Alex Pretti Video: The Earlier ICE Vehicle Altercation

By Susang6 - January 29, 2026

A new video shows Alex Pretti in an earlier altercation with ICE agents, but it does not justify or explain the fatal 1/24 shooting. Here’s what the footage really means.

A newly surfaced video from January 13 shows Alex Pretti in a heated confrontation with federal agents. In the footage, he is seen yelling, spitting toward the vehicle, and kicking the taillight of an ICE SUV before agents exit the car and take him to the ground. The video has been verified by multiple news outlets and confirmed by his family.

Jessie Waters Fox News Video

This earlier incident is part of the story but it is not the whole story.

It’s important to be clear about what this video does not show. It does not show the events of January 24. It does not show the moments leading up to his death. And it does not prove that he “asked for” or “deserved” what happened eleven days later. A prior altercation, even a serious one, does not retroactively justify a fatal shooting under completely different circumstances.

On January 24, every publicly available video shows Pretti holding a phone, not a weapon. Witnesses describe him helping a woman who had been pepper‑sprayed. He was disarmed before he was shot. These facts stand on their own and are not erased by a separate incident a week earlier.

Both things can be true at once:

Pretti had a volatile encounter with agents on January 13.
And the shooting on January 24 still raises serious questions about use of force, training, and accountability.

The earlier video adds context, not justification.

As more information emerges, the full picture will continue to develop. But no single piece of footage whether from the 13th or the 24th should be used to flatten a complex human story into a simple narrative of blame.

Comments

Alrady said…

The earlier altercation provides context suggesting he had a pattern of confrontational behavior with law enforcement, which can influence how officers assess risk during an encounter. Once the firearm was discovered, officers had to consider the possibility of additional weapons; they can’t know a person’s intentions and must rely on compliance and behavior, and his resistance added to the uncertainty. There’s also the possibility that the weapon may have discharged accidentally, which could have affected the officers’ reaction, though we won’t know whether that occurred until the investigation releases its findings. Many legal professionals reviewing the available information have said the shooting appears justified, though some have raised concerns about how officers handled the crowd, particularly the instructions for the women to return to the sidewalk. During protests, complying with lawful police directions is important to avoid escalating tensions, and had the situation unfolded with more compliance, the outcome might have been different.

January 29, 2026 at 1:42 AM

Alrady said…

PS great article raises good points about his earlier altercation. I finally saw video and had not realized that it was more than his broken rib- he had spit on the vehicle and kicked the taillight out totally. One lawyer said if the damage was over $1K it would be considered felonious

January 29, 2026 at 1:44 AM

Susang6 said…

I agree that prior behavior can influence how officers assess risk but it doesn’t override the need for proportional response in the moment. The January 13 video shows a volatile encounter, yes. But the footage from January 24 shows Alex Pretti holding a phone, not a weapon, and being disarmed before he was shot. That’s the moment under scrutiny. As for the firearm possibly discharging accidentally there’s no evidence of that in the publicly available videos. If that changes, I’ll update the article. But right now, the footage shows agents escalating, not de-escalating, and shooting someone who was already on the ground. Compliance matters, absolutely. But lawful protest includes the right to film and question authority. The women were pepper-sprayed before being told to return to the sidewalk, and Pretti was helping one of them when agents approached. That context matters too. I’m not claiming final truth I’m documenting what’s visible, what’s been said, and what’s still unknown. If the investigation reveals new facts, I’ll revise accordingly. But I won’t let a prior incident be used to retroactively justify a shooting that still raises serious questions.

January 29, 2026 at 2:57 AM

Susang6 said…

A lot of people didn’t realize how much happened in that first altercation it definitely went beyond the broken rib. The spitting and the taillight kick are clearly visible, and you’re right that some attorneys have said the damage could rise to a felony threshold depending on cost. But even with that context, the key point remains: what happened a week earlier doesn’t justify what happened on 1/24. Prior misconduct doesn’t erase the obligation to use proportional force in the moment. The two incidents have to be evaluated separately one is a property‑damage confrontation, the other is a fatal shooting of someone who was holding a phone.

January 29, 2026 at 3:04 AM