Talk:Killing of Alex Pretti

Title shouldn't be italicized

I don't see an {{italic title}} tag, and don't know why it is. Help? All the best, Miniapolis 17:14, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Fixed. Someone added the {{Infobox court case}} template without turning the auto-italicize feature off. -- Veggies (talk) 17:25, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Claim in the opening is not cited

"The shooting happened during massive protests against Operation Metro Surge, especially after the killing of Renée Good on January 7 by a United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent."

No source for this claim that the protests weren't already very large to begin with before Renee Good's death and seems like an assumed claim in order to mention Renee Good in the opening. What does 'especially so' even mean? 10% larger? 50% 100%? Does any source even use such language? Guile's Theme (talk) 21:23, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes. Mikewem (talk) 22:19, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

The only source cited in the opneing contains neither the words 'especially' or 'after'. Also, after searching for every mention of Renee Good there is absolutely nothing about protests related to her in the only cited source in that very 1st paragraph. I mean is Wikipedia just a joke at this point?

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/live-blog/live-updates-alex-pretti-shot-killed-border-patrol-agent-minneapolis-rcna255792 Guile's Theme (talk) 19:14, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

WP:CITELEAD Mikewem (talk) 22:08, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

There is no source cited anywhere in the article appears to support the 'especially after' Renee Good aspect.

The closest I could find to a source cited for such a claim in the article is reference #30 (https://www.nytimes.com/live/2026/01/24/us/minneapolis-shooting-ice#authorities-in-minneapolis-respond-to-reports-of-shooting-involving-federal-agents) used to suppoprt this line in the Background, "On January 7, a federal agent fatally shot Renée Good, an incident that set off protests that drew thousands."

But the source doesn't appear to support either that claim or the one in the lead in regards to 'especially after' Renee Good and only talks about protests and 'clashes' in the aftermath of Pretti's death notwithstanding Clashes were already ongoing before either deaths between Protestors and ICE and thus how both shooting largely came about.

Also, if this is going to be in the lead, it should be reflected by the preponderance of sources and not only 1 out of like 150.

Actually, that sentance in the opening might not even make sense?

"The incident occurred amid widespread protests against Operation Metro Surge, especially following the killing of Renée Good on January 7 by a United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent." Especially what in this context? This incident occured especially because of the Renee Good shooting? There were 'especially' widepsread protests' which is not lanugage reflected in any cited source and seem to imply it while avoiding say it since the source doesn't exist? Is this an Encylopedia or not? Guile's Theme (talk) 20:32, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

To me, your concern over the claim about how much larger the protests were (or were not) does not seem so crucial in the context of the article as a whole. Maybe it does not warrant mention at all in the lead. But I'm from Britain so I likely won't adequately grasp the nuance. So, you've helpfully raised the matter and I think you could proceed to make changes to the article, bearing in mind the warnings at the top of this talk page. In my view it is important to avoid the need for citations in the lead by being sure the same material in in the body of the article but with firm citations, Thincat (talk) 21:36, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

The first shot was fired by Pretti's P320

The agent in gray drew Pretti's P320 in full sight of the agent in green, turned away and fired it at the ground as he started running away. The P320 shows as a blur while being fired and cycled, and an object on the ground moves about the same time. Slowed down and reverse looped gif of the first shot ~2026-39623-83 (talk) 17:09, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Do you have evidence that's not WP:OR? If not, this discussion is going nowhere fast. Carguychris (talk) 17:31, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

There are few sources that acknowledge where the first shot came from, and most that do want to imply that the P320 has a history of uncommanded discharges or that the agent didn't mean to fire the P320.

References 252 and 253 do mention the P320 discharging.

Both agents drew together and green pushes gray away right before the shooting starts, but the section describing the Shooting leaves a little out: "Around five seconds later this third agent drew his weapon and shot Pretti at close range, with his arm visibly recoiling in recordings of the event."

I thought by that description, it could (should) be edited based on what is visible in recordings. You don't see green's arm handling recoil on the first shot. ~2026-39623-83 (talk) 18:39, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Category

This page should be added to the "2026 shootings by United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers" category. The killings of Renée Good, Lorenzo Salgado Araujo, and Joan Sebastián Durán Guerrero are included in the category already. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BKHealy (talk • contribs) 15:07, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

 Done FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:23, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't think this category is accurate. Pretti was shot by CBP officers, not ICE officers. OceanGunfish (talk) 15:40, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I've undone the addition. FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:22, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Refocusing on the core event and not the surrounding hubbub

First, see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a newspaper and similar style guide pages.

The article is replete with irrelevant trivia such as minute by minute coverage of the coffee provided to protestors, the schedule of nearby basketball games, and the commentary of minor politicians.

The removal of this material (see here) is justified by **due weight and encyclopedic relevance**, not by the truth or falsity of the individual claims. The deleted "Misinformation" section catalogues an assortment of transient social-media falsehoods, fabricated tributes, AI-altered images, and rumors about Pretti’s employment that had little demonstrable bearing on the killing itself, its investigation, or its lasting public significance.

Wikipedia is not an exhaustive chronicle of every claim and happening that briefly circulates around a news event. Even reliably sourced material may be omitted when its inclusion gives ephemeral or peripheral events disproportionate prominence. Here, the most consequential misinformation--official claims concerning the circumstances of the shooting--is already well treated in the article; retaining a separate catalogue of unrelated internet rumors therefore adds volume more than understanding. The deletion improves focus, proportionality, clarity, and summary style while leaving material of genuine encyclopedic significance intact. StainlessSteelScorpion (talk) 14:22, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

Ignoring the obvious AI telltales here, what exactly is the change you are proposing of? User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 15:44, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

AI what now? Kire1975 (talk) 15:03, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

The ** formatring is ai attempting to do markdown per WP:AIMARKDOWN. The last paragraph is some broad appeal without any real clear action or ask. The text has human editted elements, gptzero says it was ai editted or mixed output. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 16:22, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Ok, reviewig article, a lot of the material is probably undue minutiae that would fail a WP:10YT. I think surgical deletions could help, but id oppose a change where we delete an entire aftermath section for example. Ive reverted your change but maybe we can try to go through the article and remove some of the extraneous materials? User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 15:58, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

The entire Aftermath section is irrelevant and should be folded into the Response section if anything. "A GoFundMe fundraiser for Pretti's family reached $1,000,000 by January 25, 2026[96] and $1,600,000 by January 27, 2026.[97]": this is not notable. "Two protesters were arrested after attempting to cross the police tape.": this is not notable. "Minneapolis mayor Jacob Frey also submitted a request for the National Guard to support the local police." this is not notable. StainlessSteelScorpion (talk) 17:14, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

first one I think is notable, second and third are probably not.

I think reaction could be maybe renamed to immediate reactions, or something like that, while aftermath is for the longer term changes due to the killing, perhaps? User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 20:57, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

1) The article implies that the amount raised for a gofundme awards significance to the event, which doesnt seem to logically follow, and the existence of the gofundme seems broadly overshadowed by the mention of thousands protesting and the responses of high-level executive officials. Consider that George Floyd's gofundme raised over 13 million and even that isn't mentioned in his wikipedia article.

2) The Aftermath section makes no sense when the response/reaction section already exists. Just fold them together. Nothing at all notable happened in the area of the shooting after the shooting. StainlessSteelScorpion (talk) 13:20, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Again, comparisons like this are of little use, but I might as well set the record straight again. George Floyd#Memorials: A GoFundMe account to support Floyd's funeral costs and benefit his family broke the site's record for number of individual donations. TheAlienAdventures (talk) 03:36, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

> On February 16, 2026, Drew Evans, Superintendent of the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension issued a statement that began:

> The FBI formally notified the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) on Feb. 13 that it will not provide the BCA with access to any information or evidence that it has collected in the Jan. 24 shooting death of Alex Pretti.[139]

This entire statement is not notable.

> United States attorney general Pam Bondi faulted Minnesota politicians and Minneapolis's sanctuary city policies for the shooting. After the shooting, Bondi also sent a letter to Governor Tim Walz recommending that the state government: (1) "share state records on Medicaid and Food and Nutrition Service programs, including SNAP, with the federal government"; (2) "repeal sanctuary policies that have led to crime in Minnesota" and "all state corrections facilities must cooperate with ICE, honor immigration detainers and permit ICE to interview detainees in custody to determine immigration status; and (3) "allow the Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division to access Minnesota's voter rolls to confirm the state's voter registration policies comply with federal law."

This entire paragraph doesn't even purport to relate to the shooting.

> On February 6, 2026, Nils Lofgren, guitarist for Bruce Springsteen's E Street Band, released the song "No Kings, No Hate, No Fear" as a free download on his website.

No idea why this is in the article.

The misinformation section is completely irrelevant. StainlessSteelScorpion (talk) 17:19, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

that first statement is undue (notability is the wrong word, but I agree with the sentiment.)

second statement, I think that may be synth, unless if there is a source linking pam Bondi's request to the shooting.

the third if its misinformed, is it that the citation is missing, the citation purports something different, or is it entirely incorrect? if the third, def delete, if the second or first, you could delete. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 20:59, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

It would be easier to look at the original edit and comment on which parts of the original article should remain. StainlessSteelScorpion (talk) 13:23, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Note how George Floyd's pages have nothing regarding misinformation: Murder of George Floyd StainlessSteelScorpion (talk) 13:31, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Comparing articles with different circumstances and evidence is hardly a metric, but I'll indulge since Reactions to the murder of George Floyd has a section on misinformation. TheAlienAdventures (talk) 17:53, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

The second statement is notable, as it's routine for the FBI to share info from its investigation, so this is an extreme deviation from normal. There were a fair number of news outlets commenting on that. The local DA went on to sue the Trump administration for access to evidence in Pretti's killing (see, e.g., ), and that should be added.

If you look at the video for Lofgren's song, you'll see that it starts with an image protesting Good's and Pretti's killings and also shows a memorial to Pretti later in the video. I'll see whether there's any commentary from Lofgren speaking to his motivation in writing the song. FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:32, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Once again, I'm proposing the removal of the misinformation section. Retaining a separate catalogue of internet rumors adds volume more than understanding. The deletion improves focus, proportionality, clarity, and summary style while leaving material of genuine encyclopedic significance intact. StainlessSteelScorpion (talk) 00:04, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

While this discussion is ongoing, an excising of content occurred. Also, unsure as to why all mentions of the United States Attorney General at the time of the killing, Pam Bondi, have been removed. - Shearonink (talk) 16:34, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Yeah surgical removals with detailed edit summary is the move here. Whole sale removal makes it super easy to revert User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 18:01, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Stainless steel edits

I strongly object to this edit by StainlessSteelScorpion, both in terms of content and on principle. The edit removed very well-sourced and relevant material, and the editor, who has a total of 161 edits in article space, is edit warring and does not have consensus. Drmies (talk) 14:26, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

They’re definitely edit warring, and they therefore definitely shouldn’t be the one doing this edit. But as far as the substance,

I personally am not especially interested in debunking individual AI images. It seems to me that it’s very easy for someone to make an AI image. If we debunk each one individually, that seems like an awful lot of potential debunking for the project. Mikewem (talk) 15:09, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Just to extra-clarify, my stance is that it was inappropriate for this editor to make this edit because my view is that it’s inappropriate for any AI-user to make any edit to any part of the project. Mikewem (talk) 15:13, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Object as well. Good will may be evaporating fast User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 15:50, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

There are sources covering misinformation surrounding the shooting that haven't been included in this article which lend to its notability, hence its inclusion. The section is small enough to not be WP:UNDUE – it certainly isn't an exhaustive list – and while I can understand if one would want to cut down on the somewhat clunky list, this editor has opted to remove the content entirely, which I am against. TheAlienAdventures (talk) 16:22, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

I no longer care to continue this argument. do as you wish StainlessSteelScorpion (talk) 00:24, 19 September 2026 (UTC)