Two eyewitnesses have told a federal court that Alex Pretti, a 37-year-old intensive care nurse, was unarmed and attempting to help another person when he was fatally shot by federal agents in Minneapolis on Saturday. Their sworn accounts challenge official statements from the Trump administration that described Alex Pretti as a “gunman” who posed an imminent threat to officers during an immigration enforcement operation.
The testimonies were filed within hours of the shooting as part of a lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) on behalf of Minneapolis protesters. The case names Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and other federal officials overseeing immigration enforcement in the city. Together with video evidence reviewed by OpitangloMedia News, the affidavits raise fresh questions about the circumstances that led to the use of lethal force.
Conflicting Accounts of a Fatal Encounter
Federal officials said Alex Pretti approached agents while “brandishing” a firearm and that officers acted in self-defense. President Donald Trump, currently serving a second term as U.S. president, echoed that assessment, as did senior officials at the Department of Homeland Security and a regional Border Patrol commander.
The sworn statements submitted to court present a different narrative. Both witnesses said they observed Alex Pretti near the agents shortly before the shooting and did not see him holding or reaching for a weapon. Instead, they described a chaotic scene in which Alex Pretti appeared to be intervening after officers pushed another observer to the ground.
These discrepancies have become central to the legal challenge now before the court, with plaintiffs arguing that federal authorities mischaracterized the incident to justify the use of deadly force.
The Witness Who Filmed the Shooting of Alex Pretti
One of the witnesses, whose name was redacted in court filings, is a children’s entertainer who specializes in face painting. She said she was filming the scene from only a few feet away and captured what has been described as the clearest video of the shooting.
In her affidavit, she testified that Alex Pretti approached officers with a camera, not a weapon, and that he was focused on helping a woman who had been shoved to the ground by agents. She stated that she saw no attempt by Alex Pretti to strike or threaten officers and no sign that he was armed.
The witness said several agents forced Alex Pretti to the ground and sprayed a chemical agent at close range before shots were fired. She described the gunfire as sudden and repeated, adding that Alex Pretti was already prone when he was shot.
A Second Witness From Above
The second affidavit came from a 29-year-old physician who observed the events from an apartment window overlooking the scene. The physician said Alex Pretti was shouting at agents prior to the shooting but did not appear to attack them or display a weapon.
After shots were fired, the physician attempted to reach the victim to provide medical assistance. According to the testimony, agents initially blocked access despite the victim’s critical condition.
When allowed through, the physician said no officers were performing cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Instead, the agents near the victim appeared focused on assessing the number of gunshot wounds rather than providing emergency care.
Medical Findings and Immediate Aftermath
The physician reported finding no pulse when finally able to assess Alex Pretti. The affidavit noted at least three gunshot wounds to Pretti’s back, one to the upper left chest, and a possible wound to the neck.
These details have added to scrutiny of official claims that the shooting occurred during a face-to-face confrontation. The location of the wounds, as described by the medical witness, suggests Alex Pretti may not have been facing officers at the time he was shot.
Authorities have not yet released an independent autopsy report or body-camera footage, citing an ongoing investigation.
Legal Challenge and Broader Implications
The ACLU lawsuit argues that the shooting reflects broader concerns about the conduct of federal agents during immigration enforcement operations. Attorneys for the plaintiffs say the affidavits and video evidence undermine the government’s version of events and warrant immediate court oversight.
Federal officials have defended their actions and maintain that officers perceived an imminent threat. The Department of Homeland Security has not publicly addressed the specific claims raised in the sworn testimonies, beyond reiterating that the incident is under review.
As the investigation continues, the case has intensified debate over the rules governing use of force by federal agents and the transparency of official accounts following fatal encounters.
