Patriot Brief
- What Happened: Attorney and self-defense expert Andrew Branca explained on a national podcast why the shooting of Alex Pretti by federal agents is legally justified.
- Why It Matters: Branca broke down the interaction, arguing officers acted under threat and within self-defense law.
- Bottom Line: According to Branca, the officers’ split-second decisions meet the legal standard for justifiable force.
Attorney and self-defense expert Andrew Branca said the fatal shooting of Alex Pretti by federal agents in Minneapolis was legally justified, pointing to the chaotic nature of the encounter and how the officers perceived the threat. Branca laid out his analysis during a recent podcast appearance, explaining why he believes the agents acted within the law.
Branca said the legal question centers on whether the officers reasonably believed Pretti posed an imminent threat of unlawful deadly force. In his view, multiple elements of the video footage and available evidence support that conclusion.
According to Branca, Pretti initially interfered with the arrest of another person and physically made contact with a federal officer, which he said is itself a forcible felony that justified officers attempting to take him into custody. “The moment he makes contact with that officer, he’s just committed a federal felony good for eight years in a federal penitentiary,” Branca said.
Branca added that Pretti was non-compliant when officers attempted to arrest him, resisted, and was discovered to be carrying a handgun. As officers struggled with him, they heard a shout of “gun” and saw Pretti’s hand move from his waistline with a dark object in it. In Branca’s assessment, that combination of factors is the type of threat that would justify deadly force “999 times out of a thousand” by law enforcement.
Branca emphasized that self-defense law does not require perfect decisions. Rather it requires officers to make reasonable judgments based on rapidly unfolding and dangerous circumstances. In this case, Branca said the totality of the situation would lead most law enforcement officers to conclude there was an imminent threat, meeting the legal standard for justified use of force.
Critics and some analysts have raised questions about aspects of the encounter, and debates continue in public forums. But Branca’s breakdown frames the shooting as consistent with recognized self-defense principles and federal law governing the use of force by officers.