1. United States
2. Va.
3. Letter

Yesterday another US Citizen was killed at the hands of ICE. Alex Pretti’s actions appear to have been entirely lawful under Minnesota carry law and core First Amendment protections. He was entitled to be present. Entitled to film. Entitled to assemble. Entitled to carry a firearm. There is no doctrine—statutory, constitutional, or judicial—that says these rights evaporate when federal agents feel nervous. Now, the defenders of the indefensible—those who rush to explain that Pretti should have “known better”—are not wholly wrong about one thing. Legal rights do not magically neutralize how violence behaves in the real world. Federal immigration enforcement in Minneapolis has produced multiple civilian shootings, widespread protest, and a growing archive of video evidence that would embarrass a third-rate banana republic. In that environment, the risk of death is radically asymmetric. Federal agents operate with minimal oversight, maximal immunity, and a demonstrated fondness for escalation to deadly force. But here is where the amateur apologists for state violence perform their favorite sleight of hand. They take this prudential observation—it’s dangerous to be armed near unaccountable agents ready to kill—and retroactively convert it into guilt and criminal accountability upon the State’s victims. They say: “Pretti should have retreated.” “Pretti should have stayed home.” “Pretti should not have helped a woman being shoved to the ground.” “Pretti should not have documented federal agents behaving badly.” In short: “Pretti should have known his place.” But what matters under our laws is not whether a man failed to make the safest possible choice under stress. What matters is whether officers had a reasonable belief that he posed an imminent threat of death or grave bodily harm. That is the standard. And there is no evidence at present that the standard was met. Alex Pretti was a 37-year-old ICU nurse. A lawful gun owner, like yourself. No serious criminal history. Family members and eyewitnesses dispute DHS’s claim that he attempted to draw a weapon. Video shows no brandishing, no reach, no muzzle flash, no officers under fire, no public threatened with deadly force. In plain English, there are no facts that justify killing him. So when commentators insist that Pretti “brought this on himself,” what they are really saying is not that the law was satisfied, but that unquestioned obedience to any act of the State is now the price of survival. Rights may exist on paper, but exercising them in the wrong tone, posture, or zip code is a provocation that can result in death. This doctrine—that citizens must preemptively surrender to unlawful behavior to prevent police panic—is not public safety. It is not Second Amendment jurisprudence. It is not consistent with federal deadly-force policy or Supreme Court precedent. Blaming the victim of unlawful violence for failing to perfectly navigate an asymmetric, unaccountable use of force is how states rot. It is how restraint becomes cowardice, protest becomes provocation, and eventually, violence becomes the only remaining language anyone believes will be heard. YOU have the power to stop this. To keep all Americans safe, as you indicated was a priority for you in a recent letter your office sent to me. Unmask ICE. Require oversight. Require adherence to the constitution. Americans are dying.