Minnesota Under Strain: Calls for a Real Investigation After the Killing of ICU Nurse Alex Pretti!
Editor’s note (context): A screenshot has been circulating online that raises serious concerns about rising violence and civic breakdown in Minnesota. The screenshot is republished below:
For those with FB accounts use the link above to read the comments
What is publicly reported so far (and what remains disputed)
As of January 27, 2026, multiple major outlets report that Alex Jeffrey Pretti, a 37-year-old ICU nurse in Minneapolis, was killed by federal agents during a confrontation connected to a federal immigration operation.
Public reporting also reflects major disputes about what happened in the seconds leading up to the shooting—particularly whether Pretti posed an immediate threat and how federal force was applied.
Governor Tim Walz’s initial public reaction included language describing federal officers as “violent” and “untrained,” which has become a flashpoint in the online debate and political commentary surrounding this incident.
Follow-up comment (as shared): Tom Kibler’s post about Rep. Pam Altendorf’s remarks
Below is the text as provided from Tom Kibler’s public Facebook post:
MN REP. PAM ALTENDORF SOUNDS THE ALARM: Minnesota State Representative Pam Altendorf issued a blistering critique of Governor Tim Walz and Mayor Jacob Frey on Saturday, accusing them of “inciting violence” following the fatal shooting of 37-year-old ICU nurse Alex Jeffrey Pretti. Altendorf stated that Walz’s immediate social media posts—which labeled federal agents as “violent and untrained”—are “absolutely unacceptable” and are turning Minnesota into a dangerous “pressure cooker”.
Pam: “Hey everyone, this is Minnesota State Representative Pam Altendorf. It is Saturday morning and many people are finding out that there was another shooting that happened here in Minneapolis. I’m sad to report that, and it’s also just devastating to see the leadership that we have in Governor Walz. After the shooting, he immediately went and did a social media post, calling our federal agents violent and untrained. And quite frankly, that is absolutely unacceptable of a leader of our state to be talking that way without knowing the facts, without knowing what happened, and rushing to that conclusion which then is inciting violence. There’s no way around this. Our Governor Walz and Mayor Frey of Minneapolis are inciting violence. It’s also inarguable that people are coming into Minnesota, they’re being bussed in from all over the country, and it’s like a standoff right now. We’re in a pressure cooker here in Minnesota, unfortunately. One that all of the good people of Minnesota never asked for. We don’t want to be here, we don’t want to be in this state, but it is our leadership that is driving this hostile atmosphere, this violence that is happening. I did a video earlier and I mentioned this isn’t happening in other Democrat-held states like Colorado and Michigan. ICE is all over the country. President Trump was elected to help deport some of the criminal aliens that had come across the borders over the Biden administration. And it’s my understanding that this is not happening in other states, not other blue states, because those governors are in some form cooperating with the federal officers. Here in Minnesota, we have leadership of Walz and Mayor Frey who are inciting violence. And I want to talk to all the people of Minnesota because this is putting us in a very dangerous situation. We saw what happened in 2020 after the riots. We saw the leadership of Walz that let our Minneapolis burn for days. Complete chaos, fires, people throwing bricks, they’re looting buildings. Minnesota, we do not want this again. We do not want this again. So Walz, let me tell you, a leader would come out and say, we had an unfortunate situation today. There was a shooting, and I will withhold all comments until we see the facts. Meanwhile, Minnesota, we love our state, and please hold your judgment until we see the video evidence and are able to determine what happened in that incident. But no, not Walz. Walz came out and literally blamed the federal agents, saying that they were violent and untrained, and that is completely unacceptable. So please, everyone, please, I’m going to just say it again. We have to realize Minnesota here is the epicenter, and there’s a reason. They are trying to ignite this violence. It is covering up the fraud, over $9 billion of fraud under Governor Walz. And we need to say no. We have to, if people are participating in this, we have to start calling it out. If someone had a gun and pointed it at federal agents, absolutely, without a doubt, the federal agents have a right to protect themselves. And again, if that’s what happened. Okay, so rushing to judgment, demonizing the police, demonizing the law enforcement, inciting this violence, is absolutely unacceptable. We have to call it out if we want to get our state back, if we want to get control of our state again, and have law and order, which most Minnesotans want. So please, whether you’re a Democrat, a leader, a pastor, a priest, someone of authority, coaches, please join me and raise your voice in saying that we need to tone down the rhetoric. We need to support our law enforcement, and at the same time, realize that if there’s any problems with law enforcement, that we need to hold them accountable. But that’s not what’s happening here. Right now, we are seeing our leadership of Walz and Frye inciting violence. And please, if there’s anything you can do around the state to help call this off, please join me in one unified voice. Thanks everyone. I’m so sorry we’re in this position again. God bless. And I want you to know that we are going to get through this, but we really need people to help. And we also need to call it out that we cannot accept Walz using people across Minnesota, inciting this violence, inciting the hate against our law enforcement. We have to call it out for what it is. Let the facts come out and then let justice be served. Thanks everyone. God bless and God bless our state of Minnesota.”
Editorial note: accountability must reach the top
Regardless of where anyone lands politically, human beings who are not harming anyone have a right to experience life free from violence and fear.
It is time for an actual investigation—one that does not stop at the street level. If directives, tactics, rules of engagement, training, coordination, or public messaging contributed to escalation and harm, then the ones giving the orders must be scrutinized for their role and culpability, not just the ones wearing uniforms on the ground.
What a real investigation should clearly answer
A credible inquiry should establish, at minimum:
Chain of command: who authorized the operation, who commanded the scene, and what policies governed use of force.
Evidence handling: immediate preservation of body-cam / surveillance / bystander footage, communications logs, and after-action reports.
Use-of-force timeline: second-by-second reconstruction (including whether medical aid was promptly provided).
Public statements vs. verified facts: a documented comparison of early claims by officials with independently verifiable evidence.
These questions matter because the public deserves clarity—especially when a killing triggers community shock, protests, and rising rhetoric.
In Closing
We can demand accountability and refuse to dehumanize one another. The path forward is truth, transparency, and restraint—paired with a serious commitment to investigate decisions at every level.
_____________________
I asked AI: “Is a fatal shooting by ICE agents ‘legalized murder’?”
Legal Framework
The question of whether actions taken by ICE (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement) agents could be considered “legalized murder” is a complex and contentious issue. It involves legal definitions, political perspectives, and ethical discussions.
Justification of Use of Force
ICE agents operate under laws that allow for the use of force in specific circumstances, for instance, when they are making arrests or enforcing immigration laws. The legality of their actions typically relies on several factors:
Use of Deadly Force: Generally, law enforcement officers are permitted to use deadly force when they believe it is necessary to protect themselves or others from imminent harm.
Rules of Engagement: Specific protocols dictate how and when agents can engage with individuals, especially in high-risk scenarios.
Ethical Considerations
Perspectives on Enforcement
Many critics argue that certain actions, especially those resulting in fatalities during ICE operations, may not align with ethical law enforcement practices. Concerns include:
Lack of Accountability: There are allegations that incidents of excessive force are not adequately investigated or punished.
Targeting Vulnerable Populations: The implications of targeting undocumented immigrants can render these actions morally troubling for many.
Public opinion varies widely, with some viewing ICE as necessary for upholding immigration laws, while others see it as an agency that enforces policies leading to unjust harm and fatalities.
Public Perception
Conclusion
Whether actions by ICE agents may amount to “legalized murder” largely depends on legal interpretations, specific details of incidents, and personal or societal ethics. Continuous debate around this issue reflects deeper societal questions about immigration policy, law enforcement, and human rights.
___________
This leads me to the next segment
To understand why emotions run so high whenever a fatal encounter involves immigration enforcement, it helps to step back and look at the structure behind it. The words “immigrant,” “nonimmigrant,” and even “alien” aren’t just cultural labels—they’re legal categories that developed over time as governments expanded border control, documentation requirements, and enforcement powers. In the next segment, I asked my AI companion Sage to give a grounded, plain-language background on immigration law, what an “immigrant” means in everyday life versus U.S. legal terms, and when the modern era of restricted movement replaced earlier, looser patterns of travel and relocation.
Immigration laws, in plain language
“Immigration law” is the set of rules a country uses to decide:
Who may enter (and on what conditions)
How long they may stay (temporary vs. permanent)
Who may work/study/visit (visa categories)
Who may become a citizen (naturalization)
Who may be removed/deported and the procedures for doing so
In the United States, the core framework is the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) (enacted 1952, then amended many times).
What is an “immigrant”?
Everyday meaning
An immigrant is someone who moves to another country to live there (not just visit).
U.S. legal meaning
U.S. immigration law uses more technical terms. In the INA:
An “alien” means a person who is not a U.S. citizen or national.
An “immigrant” is essentially every alien who is not in a listed “nonimmigrant” (temporary) category.
A “nonimmigrant” is someone admitted for a specific temporary period under conditions/limits (tourism, study, temporary work, etc.).
So, in U.S. terms: immigrant = (not a citizen/national) + not here temporarily under a nonimmigrant category.
When did people stop moving freely without being labeled “immigrants”?
There isn’t one single date worldwide. It changed gradually, and depended on the country. But a few big shifts created the modern system.
1) Before the 1900s: cross-border movement often required less paperwork (but wasn’t “free” for everyone)
Many people crossed borders without standardized documents, but governments still restricted movement in various ways (class, race, health, “undesirable” categories, wartime controls). The idea that travel was universally free is more myth than reality.
2) Late 1800s–early 1900s (U.S.): federal restriction begins in earnest
The U.S. moved from a relatively open posture to formal restriction:
1882 Chinese Exclusion Act: the National Archives describes it as the first significant federal law restricting immigration.
1917 Immigration Act: created barred-zone restrictions and other exclusion tools.
3) World War I era: passports/controls become normal internationally
During WWI, governments tightened travel controls and documentation. For U.S. citizens specifically, the National Archives notes passport requirements were imposed during WWI (1918–1921), and passport norms accelerated after this period. Internationally, the League of Nations held passport conferences beginning in the 1920s and created early standards—reflecting how travel documentation became a mainstream state practice after WWI.
4) 1924 (U.S.): visas + quotas + modern border control structure
A major turning point for “being labeled an immigrant” in U.S. law is the Immigration Act of 1924 (Johnson-Reed Act):
It limited immigration via national origins quotas and excluded immigration from Asia.
It also cemented the idea that many immigrants must obtain a visa abroad before entry (a big shift toward the modern “permission first” system).
5) Mid-1900s onward: passports become broadly mandatory for travel
For U.S. travelers, the National Archives notes passports became mandatory broadly during WWII-era controls and later, with a 1978 amendment making it illegal to enter/leave the U.S. without a passport even in peacetime (with some exceptions).
The simplest way to frame it
Humans have moved across regions for all of history.
The modern “immigrant/nonimmigrant” labeling grew with the modern nation-state, and hardened during:
late 1800s–1920s (restriction + categories + visas), and
WWI/WII (passport and travel-control normalization).
If you tell me whether you want this background framed globally (passport + nation-state history) or U.S.-specific (INA, visas, ICE, use-of-force context), I’ll tailor it and add a clean timeline you can publish as a sidebar in your article.
I said: I’ve had a number of experiences that have caused me to pause and ask some vital questions about the need for a passport. The very idea of a passport, as I understand it, is to move through a port of entry associated with taxable activity. I see it as the movement of goods from one region to another. My ethics, morality, spiritual integrity, and religious doctrine are opposed to turning a man into a revenue stream. There must be another lawful way to move about the earth.
Sage said:
I understand the distinction you’re making — and it can be useful philosophically — but in mainstream law and court practice, “illegal” and “unlawful” usually overlap a lot.
How these words are usually used in courts
Illegal: commonly means prohibited by law (often a statute/regulation). It can carry a “this violates a specific rule” vibe.
Unlawful: generally means not authorized by law. It can be broader and is often used for civil/administrative wrongs too (not only crimes).
Lawful: permitted/authorized by law.
Legal: sometimes means “relating to law,” and sometimes “permitted by law,” depending on context.
So, if something violates a statute (like an entry/exit requirement), many judges would treat it as both illegal and unlawful in ordinary usage.
I said:
I’ve had a number of experiences that have caused me to pause and ask some vital questions about the need for a passport. I’ve realized that nothing in this world is quite as it appears. There are rules and regulations in place that I’ve never knowingly and willfully consented to, and that has led me to reflect deeply on freedom of movement. Being able to experience the joy of life—to explore the world free from the legal realm—is very important to me.
The very idea of a passport, as I see it, is to move through a port of entry associated with taxable activity. I see it as the movement of goods from one region to another. I’ve never been taught how everything is funded, and I’ve come to realize that I’ve applied for services without understanding what presumptions were being made. Over the years, I’ve been left wondering what has happened to my inherent, unalienable (inalienable) rights to the essentials of life. Why do I not have bodily autonomy, including the right to choose my own health care plan? I’ve never actually been given the opportunity to sit down with policymakers. In other words, there has never been a lawful determination—made with my knowledge and participation—of my status as a “taxpayer,” or of my standing as a wombman and living soul.
When I say “legal,” I’m referring to what I experience as a commercial-administrative framework—rules, paperwork, fees, penalties, and taxation. When I say “lawful,” I’m speaking from the standpoint of natural rights, inherent authority, bodily autonomy, and conscience. From that lens, what some would call “unlawful” travel feels to me more like “illegal” travel—meaning prohibited under the rules of the system—while my deeper question remains: Is there another lawful way to move about the earth that does not convert a man or wombman into a revenue stream? My ethics, morality, spiritual integrity, and religious doctrine are opposed to that premise.
I said: i would like to explore what you said, “So, if something violates a statute (like an entry/exit requirement), many judges would treat it as both illegal and unlawful in ordinary usage.” Looking at private and public and when or where the statutes apply. Policing powers is well documented in City Charters and under statutes. It is unclear why the AI is incapable of making that distinction.
Sage said: You’re not wrong that “public vs private” matters — it just matters in more than one way, and those ways often get mixed together. Once you separate them, the “why judges treat it as both illegal and unlawful” part makes more sense.
Three different “public/private” distinctions people often blend together
Many constitutional protections (speech, due process, equal protection) primarily restrain government actors, not purely private parties. That’s the “state action doctrine.” So here the “public/private” line is: Is the actor the state (or acting on behalf of the state)?
1) Constitutional limits: state action vs private action
2) “Public law vs private law”
This is about the type of law:
Public law = government regulation/enforcement (criminal law, admin rules, immigration, taxes).
Private law = contracts, torts, property disputes between private parties.
This distinction does not mean statutes only apply to “public people.” It’s a classification of legal fields.
A government employee can act:
3) Official capacity vs personal capacity
in an official capacity (using state power), or
in a private capacity (like any other resident).
Police powers, immigration enforcement, licensing, etc., are official-capacity functions.
The key point: statutes can apply to private people too
A statute’s reach depends on what it says: who it covers (“any person,” “citizen,” “alien,” “employer,” “driver,” “property owner,” etc.) and what conduct it regulates.
Lots of statutes regulate private conduct (e.g., theft laws, traffic codes, building standards). The fact that someone is “private” does not automatically place them outside statutory regulation.
So the “distinction” that usually matters legally is not “private people are exempt,” but:
Does the statute apply to this person/conduct?
Is the enforcement actor exercising state power lawfully?
Why I said judges often treat “illegal” and “unlawful” as overlapping
In ordinary legal usage, “unlawful” often means “illegal or not authorized by law.” Cornell’s legal dictionary (Wex) describes unlawful that way.
And sometimes the statute itself uses the word “unlawful” for what most people would casually call “illegal.” Example: U.S. travel-control law says it shall be unlawful for a U.S. citizen to depart from or enter the U.S. without a valid U.S. passport (subject to exceptions). So a judge reading that is likely to treat the conduct as both “illegal” (violates a rule of law) and “unlawful” (not authorized by law), because the law uses “unlawful” as the operative term.
Where your “city charter / policing powers” point fits
You’re right that policing authority is documented in statutes + charters + ordinances. But a city’s power generally comes from (and is limited by) state law and the city’s charter; municipalities don’t have unlimited inherent authority.
That’s why the real legal question in many disputes isn’t “public vs private,” but:
Did the officer/agency have lawful authority for this act (scope + procedure)?
Did the city/state exceed what the enabling statute/charter allows (ultra vires / preemption)?
A clean way to make the distinction you’re aiming for
When evaluating any “rule” that impacts your life, run this checklist:
What’s the source? statute, regulation, ordinance, charter provision?
Who does it claim to bind? “any person,” “citizen,” “resident,” “licensee,” etc.
Where does it apply? territory/jurisdiction + ports/borders + special zones.
Who is enforcing it, and in what capacity? (state actor vs private actor)
What remedy exists if it’s overreach? administrative appeal, judicial review, constitutional challenge, tort, etc.
If you want, paste the exact statute/ordinance/charter clause you’re looking at (or tell me the city/state/country), and I’ll walk through those five questions on that text so the “private/public” boundaries are mapped clearly and concretely.
I said: Why are the police getting away with applying statutes to people when they do not apply?
Sage said: Here are the biggest reasons, in plain terms:
1) Street enforcement happens before legal review
On the roadside/in the moment, an officer is making a fast judgment call. The review (judge, prosecutor, suppression hearing) comes later, and only if someone has the time/resources to contest it.
2) Courts sometimes uphold stops even when the officer misunderstood the law
In the U.S., the Supreme Court has held that a reasonable mistake of law can still support reasonable suspicion for a stop (Heien v. North Carolina). That doctrine is a big part of why it can feel like “statutes are being applied when they don’t apply.”
3) Civil accountability is hard because of qualified immunity
Even if a right was violated, officers are often protected from personal civil liability unless the violated right was “clearly established” in a very specific way. That reduces the consequences of “wrong statute / wrong application” unless there’s close precedent.
4) Even when police act wrongfully, evidence may still be admitted
The good-faith exception (from United States v. Leon) means evidence isn’t always excluded if police relied in “good faith” on a warrant later found defective. So some cases don’t produce a strong corrective “penalty” even when there was legal error.
5) Suing the city/government is also constrained
Under Monell, municipalities aren’t automatically liable just because they employ an officer; plaintiffs usually must show an official policy or custom caused the violation. That makes systemic accountability harder.
6) Practical barriers keep many people from challenging
Deadlines, filing fees, fear of retaliation, lack of counsel, plea pressure, and the “credibility gap” (courts often credit officer narratives unless video/records contradict) all mean fewer wrong applications get fully tested in court.
The “public vs private” part (the key distinction)
Being a “private” person generally does not exempt someone from statutes. What matters legally is usually:
Does the statute’s text cover this person/conduct?
Did the officer have lawful authority + proper factual basis to apply it?
Were required procedures followed?
So the fight is often not “I’m private,” but “the elements don’t fit” (wrong law / missing element / no jurisdiction / no reasonable suspicion / no probable cause).
If you want to write this in your article as a clear takeaway
You could say something like:
Many people feel statutes are being applied to them when they don’t fit. Part of that is structural: street-level enforcement happens first, and legal review comes later—if it happens at all. Courts also allow certain buffers that protect mistaken enforcement, including “reasonable mistake of law” doctrines and qualified-immunity barriers, which can make misapplications difficult to remedy.
If you tell me one concrete example (what statute they cited, what the officer claimed, and what facts you believe show it didn’t apply), I’ll help you map it using a clean “elements vs facts” checklist and identify the exact point where the application breaks.
Freedom Dove 
Leave a comment