This Happened To Alex Pretti, A US Citizen With No Criminal Record

From The New York Times:

Videos on social media that were verified by The New York Times appear to contradict the Department of Homeland Security’s account of the fatal shooting of Alex Jeffrey Pretti, 37, by federal agents in Minneapolis on Saturday morning.

The Department of Homeland Security said the episode began after a man “approached US Border Patrol officers with a 9 mm semi-automatic handgun” and they tried to disarm him. The statement did not specify whether the gun was in the man’s hands or merely on his body.

Footage shows Mr. Pretti was clearly holding a phone, not a gun, before the agents took him to the ground and shot him. 

Specifically: 

A small group of protesters stands in the street, speaking to a federal agent as whistles sound. Mr. Pretti appears to be filming the scene with his phone and directing traffic.

An agent begins shoving the demonstrators, and squirts pepper spray at their faces.

At this moment, Mr. Pretti has both hands clearly visible. One is holding his phone, while he holds the other up to protect himself from pepper spray. He moves to help one of the protesters who was sprayed, as other agents approach and pull him from behind.

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.

ICU nurse Alex Pretti, a US Citizen who had no criminal record was shot at least 10 times after he was disarmed and after he was beaten by Trump's ICE/DHS ground troops currently occupying a US city.

Have our two US Senators (Senator John Fetterman and Senator Dave McCormick) denounced the government's killing of Alex Pretti yet? 

Ask them if they will be making such a statement and if they won't, ask them why not. 

 

 

 

Senator McCormick Responds!

I think it's to this blog post.

I frame my criticism of recent ICE incidents in contrast to The Fourth Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. 

And I will continue to do so as the amendments are part of the constitution of the United States is the law of the land. 

In that blog post I referenced an incident where agents of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement "bashed open a door" without a warrant - in seeming violation of The Fourth Amendment.

After reminding US Senator Dave McCormick of his oath of office, I ask if The Fourth Amendment still applies.

And this is how he responded (image of the full email response at the end of this blogpost).

He wrote:

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), a component of the Department of Homeland Security, is responsible for enforcing the nation’s immigration laws. Within ICE, Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) identifies, arrests, and detains noncitizens who violate the Immigration and Nationality Act (P.L. 82-414). Under federal law (8 U.S.C. §§ 1226 and 1357), immigration officers have the authority to apprehend and detain individuals who are unlawfully present in the United States. 

And:

The federal government has a responsibility to enforce immigration laws. I support President Trump’s efforts to restore order at the southern border, uphold the rule of law, and protect American communities. This includes detaining and removing inadmissible individuals who pose a threat to public safety and national security. My office remains committed to ensuring that established standards and appropriate due process are upheld through careful oversight and ongoing engagement with DHS.

You'll note that there's no mention of The Fourth Amendment - a part of the constitution that the federal government also has a responsibility to respect. 

I was in the middle of writing this when I learned about this:

 

Ok, Senator - how does this fit into your office's efforts to ensure established standards and appropriate due process regarding ICE/DHS.

DHS posted this:

At 9:05 AM CT, as DHS law enforcement officers were conducting a targeted operation in Minneapolis against an illegal alien wanted for violent assault, an individual approached US Border Patrol officers with a 9 mm semi-automatic handgun, seen here.

The officers attempted to… pic.twitter.com/5Y50mYONGH

— Homeland Security (@DHSgov) January 24, 2026

Explain something to me, Senator. It's obvious from the video that the soon-to-be bulletted man was already on the ground and was in the midst of taking a taking a serious beating.  Hadn't the ICE-trained officers disarmed him by the time they were beating him?

Why kill him, then?

How much more of this do you have to see before you stand up for the people of the country and for the constitution and for the rule of law, Senator? 

The Fourth Amendment still applies, doesn't it?

We'll head back to The Fourth Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

And yet, this happened:  

Federal immigration agents bashed open a door and detained a U.S. citizen in his Minnesota home at gunpoint without a warrant, then led him out onto the streets in his underwear in subfreezing conditions, according to his family and videos reviewed by The Associated Press.

ChongLy “Scott” Thao told the AP that his daughter-in-law alerted him on Sunday afternoon that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents were banging at the door of his residence in St. Paul. He told her not to open it. Masked agents then forced their way in and pointed guns at the family, yelling at them, Thao recalled.

“I was shaking,” he said. “They didn’t show any warrant; they just broke down the door.”

There's even an ICE memo to back this up:

Federal immigration officers are asserting sweeping power to forcibly enter people’s homes without a judge’s warrant, according to an internal Immigration and Customs Enforcement memo obtained by The Associated Press, marking a sharp reversal of longstanding guidance meant to respect constitutional limits on government searches.

The Fourth Amendment still applies, doesn't it?

Every Senator in the US Senate takes an oath that starts with this:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same...

In an email response to me, Senator Dave McCormick once wrote: 

I support ICE officers and other federal law enforcement personnel who risk their lives daily to protect our communities and uphold the rule of law. 

I am wondering if he still supports ICE in light of this assault on The Fourth Amendment. 

I suppose I'll have to go to his contact page and ask him.

I suggest you do, too, 

 

 

 

The World's Gone Wrong - Everybody Knows It

Truth - From Lawyer Oyer

Watch this.

The text.

It starts with this:

One of the most contradictory areas of U.S. policy this past year has been drug enforcement. I’ve put together a timeline — which I’ve also shared in video form on my socials — which I think will help to explain why many of us are so confused. Check it out.

January 20, 2025. Donald Trump signs an Executive Order designating drug cartels terrorist organizations, and declaring that “it is the policy of the United States to ensure the total elimination of [their] presence in the United States.”

Then goes through lots of contradictory stuff and then ends with this:

January 2026. Trump sends troops into Venezuela to capture their president, Nicolas Maduro, and try him in the United States on charges of drug trafficking. The charges against Maduro are almost identical to the ones that Trump pardoned Hernandez for.

So how can we reconcile this totally contradictory timeline? That’s exactly what we should be asking our elected officials. It’s not our job to make it make sense—it’s theirs. My focus in 2026 will be seeking accountability from those entrusted to run our country. I invite you to join me. You can be part of my accountability circle by subscribing to my channels, sharing this information, asking questions, and demanding answers. It’s what we deserve from our elected leaders.

Pass it on. 

 

 

 

 

 

If I Could Get A Follow-up Over To Senator McCormick

Remember this?

That was my blog post regarding Senator Dave McCormick's response to this blog post. 

In that first blog post, I wrote about how the DOJ's Civil Rights Division would not play a role in the investigation into the killing of Renee Good.

At the end of it I asked if the senator was OK with the Civil Rights Division being part of that investigation.

As part of his answer, McCormick wrote:

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is currently conducting an independent investigation to determine the full facts and circumstances surrounding this loss of life. 

And this weekend, we learned that's not necessarily the case.

From The Washington Post: 

In the immediate aftermath of the death of Renée Good in Minneapolis, FBI agents launched a civil rights investigation into the actions of the immigration officer who shot her, according to three people familiar with the investigation.

An agent in Minnesota conducted an initial review of the shooting and determined that sufficient grounds existed to open a civil rights probe into the actions of Jonathan Ross, the officer who shot Good, according to the people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.

The existence of the civil rights investigation stands in sharp contrast to public statements made by Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, who said on “Fox News Sunday” that the shooting of Good does not warrant a federal investigation.

Deputy AG Blanche said the shooting does not warrant a federal investigation. 

The Guardian has more:

“Is the FBI conducting an investigation into that agent, into the shooting?” Blanche was asked, in response to criticism from Minnesota’s governor, Tim Walz.

“Look, what happened that day has been reviewed by millions and millions of Americans because it was recorded on phones,” Blanche said. “The department of justice, our civil rights unit, we don’t just go out and investigate every time an officer is forced to defend himself against somebody putting his life in danger. We never do.”

“The department of justice doesn’t just stand up and investigate because some congressman thinks we should, because some governor thinks that we should,” Blanche said. “We investigate when it’s appropriate to investigate and that is not the case here.

“We are not going to bow to pressure from the media, bow to pressure from politicians, and do something that we never do – not under this administration, not under the last administration. So no, we are not investigating.”

There it is again.

So I'll ask again, Senator. Are you OK with this? And if so, why?

 

A Reminder -

 After pointing out (again) that I am not an attorney, let's start right here:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

That's the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution. 

So can they just stop you to to ask you for your papers?

Generally, no.

Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 (1979)

The application of the Texas statute to detain appellant and require him to identify himself violated the Fourth Amendment because the officers lacked any reasonable suspicion to believe that appellant was engaged or had engaged in criminal conduct. Detaining appellant to require him to identify himself constituted a seizure of his person subject to the requirement of the Fourth Amendment that the seizure be "reasonable." 

So you unless there's any "reasonable suspicion" that you're doing something criminal, they simply can't just ask you for your papers.