Federal officers shot a person in south Minneapolis Saturday morning, according to Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz. Walz said he spoke with the White House and demanded the operation end: “Pull the thousands of violent, untrained officers out of Minnesota. Now.”
A man was later reported dead, and early video described by multiple outlets appears to show agents wrestling him to the ground before shots are fired.
I’m not claiming we already know every detail leading up to the trigger pull. This is still fluid, and early accounts can be wrong.
I am claiming something narrower and testable:
The first fight after a federal shooting is often about evidence and jurisdiction, who controls the scene, witnesses, and the narrative.
That’s why this detail matters: reporting says federal agents attempted to order local police away from the scene, and Minneapolis Police Chief Brian O’Hara refused and instructed officers to preserve it.
And this isn’t happening in a vacuum. Minneapolis has been on edge after protests erupted earlier this month following the fatal shooting of Renee Good by a federal immigration officer, according to local reporting.
What to watch next (not speculation, standards):
Which agency was involved (ICE/CBP/task force isn’t “detail,” it’s accountability). Bodycam/surveillance release plus chain-of-custody. Independent investigators on-scene now, not “we’ll review internally later.” Witness handling (transport, interviews, intimidation claims) and whether locals are allowed to document.
If the goal is lawful enforcement plus public safety, focus on transparent use-of-force standards, independent review, and scene preservation, not PR scripts.
Question for SN: What minimum rules should apply anytime armed federal teams operate in a city, especially after a shooting, so “investigation” doesn’t become “we investigated ourselves”?
It is bonkers that this is, at best, third-degree murder, and possibly second-degree murder; done in plain sight, caught on video from multiple angles, by what amount to government stormtroopers.
I'm sure the objections from all the liberty-loving small-government types will be forthcoming.
I’m not trying to lawyer the charge. I’m trying to keep the legal label separate from the sworn factual claims.
A witness in a federal filing “declare[s] under penalty of perjury” that what follows is “true and correct.”
Here are the direct quotes:
“I didn’t see him reach for or hold a gun.”
”[H]e started pepper spraying all three of them directly in the face and all over.”
“They threw him to the ground. Four or five agents had him on the ground and they just started shooting 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.”
So yes: there is sworn witness evidence directly disputing DHS’s framing.
If anyone has bodycam/forensics that contradicts this, drop it here.
Full witness declaration
Update (court order): Minnesota’s BCA + the Hennepin County Attorney went to federal court seeking to stop DHS/ICE/CBP (and related federal defendants) from destroying or altering evidence from the Jan 24 Minneapolis fatal shooting.
A federal judge granted a Temporary Restraining Order barring defendants (and anyone acting with them) from “destroying or altering evidence,” including items removed from the scene and/or taken into “exclusive custody.”
Hearing is set Monday (Jan 26) at 2:00pm; any objections are due by noon.
This is exactly the point I made above: after a federal shooting, the first fight is often who controls the scene + the evidence + the story.
Sources: FOX 9 coverage of the lawsuit seeking preservation of evidence and CBS Minnesota local reporting and timeline on the Jan 24 shooting.
3 ICE shootings in Minneapolis in less than three weeks, including 2 fatal, after 11 months with zero officer-involved shootings involving Minneapolis PD (Jan 1–Nov 30, 2025). -Plaintiffs’ TRO filing re: Operation Metro Surge, citing Robertson Declaration ¶2 (see fn. 1).
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mnd.230268/gov.uscourts.mnd.230268.107.0_2.pdf
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mnd.230268/gov.uscourts.mnd.230268.105.0.pdf
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mnd.230268/gov.uscourts.mnd.230268.106.0.pdf
This video shows that the first shot was fired into the pavement by the officer who disarmed Pretti.
https://bsky.app/profile/potatoofreason.bsky.social/post/3md72ag2pls2q
Footage taken moments before a struggle shows that the man was filming, holding a phone in his right hand, backing up. His left hand is up, visible, palm facing out, as he backs away from the area. An agent uses his right hand, on the torso of the victim, pushing him back, while the man complies.
Multiple federal agents can later be seen struggling with the man who is shot. One federal agent is seen approaching with empty hands, before reaching around the man’s waist.
Moments before the first shot is fired, this federal agent can be seen retreating with a gun. It appears to match the general appearance of the firearm posted by DHS, including the red dot sight. This agent’s back is turned when the first shot occurs.
Two different agents are visibly firing their guns, with at least 10 shots being heard in total. Most of them are fired after a brief delay, when the man is already lying motionless on the ground. The current videos of the shooting only show these two agents with guns drawn.
The agent in the black beanie appeared to fire the first shots, as the agent in the brown beanie doesn’t draw his gun until after the first shots are fired.
After the first shots are fired, the man collapses on the ground. Agents back away. At least another 5 shots are fired toward the man who is already incapacitated on the ground.
DHS’ Use of Force Policy, that applies to ICE and CBP agents, states that agents “may use deadly force only when necessary, that is when the [agent] has a reasonable belief that the subject of such force poses an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury” to someone. shorturl.at/2iTI8
DHS released a statement claiming that “an agent fired defensive shots” after an individual approached CBP agents with a gun and “violently resisted” when they attempted to disarm him. DHS claims that he “wanted to do maximum damage and massacre law enforcement."
Source https://bsky.app/profile/bellingcat.com/post/3md6vleoxks2t
https://bsky.app/profile/anamariecox.bsky.social/post/3md6ty6xpdk2u
Seeing new frames that appear to show the person disarmed/on the ground before shots. If this holds up on full video + timelines, it raises a simple question: why was lethal force used after control was established?
I keep seeing locals say it’s “hard to describe without sounding crazy”: unmarked rental vans, military gear, unclear IDs. I’m not vouching for every claim. I’m saying the conditions that make those claims plausible are the problem.
After a shooting, the bare minimum is: preserve the scene, preserve evidence, independent review.