Jan. 26, 2026 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
11:38
The Shooting of Jeffrey Pretti
Jeffrey Pretti, a 37-year-old ICU nurse with no criminal record, was fatally shot by U.S. Border Patrol agents in Minneapolis on January 24, 2026, during protests against federal immigration enforcement, sparking debate over justification. DHS Secretary Christy Noam and Border Patrol claimed self-defense against an armed threat, but Pretty’s family and experts disputed this, citing video evidence and fragmented situational awareness in chaotic ground struggles. A retired officer argued Pretti’s assault on officers—including pushing one and resisting arrest—legally escalated the encounter, while a holstered weapon still posed an immediate risk. The case highlights a dangerous trend of armed civilians interfering with law enforcement, often ignoring commands and escalating confrontations, despite federal training in use-of-force protocols. Ultimately, it underscores how even well-intentioned resistance can lead to tragic outcomes when lawful authority is challenged. [Automatically generated summary]
Hi everybody, this is Stefan Molyneux from FreedomManFreedoman.com.
We're going to have some expert feedback coming up.
Let's just go over the shooting quickly on January 24th, 2026 in Minneapolis, Minnesota.
37-year-old Alex Jeffrey Pretty, an intensive care nurse at a Veterans Affairs Hospital and licensed concealed carry permit holder with no criminal record, was fatally shot by U.S. Border Patrol agents during a widespread protest or protests against federal immigration enforcement actions.
There are, of course, the inevitable almost 360 bystander videos from multiple angles show Predi initially holding only a cell phone, apparently recording or observing agents before being tackled and pinned to the ground by several officers in a scuffle.
Some people say he was not brandishing a weapon, and one agent appears to have removed a handgun from his waistband just before during the takedown.
Almost immediately afterwards, agents fired at least 10 shots at under five seconds, killing him at the scene, even as he lay motionless, prompting widespread controversy.
Federal officials, including DHS Secretary Christy Noam and Border Patrol leaders, quickly described it as self-defense against an armed individual intent on massacring law enforcement, laboring Pretty, a would-be assassin or domestic terrorist.
Claims strongly disputed by eyewitness accounts, video evidence, Pretty's family, who called official statements sickening lies, local authorities and experts questioning the justification for legal force after disarming.
So a contact of mine has said, I'm a retired police officer with a degree in criminal justice and counterterrorism.
He said, I'm not analyzing this emotionally or politically.
I'm applying standard use of force doctrine, officer training, and established legal precedent.
A clear factual breakdown of this incident.
One, early video clips do not represent the entire encounter.
Well, we know this, of course, from Rodney King, that this stuff can be heavily doctored to make things appear worse than they are.
He said, much of what is circulating online shows the initial phase of the incident before the physical confrontation.
Using early footage, such as filming or directing traffic, to explain or negate what happened later is a timeline error.
Repeated refusal to leave a controlled area or roadway during an active law enforcement operation is not protected conduct.
It legally justifies further police action to regain control of the scene.
Interfering with an active enforcement operation is not helping.
Regardless of intent, inserting oneself into an ongoing arrest or crowd control situation, including directing traffic or physically approaching officers, constitutes interference and increases risk.
4.
The subject, Pretty, initiated physical contact, which is a legal escalation.
Video shows the subject initiating hands-on contact by pushing an officer.
That action constitutes assault on a law enforcement officer.
At that point, the encounter legally transitions from crowd control to detention and arrest.
When the officer attempted to detain him, the subject, Pretty, actively resisted.
That resistance caused additional officers to move in to assist.
The subject continued to fight and refuse commands, which escalated the encounter further and led to a ground struggle involving multiple officers.
This sequence of actions explains how the incident progressed to a chaotic physical confrontation on the ground.
It did not occur spontaneously and it was not officer initiated.
Five, brandishing a firearm is not required for deadly force risk.
Once a subject is physically resisting, involving ground fight and known to be armed, a holstered firearm alone creates a deadly force threat profile.
Officers are trained to treat weapon access, not just weapon display, as critical.
6.
The presence of a weapon during a ground fight materially changes the threat.
A physical struggle involving multiple officers while a firearm is present creates an immediate and unpredictable risk.
Weapons can be accessed, lost, reaccessed, or used unintentionally during a fight.
There are some reports online, of course, that this is a weapon that is easy to misfire or to fire accidentally.
Officers are trained to respond to the presence of a firearm as an imminent threat, even if it has not been drawn.
7.
The gun being removed does not automatically eliminate the threat.
In a chaotic struggle, one officer securing a weapon does not mean all officers know it is secured.
Situational awareness is fragmented.
Use of force law evaluates what the shooter reasonably perceived at that moment, not what viewers conclude after slow-motion review.
8.
A gun call-out immediately escalates threat perception.
When an officer hears a weapon call-out during a struggle, deadly force becomes a legally viable response.
Officers cannot pause to confirm weapon status mid-fight.
9.
Proximity to other officers does not prohibit deadly force.
Officers are trained to fire when deadly force is justified, even in close quarters.
The legal standard is necessity, not ideal spacing.
10. Lawful gun ownership does not grant immunity.
The Second Amendment protects ownership and carry.
It does not shield individuals from consequences when they interfere with police, initiate physical contact, resist detention, or engage in a physical confrontation while armed.
This is taught in every responsible carry course.
11. Agency matters.
Analyzing police encounters requires acknowledging the subject's choices and actions.
Escalation does not occur in a vacuum.
12. There is also a broader issue that needs to be addressed.
Civilians repeatedly inserting themselves into law enforcement operations has become a serious and dangerous pattern.
People need to stop entering roadways, attempting to control traffic without authority, refusing lawful orders, impeding arrest operations, and confronting officers, then acting shocked when those actions escalate.
These encounters are preventable.
Law enforcement operations are not public participation events and ignoring commands while interfering creates real risk for everyone involved.
Personal responsibility matters.
13.
Claims of 100% unjustified before full evidence is released are not professional analyses.
Use of force reviews are fact-specific and hinge on perception, timing, and threat dynamics.
Absolutist conclusions before body camera review are advocacy, not evaluation.
Final point.
This entire incident was 100% avoidable.
Unfortunately, it reached a fatal conclusion because the individual made a series of poor decisions that unnecessarily placed him into an extremely dangerous situation.
When civilians choose to ignore commands, interfere with law enforcement operations, initiate physical confrontations, and resist detention while armed, the risk of serious injury or death increased dramatically.
These outcomes are tragic, but they do not occur without cause.
Now, some people are saying this was a training issue or that the agents were unprepared.
That's not accurate based on what's known so far.
These agents are federal law enforcement trained in use of force, weapon retention, and defensive tactics.
The environment was complex, snowy, slippery streets, a crowd situation with bystanders and demonstrators, and an active operation underway.
In situations like this, telling someone to get off the roadway, pushing back a non-compliant individual, and engaging in hands-on control are all within standard policing practices.
The escalation did not occur because agents lacked training.
The escalation occurred because one individual repeatedly ignored lawful orders, inserted himself into an active enforcement action, initiated physical contact with an officer, and then continued to resist as more officers moved in to assist.
Subduing a combative, non-compliant subject in slippery conditions while maintaining safety for all involved is extremely difficult.
This is not a Hollywood scenario with perfect footing and static targets.
It's a fluid real-world confrontation that becomes very high risk very quickly once a weapon is introduced.
In other words, claiming that this was just lack of training ignores the reality of the conditions and the subject's conduct which drove the escalation.
On the claim that the gun was disarmed before the shots, whether one officer may have momentarily disarmed the subject does not change the legal analysis.
What matters is what the officers involved reasonably perceived at that moment in time, not what outside viewers believe they can reconstruct later by going frame by frame.
In a chaotic physical struggle involving multiple officers, situational awareness is fragmented.
One officer disarming a weapon does not mean every other officer knows it has been secured.
The threat does not instantly disappear just because a firearm may have left the subject's immediate possession.
Officers do not receive real-time confirmation updates in the middle of a fight.
And of course, this is just my particular perspective or argument.
He could have a knife and you're right there.
He can stab you and that could be fatal.
The knife could be strapped to his calf or something like that.
He might have a second gun, right?
You don't know.
So this expert goes on to say, a useful analogy is football.
When the ball is fumbled and multiple players dive into a pile, everyone in the pile is fighting for control of the ball.
Sometimes the ball slips out or another player grabs it and runs, yet the pile often continues to fight for possession because no one inside the pile saw the ball leave.
Only someone with wider or different perspective realizes it's gone.
This incident is no different except of course the stakes are far higher.
During a fast-moving, slippery physical struggle, officers are focused on control, safety, and survival.
They are reacting to partial information, ordered to recuse like a shouted gun and immediate threats.
Later video analysis from multiple angles does not replace or invalidate what the officers reasonably perceived in that moment.
Use of force law does not require officers to have perfect information.
It requires them to act reasonably based on what they knew at the time under rapidly evolving conditions.
So I put this out there in the hopes, of course, of gaining some objectivity and also just reminding people do not interfere with police officers' lawful duties and certainly don't do it when you've got a gun.
Do not assault officers.
I mean, these kinds of things are going to happen and even if you disagree with all of the laws, you may disagree with the law of the jungle.
That doesn't mean that you should go around slapping tigers and lions.
And if you do, it's a little tough to have sympathy for the aftermath.
So I'd love to hear what you think.
These are my thoughts and the thoughts of an expert.