UNBIASED - January 26, 2026: Everything We Know and Don't Know About the Alex Pretti Shooting. PLUS Answering the Most Frequently Asked Questions.

Episode Date: January 26, 2026

SUBSCRIBE TO JORDAN'S ⁠SUBSTACK⁠. Get the facts, without the spin. UNBIASED offers a clear, impartial recap of US news, including politics, elections, legal news, and more. Hosted by lawyer Jordan Berman, each episode provides a recap of current political events plus breakdowns of complex concepts—like constitutional rights, recent Supreme Court rulings, and new legislation—in an easy-to-understand way. No personal opinions, just the facts you need to stay informed on the daily news that matters. If you miss how journalism used to be, you're in the right place. In this episode, Jordan is telling you everything we know and don't know about the shooting over the weekend that killed Alex Pretti. Then, she answers some of the most frequently asked questions: When is deadly force justified? Was it lawful for agents to shoot Pretti after he was disarmed? Who has the authority to arrest the agents responsible? Can states charge ICE agents with murder? What laws are at play when it comes to interfering with federal law enforcement, especially when armed? Is it illegal to bring a gun to a protest? Did Pretti still have his gun on him at the time he was shot? Is there a process for holding DHS accountable for incorrect public claims? How can the federal government block state law enforcement from investigating? Who has the proper authority to investigate in a situation like this? Have there been deaths under previous administrations, and were investigations conducted in those cases? And more. SUBSCRIBE TO JORDAN'S ⁠FREE NEWSLETTER⁠. ⁠Watch⁠ this episode on YouTube. Follow Jordan on ⁠Instagram⁠ and ⁠TikTok⁠. All sources for this episode can be found ⁠here.⁠  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Welcome back to Unbiased, your favorite source of unbiased news and legal analysis. Welcome back to Unbiased Politics. Today is Monday, January 26th. Let's talk about some news. Today's episode will be all about the most recent shooting in Minneapolis and Alex Pready and what we know about the shooting generally. I did not anticipate today's episode to be solely about that. But as I wrote everything out, I mean, it just became clear that there is so much to talk about. All of you have so many questions and I want to make sure that I address as many of those questions as possible. So what I'm going to do first is just kind of tell you what we know and what we don't know, right? We'll talk about the video angles, what the angles show, the statements by DHS, the president,

witnesses on the scene. And then we will finish. with a Q&A. Like I said, you guys have a ton of questions about this story. And there are various claims that are circulating online. So my hope is that in doing this Q&A and answering some of your more specific questions, I'll be able to get you some clear answers. On Saturday morning at approximately 9.05 a.m., a border patrol agent fatally shot 37-year-old U.S. citizen Alex Pretty.

This happened during an immigration enforcement operation in Minneapolis, and the operation that was taking place when it happened was targeting an individual named Jose Huerta Chuma. Huerta Chuma is an illegal immigrant originally from Ecuador, who Border Patrol commander Greg Bonvino said has a criminal record of domestic assault, intentional infliction of bodily harm, disorderly conduct, and was arrested over the weekend for driving with. out a license. Now, as far as his past criminal record goes, you know, Minnesota Department of Corrections has said that state court records only show Huerta Chuma as having misdemeanor-level traffic offenses from more than a decade ago and that an individual with this name was previously held in federal immigration custody in a local Minnesota jail in 2018. However, Minnesota DOC has no information explaining why Huerta Chuma was ultimately released. because any decision to release him from federal custody would have been made by federal authorities.

So we don't really have any additional details about the target of the operation or his criminal record other than what Bonvino said about it because the DHS hasn't provided any additional details at this point. But as we know, this story isn't really about the target of the operation, right? This story is about Alex Prattie. So since the shooting, we've obtained multiple bystander videos that show a few different angles and taken together what these videos show is the following. A few minutes before the shooting happened, Pretty can be seen standing in the street filming federal agents with his phone.

He was specifically filming an agent that had approached a vehicle in the road. It's unclear what the agent was trying to do with the vehicle, but the agent was standing next to the back door of the vehicle, which was open at the time. At the same time, two people can be seen standing closer to the agent that is at the vehicle, blowing whistles at the agent. And we know that these whistles are used by protesters during ice activity. We don't know what exactly happens next, but as Prattie is standing in the street filming, he yells at the agent and says, quote, do not push them into the traffic. End quote.

I want to be clear that Prattie was not holding a gun. Okay. He was very clearly holding his phone in one hand and his other hand was empty. He did have a gun in his waistband, but he was not holding a gun at any point during his interaction with the agents. From another angle, you can see a Border Patrol agent approach Prattie. and start pushing him backwards towards the sidewalk. Prettie continues filming and he's exchanging words with the agent, but it's not clear exactly

what's being said. And at some point, Prattie makes his way back closer to the street from the sidewalk still filming. Then one of the agents can be seen shoving an individual before then shoving Pruddy and then shoving a woman wearing this reddish orange backpack. I've also heard some people refer to the woman as wearing a pink backpack. Regardless, the woman wearing the backpack falls to the ground. Preti then kind of takes a step toward the agent who shoved the three individuals, including himself. And that's when the agent pulls out his pepper spray. And Prattie puts his hand up. Okay. So he puts

his hand up in the air. As Prattie puts it, and all this is happening within, like, a two-second time frame. So as Preddy puts his hand up and the agent starts spraying the pepper spray, Prattie quickly turns around and reaches for the woman who's on the ground. He's appearing to try to help her up. And this is when one of the agents pulls Prattie off of the woman, and then more officers come to the scene, which result in both the woman and Prattie being brought to the ground. The woman is held to the ground by two or three agents. Pretti is held to the ground by three or four other agents. There's a bit of a scuffle on the ground because Pready is seemingly resisting.

And when I say he's resisting, I mean that he's not just laying on the ground still, right? So you have compliance and then you have resistance. If you are complying with law enforcement and they put you on the ground, you are laying still on the ground, hands behind your back doing what the officers say. If you're resisting, you're kind of moving around, flailing, essentially resisting, is anything other than not just laying there. So you can see that he's moving his body around while the agents are trying to restrain him. And it's pretty chaotic at this point. There are bystanders that are yelling and whistling. Kind of even sounds like maybe there's sirens in the

background. There's just a lot of noise going on. But while the scuffle is happening, you can see another agent walk up to Prattie. And it's not entirely clear where on Prattie's body the agent is looking. But after about 10 seconds, maybe, maybe less, the agent backs up from Prattie and has a gun in his hand. So it appears as if the agent disarmed Prattie at that point. And I know there's this claim or this theory circulating online that Prattie's gun might have misfired when the agent walked away with it. And that's what caused the Border Patrol agent to shoot Prattie because potentially the agent didn't know that Prattie had been disarmed and thought the gunfire came from Pretty himself. But all of this is just speculative at this point, right?

Because all we can see from the video is that the agent who takes the gun steps away from the scuffle and maybe a second later is when you hear that first shot. And the way that the gunfire patterns sounds is that there's one shot, a very brief pause after that initial shot, and then there's three shots fired back to back. So it is. possible that the first shot came from Preddy's gun or some other gun in the vicinity, and that is what caused the agent to shoot. But Preddy did not have his gun at this point, and we can't tell for sure from the videos that we have exactly what happened exactly which gun was fired first. In at least one of the videos, you can hear 10 pops total. It's not clear

how many of those 10 pops were actually shots fired or how many shots were fired. Or how many shots were fired at Preddy directly versus fired elsewhere. There's just a lot that we still don't know. We know that a witness filed a sworn declaration stating that Prattie had sustained at least three gunshot wounds to his back. But again, we just don't have definitive answers at this point. In the aftermath of the shooting, DHS posted on X, quote, at 9.05 a.m. Central time, as DHS law enforcement officers were conducting a targeted operation in Minneapolis,

against an illegal alien wanted for violent assault. An individual approached U.S. Border Patrol officers with a 9mm semi-automatic handgun seen here. The officers attempted to disarm the suspect, but the armed suspect violently resisted. More details on the armed struggle are forthcoming, fearing for his life and the lives and safety of fellow officers in agent-fired defensive shots. Medics on scene immediately delivered medical aid to the subject, but was pronounced dead at the scene. The suspect also had two magazines and no ID. This looks like a situation where an

individual wanted to do maximum damage and massacre law enforcement. About 200 rioters arrived at the scene and began to obstruct and assault law enforcement on the scene. Crowd control measures were deployed for the safety of the public and law enforcement. The situation is evolving and more information is forthcoming. End quote. Border Patrol commander Greg Bovino similarly said agents had been carrying out a, quote, quote, targeted immigration enforcement operation when Prattie approached agents with a 9mm semi-automatic handgun. But Bovino did not specify if Prady was brandishing the gun, quote unquote, when he approached the agents. But like DHS, Bovino said that agents attempted to disarm him and he, quote, unquote, violently resisted.

since then, DHS has slightly changed its tune. Okay, so in a recent, in a more recent interview with Fox News, DHS Secretary Christine Nome kind of backed away from the statement that Pretti walked up to federal agents with a firearm and instead said that Prattie walked up to agents and obstructed their operation. In another interview since the shooting, Nome was asked whether Pretti, quote unquote, brandished his weapon. And she didn't directly respond to that question.

question, but she said that he, quote, showed up to impede a law enforcement operation. End quote. So it seems as if DHS is kind of stepping back from this walked up to federal agents with a firearm claim. Now, it is true that Prattie was armed, okay? And we'll talk more about his gun in a minute. But he, he didn't walk up to agents with his gun out, right? You couldn't see the gun during any of his interactions with with the agents. DHS also initially said that the officers attempted to disarm him, but he quote unquote violently resisted. We can't tell from the video angles whether agents were trying to disarm Prattie when they initially brought him to the ground, right? We know that he was eventually disarmed, but we don't

know whether they were trying to disarm him when this scuffle first ensued. And Prattie was kind of flailing about on the ground. We just don't know when those actions to disarm started. So we don't have the full context there. We also know that Pretty was resisting, right? But whether he was violently resisting is another question. Violently resisting arrest is generally defined as knowingly and willfully obstructing, opposing or resisting a law enforcement officer, by either committing, offering, or threatening to commit acts of physical violence. Violent resistance involves some kind of active force, right? Whether that's hitting, pushing, kicking, some sort of violence.

And it's hard to tell exactly what actions pretty is taking while he's on the ground other than flailing around. He seems to be overpowered by agents to the point where he doesn't have much control over his hands or feet, but like many other aspects of the story, this is not something we have a clear picture of yet. There's also this witness statement filed in federal court that reads as follows. And I have shortened the statement a bit to only include the relevant information. But it says, quote, on Saturday, January 24th, 2026 at about 8.50 a.m. I was getting ready to go to work when I heard whistles outside. I knew the whistles meant that ICE agents were in the air.

so I decided to check it out on my way to work. I drove to Nicolette Avenue in 26th where I could hear the whistles coming from. I saw ice agents surrounding cars and punching car windows. I noticed a man sort of acting to help traffic move more slowly. And the man she's referring to is Alex Prettie. It continues, he helped me find a place to park. I got out with my whistle on my camera. I went over to him and said something like, I'm going to film and use my whistle. It seemed like most ice activity was happening a little farther down the street from us near 27th, which was about a block away from where they were. Someone is being thrown to the ground. I and the man who was observing and helping direct traffic were standing in the street. There was a phone in the man's hand recording a video.

An agent approached us and asked us to back up, so I moved slowly onto the sidewalk. The man stayed in the street, filming as the other observers were forced backward by another ice threatening them, another ice agent threatening them with pepper spray. The man went closer to support them as they got threatened just with his camera out. I didn't see him reach for or hold a gun. Then the ice agent shoved one of the other observers to the ground. Then he started pepper spraying all three of them directly in the face and all over. The man with the phone put his hands above his head and the agent sprayed him again and pushed him. Then the man tried to help up the woman the ice agent had shoved to the ground. The ice agent just kept spraying. More agents came over and grabbed the man who was still trying to help the woman get up. The agents pulled the man on the ground. I didn't see him touch any of them. He wasn't even turned towards them. It didn't look like he was trying to resist, just trying to help the woman up. I didn't see him with a gun. They threw him to the ground. Four or five agents had him on the ground and they just started shooting him. They shot him so many times. I don't know why they shot him. He was only helping.

I was five feet from him and they just shot him. I have read the statement from DHS about what happened and it is wrong. The man did not approach the agents with a gun. He approached them with a camera. He was just trying to help a woman get up and they took him to the ground. End quote. And the woman who filed that sworn statement is one of the people that took one of the videos that we are now all analyzing.

It appears as if she took the video showing, pretty initially standing in the street in front of her and then eventually getting shot. But like I said, there's kind of multiple different angles that everyone is looking at. Okay. So let's sit with all of that for a minute. We'll take a quick break. When we come back, we'll talk about some additional developments since the shooting. And then we'll get into the Q&A where I'll answer some of your more specific questions. So the other day, I'm checking my emails and I see an email with the subject line subscription increase alert. And I'm like, Hmm, I do not like the sound of that. Let me just see what that's all about. And what do you know?

It was an email from Rocket Money letting me know that one of my subscriptions had increased from $6.73 to $155.76. And I am not exaggerating. I wish I was, okay? That is a $149.3 increase. And I'm not going to lie, I would have never caught that if it wasn't for Rocket Money. Rocket Money is a personal finance app that helps you find and cancel your unwanted subscriptions. It monitors your spending and it helps you lower your bills so you can grow your savings. I've been using it since last year and let me tell you, it has become my best friend. I've told you guys that a few of my goals for 2026 include saving more, investing more, and spending less. And Rocket Money has been a total asset.

Not only does Rocket Money track my subscriptions and give me the ability to cancel those subscriptions within the app, but it also automatically categorizes all of my transactions across my accounts, shows me in what categories I'm spending the most money, allows me to set budgets and goals, sends me real-time alerts for things like big purchases, upcoming bills, refunds, and low balances. It really is an app that I think everyone should use. Let Rocket Money help you reach your financial goals faster. Join at RocketMoney.com slash unbiased. That's RocketMoney.com slash unbiased. rocketmoney.com slash unbiased. Welcome back. Before the break, we talked about the video evidence

that is currently available to us and the accounts that the DHS and witnesses have relayed. Now I want to walk through a few developments that have taken place since the shooting. Number one, late Saturday night, a judge granted a temporary restraining order, preventing DHS, ICE, and U.S. Border Patrol from destroying or altering any evidence related to the shooting. That order was effective through today at noon and there was another hearing scheduled for today to determine whether that temporary retraining order will be extended. So just be on the lookout for that update. The lawsuit that's at the, you know, at the center of this temporary restraining order basically alleges that the DHS has blocked the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal

Apprehension from accessing the crime scene even after the BCA obtained a search warrant signed by a judge. So that's what the case is all about. The judge will have to decide if that restraining order gets extended and, you know, further prohibits any of the federal agencies from destroying any evidence. Number two, Minneapolis mayor Jacob Fry announced during a press conference over the weekend that the city would file for a restraining order today to halt ICE's entire operation in Minneapolis and St. Paul. So that's also something that we are on the lookout for. Number three, Governor Walls has since deployed the National Guard in response to a request from one of the sheriff's offices in Minneapolis. This is something that is well within his authority to do. Remember that state governors have control

over their state National Guard. The president only has control over the National Guard in very limited situations. Governors have the ultimate control. And Walls had actually previously placed the Minnesota National Guard on standby following the shooting of Renee Good as well as a Venezuela national, but the guard was officially deployed following the shooting when the sheriff's office request came in over the weekend. The fourth development, Governor Walls and the president spoke this morning over the phone. And Governor Walls said that President Trump had agreed, to consider reducing the number of federal agents in Minnesota, that he had agreed to work with Minnesota in a more coordinated fashion when it comes to immigration enforcement, and that

the president promised to talk to the DHS about making sure state officials can investigate the shooting of Alex Preti. And President Trump also described that phone call with Governor Walls as a quote-unquote good call. So we'll have to see what happens there. And then the last development worth covering is this request for voter rolls. The Attorney General Bondi also requested in addition to voter rolls, state records, and the repeal of sanctuary city policies. So basically, Attorney General Bondi had written a letter to Governor Walls over the weekend. It was actually later in the day, on the day of the shooting. And Bondi wrote in part, quote, Governor Walls, the state of Minnesota has refused to enforce the law and the consequences are

heartbreaking. Americans are watching politicians ignore federal immigration law, criminals attack federal law enforcement, and rioters storm church services. I write to urge a change. In December 2025, DHS launched Operation Metro Surge to protect Americans from the dangers presented by unchecked illegal immigration, including violent crime and drug trafficking. Since the beginning of this operation, law enforcement has put themselves in harm's way to arrest dangerous criminals, including members of notorious violent gangs. Unfortunately, you and other Minnesota officials have refused to support the men and women, risking their lives to protect Americans and uphold the rule of law.

And politicians in your state are not just refusing to help these agents. They are putting federal agents in danger. Minneapolis mayor, Jacob Fry, said, quote, ICE, get the fuck out of Minneapolis, we do not want you here. End quote. You referred to our law enforcement as Trump's modern day Gestapo. Minneapolis City Council member Aisha Chugtai said the city, quote, must be ready to act as the last line of defense for targeted communities. And quote, Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison has previously compared ICE enforcement to being, quote, under attack by the Nazis.

End quote. The results of your state's policies and politicians anti-law enforcement rhetoric are a national tragedy. You and your office must restore the rule of law, support ICE officers, and bring an end to the chaos in Minnesota. Fortunately, there are common sense solutions to these problems that I hope we can accomplish together. First, share all of Minnesota's records on Medicaid and food and nutrition service programs, including the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program data with the federal government. Allowing the federal government to efficiently investigate fraud will save Minnesota taxpayers' money and ensure that Minnesota's welfare funds are being used to help those in need, not enrich fraudsters.

Second, repeal the sanctuary policies that have led to so much crime and violence in your state. Removing criminal illegal aliens from Minnesota neighborhoods will save lives, and state and local officials should support this goal. All detention facilities in your state should cooperate fully with ICE, honor immigration detainers, and permit ICE to interview detainees in custody to determine immigration status. I urge you to reach an agreement with ICE that allows them to remove illegal aliens in custody of Minnesota's prisons, and jails and avoids pushing these interactions into your streets. Third, allow the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ to access voter rolls

to confirm that Minnesota's voter registration practices comply with federal law as authorized by the Civil Rights Act of 1960. Fulfilling this common sense request will better guarantee free and fair elections and boost confidence in the rule of law. The time has come for state and local officials in your state to change course. as the chief law enforcement of the officer of the United States, I'm committed to enforcing federal immigration laws and keeping every American safe. Minnesota can and should be a partner with the administration. Whether state and local politicians stand in the way or not, we will work

every day to protect Americans and make Minnesota safe. I request that you join us in that effort, end quote. Now, I've heard people saying that Bondi has basically said that if Minnesota turns over its voter rolls. Ice would withdraw from the state and that Bondi's request is basically blackmail, I think is the word I saw used. And that's kind of an overgeneralization because at no point did Bondi actually even say that ICE would retreat if Minnesota complied with her request. She's basically just saying, hey, if you do these three things, our job will be a lot easier and perhaps there won't be as much collateral damage. So if you share, you know, state records on Medicaid and food and nutrition assistance programs, we'll be able to more efficiently invest

fraud. If you repeal the sanctuary policies in your state and require detention facilities in the state to cooperate with ICE, it'll be easier to remove those that are in your state illegally. If you give us access to your voter rolls, we, you know, so we can confirm that state voter registration practices comply with federal law. We can, quote, boost confidence in the rule of law, end quote. Now, that last one, and that last one happens to be the one everyone's talking about, it's not really clear what that has to, what voter rolls have to do with immigration enforcement other than potentially giving the federal government another way to target those who are not citizens. But Bondi didn't say that in her letter. So we can't really confirm what the voter roll request actually has to do

with immigration enforcement. Now, okay. So that's that those are the developments that I wanted to cover. Now what I want to do is answer your questions. I've chosen about 10 questions from the hundreds, if not thousands of questions that were submitted. And I did my best to kind of narrow it down to the most frequently asked questions. And there were a lot of questions that kind of fit into the same boat. So I kind of grouped them together. The first question is, what is the difference between ICE and Border Patrol? Does one have more authority than the other?

The reason that I chose this question is because not many people realize that this, This was a Border Patrol shooting. It was not an ICE shooting. And a lot of people are treating the two agencies as one when they're not. They are, in fact, two distinct agencies. They are helping one another out, but they are two different agencies. So ICE is immigration and customs enforcement, right? Border Patrol is a component of customs and border protection.

So both agencies are part of DHS or the Department of Homeland Security, but they serve different purposes. ICE enforces immigration inside the United States, whereas CBP handles immigration and customs at the border and at ports of entry. So border patrol agents specifically are responsible for patrolling between ports of entry at the border and handling illegal crossings. Both agencies enforce immigration law, but border patrol agents are focused on entry, whereas ICE, is focused on enforcement after entry. So that's that's the difference. Now naturally you're probably asking yourself, okay, if borders if border patrols focused on entry and they work at the border, why are they even in Minnesota in the first place? And the answer is that border patrol is being used to help ICE. Because both CBP and ICE are agencies within the DHS, the DHS can reassign

personnel across agencies when there's a need for it. Okay. So when you see, see a CBP officer or border patrol agents helping out in places like Minneapolis, it's usually because DHS has has declared a surge or an enforcement operation and ICE doesn't have enough personnel. So CBP officers or border patrol agents are coming in to assist. And I just want to be clear about this. CBP coming into help ICE is something that's happened across multiple administrations. It happened during the Obama administration, the first Trump administration, the Biden administration, now Trump's current administration. So this is something we've seen, you know, over the last few administrations at least. To answer the second part of the question,

which is, does one agency have more authority than the other? The answer is no. But they do have slightly different training than one another because the nature of their jobs is a little bit different, right? So the nature of CBP's job is, it's more like, they're more, they're trained like field officers in high risk situations, mostly in remote areas, right, because they work at the border. ICE, on the other hand, is trained to carry out planned arrests in more populated areas because they work within the United States. So ICE is technically better suited for handling a situation that involves protesters because they're, they're trained. to operate in more densely populated areas and they're more accustomed to observers bystanders, bystanders and even protesters. So they train more often for more contentious situations, whereas Border Patrol isn't operating in protests-like environments nearly as much. They're in open

terrain at the border. They're trained for a higher likelihood of flight and, you know, they're trained to to arrest people and, you know, handle these tough situations, but it's just a different type of training. So in a situation where somebody is protesting or interfering with immigration enforcement actions and that person is ultimately restrained, ICE is technically better suited to handle it. But, okay, and this is important, both CBP and ICE are trained on the same constitutional limits of force. What do I mean by that? whether it's ICE, CBP, the FBI, local law enforcement, the use of force is governed by constitutional standards. And I mean, it's also governed by department or agency policy,

but constitutional standards are the minimum and then department or agency policy can can be sort of more restrictive. So generally speaking, the constitutional rule is that deadly force is only permitted when there's an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm. So both CBP and ICE are bound by the same standard when it comes to the use of deadly force, regardless of how they are trained. That brings us to the next question, which is, when is deadly force justified? And is it lawful for agents to shoot Pretty after he was disarmed? Okay. So to answer this question, again, as we talked about across all federal agencies,

deadly force is justified when an objectively reasonable officer would believe that there is an immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury, either to the officer or another person. So resistance alone is not enough, right? A reasonable officer has to believe that there is an immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury. So if someone is resisting and reaching for a gun or a knife, that's a different story, right? But if someone is simply resisting, that's not enough. We also have some Supreme Court cases that have told us when deadly force is and is not justified. So in a case called Tennessee versus Garner, the court said that police cannot use deadly force just because someone is fleeing. Okay. It's only allowed if the suspect poses a

significant threat of death or serious physical injury. If they're running away, if they're moving away from officers, there's not a significant threat of death or serious physical injury. in a case called Graham versus Connor. The court said that all use of force decisions are judged by objective reasonableness. So from the perspective of a reasonable officer, the court will look at the severity of the suspected offense, whether the person posed an immediate threat, and whether the person actively resisted or attempted to flee. If someone is already restrained, the immediate threat factor is usually pretty weak. So that was that case. In a more recent case called Barnes v. Felix, the court said that when you assess whether

deadly force was justified, courts have to look at the totality of the circumstances. So not just what was happening in the middle of second the trigger was pulled. They have to consider all relevant circumstances the officers knew before the trigger was pulled. So the question here is, considering the events that led up to the moment of the shooting, would a reasonable officer on the scene have believed that Preddy posed an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury? So what will a court look at? One, the fact that Prattie was holding his phone in one hand and had his other hand free. Two, the fact that Pruddy was not showing his weapon but did have a weapon. Three, pretty's body language. Four, Prattie's actions when he was

pepper sprayed. How did he react? Five, Prattie's actions when he was brought to the ground and restrained. Six, whether Prattie could reach his gun while he was being restrained or were his hands and feet bound. Seven, whether the agent's restraining Prattie knew that Prattie had been disarmed when the agent fired the shots. Eight, whether the agents restraining Prattie felt he was attempting to reach for his gun. Also, whether there really was a misfire of the gun and agents could have reasonably believed it was Prattie who fired the gun. And then finally, they might ask whether the agents felt that Prattie posed a significant threat

of death or serious bodily injury. And that's not an exhaustive list of what the courts will look into, but it gives you an idea of the kinds of questions the court would ask in determining whether deadly force was justified. That takes us to the third question, which is, who has the authority to arrest the agents responsible? Can states charge ICE agents with murder? So we covered this one a bit in the wake of the shooting of Renee Good. A lot of you had asked whether Minnesota could bring states.

charges against the ICE agent that shot her. And the answer that I gave you was that Minnesota could bring charges against the agent, but when a state charges a federal official, that federal official can try to move the case to federal court by arguing that federal law governs their actions and that they were acting within their official federal duties because we have something in the United States called jurisdiction, right? And courts can only hear cases that they have jurisdiction over. So if they were, if federal law governed their actions, they were acting within their federal official duties, then arguably only a federal court has jurisdiction over their case. In both Goods case and Preddy's case, the case would most likely get moved to federal court

because the judge would have to ask questions like, was the officer or agent acting as a federal officer? Was the officer's conduct tied to official federal duties? Is the officer or agent claiming a plausible federal defense? If the answer to those questions is yes, the case goes to federal court. Hypothetically, if this case were to be moved to federal court, the charges would only proceed if the DOJ decided to prosecute. So the answer is yes, Minnesota could bring state criminal charges against the agent, but it likely wouldn't result in prosecution. And then, of course, the DOJ has the authority to file federal charges against the agent, but as of right now, it's not looking like that'll happen. And I actually want to use this as an opportunity also to speak

specifically about murder. I've seen a lot of people on social media who are upset about the situation and they are calling people out for not using the word murder specifically, you know, calling people out for not saying that Alex Prattie was murdered. And this is what I want to say about that. Murder is a very specific charge. In Minnesota, you have murder in the first degree, second degree, and third degree. For murder in the first and second degrees, the Border Patrol agent in question would have had to have killed Preddy with premeditation and or intent. Okay. For murder in the third degree, the agent in question would have had to have acted with what's called a depraved mind and without regard for human life. Now, I'm not saying that you couldn't try to

argue for murder in the third degree here, but what I am saying is that this is not black and white enough to definitively call it murder. So the choice to not use the word murder is actually for some of us a legal choice, right? This could be manslaughter and not murder, or it could not even be manslaughter. There's just too much unknown here. So for those of you that feel deeply, that this was murder, that's okay. But I just want you to be aware that for those of us who have a legal background, there is a reason that we are not using that specific term. All right, we're going to take our second and final break here. When we come back, we still have about six questions to answer. And then we'll finish the episode with critical thinking. Welcome back. Moving right along with the

Q&A. The next question is, what laws are at play when it comes to interfering with federal law enforcement, especially when armed. A related question, what is the official definition of impeding and interfering with law enforcement? Did Prattie's actions meet that definition? Under federal law, it is illegal to forcibly assault, resist, oppose, impede, intimidate, or interfere with any federal officer or employee who is engaged in their official duties. Now, it's pretty clear that the agents here were carrying out their official duties. duties when they encountered Prudy. So the real question becomes, did Prudy forcibly impede or

interfere with the agent's operation? Impeding an officer essentially means making it harder for the officer to do their job. So in the past, courts have considered impeding to include things like physically blocking an officer, you know, in an officer's path, standing in front of an officer to prevent an arrest, locking arms or forming a barrier to stop movement, or refusing to move when ordered to move, you know, if that refusal physically obstructs the officer. Interfering is a little bit different, but very closely related. Interfering generally means disrupting or obstructing the officer's actions or authorities. So that could include, you know, grabbing or trying to grab someone who an officer is arresting,

physically inserting yourself into an enforcement action, acting in a way that disrupts an officer's control of a situation, all of these things can be considered interfering with. In practice, impeding and interfering can overlap, and in this case, you could reasonably argue either side. An important part of this statute, though, is the word forcibly. So it says that it's illegal to forcibly impede or interfere with an officer engaged in their official duties. Forcibly generally means physical force, physical obstruction, or threats or actions that create an immediate risk of force. Passive non-physical conduct is usually not enough.

So again, things like pushing, shoving, hitting, blocking movement during an arrest, grabbing an officer or their equipment, physically inserting yourself into a situation. These things could be forcible interference. On the other hand, And yelling, filming, peacefully protesting, these things are not forcible actions. If there is a forcible, or if there is forcible interference, but no physical contact and no injury, the offense is typically a misdemeanor. If there is physical contact, even the slightest bit of physical contact, it can be charged as a felony. So if you recall, DHS Secretary Nome said that Prattie committed a felony by impeding, law enforcement. But as we've talked about, impeding law enforcement is not automatically a felony.

To reach felony level conduct under this statute, Prattie would have had to initiate physical contact with a federal officer. And based on the video angles that are available to us, that does not appear to be what happened. There was physical contact between agents and Prattie, for sure. But the available footage suggests that the contact was initiated by the agents, not by Prattie. In fact, Prady raises his hands up in the air on two separate occasions when confronted by agents. So on one hand, you could try to argue that Prattie forcibly interfered by helping the woman up after agents pushed her to the ground because maybe that was inserting himself into a situation or obstructing the officer's control of the situation. But even under that theory, it doesn't appear that Prattie's action rises to the level of a felony. Now the other potential federal law that could apply here is the statute that makes it a crime to knowingly and willfully obstruct, resist, or oppose a federal officer serving or attempting to serve some kind of legal process.

That statute doesn't require forcible interference like the other statute does, but it only applies when an officer is either serving a warrant, serving a subpoena, or serving some kind of other legal process. doesn't apply to general enforcement of the law. So it's possible that agents were serving a warrant on the target of the operation. And this could be considered interference with that. But from what I've seen, the targeted operation and what I've read, the targeted operation was happening about a mile away and not where Prattie physically was. So it's unclear if that law would apply here either. But again, arguments could be made either way. This is why we have lawyers, right? So, It's never entirely black and white. Next question.

Is it illegal to bring a gun to a protest? Okay. So this question, I believe, stems from FBI director Cash Patel's interview on Fox News, where Patel said, quote, you cannot bring a firearm loaded with multiple magazines to any sort of protest that you want. That's that simple. You don't have the right to break the law and incite violence. End quote.

He added that, quote, no one who wants. to be peaceful, shows up at a protest with a firearm that is loaded with two full magazines, end quote. So first and foremost, there is no federal law that makes it a crime to have a gun at a protest. Now, if you're someone who is prohibited from possessing a firearm, that is a different story. But that wasn't the case with Prattie, right? Prattie owned a gun. He didn't have a criminal record. He had a valid permit to carry, according to Minnesota officials. And that permit allows open and concealed carry. There are some states that have protest specific gun bans, but Minnesota is not one of those states. In fact, Minnesota's laws are so lax that licensed firearm owners are allowed to

bring guns into Minnesota's Capitol building. And most states have prohibitions against that. So in Minnesota, if you have a valid permit allowing you to carry, you can legally carry in public, whether you're at a protest or not. Something worth mentioned. too, though, is that under Minnesota law, a permit holder has to have their permit card and a driver's license or some other photo ID card in their immediate possession at all times when they are carrying their gun. And if a law enforcement officer demands to see their permit and or their ID, they have to show it. If the person carrying a gun fails to either carry their permit and photo ID and their immediate possession or fails to show law enforcement. enforcement, their permit and ID upon demand, it's considered a petty misdemeanor. So that's something to keep in mind, too, because I know DHS secretary Nome said that he didn't have an ID on him. So I did want to note that too, just in case that turns out to be true. Now, I do want to also address the claim that Prattie had two full magazines. This is something that DHS secretary Nome,

as well as FBI director Cash Patel, have both stated. I personally have not seen any confirmation of that or any pictures that would show two full magazines. The picture that was posted by the DHS shows an unloaded gun and a magazine. So from what I can tell, the gun was unloaded and the magazine that was originally in the gun was pictured next to the gun. But again, I haven't seen any other pictures that would indicate there was a second loaded magazine. The Minnesota Police Chief was specifically asked about two magazines and he was asked

why Patel accused him, the police chief, of quote unquote, omitting that piece of information. And the police chief responded that he's been unable to confirm whether Prattie had two full magazines because the federal government has blocked state law enforcement from taking part in the investigation. So we just don't have confirmation of two loaded magazines. But DHS secretary Nome and Cash Patel have stated it as fact. Next question. Did Prattie still have his gun on?

him at the time he was shot. No, he was disarmed just a few seconds before he was shot, maybe even a second before he was shot. You can see the agent walking away with the gun right before the shots rang out. Now, it's not clear if the agent who shot him knew that he had been disarmed, but he was in fact disarmed right before he was shot. Next question. Is there a process for holding DHS accountable for making incorrect public claims? Not really. Being wrong in a public statement is not illegal, right? With that said, I mean, inaccurate or incorrect statements could be potentially challenged or corrected through things like congressional oversight or inspector general investigations, possibly court proceedings in certain situations. But in practice, there's really no consequence for incorrect claims. The most that would happen is Congress forces DHS to issue a clarification or issue a retraction. But, I mean, people can be wrong, right? You can't punish people for being wrong. Obviously, if there's malicious intent behind an incorrect statement, that's a different situation,

but it's almost impossible to prove that. So there's really no recourse if an inaccurate statement is made publicly. Okay. How can the federal government block state law enforcement from investigating? Who has the proper authority to investigate in this situation? This is another question that came up in the wake of Renee Goods' death. So I'm going to repeat what I said then. Per federal law, the FBI has the right to investigate any potential federal law violations nationwide. However, the state law enforcement agency also has the right to investigate potential state law violations. And because of this, we typically see, you know, the FBI working alongside state and local enforcement law enforcement agencies. In this case, though, the FBI has taken over the investigation,

and it does have the lawful authority to do that. At the same time, the FBI can't demand the state law enforcement agency to stop investigating, right? What the FBI can do is control access to federal property, federal personnel, federal evidence, because it legally controls all of those things. We're talking, obviously, federal weapons, federal body cameras, federal vehicles, federal forensic testing, internal federal use of force reviews. These are things that the FBI controls, the federal government controls. The FBI is under no obligation to share that material with state investigators. So by controlling all of these things and effectively leaving the state agencies without access, state agencies can't realistically conduct their own independent investigations.

They could try to investigate. It would just be incredibly difficult because they, they, they they don't have access to the agents that were on the scene, the weapon that was used, the forensic results, the internal reports, et cetera. Okay. Last question. If Trump claims that Obama and Biden deported people to, why don't I remember headlines like these in previous administrations? And then someone else asked a similar question.

They asked, have there been deaths under previous administrations and were investigations conducted in those cases? So let's take this one question at a time. First of all, Obama and Biden did definitely deport people. That's not just a claim that Trump makes. That is true. In fact, Obama deported more people than any other president in history more than Trump himself. Obama carried out roughly three million removals during his two terms.

The difference is they were much less visible than what Trump is currently doing. So most of Obama's deportations did not involve. these public-facing street operations, right? Under Obama, ICE was mostly deporting people who had been arrested or convicted of crimes and were in local or state custody and transferred to ICE custody. Ice under Obama was also going in and conducting raids at plants and businesses. And it did make the news, but it just a lot of it was, it was far less front facing. Trump's enforcement is a lot more visible. And what I mean by that is, the administration talks about it a lot more, right? The Obama administration wasn't posting

about their raids and operations like the current administration is doing. So there's just a lot more eyes on it now. As far as deaths under previous administrations, that happened too. So roughly 69 people died in ICE custody during Obama's presidency, spanning eight years. During Biden's presidency, roughly 26 people died in ICE custody. As far as civil. Civilian deaths public records show that between 2015 and 2021, ICE agents were responsible for at least 59 shootings, 23 of which were fatal. Now, notably that time frame does not include the entirety of Obama's presidency. It only includes the last year. But Business Insider, The Trace and Type Investigations did this joint analysis. And it shows that several of those

incidents in this time frame were never investigated, despite, having violated the agency's own policies. The analysis noted that the use of force logs that were obtained through public records requests were, quote, bare bones and selectively redacted. They include the location and the date of the shooting and list injuries and deaths, but they don't include agent or victim names or narrative details. Per that joint analysis of the ICE shootings between 2015 and 2021, nine happened in parking lots, 15 happened in traffic intersections or public places, 20 at vehicles, including car chases, 11 by off-duty officers, and 15 involved unarmed victims.

Now, with that said, under Trump's current administration, I saw the deadliest year in 20 years. So in 2025 alone, 32 people died in ICE custody. The last time 32 people died in ICE custody in a single year was in 2004. And then obviously having two civilian deaths in the first month of 2026 alone is unprecedented. So there are multiple things at play here. Yes, the Obama administration and Biden administration also carried out deportations. Yes, there were ICE related deaths during both of those administrations. However, there are three main reasons that the ICE enforcement actions we're seeing today

are taking up more media space now than they used to. One, the media itself, right? Not only are enforcement incidents more likely to be caught on video and circulated nearly instantaneously on social media and then amplified by the 24-7 news cycle that currently exists. But also, ice-related deaths weren't really reported on during past administrations like they are now. Two, the current administration is much louder about ICE enforcement. Back when Obama was doing it, he wasn't posting about it on social media. Now you have multiple government social media accounts, including but not limited to the president

himself, DHS, ICE, CBP, and others who are just actively posting about these enforcement actions and bringing attention to it. And then three, the numbers, right? Ice-related deaths have happened in the past. They'll continue to happen in the future. But the number of in custody deaths in 2025 reached a level we hadn't seen since 2004. And already in 2026, we've seen two U.S. citizens killed by immigration agents. So between the media, the current administration and the numbers, that's why you're seeing more headlines now than you ever have. But deportations have been happening. Ice-related deaths have been happening and they will likely continue to happen if history is any indication of the future. That ends the Q&A portion of this episode. I hope you feel more

informed. I hope you feel more knowledgeable about the situation and the laws involved and the many, many just difficult components of this story. More details are obviously bound to come to light as this investigation proceeds. And, you know, everything I'm telling you is current as of 2 p.m. today, but things could change by the minute. So as we hear more or as more develops, I'll be sure to update you. What I want to do now is I want to end the episode of Critical Thinking. And you should already know the direction we're headed with today's segment. But for those that are new here, this is a segment that I incorporate into the end of every episode. And it's just a little thinking exercise. We usually touch on a story that was featured in the episode. Typically,

you know, the episodes are a little more diversified. But today we focused on one story. So that's where the questions will stem from. And the segment's really just my, my inspiration behind it is, you know, we live in this world where we're constantly told how and what to think. And I think this segment is an important reminder that we are fully capable of thinking for ourselves. It's not meant to be complex. It's not meant to stump you. It's just meant to work those brains cells a little bit. And in the best case scenario, challenge your own, you know, opinions that you hold. So I have a few different sets of questions. Feel free to challenge yourself with as many or as little as you'd like. The first set of questions is this. As we discussed in

this episode, deadly force is justified. Only when an objection. objectively reasonable officer believes that there is an immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury. Does the presence of a gun by itself automatically create an immediate threat? Or does the gun have to be used in some threatening way? And regardless of your answer, ask yourself why your answer is what it is. Next set of questions. If this exact shooting with these same videos, same facts, same people happened under President Obama or President Biden, how do you think you would have reacted at the time?

Would your reaction have been the same or different and why? Third set of questions. Early on, some officials made some pretty quick public statements about what happened, right? The DHS said within a few hours of the shooting that Freddie approached officers with a gun and violently resisted. why do you think officials were so quick to put forward their version before a full review was completed? What incentives might exist for shaping an early narrative in a certain way? And then finally, what hypothetical piece of evidence would change your mind about how you

interpret this situation? So if you strongly criticize the agent's actions, what evidence evidence would make you more open to the idea that the shooting was justified. And then on the flip side, if you strongly defend the agent's actions, what evidence would cause you to question or criticize them? That's what I have for you today. Thank you so much for being here. As always, I hope you have a great next couple of days. And I will talk to you again on Thursday.