By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Video analysis suggests a federal immigration officer removed a gun from Alex Pretti’s waistband just moments before officers fatally shot him. The videos show an agent, identified by a gray jacket, retrieving the weapon from the scuffle. A DHS spokesperson claimed an agent fired in self-defense, but the videos do not show Pretti brandishing a weapon. Following the shooting, another officer asked where the gun was, and the agent responded that they had it.
Read the original article here
Videos SHOW federal officer took gun from Alex Pretti just before MURDERING HIM, and the evidence seems irrefutable. It’s not a matter of conjecture, or what “appears” to be happening. The footage clearly depicts a federal officer removing Alex Pretti’s handgun, followed almost immediately by another officer firing multiple shots into Pretti’s back. This wasn’t a chaotic, split-second decision; it was, as many are calling it, an execution. The videos don’t leave room for ambiguity; they offer a grim, unvarnished look at a tragic event.
The use of the word “appears” or phrases like “allegedly” in news reports feels like a deliberate attempt to downplay what the videos show. It’s a way to sanitize the reality, a reality that includes a man being disarmed and then gunned down in what many believe was a cold-blooded act of violence. The phrase feels like a means of obfuscating the truth, and a way to avoid liability.
The fact that the video evidence is available and widely circulated, yet the officers involved haven’t been arrested or even placed on administrative leave, raises serious questions. It fuels the perception that those in power are above the law, that justice is selective, and that the government, and the media, are in cahoots. The slow-motion close-ups further highlight the sequence of events, reinforcing the brutal reality of the situation. They show an officer pulling his weapon and firing into Pretti’s back at close range, after he was already restrained by other officers and disarmed.
The public’s frustration is palpable, and for good reason. It appears that a man was killed for simply having a weapon on him while protesting. The situation is exacerbated by the fact that the initial reports, particularly from major news outlets, seemed to prioritize the government’s narrative. This apparent bias, or self-censorship, further erodes public trust in the media’s ability to provide accurate and unbiased information.
The lack of immediate action, and the perceived willingness of some to defend the officers involved, has led to some calling out the media for being compliant to the administration. The frustration, of course, is that the system doesn’t seem to be working the way it’s supposed to.
This situation also highlights the potential for the abuse of power by law enforcement. The fact that the initial articles may have been designed to downplay this, with the administration’s version of events taking precedence, fuels that fire.
In light of the evidence, and the apparent lack of accountability, it’s easy to understand why many feel disheartened and betrayed. The situation calls for transparency, accountability, and a thorough investigation.
The video evidence is incredibly clear: a man was disarmed and then shot in the back. The fact that the killer appeared to be staring directly at Pretti immediately before he was shot suggests malice.
In conclusion, the videos offer a clear and compelling narrative. It’s not about “appears”; it’s about what the footage plainly shows. What’s left to do? Protest peacefully. Use your cell phone as a recording device. The most powerful weapon is evidence and elections.