THE awful deaths of Renée Nicole Good and Alex Jeffrey Pretti in Minneapolis have provoked national outrage, protests, celebrity attention, and global media coverage. In much of the US and UK press, both were quickly portrayed as heroes, allegedly ‘murdered’ or ‘executed’ by ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) agents.
Yet video footage, witness statements and official reports suggest a far more complicated picture.
Good was shot during an ICE operation after she approached officers in her car. Recordings show her and her partner interacting with agents and refusing to leave the car. Moments later, the vehicle reversed and accelerated toward an armed ICE agent, who opened fire. While tragic, it appears that Good’s death resulted directly from her own choices.
Pretti arrived at a scene already tense from Good’s shooting, where agents faced crowds and heightened agitation. Federal officials stated that he was armed and ignored commands to disarm. Others maintain he was recording events on his phone and helping a woman who had been pushed or pepper-sprayed. What is clear is that he put himself directly into an armed federal operation under extreme pressure, carrying a gun rather than a protest sign.
Neither of these individuals appeared to be part of large national organisations. Pretti, however, was a member of a local group called the Kingfield Signal ICE Watch.
Such community networks send alerts about ICE movements, encouraging residents to mobilise quickly to film or confront agents. Neighbours and outreach workers confirmed that Pretti received these alerts and responded. Investigations show similar encrypted chats tracking ICE vehicles and emojis to summon crowds rapidly. This indicates Pretti did not stumble upon the operation by chance, but was acting within a loosely organised monitoring system.
Good had also taken part in local ICE observer activities, part of a growing trend of civilians placing themselves near enforcement actions to record events. The move from conventional protest to direct confrontation has created chaotic situations where confusion, fear, and split-second decisions amplify human error and misunderstandings.
Pretti carried a concealed handgun, as permitted in Minnesota. It was in a waistband holster removed by agents during the struggle. But why bring a gun to a highly volatile ICE operation?
It appears there are previous instances of Pretti’s violent behaviour. A video shows Pretti at an ICE operation 11 days before he was killed. He was armed and shouting and kicking the tail light off an ICE car. Another video a few days later shows him violently kicking an ICE agent who had slipped and fallen, and resisting arrest. CNN reported that the agent suffered broken a rib from the assault.
While there are legitimate reasons for carrying firearms for personal protection, appearing armed at a tense federal enforcement scene raises serious concerns about Pretti’s judgment. If the intent was peaceful protest, observation or de-escalation, a firearm is counterproductive.
Showing up unarmed signals peaceful intent and lowers the risk of misinterpretation. Bringing a weapon into an already fraught confrontation dramatically increases the likelihood of escalation.
Even if Pretti never drew his gun, its mere presence heightened danger. Much of mainstream media reporting omitted this context. Headlines declared ‘executions’ before investigations, public figures lauded both Pretti and Good as symbols of just resistance. Commentators described Pretti as a ‘hero’ without noting why he was present, how he arrived so quickly or the risks involved.
Law enforcement situations are rarely simple tales of victim versus villain. Sudden movements, vehicles and weapons in high-stress environments are often perceived as threats. This does not excuse misconduct by officers, but it explains why such encounters are inherently dangerous.
Artificial Intelligence platforms are now compounding misunderstandings, feeding networks like Kingfield Signal ICE Watch. Many people no longer read full articles, instead requesting AI summaries that rely on mainstream sources. One AI response framed Good’s behaviour as fear or panic, with no alternative interpretation. Only after repeated challenge did it admit it was drawing from major outlets like CNN and the New York Times.
This feedback loop is obvious: media simplifies, AI repeats, social media spreads and activists respond to incomplete information. It is hardly surprising that people confront ICE personnel believing they are preventing ‘executions’ rather than entering volatile enforcement operations.
Peaceful protest remains essential. Holding signs, chanting and recording from a safe distance are all legitimate. What is unsafe is inserting oneself into armed operations, blocking vehicles, approaching officers during arrests, or arriving at flashpoints armed. Both Good and Pretti had alternatives. They could have stayed back, protested later or avoided positioning themselves in high-risk confrontations.
Their deaths are to be lamented. But tragedy does not remove the need for personal accountability.
Yet Governor Tim Walz and other political figures prioritised virtue signalling over public safety. Following the first shooting, Walz condemned ICE as ‘un-American’, blamed President Trump, and indicated that state and local police would not visibly support federal agents. That stance discouraged officers from managing crowds, clearing blockades or maintaining safe distances.
Had Walz put politics aside and endorsed co-ordination between state and city police and federal agents, deployed resources early and prioritised public safety, both Good and Pretti might have been moved on or deterred from armed confrontations. Instead, his rhetoric and hesitation left the streets open to activists treating enforcement as theatre, surrounding vehicles, blocking roads and escalating tensions.
The deaths of Good and Pretti were preventable. They were a direct result of leadership which placed political posturing and anti-Trump signalling above law, order and public safety. Only when state police finally intervened did conditions stabilise, showing how costly disingenuous leadership can be and how easily lives are endangered for votes and social media attention.
These cases illustrate the collision of outrage-driven media narratives, rapid-response activist culture and AI-driven news summarisation with real-world law enforcement. Simplifying complex events into moral fables fuels anger, misinformation and reckless behaviour. Preventing future deaths requires honesty about what occurred, accountability on all sides and a return to protest methods that keep civilians out of direct danger.
Protest by all means. But stay behind the line. Hold a sign, not a gun. Chant, but do not put yourself in harm’s way or assume everyone understands your intent.
