What purpose does law enforcement serve if it disregards the law?
Soon after federal agents fatally shot Alex Pretti on Saturday morning, the Department of Homeland Security began promoting the narrative that the deceased was armed and a threat. They claimed he had a gun, DHS asserted. (A Bellingcat assessment of the footage indicates that Pretti was unarmed at the time of the shooting.) He allegedly approached the agents while wielding the firearm, DHS reported. (He was actually holding a phone, according to The New York Times states.) Pretti was killed on his knees, surrounded by armed Border Patrol agents, who fired multiple shots at him.
The Second Amendment is a cherished right among conservatives. In Minnesota, open carry is permitted with a license. Pretti resided in a city where unmasked and armed individuals frequently assault and even kill people he was observing. Therefore, why has there been such extensive discussion regarding the details of his actions? Why is it routine for law enforcement — those designated to maintain law and order — to take the lives of Americans? And why is the prevailing question at the end of the day whether the victims merited their fate?
In July 2020, DHS dispatched over a hundred federal officers from various departments to my city, Portland, Oregon. They inundated downtown with a dense haze of brownish tear gas. This did not disperse the crowds — it merely caused them pain and incited further anger. The city recognized it was being deliberately tormented by sadists and chose to walk into the tear gas defiantly.
During the protests, politicians and media personalities fixated on whether Portland and other cities were experiencing “protests” or “riots.” This distinction was drawn solely on the actions of the protesters, whose behaviors were considered as if they transpired independently. Yet, on the ground in Portland, it seemed to miss the fundamental issue.
The actions of the protesters complicated the definition of nonviolence. They arrived with gas masks and shields. Some used leaf blowers to direct the tear gas back towards the agents who deployed it. They threw plastic water bottles at the federal agents because they despised them and thought it might amuse them to hit their militarized helmets. While no one intended to kill the feds, it was not comparable to peacefully marching down the streets of Selma while singing.
However, if a riot was occurring in Portland, the federal agents triggered it — preemptively escalating the situation with rubber bullets, pepper balls, and tear gas canisters, munitions that do not simply blur the definition of “nonlethal” but actually contradict it.
These disparate expectations were unjust towards civilians. Furthermore, they are being reinstated, with greater severity and violence, against the people of Minneapolis.
It is clear that the presence of ICE in Minnesota fosters conflict and apprehension. As the federal agents leave chaos and fear in their path, untrained Minnesotans are expected to exercise more restraint than the heavily armed officers charged with enforcing the law.
Initial reports suggest that Pretti was brutally killed while engaging peacefully with federal law enforcement. Footage indicates that he was holding a phone and attempting to assist a protester when agents seized him by the legs and forced him to the ground. The agents claimed he had a gun only after they had restrained him.
Regardless of what transpired, the physical location of Pretti’s alleged firearm in the moments leading up to his death is far less significant than the ongoing siege in the Twin Cities. What, in light of this aggression, is so pertinent about his demeanor or conduct as he approached the agents moments before his demise? Why must the victims of state-sanctioned violence bear the responsibility of de-escalating a situation when they are not receiving a salary, health insurance, or a pension funded by taxpayers?
The populace is being tasked with maintaining peace, urged to stand firm against the federal agents who are disrupting it. This is a grotesque form of double taxation — your wages are taken so that an individual in a mask can assault you while you attempt to diffuse the situation. “No worries, dude, I’m not upset with you,” Renee Good said to ICE agents just before they shot her through the side window of her vehicle. Did she deserve to die because she did not sufficiently regulate their emotions?
What is the purpose of forcing someone to the ground before dousing them with pepper spray? What is the rationale behind all of this, other than to provoke public outrage and then to counter that outrage with even greater force? ICE, CBP, and Border Patrol have demonstrated their inability to comply with the law, let alone enforce it for others; incapable of self-regulation, much less maintaining the peace. Agencies like ICE are not a solution to a problem, but a problem that requires resolution. They are malevolent, they are ineffective, and they should be abolished.
