While we're at it... Part 11

The immigration debate and the subsequent deaths of two of our fellow Americans (regardless of what one thinks of their political views) during anti ICE protests raised quite a few questions, especially the killing of Alex Pretti. Rather than have me, your humble scribe, take you down that rabbit hole, I happen to have the ability to draw on the expertise of a former CBP agent who was more than gracious enough to fill us in on some of his musings. So, without further ado.....

Alex Pretti was unarmed when he was shot and killed by CBP agents. Was he carrying a gun to a protest? Yes. Did he put his gun on and knowingly go to this rally to protest? Who knows. He certainly can’t speak for himself now.  As someone who has legally carried a concealed firearm for 40 years, and who has assisted in training at concealed carry courses, I have always preached that if you are carrying a firearm, you should be LESS likely to get involved in a situation that has the potential to escalate into a use of force incident. The fact that he put on his gun that day should have made him avoid going to any protest, let alone getting into a confrontation with law enforcement.  Additionally, a vital point of any concealed weapons training that we have taught (should be in every course) is that when you are carrying a concealed weapon, you should disclose that to law enforcement and comply with all of their commands so that officers do not mistakenly perceive you as a threat and take appropriate action.

As far as the officers go, having conducted use of force training in both law enforcement as well as military environments, there are elements that must be present to use force. (While I am retired and these continue to evolve, the terms may change but the elements are generally the same.)

1. Ability: Does the suspect possess the ability to kill you or a third party or to cause you or a third party great bodily harm?

2. Opportunity: Does the suspect have the opportunity to kill you or a third party, or cause you or a third party great bodily harm?

3. Imminent Jeopardy: Has the suspect placed you or a third party in imminent jeopardy?

4. Preclusion: Have you reasonably exhausted all other avenues of retreat at that time and at that place? Was there the feasibility or availability of alternative actions?

Secretary Kristy Noem stated that Pretti was armed with a 9mm handgun. While this is factually true, it is misleading because his handgun was concealed. Sadly, in the midst of the confrontation with law enforcement, it became the element that caused agents to use deadly force against him.  One thing I must point out, any individual who carries a firearm, whether legal or not, has turned every encounter they may have into an armed encounter. I believe this situation would not have occurred had he chosen not to bring his firearm to any protest.

Now let’s consider the officers’ actions. As a police officer, you are judged on the standard known as “Objective Reasonableness”. This became the standard for evaluation of use of force incidents based on the Graham v. Connor Supreme Court case. The court ruled that the “reasonableness” of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight. There are three key elements to the Graham v. Connor decision:

1.           The totality of the circumstances. Judges and juries must consider only what the officer knew at the moment that force was used.

2.           Split-Second judgement: The law recognizes that police officers are often forced to make rapid decisions in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving.

3.           Objective Standard: The officer’s underlying intent or motivation (whether good or bad) is irrelevant; what matters is whether a “reasonable” officer would have acted similarly under the same conditions.

To simplify this, I am thinking of an example we created regularly in our use of force training such as mistaking a cell phone for a firearm. In many training situations officers in high stress situations often used force only to find out after the fact that the individual was carrying a phone. If you look at the 4 elements required to use force, clearly a cell phone doesn’t give an individual an opportunity. But coupled with other factors such as what occurred leading up to the encounter, was the individual being non-compliant with commands, was the individual actively resisting arrest or being combative? The sudden and unexpected presentation of something in a suspect’s hands may lead to using force and Graham v. Connor ensures the use of force is evaluated solely by those facts. Hindsight that the individual produced a phone becomes irrelevant if a “reasonable” officer would make the same decision under the same circumstances.

Alex Pretti was engaged in active confrontation with agents acting within the scope of their authority. (While some question their authority, enforcement of immigration law is legal under Federal law, and I believe ICE and other federal agents are empowered to carry out those duties.) So, my question is, was Alex Pretti engaging in “peaceful” protesting or was he actually engaged in obstructing and delaying officers attempting to perform their duties?  There are many differing opinions, but it appears to me that he was attempting to prevent officers from doing their jobs. I also must consider what has been occurring at these “peaceful” protests. Agents have been assaulted; one recently had a portion of his finger bitten off. People have driven cars at them; people have thrown bricks/rocks/projectiles at them… The “peaceful” protests carried out under the guise of freedom of speech are certainly not “peaceful”. Some things to consider… Has the escalation of these “peaceful” protests created a heightened sense of awareness or threat to Agents? Is there a right to obstruct and delay officers in the lawful performance of their duty? Is there a right to assault officers? 

In trying to look at this situation from the vantage point of the officers on the scene, they are attempting to carry out immigration enforcement operations in a community and are met with active obstructing. People are blowing whistles, blocking roads, keeping them from performing their legally authorized duty. Pretti appears to be standing in the roadway. For whatever reason, Pretti and an officer get into a confrontation and Pretti is pepper sprayed. Officers then attempt to subdue him on the ground. At some point Pretti’s firearm becomes visible (not sure at what point it was seen, but someone starts yelling “Gun”. The gun appears to have been removed by a plain clothes agent. Clearly not all of the officers see where the gun is. The agent with the gun appears to run off and Pretti continues to fight with officers and engages in active resistance. Simultaneously, hearing an agent repeatedly yelling “Gun” and seeing the fighting and active resistance, one of the officers shoots Pretti, perceiving that he is actively resisting officers and has a gun. Other officers hear the gunshot, back off and see Pretti continuing to make furtive movements and perceive the threat has still not stopped. This entire situation has escalated into something that resulted in Pretti losing his life. While it is certainly sad when anyone loses their life at the hands of law enforcement, my opinion is that the Agents’ actions when looked at under the “reasonableness” standard do not warrant criminal charges.

In trying to determine a root cause, I then ask why these protests are taking place. Protests against ICE emerge from a deep tension between law enforcement and humanitarian concern. To critics of ICE, the agency represents a system that too often prioritizes enforcement over due-process, family unity, and proportionality. Public protest is seen as a necessary tool to expose harm, pressure institutions, and stand in solidarity with communities that feel targeted or silenced.

From a pro-enforcement perspective, however, ICE is carrying out laws enacted through democratic processes and protesting enforcement rather than reforming the law risks weakening the rule of law itself. The argument here is that inconsistent enforcement erodes deterrence, shifts risks into communities, and ultimately benefits criminal networks and exploitative employers more than migrants themselves.

Both sides point to the same underlying failures: outdated statutes, overwhelmed courts, and political paralysis in Congress. Where they diverge is on tactics—whether moral urgency justifies resistance to enforcement, or whether effective reform depends on maintaining enforcement credibility while laws are changed. The conflict persists not because one side values justice and the other does not, but because each defines justice through a different balance of compassion, accountability, and institutional trust.

Now I have to consider who stands to benefit from these protests.  Actively resisting ICE most consistently benefits political actors and advocacy organizations by mobilizing supporters, attracting funding (think Black Lives Matter and the millions that were raised and used for personal gain), and shifting public debate toward emotionally charged enforcement issues rather than difficult legislative or oversight reforms. Some undocumented individuals may gain short-term uneven protection from reduced enforcement, while—indirectly—labor exploiters, fraud networks, and transnational criminal groups can benefit from weaker oversight, regardless of the intent of resistance. It appears that ICE protests have become well-coordinated, and I believe politicians in blue cities and states are using it to divert attention from fraud or political scandals. (Who is talking about the billions spent on Somali day care centers in Minnesota?) Additionally, media and political incentives favor visible, moralized conflicts over complex accountability failures, allowing immigration debates to crowd out sustained scrutiny of government oversight breakdowns. High-profile fraud cases tied to specific organizations or individuals are therefore not treated as institutional failures but rather community traits. There is a failure to reinforce the core issues of governance and enforcement capacity, in favor of ethnicity or immigration status.

The locations these protests are taking place in are primarily “blue” cities/states that have sanctuary policies. There are countless examples of criminal illegal aliens being arrested by local law enforcement only to be released back into the community to offend again. Sanctuary policies often make immigration enforcement more dangerous and less effective by blocking cooperation between ICE and local law enforcement, forcing arrests out of secure settings like jails and courts and into neighborhoods and workplaces. When ICE cannot take custody of individuals already lawfully detained and identified, enforcement shifts into the community, increasing risks to officers, families, and bystanders while eroding deterrence and clogging an already backlogged system. This fragmented approach can unintentionally benefit labor exploiters and criminal networks, while creating fear through unpredictable, visible enforcement. Allowing ICE to work in coordination with local agencies enables quiet, controlled transfers of custody, improves public safety, preserves due process, and produces a more orderly system that is ultimately more humane and accountable.

Taking this another step back to look at root cause, why are there so many illegal aliens in this country? As the “great melting pot”, America accepts people from around the world. We are also some of the most generous people in the world. While this is a great attribute, it has also created a system that favors the illegal immigrant over the American Citizen. Americans spend billions of dollars each year to provide services for illegal immigrants. Many countries across the globe ensure that immigrants have a sponsor or have the means to fully support themselves without government reliance. Those who support open borders are hypocritical if they are not opening up their homes and personally financing support efforts for those they are inviting into America.

So, why would we choose to open our borders? During the Biden administration, America was flooded with immigrants. In many cases, immigrants were selectively placed in historically red states and areas. In order to determine why this would happen, we must consider the current power struggle on the national political scene. The balance of power between Republicans and Democrats is controlled by a narrow margin. The allocation of seats in the US House of Representatives as well as votes in the electoral college is based on the population count of the US Census. The more people are relocated across the country, the more representatives and electoral college votes that can come from those areas. As we continue to look at root cause, we must consider the current push for and against voter ID.

With countless illegal immigrants pushed into predominantly red states, there have been multiple proposals that would permanently alter the voting demographic of these states. Why would there be such resistance to Voter ID if there wasn’t an active plan to alter the outcome of elections? Why would there be a push for amnesty for illegal immigrants? Why do some states already allow non-citizens to vote in local elections? How are non-citizen voters separated from citizen voters in elections with both National and Local offices on the ballot?  Ultimately, I believe it is all about power and control at the National level.

In conclusion: At its core, this tragedy is not just about one man’s choices or an officer’s split-second decision under duress. It is the downstream consequence of a much larger struggle over power, governance, and control of the nation’s future. Failed immigration laws, sanctuary policies, politicized protests, and selective enforcement have pushed lawful duties into chaotic public confrontations where risk is magnified for everyone involved. These confrontations are then leveraged by political actors and advocacy groups to mobilize support, deflect accountability, and reshape public opinion—often without addressing the underlying legislative paralysis that created the problem in the first place. When viewed in totality, the conflict surrounding ICE, immigration enforcement, and protests like this one ultimately reflects a broader battle over demographic influence, electoral power, and who will shape the direction of the United States. The loss of life is tragic, but the root cause lies in a political system that has allowed power and control to take precedence over clear laws, coordinated enforcement, and genuine reform. I believe America should be governed by American Citizens. There are legal means to immigrate to America, and those who choose to come, should do so legally and assimilate into this melting pot, and become Patriotic Americans who support this great country.