Assessing the Pretti Incident

Before I get into the post, let’s establish the standard of lawful use of deadly force.

Deadly force is lawful when one perceives an immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury to oneself or another. This determination is reviewed judicially as in the moment, without the benefit of hindsight, and within the scope of what a reasonable person or officer may do in that same situation. This also takes in the totality of the circumstances leading to and in the moment.

If you have read my recent posts about the shooting of Alex Pretti, you may have noticed some concerns I presented. Inserting yourself into law enforcement actions is unwise. Inserting yourself into law enforcement actions while armed is incredibly unwise. Pretti being armed, alone, is not a justification for deadly force to be used against him.

We do not know if Pretti was involved in protests or if he was driving by and saw something he felt he should record. I did notice Pretti maintain a distance from agents as he recorded until he inserted himself between two citizens getting pushed down by an agent and that agent. This action caused the agent to entirely direct all of his efforts onto Pretti.

Pretti was carrying a concealed sidearm with a threaded barrel, optic, and 20+ round magazines, which is not illegal nor is it unusual. Carrying two spare magazines is not illegal, nor is it unusual. These factors do not establish any intent. These do not provide a free pass for someone to shoot him.

I have not found any statute prohibiting a lawful permit holder from carrying a firearm to a protest within Minnesota.

Reports indicate he did not have an ID or permit to carry on him. Let’s apply Hanlon’s razor here- “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.” I have found myself in situations where I forgot my wallet. I have gone into stores and realized that at checkout, my wallet was left in my car. Not having an ID does not establish intent. Not having an ID is not a justification for deadly force.

Not having an ID or a carry permit is more of an administrative offense that would not create an escalated response for me.

I do not know what caused the initial shot. I do not know if Pretti had a second firearm, a knife, or grabbed an agent’s weapon. I do not know if an agent disarmed Pretti or if that agent retrieved another agent’s dropped weapon. Rumors are that the initial shot was from the agent who disarmed Pretti and negligently fired the weapon as he walked away. I do not know if the first shot was fired from one of the agents in close proximity to Pretti. I do not know what the agents perceived. I noticed unusually long pauses between volleys of gunfire. The additional gunfire may have been caused by contagious gunfire, where some stimulus initiates additional gunfire from nearby agents without them confirming a threat. The additional gunfire may have been due to a perceived threat I am unaware.

Contrasting this to the Renee Nicole Good shooting. From the footage I have observed and based on my knowledge of the law and experience, I personally found the agent’s application of deadly force reasonable based on a perception of an immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury to be caused by the vehicle Good was in control of. His shot placement is not in question due to her head being the only available area to shoot. De-escalation was not possible because she was already ignoring lawful orders and acting directly opposite to those orders. De-escalation requires the participation of the subject to work.

The two incidents have differences and similarities. We can not paint the incidents the same just because a certain entity is involved. Every incident needs its own independent review free of bias.

There is a lot of misinformation spread about both incidents from the government, established news agencies, independent reporting, and individuals. There are AI-enhanced pictures and videos, as well as AI-created pictures and videos, being spread as factual. Underlying bias is trying to manipulate people to push them in different directions. It is a shame that the truth and honest reporting cannot take precedence.

Judicially, neither of these situations is going to be considered based on the intent of the people shot. There is no way to determine Pretti’s or Good’s intent either. Any hearing regarding these two incidents will focus on what the agents perceived in the moment. In reality, what I just shared will not matter regarding any outcomes.

My thoughts and values are not in lockstep with any political leanings or one party. My thoughts and values are entirely my own, forged through experience, learning, observation, and what the law has established. Every incident is reviewed completely independent of others, and the actions taken by individuals are considered based on the circumstances I am aware of in that incident at that moment.

Reasonableness is a big deal to me. No one side is immune to bad actions or bad actors. No one side is free of issues, nor is a side untouchable. If you think you are part of the side of universal righteousness, you should close up social media for a while and think about your existence in relation to the world.

*I may end up editing as new information presents itself or if errors are discovered.