Why calling Alex Pretti’s actions “brandishing” matters

Why calling Alex Pretti’s actions “brandishing” matters

• Officials quickly termed Pretti's actions as "brandishing" after the fatal shooting.
• No public evidence shows Pretti threatened agents with the firearm
• Experts: "Brandishing" shapes public perception before investigation concludes

Did our AI summary help?

In the hours after Alex Pretti was fatally shot by US federal agents in Minneapolis, senior officials repeatedly used one word to describe what they said justified the shooting: brandishing.

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and Border Patrol officials invoked the term quickly, without detailing when or how Pretti allegedly did so. No evidence was presented publicly, yet the characterisation became central to the official narrative almost immediately.

That speed matters. Once a claim like this is made by top officials, it frames public understanding of the incident before investigators have examined the evidence or released findings, CNN reported.

What “brandishing” actually means under the law

“Brandishing” is not just a descriptive phrase. It is a term with a specific legal definition under federal law.

A person can be said to brandish a firearm if they display it or make its presence known in order to intimidate. Importantly, the law does not require the weapon to be fired or even clearly shown. A gesture meant to signal a hidden gun can qualify.

But there is a clear boundary. Merely carrying a firearm legally, or informing officers of its presence, does not meet the threshold for brandishing.

What the video evidence shows so far

Video footage reviewed by CNN appears to show officers restraining Pretti on the ground when an agent reaches into his waistband and removes a firearm. Seconds later, shots are fired.

At least one agent can be heard shouting “he’s got a gun” as the weapon is retrieved. But being armed is not the same as using a weapon to threaten or intimidate. In states where permitted carry is legal, the distinction is critical.

So far, no video has surfaced showing Pretti pointing, displaying, or gesturing with the firearm in a threatening manner.

Experts question the official language

Policing experts say the use of the term “brandishing” raises serious concerns.

Seth Stoughton, a law professor and former police officer, said there is no publicly available evidence supporting the claim. He also noted how implausible it would be for officials to conduct a thorough investigation in the short time between the shooting and the public statements.

Without clear details — words spoken, gestures made, or actions intended to intimidate — the legal standard remains unmet.

Why the word itself matters

Language shapes accountability. Calling Pretti’s actions “brandishing” implies intent, aggression, and threat. It shifts attention away from how force was used and toward whether the person who was killed can be portrayed as dangerous.

Once that framing takes hold, it becomes harder to examine the conduct of law enforcement objectively. The question subtly changes from Was lethal force justified? to What did the victim do wrong?

A narrative still ahead of the facts

The shooting remains under investigation. Officials say more information will be released.

But the early use of a legally loaded term has already shaped public debate. In cases like this, where seconds separate life and death, words can harden narratives just as quickly as gunfire.

That is why “brandishing” is not just a description. It is a conclusion — and one that carries consequences long before the facts are fully known.