Transcript

Debating All the Angles of Whether the Shooting of Alex Pretti Was Justified, w/ Aronberg and Branca

From Megyn Kelly · Episode page · Watch on YouTube

· 17 min · 3,292 words · 37 timestamped sections

This is the full, timestamped transcript of "Debating All the Angles of Whether the Shooting of Alex Pretti Was Justified, w/ Aronberg and Branca", an episode of Megyn Kelly published January 26, 2026 (17 min, about 3,292 words). It mentions 5 people, works and ideas, including Alex Jeffrey Prey, Graham versus Connor, Sig Sauer P320, Tom Hman.

What this episode is about

The discussion centers on the legal justification for the shooting of Alex Pretti by ICE officers, focusing on whether the officers reasonably perceived an imminent threat. Key points include the context of the incident, during which Pretti allegedly committed a violent felony against an officer and the chaotic circumstances that led to the shooting, raising questions about the balance between legal justifications and broader political implications of law enforcement actions.

Key takeaways

  • When all major papers unite, it's not just news; it's a rare moment of consensus amid chaos.
  • In law, 'reasonable perception' means officers can act on instinct, not accuracy—truth at speed can be elusive.
  • Eight years for a non-injury felony? The law's a double-edged sword—necessary, but can it cut too deep?
  • Prosecuting police is like juggling knives; the stakes are high, and juries often favor the incumbents.
  • In contentious cases, juries' biases can bleed through; the challenge is finding common ground in discordant truths.

Who speaks in this episode?

What is discussed, and when

  1. – 3:00: Alex Jeffrey Prey, Graham versus Connor
  2. – 6:00: Alex Jeffrey Prey
  3. – 9:00: Tom Hman, Graham versus Connor, Birch Gold Group
  4. – 15:00: Sig Sauer P320

Notable quotes from "Debating All the Angles of Whether the Shooting of Alex Pretti Was Justified, w/ Aronberg and Branca"

  • Decisions in self-defense. And again, a prosecutor would have to disprove that beyond any reasonable doubt. The only person responsible for the death of Alex Prey is Alex Prey.
    about Alex Jeffrey Prey · at
  • A new year means new financial goals like making sure your savings are secure and diversified. Will this be the year you decide to talk to someone from Birch Gold Group? They…
    about Birch Gold Group · at
  • And I think is it the ICE chief or the border patrol chief on the other and they Homeman doesn't want to be doing immigration enforcement this way and reportedly Christine Gnome and Cory Luwendowski do like they were fine with.
    about Tom Hman · at
  • Negligent discharge from the agent in the gray jacket. there is a report that this model widely carried by armed civilians and US law enforcement has been the subject of more…
    about Sig Sauer P320 · at

Who and what is mentioned in this episode?

People

  • Alex Jeffrey Prey — Person · Victim / central case subject · 3 mentions · first at
    The death of Alex Prey is the focal incident being debated—whether officers reasonably perceived a deadly threat and whether prosecution is viable.
  • Tom Hman — Person · Referenced immigration enforcement leader (name likely mis-transcribed) · 2 mentions · first at
    Discussed as a long-time immigration enforcement figure reportedly opposing 'showy' tactics; said to be going to Minnesota and 'taking over' operationally.

Products & tech

  • Sig Sauer P320 — Product · Case study · 1 mention · first at
    Discussed in the context of a police shooting incident, highlighting its alleged defect that allows uncommanded firing.

Concepts & topics

  • Graham versus Connor — Concept · Key argument · 2 mentions · first at
    Referenced to discuss the legal standard for police use of force, emphasizing the 'reasonable perception' standard.
    Well, under the Graham versus Connor decision by the Supreme Court, Megan, Andrew is right. The officer's perception doesn't have to be correct.

Sponsors

  • Birch Gold Group — Company · Sponsor · 1 mention · first at
    Advertised as a financial service offering gold investment opportunities with a rebate promotion.

Full transcript with timestamps

I'll kick it off with this, Andrew. Um, Real Clear Politics saying that in their 25 years, you know, as an entity, they have never seen an example where the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Post, and the Washington Post all agreed in their top editorial, which was to call on ICE to settle down um and to potentially deescalate in Minnesota. Um, I don't happen to agree with that. I know according to the polls I'm in the minority, but it is events like what happened with Alex Prey that have led to that and so your position that this was what I mean I don't want to put words in your mouth that it was a valid shooting that it was a quote good shooting how would you put it and

yeah it was a legally justified use of defense of force I mean whether ICE should should deescalate that's a political question right that's not my area of expertise but whether this particular shooting was justified or not the legal question is did the officers who fired the shot have a reasonable perception that Freddy was presenting as an eminent unlawful threat of deadly force harm and a prosecutor would have to disprove that beyond any reasonable doubt. And what facts do we have here? We have the ICE officers observing Freddy committing a violent felony on another ICE officer. He's non-compliant with arrest.

What specifically? Well, when he lays hands on the first ICE officer, that's a federal felony. That's good for 8 years in federal prison. He doesn't have to cause injury. He just has to make contact and it's an 8-year federal felony. So, he's just committed a violent, forcible felony on an ICE officer. They go to make his arrest. He's not compliant. Um, they hear shouts of gun, gun, gun. Then the non-compliant Freddy brings his hand into view with an object in his hand. Uh, that's going to get you shot in that kind of tumultuous, chaotic frackus about 99 times out of 100. Because the officers, keep in mind, they don't have to be correct in their perception of a threat. They have to have a reasonable perception. That doesn't mean correct.

That doesn't mean optimal. That doesn't mean best case. It means reasoned. They were applying their powers of reason to the things they were seeing presented to them in the totality of the circumstances. They're not required to make perfect decisions in self-defense. They're required to make reasonable decisions in self-defense. And again, a prosecutor would have to disprove that beyond any reasonable doubt. The only person responsible for the death of Alex Prey is Alex Prey. Dave, do you agree with Andrew's statement of the law? I know you disagree with the application of it, but the statement of the law, does he have it right?

Well, under the Graham versus Connor decision by the Supreme Court, Megan, Andrew is right. The officer's perception doesn't have to be correct. It just has to be reasonable at the time. This was a split-second decision, but the decision says it has to be objectively reasonable, not subjectively. So, was it objectively reasonable that they started shooting, shooting 10 times in 5 seconds? And was this guy a legitimate threat when he had seven officers on top of him and the gun had been removed by that point? I mean, perhaps the officers had a mistake of fact where they thought that the gunshot they heard was from the person who was lying face down and they made a mistake, but was it reasonable for them to make that mistake? So I I would disagree not on the standard he's using but on the facts. It looks like to me that the victim here, Mr. Prey, was not a threat.

The officer saw he had a phone in his hand. The gun was not brandished. And that is something that contradicts what Christine Gnome said. He never brandished the gun. He had the gun legally. And so I think there's a legitimate case to be made. I would agree with Andrew that any any case by a prosecutor in this area and I've prosecuted one of these cases uh in my office against an officer, we got a conviction, but they are very hard to do. It's hard to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt unanimously to convict an officer. But I do think you can take this case to the grand jury and get an indictment.

Would you do it, Dave, if you were still if you were the DA in this county, would you do it?

I would. I would. Now, I the federal government normally would cooperate with the state. Instead, they're going to try to conceal the evidence and so the state may have to go it alone. But I would I think you have enough with the videos and witness testimony that you can get an indictment here. Whether you can get a conviction, it will go to federal court. This case will be removed to federal court and then the question is will the federal judge grant the officer immunity? That's a big question. If he does not, then it's game on and you can try them. But it's tough to get 12 jurors throughout the entire state of Minnesota. This is not just Henipin County jurors. These are conservative jurors and to get them all to agree to see it one way that is a challenge

for you. You're talking about in federal court the grand jurors or the actual jurors the petite jurors the 12 correct would would come from all over the state.

Correct. It's much easier to get an indictment by a grand jury. But the actual jury because this case will be removed if it does go to trial to federal court will come from all across the state rather than just Blue Henipin County.

Okay. Okay. So, what what's your reaction to that, Andrew? Dave Dave's statements.

Well, I mean, of course, reasonable people can disagree on what they see when they observe the facts, right? Facts become a matter of opinion. That's why we have juries as the factfinders in trials. I don't know if it's quite true to say that the officer saw a phone in his hand. In other words, that the officer knew it was only a phone. If if we assume facts like, well, the officers knew he was disarmed and harmless and not a threat to them and they shot him anyway, well, then obviously that would be an easy conviction. I suspect if we asked the officer, he wouldn't say, "I knew it was a phone in his hand. I saw an object in his hand that I perceived as a weapon is what I would expect him to say." In terms of prosecution of these of this officer and the officer who shot Renee Good, I think the real risk to them is not immediate prosecution. I think if this goes to federal court, um it gets dismissed

under under the supremacy clause. I think the risk to these officers is that Minnesota does not prosecute them. That Minnesota just waits out this administration, hopes a Democrat administration comes in next and they have a Democrat Department of Justice that's not interested in defending these officers in federal court and would allow a state prosecution to go forward. Remember, there's no statute of limitations on murder. So, Minnesota can just wait out this administration if uh whoever the next one is. If President Tim Walls is elected uh to the White House next time and has his own Department of Justice, he could just tell them, "Listen, I I I don't want you to try to get this case dismissed in federal court. I want the state prosecution and go forward and then we're going to have another Derek Schovin type of trial."

A new year means new financial goals like making sure your savings are secure and diversified. Will this be the year you decide to talk to someone from Birch Gold Group? They use an educational approach with a deep understanding of macroeconomics. There are forces pushing the dollar lower and gold higher, which is why they believe every American should own physical gold. So, until January 30th, if you're a first-time gold buyer, Birch Gold is offering a rebate of up to 10 grand on qualifying purchases. To claim eligibility and start the process, just text MK to the number 989898. Birch Gold can help you roll an existing IRA or 401k into an IRA in gold, and you are still eligible for a rebate of up to $10,000. Consider making right now your first time to buy gold and take advantage of a rebate up to 10,000 bucks when you buy by January 30th. Text MK to the number 989898.

Claim your eligibility today. Again, just text MK to the number 989898. Trump could give these officers immunity with a pardon from federal charges. He cannot prevent he can't protect them against state down the line.

Correct. That's correct. That's scary. That actually is really scary. I mean, maybe that's one of the reasons why you're seeing some of the divide that's in the news today between Homeman, Tom Hman, and Christy Gnome, which is being reported everywhere. Uh, but this isn't like just left-wing press saying, "Oh, they hate each It's like Fox News and the Journal and the New York Post reporting on how there's a rift between Christy Nomen, Corey Luwendowski on the one hand and Tom Hman um and I think is it the ICE chief or the border patrol chief uh on the other and they Homeman doesn't want to be doing immigration enforcement this way and reportedly Christine Gnome and Cory Luwendowski do like they they were fine with

shall I say more showy uh arrests and uh greater sort of in-your-face presence. And I think Homeman, who's been doing this a long time and actually received an award from Barack Obama for how he did it,

didn't quite approve of the way this is going. And now we get the announcement last night that Homeman is going to Minnesota and he's taking over. And then you see a tweet from Christine Nome this morning saying, "This is great. I approve of this." Which is okay. All right. Now everybody's going to spin it however they want to spin it. But I think it is a good thing Holman's going. Um Andrew, let me ask you about this. So 10 times in 5 seconds, Dave points out they they fired. And I know we we just talked about this with the Renee Good shooting that the Supreme Court has said if the first shot was justified, so were the remaining shots. And there there'd have to be something to change it if they were going to if that ruling didn't hold, like a pause. Some of the cases where they've said,

"Okay, actually shots two through 10 were not okay." There was an intervening pause like where they assessed the situation. it was clear the person was dead or hurting and they kept going. But that's not Do you see that as this case?

No, I I don't. Uh the only pauses I think were really between the first shot and then a series of three shots and then you get the popcorn effective shooting. Uh it's not at all uncommon to get a lot of shots on a suspect when you have a lot of police officers. None of the police officers are are emptying their magazines necessarily, but if you have a number of officers shooting and they each shoot two or three rounds, which is generally reasonable, uh pistol bullets are not very effective. They're trained to shoot more than once. Uh if you have three or four officers shooting three rounds each, pretty soon you get 10, 12, 15 rounds that have been fired.

Uh but it's all being fired in the same compressed time frame in which it's not yet clear that the threat they're legally privileged to neutralize has been neutralized. Once that's apparent, then they have to make the decision to stop using force. They're no longer privileged to do that. That's where the pause comes in. Right? If there's a pause and it's apparent the person's no longer a threat and you use force again, that successive use of force would not be legally justified. U but I just don't see that here.

Let me play the the soundbite again where you can hear all of the shots. Again, apologies for the very annoying whistles blowing, but here it is.

The is wrong with you? Honestly, THE DID YOU JUST DO? WHAT THE DID YOU JUST DO?

WHAT THE I don't see that, Dave, as being enough of any sort of pause to change the the default rule, which is the Supreme Court does not care how many times the cops shoot. If the first shot is okay, the rest are too.

Megan, I did hear some pauses in there, and I think those pauses are where prosecutors can use it. I I agree with you that I don't think this is the strongest argument to convict the cops to say that they should have just shot once and not 10 times. But it is an argument because once a suspect is incapacitated or the threat is removed, that the justification for deadly force ends and the continued firing into a motionless body. It's tough to reconcile with any reasonable mistake of fact, but I think the stronger argument actually for the prosecutors is just that number one, at no point during that video did Prey draw the weapon, point it, place his hand on the holster. And so if you want to say it's a mistake uh by the officers, well, only if the suspect's movements are consistent with that action, like drawing or brandishing, here he was he was sprayed, pepper- sprrayed, tackled, uh, and they were on

top of him. And now also the agent who shot Prey was standing next to the agent in the gray jacket who had just removed the gun. And in training in a team base and force and action, the officers are trained to maintain this situational awareness like 360 degrees. The officer who shot him was standing next to the guy who pulled away the gun. So I think all these give to

prosecution. You're you're that's that's requiring the one officer to to have noticed that the the other officer got the gun away from the suspect. It all happened so quickly. I did not hear the officer who pulled the gun away from Prey say

I've gotten I've retrieved the gun, you know, like we hear gun. We don't know specifically what was used.

Correct. You should have said that. Uh but yes, that is a fair point. But also there's my main point is that there's nothing there that would give cause for the officers to reasonably believe that this guy was a threat. The gun that he had was concealed.

Well, what about somebody yelling gun which which could I mean maybe that was the wrong thing to yell to be honest. I don't know because I I my perception is this is just my perception. This may all change after the investigation. They heard that and they they assumed wielding that the the suspect was wielding,

but you could see his hands. The the guy was on his knees in front of you could see his hands. His hands had the same cell phone he had the entire time. That's the thing that I I can't reconcile that cuz someone mistakenly yells gun. You start shooting. That's not what you're supposed to do. So that that's my issue here.

What do you make of that, Andrew? Well, again, we don't know that the officer knew it was a cell phone in his hand. You hear gun, a gunshot goes off. there's an object in the suspect's hand and the officers are allowed to rely on the um actions of the other officers presumptively reasonable. So when one officer shoots the other officers you hear gun a gunshot there's an object in the guy's hand one officer is shooting presumably because he reasonably perceives an eminent unlawful threat of death or serious bodily injury. The other officers are allowed to rely on that perception. So they're going to shoot too. Uh again, they don't have to be making perfect decisions or even good decisions. They just have to be reasoned decisions and and a prosecutor would have to disprove that position beyond any reasonable doubt. I think there's more than enough evidence here to build a narrative that there's at least a

reasonable doubt that these officers had that reasonable perception. the couple things. There is a report now on this gun uh which was a Sig Sauer P320 9mm that um this model according to Rob Dobar, a lawyer for the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus who believes that this gun likely went off after the agent grabbed it and said he thinks it's highly likely the first shot was a negligent discharge from the agent in the gray jacket. Um there is a report that this model uh widely carried by armed civilians and US law enforcement has been the subject of more than 100 allegations that it has a defect that allows it to fire uncommanded. This is the uh this is the Alec Baldwin argument, Andrew, right? Like I didn't pull the trigger. No, no, no, no, no. I never pulled the trigger. The gun just went off. But that this somehow went off unccommanded.

And you know, if that's what happened, then my god, this is a true true tragedy because somebody yelled gun, the gun was retrieved, it went off uncommanded, and then the other officers thought a gun had been fired, which would probably lead most cops to start firing themselves.

Yeah, that could readily be the case. I mean, this gun has that reputation. I don't know if it's true or not. I want to make clear, but uh the gun has a reputation for uncommanded discharges. The truth is if a if a car had backfired and it sounded like a gunshot, the officers would have been privileged to react as if there were a gunshot. If that was a reasonable perception on this part, this was in fact apparently a gun going off very close. Guns are extremely loud. It actually hurts your ears when the gun goes off uh within a few feet of you if you don't have hearing protection on. Uh so it's it's a shocking disruptive kind of event. Uh that's why you see all the officers jump, create distance. That's training as well.

You're supposed to get away from what you think the weapon may be as quickly as possible. It It could be just a complete tragedy in that the gun just went off by itself and that's what triggered made reasonable the officer's perceptions that a deadly force threat was in play.

Thanks so much for watching. If you like what you just saw, hit the subscribe button for more clips and full episodes.

Questions about this episode

Who speaks in "Debating All the Angles of Whether the Shooting of Alex Pretti Was Justified, w/ Aronberg and Branca"?

Megyn Kelly (Guest), Andrew (Guest), Dave (Guest).

What is "Debating All the Angles of Whether the Shooting of Alex Pretti Was Justified, w/ Aronberg and Branca" about?

The discussion centers on the legal justification for the shooting of Alex Pretti by ICE officers, focusing on whether the officers reasonably perceived an imminent threat. Key points include the context of the incident, during which Pretti allegedly committed a violent felony against an officer and the chaotic circumstances that led to the shooting, raising questions about the balance between…

What is mentioned in this Megyn Kelly episode?

5 people, works and ideas are mentioned, including Alex Jeffrey Prey, Graham versus Connor, Sig Sauer P320, Tom Hman. Each one on this page links to its own page with every episode that mentions it.

How long is "Debating All the Angles of Whether the Shooting of Alex Pretti Was Justified, w/ Aronberg and Branca"?

The episode runs 17 min; the transcript is about 3,292 words in 37 timestamped sections.

More from Megyn Kelly

About this transcript: the episode's spoken words as captioned on YouTube, split into timestamped sections. Reclip.Me locates every person, work and idea in the text, keeps the time it is first named, and quotes the words around it verbatim. Last updated January 26, 2026.