In the aftermath of the fatal shooting of 37‑year‑old Alex Pretti by federal Border Patrol agents in Minneapolis, his parents have strongly disputed the official narrative offered by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Pretti, an ICU nurse at the Minneapolis Veterans Affairs hospital, was described by federal officials as a threat who approached officers with a handgun during a “targeted operation.” DHS leaders claimed that he resisted disarmament and necessitated the use of lethal force. However, video evidence and eyewitness accounts shared publicly so far do not clearly show Pretti brandishing or using a firearm, leading his family to challenge the characterization of events.

Pretti’s parents, Michael and Susan Pretti, have painted a markedly different picture of their son and the moments leading up to his death. They described him as a kindhearted and compassionate caregiver who devoted his life to helping others, particularly veterans, and not someone prone to violence or aggression. In their written statement, they called official assertions about his actions “sickening lies,” and noted that available bystander video shows him holding a phone, not a gun, at the time he was engaged by federal agents. Their perspective is consistent with multiple independent analyses noting that while Pretti may have had a handgun in his waistband, the footage does not show him threatening officers with it before he was shot.

The Pretti family’s account emphasizes not only personality and character but also the behavior captured in the moments before the shooting. According to witnesses and video evidence, Pretti was recording the scene and, at one point, appeared to be trying to help another person who had been pushed to the ground by an agent. This portrayal contrasts sharply with the initial federal framing of Pretti as an armed aggressor, fueling public outcry and broader demands for an independent investigation. Prominent figures and advocacy groups have echoed the family’s call for transparency, noting that early official statements quickly shaped public perception before all evidence was available.

The family’s lawyers, including a former prosecutor involved in the George Floyd case, have been retained to represent the Prettis and advocate for accountability and clarity. News reporting indicates that body‑camera footage from federal officers has not yet been released, even as bystander videos circulate showing Pretti holding a phone and being subdued before shots were fired. These legal efforts underscore ongoing tensions between official accounts and independent evidence, with the family urging the public to seek the full truth rather than accept initial claims at face value.

Community response has reflected these conflicting narratives. Some residents and protesters describe Pretti as a compassionate individual and a lawful gun owner who did not present an imminent threat at the time of the shooting. Others point to newly surfaced footage of a prior altercation with federal agents days before his death—and the existence of a firearm in his waistband—as complicating factors, though that earlier incident is not shown to justify the fatal use of force in the later encounter. The mixed imagery and varying interpretations have heightened calls for transparent disclosure of all video evidence and factual context surrounding both incidents.

Ultimately, the core issue at stake for Pretti’s parents and supporters is not merely the legal question of what happened in those final moments, but how the narrative was presented and whether it aligns with objective evidence. They have stressed that Pretti’s consistent identity as a caregiver and his actions on the day of the shooting do not comport with depictions of him as an aggressor, and have urged patience and restraint in drawing conclusions until all available footage and witness testimony are analyzed and released. The case illustrates broader debates over law enforcement transparency, the speed of official statements in high‑profile shootings, and the importance of allowing evidence—rather than initial characterizations—to shape public understanding.