On the morning of January 24, 2026, Alex Pretti was shot and killed in broad daylight on a Minneapolis street by a U.S. Border Patrol agent. His death marks the second fatal shooting by federal agents in Minnesota this month, following the killing of Renée Nicole Good on January 7. Even as the details were still emerging, something far more disturbing than the incident itself was crystallizing in its aftermath: the number of Americans rushing to defend why shooting him was justified.
I’m not just talking about official government statements or legal defenses. I’m talking about ordinary citizens—people who claim to love freedom, who post about the Constitution, who say they support the Second Amendment—arguing that this man somehow deserved to die.
Their reasoning follows a disturbingly familiar pattern. I’ve heard it before. So have the Holocaust survivors I know. It’s the logic that precedes every slide into authoritarianism, and it’s being normalized in American discourse right now, in real time, by people who think they’re defending law and order.
They’re not. They’re defending tyranny. And they don’t even realize it.
“Why Was He There?”
This is always the first question. Not “What did he do?” Not “Did he break any laws?” But: “Why was he there?”
The implication is that mere presence in a location where law enforcement is operating is inherently suspicious. That being a witness to government action is, itself, a provocative act deserving of consequences.
Think about what this means.
If “being there” is justification for being shot, then no one can ever observe law enforcement. No one can document federal operations. No one can serve as a witness to how government power is exercised against citizens. The very act of watching becomes criminal.
This isn’t law and order. This is a police state.
In a free society, you have every right to be present in public spaces. You have every right to observe government officials performing their duties. This isn’t interference—it’s the foundational check on government power that separates democracies from dictatorships.
When people ask “Why was he there?” they’re really asking “Why didn’t he just look away?” And when citizens learn to look away from government action, atrocities become not only possible but inevitable.
“He Should Have Just Complied”
The second argument follows quickly behind the first: Whatever happened, he should have just done what the agents told him to do. Immediately. Without question. Perfect obedience to any command from anyone wearing a badge.
I’ve been in emergency services for over 40 years. I’ve been a firefighter, a paramedic, and a Fire Chief. I understand the need for scene control and the importance of following directions from emergency responders.
But here’s what civilians saying “just comply” don’t understand: Compliance is not the same as surrender of one’s constitutional rights.
When I’m working a fire scene or a medical emergency, I can ask bystanders to step back for safety. I cannot demand they stop filming me. I cannot order them to identify themselves without cause. I cannot shoot them for having a legally carried firearm.
The fact that someone is law enforcement does not give them unlimited authority over citizens. The Fourth Amendment exists specifically because our Founding Fathers understood that “just comply with the authorities” is how free people become subjects.
Every authoritarian regime in history has demanded perfect compliance. Everyone. And in every case, people like my friends defending this shooting would have said the same thing: “If you have nothing to hide, just do what they say.”
Until, inevitably, they came for someone those people cared about. And by then, there was no one left to object.
“Don’t Interfere With Law Enforcement”
Here’s where the logic gets truly Orwellian: The claim that observing law enforcement is “interfering” with law enforcement.
One person I know actually compared witnessing a federal raid to jumping out of your car at a traffic stop and yelling at the officer. As if these situations are remotely equivalent.
But let’s take his analogy seriously for a moment. Even at a traffic stop, you absolutely CAN film the officer from a safe distance. You can stand on the sidewalk and document what’s happening. Courts have repeatedly affirmed this right. The officer cannot arrest you for it, cannot confiscate your phone, and certainly cannot shoot you for it.
Now apply that to a federal operation in a residential neighborhood. Citizens have exponentially MORE reason to document what’s happening when armed federal agents wearing body armor and masks without identification or warrants are operating in their community. This isn’t interference—it’s the most basic form of accountability that free societies maintain over government power.
He also asked me: “How would it go over if you were working on a patient and I came over and interfered with you saving a life?”
Here’s my answer: If I’m working on a patient and you’re standing at a safe distance filming me, that’s not interference. That’s documentation. And if I shot you for it, I’d be arrested and prosecuted, badge or no badge.
The difference? I’m accountable to the public. I work in the light. I don’t demand that citizens look away while I do my job.
Why should federal agents be held to a lower standard than a small-town Fire Chief?
“Try That In Another Country”
This might be the most accidentally revealing argument of all.
“Try interfering with police in another country and see what happens!”
Yes. Exactly. In authoritarian countries—China, Russia, North Korea, Iran—you cannot question law enforcement. You cannot film government operations. You cannot be present as a witness to how state power is exercised.
That’s the point.
The fact that authoritarian regimes don’t tolerate public oversight of law enforcement is not an argument for why America should follow their example. It’s a reminder of why we fought a revolution to establish a different system.
When Americans start saying, “Try that in another country,” they’re expressing envy for authoritarian power structures. They’re admitting they want the government to have the same unchecked authority that dictatorships enjoy.
They think they’re being tough. They think they’re being patriotic.
They’re being neither. During World War II and after, at the Nuremberg Trials, they had a name for those people. Collaborators.
The Firefighter’s Perspective: Accountability Makes Us Better
I’ve run fire scenes where bystanders filmed everything we did. I’ve had people second-guess my decisions, question my tactics, and yes, sometimes get in the way.
You know what I did? I dealt with it professionally. I explained what we were doing when appropriate. I asked people to step back when necessary. I documented my decisions so they could be reviewed later.
Because here’s what 40+ years in emergency services has taught me: Public accountability makes me better at my job, not worse.
When I know citizens are watching, when I know my decisions will be reviewed, when I know I might have to explain my actions later—I make better decisions. I stay sharper. I remain professional even when I’m exhausted or frustrated.
The same principle applies to law enforcement. Agencies that welcome public scrutiny, that accept the presence of witnesses, that operate transparently—these are agencies that maintain public trust and constitutional legitimacy.
Agencies that demand citizens look away, that treat observation as obstruction, that respond to witnesses with violence—these are agencies that have something to hide.
What The Holocaust Survivors Recognize
I know people who survived the Holocaust. Not family members, but individuals whose stories have profoundly shaped my understanding of how civilized societies collapse into barbarism.
They recognize the pattern in arguments like “Why was he there?” and “He should have just complied.”
They heard these same arguments in the 1930s. Not about concentration camps—those came later. But about the early stages, when the Gestapo started conducting raids. When SA troops began “maintaining order” in Jewish neighborhoods. When ordinary Germans were told to look away, stay inside, don’t interfere with authorities doing their jobs.
Good Germans asked: “Why were they there?” “Why didn’t they just comply?” “Don’t interfere with law enforcement.”
By the time those good Germans realized where this logic led, it was too late. The machinery of state violence had been normalized, step by step, argument by argument, until atrocities became administrative procedures.
I’m not comparing ICE to the SS, although they do appear to run the same playbooks. I’m not comparing immigration enforcement to the Holocaust.
But I am absolutely comparing the logic patterns that enable state violence to escalate unchecked. And those patterns are identical.
When a society accepts that mere presence justifies violence, that observation equals obstruction, that compliance must be absolute—that society has laid the groundwork for tyranny.
Every single time. Without exception.
The Constitutional Firewall
The Founders understood this. That’s why they didn’t write the Constitution to say “You have rights unless law enforcement is doing something.” They wrote absolute prohibitions on government power:
First Amendment: The right to observe, document, and speak about government action is fundamental. It’s not a privilege granted by authorities. It’s a right that exists whether authorities like it or not.
Second Amendment: The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Not “unless you’re near law enforcement.” Not “unless federal agents are uncomfortable.” Shall. Not. Be. Infringed.
Fourth Amendment: The right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures. Government agents cannot simply grab people off the street because they’re present during a raid. They need probable cause. They need warrants. They need constitutional authority.
These amendments exist because the Founders had lived under a government that demanded perfect compliance, that treated observation as obstruction, that used violence against citizens who questioned authority.
They fought a war to escape that system. They wrote a Constitution to prevent it from taking root here.
And now, 250 years later, we have Americans arguing that the Constitution doesn’t apply when federal agents are “just doing their jobs.”
Where This Logic Leads
Let me be absolutely clear about what’s at stake.
If we accept that being present near law enforcement justifies being shot, then:
- No one can film police activity
- No one can document ICE operations
- No one can serve as a witness to government action
- No one can exercise their Second Amendment rights in public
- No one can question whether authorities are operating lawfully
This doesn’t create law and order. It creates unchecked government power.
And unchecked government power, historically, leads to the same place every single time: Abuse. Brutality. Atrocity. Not because every government official is evil, but because humans with unchecked power eventually abuse it. Always.
That’s not cynicism. That’s the entire lesson of human history.
The Founders understood this. The Holocaust survivors understand this. Anyone who has studied the collapse of free societies into tyranny understands this.
The only people who don’t seem to understand it are Americans who think authoritarianism only threatens people they don’t like.
The Warning
I’ve responded to disasters on three different continents. I’ve seen what happens when institutions break down, when social order collapses, when violence becomes normalized.
It never starts with concentration camps and mass graves. It starts with arguments about who deserved what happened to them. It starts with people saying, “He should have just complied.” It starts with citizens learning to look away when government agents use force.
And it ends—always, without exception—with people asking “How did we get here?” and “Why didn’t someone stop this?”
Someone is trying to stop it. Right now. That someone is the people saying, “Wait, why did federal agents shoot a man with a legal carry permit? Why is that acceptable? Why are we defending this?”
But they’re being shouted down by people who have embraced authoritarian logic without even realizing it. People who think they’re defending law and order when they’re actually defending tyranny.
People who would have been “good Germans” in the 1930s, asking why those Jews were there anyway, why they didn’t just comply, why they had to interfere with authorities just doing their jobs.
I never thought I’d see this logic take root in America. But here we are.
A Final Question
To everyone defending this shooting, everyone arguing that presence justifies violence, that observation equals obstruction, that compliance must be absolute:
What will you say when they come for someone you care about?
When your son is shot for legally shooting video at a protest? When your daughter is detained for filming a raid? When your neighbor is beaten for asking questions?
Will you still argue they should have just complied? That they shouldn’t have been there? That they interfered with law enforcement?
Or will you finally realize that the logic you’re defending doesn’t protect you or anyone else—it endangers everyone, it makes you the next target.
Because by then, it will be too late. You’ll have already normalized the very authoritarianism you thought only threatened other people.
That’s how tyranny works. It convinces good people to defend bad logic. And by the time they realize their mistake, the machinery of state violence is already operational.
We’re not completely there yet. But we’re closer than we’ve ever been.
And the people enabling it are ordinary Americans who think they’re defending law and order.
They’re not. They’re dismantling the constitutional firewall that stands between citizens and tyranny.
And they’re doing it one “He should have just complied” at a time.

























