he hadn't got out of bed that morning … …

The only one that makes much sense is that he would probably still be alive if he hadn't been shot! Pincrete (talk) 09:33, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Talk:Killing of Alex Pretti/Archive 2

Clarification of Alex being disarmed

Failing to carry I.D. ?

Please consider mentioning the reaction of Nursing associations

wth is this

To all, please be mindful...

Reference correction/amendment

given medication ... according to records

Claims by federal security apparatus in lede

Impact continuing

Edit warring over plain facts in lead

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 January 2026

Political bias in editing

Omitted from sequence of events

Personal tribute of a childhood best friend

Head or second paragraph should clearly state that the man is local to the area and was known to be actively protesting.

Pretti Kicking Out Tail Light 11 Days Before

Brevity is the soul of wit

Deletion of analysis

Pretti's prior interaction with agents

Performance issues?

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 January 2026

Reactions, add MTG

Lead On Right to Carry arms

SRA condemns shooting

Deleted response from parents

Broken refs

MOS:CONFORM and MOS:US

Bovino was reprimanded by a federal judge in late 2025 for lying?

Disputed text deleted

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 January 2026 (2)

Rib incident vs 11-days-prior incident

Picking a photo

"...a northwest suburb city of the Chicago metropolitan area..."

ProPublica has identified the officers who shot Pretti

Second amendment discussion

To add to article

Cultural response

Related Articles