WHY THE SECOND ALEX PRETTI VIDEO MATTERS-AND DOESN'T

National Review

 

Why the Second Alex Pretti Video Matters — and Doesn’t

By Charles C. W. Cooke

January 29, 2026 7:30 AM

 

There’s a second video of Alex Pretti getting himself into an altercation with federal agents. This one is from January 13, eleven days before Pretti was killed. It has been verified by the BBC. It shows Pretti spitting at, and then kicking the tail light out of, a federally owned SUV. Under 18 U.S.C. § 1361, that’s a misdemeanor if the damage is under $1,000, and a felony if the damage exceeds $1,000. Under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), it is a felony if the perpetrator was armed at the time — which Pretti appeared to be.

 

The near-universal response to this video from those who disdain ICE has been to ask “why does it matter?” This is a fair question. Certainly, it doesn’t “matter” if by “matter” we mean “change the legitimacy of what happened to Pretti a week or so later.” That, indeed, stands alone. Pretti was shot dead in specific circumstances, not as a punishment for his cumulative actions or for being a hothead in general. That, a few days earlier, he was taped committing vandalism and interfering with the execution of federal law while armed does not justify what occurred in a later, unrelated case.

 

But it does change some of the other claims that have been made about Pretti — just as additional video nixed the false claim that Renee Good was just a confused and panicked mother who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. In essence, there are two arguments currently being advanced about Pretti. The first is that he was unjustly killed. I agree with this. The second is that he was a saint. That is silly. According to that second narrative, Pretti was a kind and loving nurse, who, outraged by what he was seeing in his community, selflessly took time out of his busy schedule helping babies and kittens to protest against Trump’s excesses. As a mere “observer,” this account insists, Pretti had no interest in fighting with federal agents, or in committing crimes, or in endangering himself, and yet, despite his peaceful selflessness, he randomly lost his life.

 

The second video shows that this simply is not an accurate description of the man. Does that matter? Yeah, it does. As citizens, we ought always to strive for the truth, and we are currently being presented with an account of Pretti that isn’t true. Should we let it go, simply because it feels mean to point it out? If it is the case — and it is — that it does not matter to the legitimacy of his shooting whether Pretti was an angel or a villain, then . . . well, it does not matter to the legitimacy of his shooting whether Pretti was an angel or a villain. But, obviously, that has to apply in all circumstances. When the media smuggles in the assumption that Pretti was just a lovely, peaceful, politically conscientious nurse, but then says “well, why does it matter anyway?” when footage is discovered of him spitting at federal agents and vandalizing a federal car, it is attempting to have it both ways. Surely, it cannot be the case that if he’s a sympathetic figure, it matters, but that if he’s not a sympathetic figure, it does not? I agree entirely that the Alex Pretti incident speaks for itself, irrespective of his character. I do not agree that this rule is to obtain only when it’s convenient to Jacob Frey and The View.