After the shooting of Alex Pretti, public discussion quickly collapsed into confusion — over what happened, whether the shooting was justified, and whether federal agents acted appropriately. Both the political Left and the Right have contributed to the rapid spread of competing narratives.

The incident was highly complex, and it was impossible to determine within hours whether the Border Patrol agents’ use of force was lawful self-defense or an unjustified killing of a U.S. citizen. To understand the incident honestly, it is essential to separate the shooting of Alex Pretti from the death of Renee Good earlier this month. Although both occurred during the same federal immigration enforcement surge in Minneapolis, the circumstances of each encounter are distinct, and treating them as though they are the same distorts the facts.

The shooting of Good presents a relatively clear case. She was driving a vehicle toward an ICE agent and struck him with enough force to cause internal bleeding. Regardless of her intent, the agent had reason to believe he faced serious bodily harm or death. A vehicle can be a lethal weapon, and the law recognizes that officers are not required to wait until they are killed to respond. Under those circumstances, the agent acted as he was trained to act. The use of force was justified based on the immediate threat he faced.

The shooting of Pretti, however, was materially different. According to video footage and witness accounts, Pretti was already being restrained by multiple agents when the shots were fired. There were several officers involved in the arrest, and his firearm appeared to have been removed before lethal force was used. While Pretti was resisting arrest, resistance alone does not constitute a deadly threat — especially when a suspect is already surrounded and subdued. That distinction matters, both legally and morally.

This does not absolve Pretti of responsibility for his actions. He should not have been interfering with a federal law enforcement operation in the first place. Impeding officers during an arrest is dangerous, unlawful, and reckless. Situations like these escalate precisely because they introduce chaos into already tense encounters. Still, the fact that Pretti acted irresponsibly does not automatically justify the use of lethal force once he no longer appeared to pose an immediate threat.

I do not believe this was a case of intentional or malicious wrongdoing by the agents involved. There is no evidence suggesting they set out to kill Pretti. Instead, this appears to have been a tragic breakdown in communication and judgment during a highly charged situation. But good intentions do not erase consequences. A misjudgment — however unintentional — resulted in the death of a person who, at that moment, did not appear to pose a lethal danger.

This incident also exposes a broader problem that rarely receives serious attention. Border Patrol and ICE agents are trained to pursue criminal suspects, not to manage crowds of political protesters. When activists are encouraged to physically obstruct law enforcement operations, confrontations become volatile and unpredictable. Officers are forced to make split-second decisions in environments they were never trained to handle. That is how tragedies occur.

If Americans want to challenge immigration policy, protest Congress — the institution that writes and votes on the laws, not the agents tasked with enforcing them. Protesting lawmakers is lawful and effective. Demonizing federal officers and encouraging people to interfere with arrests creates a climate where violence becomes more likely, not less.

Alex Pretti’s death was tragic and should not have happened. At the same time, it is also true that he placed himself in a situation he never should have been in. Both facts can coexist. The shooting appears to have been wrongful, but it did not occur in a vacuum. The political rhetoric that normalizes obstructing law enforcement deserves scrutiny as well.

Serious accountability requires holding individuals responsible while also confronting the conditions that make these incidents possible. Ignoring either side of that equation guarantees that events like this will happen again.