MINNEAPOLIS — Social media posts circulating this week claim that a man “who looks like Alex Pretti” violently confronted federal law enforcement officers on January 13, allegedly spitting on officers, kicking the tail light of a government vehicle, and carrying a firearm in his waistband. The posts describe the incident as a “bombshell report from the BBC,” yet no verified BBC reporting supporting those claims has been produced.
At present, there is no official confirmation that the individual shown in the viral images is Alex Pretti, nor that the footage is connected in any way to the fatal shooting that occurred the following weekend. What is clear, however, is that even if the January 13 video is proven legitimate, it does not justify or excuse the shooting of Alex Pretti last weekend. These are two different incidents, under two different sets of circumstances, governed by entirely different legal standards.
Appearance Is Not Identification
The viral narrative relies heavily on the assertion that the man in the images “looks like” Alex Pretti. That distinction matters. No law enforcement agency has publicly identified the individual in the January 13 footage as Pretti, and no charging documents have been produced linking him to that event.
Resemblance alone is not evidence. Equating appearance with identity, especially after a fatal police shooting, risks misleading the public and undermining any legitimate investigation.
If the January 13 Video Is Legitimate
Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the January 13 footage is authentic and depicts a violent confrontation, the appropriate legal response would have been arrest, charges, and prosecution. If laws were broken, the individual should have been taken into custody and processed through the justice system.
That hypothetical scenario still does not authorize lethal force days later in a separate encounter. Prior alleged misconduct cannot be used retroactively to justify a killing in an unrelated incident.
The Shooting Last Weekend Was a Separate Event
Video and eyewitness accounts from the shooting last weekend paint a markedly different picture from what is alleged in the January 13 footage.
In the final encounter, Alex Pretti was standing in a public space when officers approached and began yelling. During the interaction, a woman was pushed by officers and fell. Pretti then reached toward her, attempting to help her up. At that point, both Pretti and the woman were sprayed in the face with a chemical agent, disorienting them.
The apparent goal of those sprayed was not confrontation, but to escape the immediate area after being maced. Moments later, Pretti was shot.
There is no verified evidence showing that he was attacking officers, charging them, or posing an imminent deadly threat at the time lethal force was used.
Conflating Events to Manufacture Justification
Using an earlier, unproven incident to frame a later killing is a familiar tactic. By emphasizing alleged past aggression, the focus shifts away from the key questions that actually matter:
Was the use of force justified at the moment it occurred?
Did officers escalate the situation unnecessarily?
Were constitutional protections violated?
Was lethal force the last resort, or the first response?
Those questions cannot be answered by blurry screenshots, anonymous claims, or narratives built after the fact.
The Bottom Line
At this time, there is no verified evidence that Alex Pretti was the individual shown in the January 13 images. There is no confirmed media report backing the claims being circulated. And even if the earlier video is authenticated, it has no legal bearing on whether the shooting last weekend was justified.
Each incident must stand on its own facts. Prior allegations do not nullify constitutional protections, nor do they authorize lethal force in a separate encounter.
In cases involving the use of deadly force by the state, resemblance is not proof, rumor is not evidence, and hindsight is not justice.
No comments:
Post a Comment