~~ recommended by newestbeginning ~~
Errors of ommission/commission in the first "official" report of Alex Pretti's murder
|
 |
The first written investigative narrative DHS has provided to anyone outside the agency in the killing of Alex Pretti is not a public report. It’s a required “death notification” to Congress drafted by CBP’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR)—apparently circulated as an email and then shared widely with the press.
That matters for one simple reason: it’s the government’s first time-stamped account of the encounter grounded (at least nominally) in body-worn camera and internal documentation. But the email’s significance cuts both ways. On one hand, it quietly retreats from some of the most inflammatory early characterizations by not claiming key facts you would expect to see if those characterizations were truly supported. On the other hand, when you set the email’s narrative alongside the most careful video reconstructions now circulating, the email still appears to omit the single most important hinge fact in the entire case: whether Pretti’s gun had already been physically secured by an officer immediately before shots were fired.
What the death notification undercuts, on its own terms
Even without editorializing, the email’s phrasing (as quoted and summarized by multiple outlets) carries three built-in concessions:
It retreats from “Pretti brandished a weapon” — (no “pointed,” no “raised,” no “aimed,” no “presented” weapon in hand).
It retreats from “Pretti assaulted” framing, and instead describes the encounter as pepper spray + struggle + shouted warning,
What the death notification undercuts
It does not claim Pretti brandished a gun.
It does not describe Pretti attacking officers (beyond resisting restraint / being in a struggle).
What the death notification newly establishes
It states that two federal officers fired, and identifies their issued firearms.
Reconstructed summary of what the death notification reportedly says happened
This section is intentionally just the narrative, bullet-by-bullet, so readers can follow the email’s sequence without interruption. The language below reflects the description of the notification reported by multiple outlets that say they reviewed it, without any commentary or analysis, which will come later.
At approximately 9:00 a.m., a CBP officer encounters two female civilians blowing whistles in or near the roadway.
The officer orders the women to move out of the roadway; they do not move.
The officer pushes both women.
One of the women runs to a male later identified as Alex Jeffrey Pretti, 37, a U.S. citizen.
The officer attempts to move the woman and Pretti out of the roadway; the woman and Pretti do not move.
The officer deploys OC spray (pepper spray) toward Pretti and the woman.
CBP personnel attempt to take Pretti into custody.
Pretti resists those efforts; a struggle ensues.
During the struggle, a Border Patrol agent yells “He’s got a gun!” multiple times.
Approximately five seconds later, a Border Patrol agent discharges his CBP-issued Glock 19, and a CBP officer discharges his CBP-issued Glock 47 at Pretti.
After the shooting, a Border Patrol agent advises he has possession of Pretti’s firearm.
The agent clears and secures Pretti’s firearm in the agent’s vehicle.
CBP personnel cut Pretti’s clothing and provide medical aid, including placing chest seals.
EMS arrives; Pretti is transported to the hospital and pronounced dead at approximately 9:32 a.m.
What the videos shows that the death notification leaves out or obscures
Now the hard part: the gap between a bureaucratic summary and the video record.
I’m going to keep this tight and specific. These are not “tone” issues. They are missing facts that go directly to the use-of-force question—facts that multiple independent reconstructions say are visible on video.
1) The “gun retrieved before shots” moment is not in the written sequence
The email’s narrative jumps from “He’s got a gun!” to gunfire and then only after the shooting states that an agent “had possession” of the firearm.
But the video clearly shows an officer removing a handgun from Pretti’s waistband immediately before shots — meaning he was disarmed and then they shot him.
This is a huge omission. It is the central hinge fact: lethal force was used after Pretti was disarmed. Entirely failing to address that is extremely misleading.
2) The written narrative has no meaningful description of hands, posture, orientation, distance
If you were writing a neutral account “based on bodycam,” you would expect to see basic anchoring details:
what was visible in Pretti’s hands,
whether he ever presented a firearm in-hand,
whether shots were fired from the front/side/back,
and at what distance.
The email summary (as reported) largely avoids those. That’s especially glaring because video reconstructions repeatedly emphasize what is visible—cellphone, spray, pile-on, waistband access—precisely at the moments that matter. The biggest of these is that the video makes clear that Alex Pretti had a cellphone in one hand and nothing in the other hand.
The second most egregious omission is there is no mention the the initial volley is fired into Pretti’s back.
3) The email does not grapple with the “late volley” gunfire problem raised by video reconstructions
The videos show a burst of initial shots, ollowed by Pretti falling, agents scatter, and then — after Pretti is still on the pavement — there is an additional volley of five shots —often framed as a “late volley” that comes long after any threat existed or could legitimately be perceived.. Even outlets covering the death notification note the overall shot volume heard in bystander video, while the notification itself (as summarized) does not map the firing sequence in any granular way.
This is not an aesthetic detail. In modern use-of-force review, “shots after the threat is neutralized” is one of the first issues investigators isolate.
4) The lead-up is reduced to compliance boilerplate that flattens escalation
On paper, this reads like a standard “noncompliance → OC spray → resist → struggle → deadly threat” progression.
In video-based accounts, the lead-up is more chaotic: physical shoves, pepper spray, multiple agents converging, overlapping commands, and unclear coordination. Whether you view that as “necessary” or “reckless,” the point is that the notification’s verbs (“did not move,” “resisted,” “struggle ensued”) do not convey the mechanics that let a reader evaluate necessity.
Conclusion
Compared to the brazen mischaracterization that has been repeated by Noem, Bovino, and others — this is a step toward more accurate description of what happened. But only a baby step, and it is still replete with omissions and efforts to obscure or “spin” the narrative in a way favorable to DHS.
The next thing I’m looking forward to is an autopsy report which will show (as we know from the physician who rendered aid and made a sworn statement) that at least three shots were from the back.
Sources
AP: https://apnews.com/article/
ABC News: https://abcnews.go.com/
CBS News visual investigation: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/
Bellingcat analysis: https://www.bellingcat.com/
WUNC (quoting the notification text): https://www.wunc.org/2026-01-
KSTP (reporting the notification summary): https://kstp.com/kstp-news/
WSJ (reporting on DHS report): https://www.wsj.com/us-news/
No comments:
Post a Comment