Things I Do and Don’t Believe About the Latest Fatal Shooting in Minneapolis

Like many Americans I am deeply saddened by the latest fatal shooting of a man in Minneapolis by a federal law enforcement officer. I thought I’d arrange my thoughts into some of the things I do and don’t believe about it.

I do believe that the shooting is a tragedy and an avoidable one.

The killing of Alex Jeffrey Pretti in Minneapolis by a U.S. Border Patrol agent on January 24, 2026 has shocked the community and drawn widespread protest. Hundreds of people have taken to the streets to mourn and to demand transparency and accountability.

I don’t believe that ICE officers are adequately trained, recruited, or supervised.

The larger pattern of federal immigration enforcement actions in Minnesota including multiple recent shootings raises serious questions about preparation, oversight, and the deployment of personnel in complex urban environments

I do believe that peaceful protest is legitimate.

People have the right to assemble and express grief, concern, and dissent, and thousands have done so in Minneapolis and across the country following this shooting and earlier ones.

I don’t believe that obstruction of justice is legitimate in a peaceful protest.

Peaceful protest carries moral and constitutional weight; physical interference with lawful operations does not. Respect for law is consistent with and enhances the legitimacy of peaceful dissent.

I do believe in enforcing the law.

In a constitutional republic, the rule of law is essential to public order and civil liberties. Law enforcement should be exercised consistently, fairly, and with due regard for rights and safety.

I don’t believe in “sanctuary” states and cities.

Sanctuary states and cities are not merely symbolic gestures; they function as a form of de facto nullification of federal authority in an area where federal supremacy is explicit, and historically such arrangements have proven legally corrosive and socially destabilizing.

I do believe that defense attorneys will emphasize the presence of a firearm as heightening the perception of threat by reasonable law enforcement officers.

Federal officials have asserted that Pretti was armed and that a Border Patrol agent fired in self-defense after officers perceived a threat, and legal arguments in future proceedings will almost certainly focus on how an armed individual would have appeared to reasonable officers in a tense, split-second encounter.

I do believe that law enforcement officers have a right to defend themselves and aren’t obligated to take the first hit or shot to do so.

Under U.S. use-of-force doctrine, officers may use lethal force if they reasonably believe there is an imminent threat of serious harm. That is the legal standard, even if people disagree about how it should be applied in practice.

I don’t believe that any amount of analysis, amateur or professional, of videos of the shooting will determine whether the shooting was justified or not.

Videos can provide critical context, but they cannot fully capture what an officer perceived or the totality of circumstances at the moment of force. Multiple angles and interpretations exist, and available footage has been interpreted differently by local officials, federal authorities, and independent observers.

I do believe that the standard that will be applied in any foreseeable case against the shooter will be whether in that moment he perceived a deadly threat.

This aligns with established constitutional law, under which the central question in use-of-force cases is whether the officer’s belief in imminent danger was reasonable under the circumstances, not whether the victim in hindsight was morally innocent.

I do believe that is up to the courts to decide and until that is decided the officer who fired the fatal shots should be suspended from duty.

Due process requires an impartial investigation and adjudication. A judge has already issued orders to preserve evidence, and state and federal authorities are contesting access and investigative roles.

I do believe that holders of executive office (mayors, governors, and presidents) carry a special obligation to preserve public order and to temper rhetoric that might elevate tensions.

Public statements by local and state executives in this case, as well as by the president, have at times framed protests and federal enforcement in highly charged terms that risk escalating conflict rather than calming it. While vigorous critique is part of democratic discourse, leaders responsible for public safety should weigh carefully how their words will be heard in the streets and on the ground.