On the Shooting of Alex Pretti: The Mad Delusion of Fighting Under Queensberry Rules in The Modern Age

As readers are doubtlessly well aware, ICE agents in Minneapolis were involved in a fatal shooting. On Saturday, January 24, 2026, Alex Pretti was shot and killed while tussling with several ICE agents. The incident occurred at the intersection of 26th Street and Nicollet Avenue in the Whittier neighborhood of Minneapolis. Several video recordings have surfaced, as well as some fake AI images and videos. Unlike the shooting of Renee Good, which was clearly justified to any sane, reasonable person, this shooting is, to put it charitably, not so clear. Even among the mainstream conservative set, as well as those of a more dynamic persuasion, there is a strong difference of opinion as to whether this was a “clean shoot” or not. Robert Barnes, as just one example, is adamant that it was an improper, unjustified shooting. John Cerera of Active Self Protection has also stated he does not see a justification for this shooting. Andrew Branca and others however contend that it is a justified shooting when the elements of self-defense are properly applied to the legal analysis. It should be noted that just before the shooting, an officer, ostensibly the one who reached towards Pretti’s backside and removed a firearm during a tussle to the ground, shouted “gun, gun, gun.” Some footage seems to show Pretti reaching for an object immediately before being shot. It was also reported on Tuesday, January 27 that Pretti was involved in a physical altercation with ICE agents the week before, in which he suffered a broken rib. This means the agents likely knew who he was and considered him a heightened threat. Cerera on the other hand notes that Pretti was down on the floor with his face and elbows to the ground and did not present a threat of lethal violence or serious bodily harm immediately before being shot and killed.

As readers are also doubtlessly well aware, this incident has enraged the left and even incensed some of a more mainstream, conservative persuasion. On Monday Evening, January 26, 2026, Tim Walz apparently called President Trump. The news cycle has very much exemplified the “fog of war” phenomenon, with conflicting reports that Trump will either pull ICE out of Minneapolis or simply scale back operations. While there were some conflicting reports on whether Gregory Bovino has been removed from his role as “commander-at-large” of ICE operations in Minneapolis, Bovino has in fact been reassigned to Los Angeles. The Trump Administration announced on Monday it would be sending Tom Homan to oversee this matter. Since then, both Homan and Frey issued statements on Twitter concerning their meeting. As Kevin DeAnna documented on Identity Politics¸ local and state law enforcement declared an unlawful assembly late Monday evening, early Tuesday morning, dispersing and arresting “protestors” and agitators. This suggests Frey, Walz, and others are bowing down to pressure from the Trump Administration to at least some degree.

As for the Pretti shooting controversy itself, consider this blithe and admittedly controversial, perhaps even outrageous assertion. Whether the shooting is in fact justified or not is far less important than this overriding prime directive: the shooting of Pretti must not, under any circumstances, be allowed to be used for political gain by the left. Ideally this involves exonerating the ICE agents involved by any means that are at once necessary and available, but also efficacious. Above all else, including so-called rule of law and other considerations, any negative disposition on this matter must be counterweighted with far more adverse consequences to politicians, influencers, and various moneyed interests that have fostered and encouraged those circumstances which make incidents like this not just likely, but an inevitability. That includes incitement to interfere with federal law enforcement, falsely telling the public that ICE and DHS do not have authority to effectuate arrests or are not even law enforcement (the latter a statement made by Walz during a press conference, among others) or any number of ways that Democrat politicians and others have encouraged and galvanized these so-called protests: protests that, from the start, crossed the line from peacefully assembling to petition the government for redress of grievances to impeding and interfering with federal law enforcement.

Several underlying considerations bolster this seemingly shocking and even, at least to some, offensive assessment. First and foremost, the apprehension and deportation of illegal aliens and more particularly illegal aliens with arrest records and violent criminal history is rendered nigh impossible without support from local and state law enforcement to assist with various matters, including most especially riot and crowd control. Democrat politicians like Jacob Frey, Tim Walz, Gavin Newsom, as well as Maura Healy, governor of Massachusetts who demanded that ICE leave the state have gone well beyond not endorsing federal efforts at enforcing immigration law; they have directed local and state law enforcement and other agencies to refuse to cooperate with any federal effort on these matters. Because of this, protestors are given carte blanche license to engage in a wide range of criminal behavior that would not be tolerated in other, every day contexts, from constant, unremittent whistle blowing (disturbing the peace) or intentional impeding and blocking of traffic, to protests late at night and into the wee, witching hours of the morning with the specific design to deprive guests of sleep while at hotels suspected of lodging ICE agents.

As everyone should be well aware, state and local authorities and politicians alike are subject to the supremacy clause of The Constitution. Sanctuary cities and states, directives to thwart federal efforts to apprehend illegals are in violation of federal laws.1 This has been compounded by direct incitements to interfere with federal law enforcement’s effort to apprehend and deport illegal aliens. These and other crimes—including most especially the Somali daycare fraud scandal and other such scandals—must necessarily take precedence over the shooting of Alex Pretti, or for that matter the incident with Kelsea “Kaden Cantsee” Rummler, the littlest pooner who got her eye shot out as a result of entanglements with DHS, or any other adverse event that arises from these organized efforts to thwart ICE and other apprehension and deportation efforts. Indeed, such considerations must take precedence over the shooting of Pretti and other such incidents by some order of magnitude.

Readers who are uneasy about the death of Pretti should consider that such adverse events are not, by any means, an unintended consequence of democrat and leftist strategy to thwart both ICE and the Trump Administration more broadly. They are not only a predictable but intended consequence of such insidious designs, as intent is always inferred from the predictable and indeed inevitable results that any course of conduct causes and is known to cause. Democrats, leftist ideologues, and other such rabble do not care that Pretti is dead; they only care that such adverse events resulting from their concerted efforts lead to political and ideological gain. As Rahm Emmanuel so famously quipped, “never [let] a serious crisis go to waste.”

By assessing the shooting of Pretti from this perspective, it becomes obvious that responding in any way that Democrats want is a losing strategy. To either curtail or suspend ICE operations in Minneapolis or anywhere else is to reward and embolden leftist efforts to thwart Trump’s deportation efforts. However, if the shooting of Pretti would, in other contexts, warrant an indictment at either the state or federal level, the Trump administration is presented with a terrible conundrum. One option for the Administration is to refuse to assist with the indictment at a state level and refuse to indict on a federal level, perhaps while even invoking the Insurrection Act in response to various actions taken by Walz, Frey and others. This would effectively defy democrats, but it would also make the shooting even more of a controversy, enflaming the passions of the political and ideological opposition as well as some misguided persons of the mainstream conservative set. Indeed, such a bold move would likely alienate “law and order” types that pervade much of the Republican constituency and much of the independent, swing voter sorts as well. However, as stated, indicting the officer or officers involved would embolden the Democrats and their allies, giving ideological enemies precisely what they want.

Another far more dynamic approach—and one that must be embraced irrespective of whether there is ultimately any indictment in connection with this shooting or not—concerns countermeasures and counterstrikes. The most effective way to respond to the Pretti shooting and other adverse events that arise from ICE “protests” is not to resort to a passive defense, but precisely the opposite. The Trump Administration must embrace any countermeasures that are both effective and available in response to any such crises such as this shooting. Invoke the Insurrection Act to crush demonstrations in Minneapolis and elsewhere. Couple this bold initiative with indictments on a wide range of matters, from the Somali daycare fraud scandal (and comparable scandals in California and elsewhere) to actionable incitement against legitimate federal law enforcement action to apprehend and deport illegal aliens. Particularly if combined with a minimally competent propaganda campaign that impresses upon the public the widespread death and suffering attributable to Democrat policy, such a bold counterstroke would effectively deflect attention from various excesses of ICE, whether simply perceived or legitimate. Juxtapose the death of Alex Pretti with the long list of Americans who have been killed or harmed as a result of the free-for-all Democrats have given illegal, third-world hordes. If an indictment of the officer or officers involved proves to be either a political or legal necessity, the Trump Administration must abide by a certain axiom in war and politics: if they take one of ours, we take so many more of theirs. The overriding imperative is that the Democrats and the left must—in all circumstances—be rendered in a worse position after these insidious efforts than they were before. If officers involved from this incident must be indicted, either from legal or political necessity, be sure to indict Walz, Frey, and anyone else so that any damage to Trump’s deportation efforts are eclipsed by much greater damage to the Democrat party.

Those readers of a more mainstream persuasion, or for those who are rendered uneasy either about the video footage of Pretti’s demise or value reassuring platitudes and cliches about the rule of law must further consider the mad delirium of fighting according to Queensberry rules while the other side fights no-holds-barred. This lack of symmetry has of course been a fatal flaw of mainstream conservatism for decades. While such tendencies are admirable in societies past that were not so afflicted with the myriad pathologies of modern times, those who fret about the rule of law should consider what regard democrats and the left really have for such lofty ideals. What mind did leftist swine give to the rule of law in their politically motivated prosecution of Kyle Rittenhouse—this despite incontrovertible videographic evidence that not only made proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt impossible, but positively proved his innocence? Certain corners of various social media platforms are comparing the brandishing of firearms by Mark and Patricia McCloskey to this incident. The comparison is made with the explicit assertion that Republicans and those opposed to the left more broadly are hypocritical on the basis that anyone who supports the McCloskey’s right to bear arms must necessarily condemn the shooting of Pretti. Never mind the McCloskys were on their own property as “protestors” trespassed on their property, or that Pretti confronted federal law enforcement while armed and found himself in a physical altercation. This of course is also a key, fundamental distinction between Pretti and Rittenhouse, as the latter gave himself up to authorities, disarming himself with hands in the air. To better discern how leftist swine really regard the law, consider how New York attorney general Letitia James used lawfare to bankrupt VDARE and Peter and Lydia Brimelow. Further consider the obvious disparity between leftist sentiment about Pretti on one hand and the brutal slaying of Ashley Babbitt, to mention nothing of the naked political persecution that motivated and defined the hunting down and subsequent prosecution and conviction of January 6 protestors. And then of course there is the witch hunt of Derek Chauvin himself, who was never granted a trial and should never have been convicted in the first place.

This last example proves beyond all doubt that, for the left, law is simply a means to achieve certain ends. For Democrats and the left more broadly, whether a person should be convicted or not, whether or not a body of laws should be applied one way or precisely the opposite hinges solely and exclusively on considerations of political expediency, with perhaps the single qualifier whether such machinations can be fairly contemplated without being dismissed as utterly preposterous by the unsophisticated masses.

This undoubtedly offends the sensibilities of those of a more mainstream persuasion. In ordinary times and in healthy societies, such compulsions urging the sanctity of the rule of law are not only desirable but necessary. But these are not ordinary times. American society is deeply and irreparably fragmented between two irreconcilable worldviews. Much worse, a sizeable contingent of one faction continues to constrain itself with limitations that the ideological opposition regards with nothing other than opportunism, cynicism, and disdain.

Even this however is an understatement, as is the celebrated and somewhat cliched comparison between Queensbury rules and no-holds-barred fighting. A person who fights “no-holds-barred” generally does not intend to kill his opponent, he just aims to fight dirty, or at least not fight according to the rules his opponent has constrained himself to. Millions of Democrat voters and those who support and engage in these protests want people like this author and readers of this publication dead. They not only want to ICE apprehension efforts to stop, they want to kill and harm ICE agents and those who support them. Social media, especially on TikTok, is rife with such rhetoric, as the twitter accounts for Libs of TikTok and Cassandra MacDonald nee Fairbanks and others have been tirelessly documenting. One pundit cavalierly declared that once Democrats are back in power—assuring that “we will be back in power”—there need to be Nuremberg style trials for ICE agents, Steven Miller, and so many others. Rick Wilson has stated he wants to see Steven Miller and others “dangle.” Elliott Forhan, who is running as a candidate for Attorney General of Ohio, has pledged he will indict, convict, and execute Donald Trump in Ohio state law. This is in the greater context of how many hundreds of thousands if not millions of leftist swine who gloated and celebrated the assassination of Charlie Kirk.

To carry on in response with trite notions about the rule of law or to fret that ICE agents “executed an American citizen” is to fail to perceive the existential threat posed by the left while also giving the left precisely what they want. This asymmetric dynamic between the left on one hand and mainstream conservatism on the other hand has been a critical, defining feature of the so-called “culture war” and explains why such feeble opposition to the left keeps losing, with defeat after impending defeat. The only prospect for preventing the left from consolidating power beyond the point of no return is for a critical mass of the conservative constituency to stop with these mad delusions and fanciful preoccupations. This epiphany is essential for any meaningful opposition to the left to have even a remote prospect for success. The alternative—should the left not be stopped from consolidating power—is unfathomably grim.

Other articles and essays by Richard Parker are available at his publication, The Raven’s Call: A Reactionary Perspective, found at theravenscall.substack.com. Please consider subscribing on a free or paid basis, and to like and share as warranted. Readers can also find him on twitter, under the handle @astheravencalls.