Renowned attorney and self-defense expert Andrew F. Branca, author of The Law of Self Defense, has released a detailed breakdown of the fatal shooting of Alex Jeffrey Pretti in Minneapolis.
According to Branca’s analysis, several factors would typically be relied upon by law enforcement to argue that the use of deadly force was lawful:
• A physical struggle in a volatile, crowded environment, which increases the risk of sudden escalation
• A perceived firearm during that struggle, which courts generally treat as an immediate deadly force threat
• The possibility that officers believed the individual was attempting to access or retain a weapon
• Reliance on warnings or reactions from fellow officers, such as hearing another officer shout that a gun was present
• The absence of a legal duty for police to retreat, unlike civilians in some states
The Gun
He identified the suspect’s weapon as a high-end SIG Sauer P320 AXG Combat.
The firearm, valued at approximately $2,000 including the SIG Romeo 2 optic, is a high-capacity 9mm pistol that was found on Pretti’s person during the violent struggle with federal agents.
Branca indentified the shooter’s gun as a ‘SIG 320 AXG Combat.’
“You can see it has a threaded barrel, just like the suspect’s gun. This image is from the SIG website, so it doesn’t have the optional optic on it, which this guy has, which by the way is a SIG optic, a Romeo 2 optic. 9mm pistol, high-capacity, this magazine might be the 20 or 21-round magazine the way it’s extending from the gun. This is not an inexpensive firearm.”
“This gun, just the gun without the optics, sells for anywhere between $1,000 and $1,200 retail. And the optic that’s on the shooter’s gun is typically another $500 or $600. So we’re pushing a couple thousand dollars’ worth of the pistol here, which is not a small amount of money on the gun.”
Unintentional Discharge
“Now, I’m going to mention because someone’s going to mention it, like it or not, SIG 320s have developed a reputation—deserved or not—of unintentional discharges, meaning if they’re dropped, sometimes they go off when they’re not supposed to.”
“They’re supposed to be drop-safe. But there’s been lots of press coverage and lawsuits about people just putting a primer in the gun and dropping it, the primer goes off.”
“That’s not supposed to happen. There’s been lots of lawsuits where people say, you know, I bumped the gun in the holster and it just went off and shot me in the leg, that kind of stuff. In this case, it’s beginning to look, at least initially, as if one of the ICE guys perceived the gun on the suspect, this gun, and took it off his person and was turning away, walking away with the gun to secure it from the suspect.”
“But what might have happened—remember, there’s a whole bunch of officers involved. They’re not all ethernet-cabled to each other’s brains. They’re all seeing different things. And one officer might have seen the gun and said the word “gun.” And that might have triggered that first shot by an officer, and then all the other officers begin shooting in response to that initial discharge.”
“That does not make the shooting unlawful. It would be an awful, but lawful shooting. So what’s required for the shooting to be lawful? The officers have to have a reasonable perception of an imminent threat of unlawful deadly force harm. That’s it.”
“If the answer to that is yes, this is a lawful shoot. They’re struggling with this gun. If they perceive this guy as being noncompliant with arrest, fighting with officers, as reaching for a weapon, they will have reasonably perceived an imminent threat of unlawful deadly force harm justifying their use of deadly defensive force. And their perception does not have to be correct.”
“Their perception has to be reasonable. We’re not required to make perfect decisions in self-defense, police too. We’re required to make reasonable decisions in self-defense.”
“If an officer heard a fellow officer shout “gun,” and officers are allowed to rely on the expertise of training on their fellow officers, they don’t personally need to see the threat themselves. If another officer with whom they’re working in that event shouts out that the triggering event has been observed by a fellow officer, that’s enough for another officer to resort to the use of deadly defensive force.”
“They’re allowed to rely on their reasonable perceptions of the other officers’ communications and conduct. Happens all the time because everyone knows the officers have different perspectives or seeing different things at any given time. Every officer does not personally need to see the threat. He has to have a reasonable belief that the threat is present.”
“That can be based on a reliance of what other officers communicate to him. So if one officer shouts “gun,” all the other officers are going to be prepared to, and some of them will shoot, as appears to be what happened here. When you get in a physical brawl with a bunch of armed law enforcement officers and you have a gun on your person, you’re running a serious risk of getting fatally shot in the course of that confrontation.”
“The moment they see that gun, they’ve reasonably perceived an imminent threat of deadly, unlawful force against them, and they’ll justifiably respond with deadly defensive force.”
“By the way, it’s not uncommon for police officers to shoot other police officers. Like two plainclothes police officers respond to a scene of violence, see each other with guns in hand, and one shoots the other.”
“And it’s a justified shooting because the shooter, although he wasn’t actually shooting a criminal and that other person was a fellow police officer unknown to him, was not actually a deadly force threat to him, he was reasonably perceived, given the circumstances, as an imminent unlawful threat of deadly force harm, and therefore it was justified to use deadly defensive force.”
TO receive free email notification, when we post new articles like this, sign up below. Clever Journeys does & will not sell or share your information with anyone.
IN GOD WE TRUST
Thanks for supporting independent true journalism with a small tip. Dodie & Jack
CLICK HERE for GREEN PASTURE BENEFITS
Use Code CLEVER10 for a 10% discount on Green Pasture products today!
☆☆☆☆☆
Books
☆☆☆☆☆
Clever Journeys 
thank you, useful discussion
LikeLiked by 2 people
Helpful clarification. Thank you. 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yes! Also the chaos, the noise and confusion, the banging of pots and pans by protestors is really dangerous. It doesn’t do anything to stop law enforcement from doing their job, but it does serve to make every confrontation more dangerous. Cops are human beings, they have a nervous system, and all that distraction makes snap decision so much more challenging.
LikeLiked by 1 person
My guess is the signal chat exposure caught the sedition cold, in the act. So the money part of conspiracy is in panick orders Walz to call Trump
LikeLiked by 2 people
Right on. I believe the same.
LikeLike
My first reaction to this shooting was shock: why would any sane person bring a loaded pistol to a protest, get in the faces of ICE, resist arrest and try and pull a weapon? Turns out, this guy wasn’t that sane or intelligent. His parents were worried because he was fired from his job at the VA for various strange behaviors and had recently engaged with a group of agitators and anarchist. Too much msnow and CNN got the best of him, just like too much Fox can do the same. He made a bad decision that cost him his life and now has elevated him to George Floyd status in MN. I lived in Bloomington for a while in the early 90s, and can vouch that everyone in that city is a flaming liberal, sort of like their native son, Mr. Happy Hands, Garrison Keillor, who I used to listen to on NPR radio. Non of this is going to end well for all involved. Fraud, anarchy, Soro’s paid agitators, Somali grifters, it all makes great news in the evening. Got my Jiffy Pop and Dr Pepper ready.
LikeLiked by 2 people
MY guess is after he was fired he became a ” paid protester” . His parents said ” he joined a group”.
Apparently he scrubbed social media accounts day b4 action. Really… so why 🙂 what was the plan
There are a few video analysis from gun advocates that look at the gun he used and conclude: he had no idea what he was buying as the gun and set up was all wrong, scope wrong, magazine is the stock purchase product, threaded barrel etc…. Soo… did he just buy the fire arm?
Also, what the heck was he doing with the bullet in the chamber?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Still a lot to shine the light on. MSM is painting it different from reality. I carry a gun at times and always have one in my truck, but never a chambered round. Not sure the guy knew too much about firearms, or reality.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yes, there is enough videos & analysis out there to circumvent the far left media narratives.
LikeLike
Good commentary. Didn’t you work on the famous mall?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I did work there. The company I worked for was building all the entertainment on the 4th floor. I was there for a year, during the summer and a cold winter.
LikeLike
This is an education.
LikeLiked by 1 person