When shootings like those involving Renee Good and Alex Pretti occur, the reaction is immediate and unforgiving. Within seconds, judgment hardens. Two opposing narratives form, each fueled by politics, emotion, and incomplete information.
These incidents did not occur in a vacuum. Both individuals placed themselves directly in harm’s way by feloniously obstructing federal ICE agents engaged in official duties. They were not present as passive or peaceful protesters. Each was killed during the commission of a violent felony. The central question is not whether force was used, but whether the force applied was necessary and legally justified under rapidly unfolding circumstances.
Multiple videos exist of both encounters. None clearly establish what actually happened. The footage is fragmented, obscured, and inconclusive. As investigations continue, additional video may surface. Only careful, frame-by-frame analysis may eventually clarify the sequence of events.
Use-of-force encounters are not measured in seconds. They unfold in milliseconds. These situations are governed by training, reflex, muscle memory, and survival instinct. There is often no time to process options or construct a measured response to a perceived lethal threat.
In the Pretti shooting, a critical question remains unanswered. Why would an individual bring a loaded firearm while attempting to obstruct ICE agents conducting enforcement operations? That decision alone placed every person present in immediate mortal danger.
Some fatal encounters are not intentional acts but tragic outcomes of self-created risk. When an individual inserts themselves into a violent confrontation, officers may respond instinctively, driven solely by survival.
A largely unexamined factor in the Pretti case is the possibility of weapon malfunction. Pretti was armed with a Sig Sauer P320 pistol. Millions of these firearms have been sold, and they have been widely issued to law enforcement agencies and the United States military.
However, the Sig P320 has been removed from duty service by several police departments, including the Chicago Police Department. The firearm has been associated with multiple incidents in which unintentional discharges were reported, sometimes attributed to jostling or movement.
What is known is this. An agent shouted “gun, gun,” and a shot was fired almost simultaneously. That sequence would trigger an immediate survival response in any rational person. In such conditions, an unintentional escalation is not only possible, it is foreseeable.
Responsibility for initiating these events lies with the individuals who deliberately obstructed federal agents while armed. That decision set the entire chain of events into motion.
As for the ICE officers, the law affords them the presumption of lawful conduct. Officers are entitled to the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise. Emotion, outrage, and political pressure do not alter that legal reality. Innocence remains the standard until guilt is established by evidence.
Comments