Body language expert tells people pay very close attention to man in gray jacket after Alex Pretti shooting led in second Minneapolis ICE shooting!

Minneapolis has found itself once again at the center of national outrage after two fatal, ICE-involved shootings in a matter of weeks. First came the killing of Renée Nicole Good. Then, on January 24, during an anti-ICE protest, Alex Pretti was shot and killed by federal agents. Together, the incidents have reignited intense debate over the use of force, transparency, and accountability within federal law enforcement operations.

In the days following Pretti’s death, officials from the Department of Homeland Security and the Trump administration moved quickly to defend the actions of ICE agents on the scene. President Donald Trump, speaking to the Wall Street Journal on January 25, described Pretti as armed and dangerous, asserting that the presence of a firearm justified the deadly response.

“I don’t like any shooting. I don’t like it,” Trump said. “But I don’t like it when somebody goes into a protest and he’s got a very powerful, fully loaded gun with two magazines loaded up with bullets also. That doesn’t play good either.”

DHS Secretary Kristi Noem echoed that framing, claiming Pretti had been “brandishing” a weapon and had attacked officers. According to her account, Pretti interfered with law enforcement operations while carrying a gun and ammunition, allegedly intending to harm agents.

Yet as video footage from multiple bystanders spread rapidly across social media, a more complicated and troubling picture began to emerge.

The videos, recorded from several angles, do not clearly show Pretti holding or drawing a firearm. Instead, they show him carrying a phone in his hand as officers surround him. Witnesses describe Pretti as attempting to help a woman who had been shoved to the ground during the chaos. In the footage, he is pepper-sprayed, forced to his knees, and overwhelmed by multiple agents.

While it is undisputed that Pretti legally owned a firearm and was carrying it in a belt holster, the videos circulating online do not show him brandishing it or pointing it at officers. Legal analysts and former law enforcement officials who have reviewed the footage have publicly questioned whether the level of force used was justified based on what can be seen.

Into this growing controversy stepped a well-known forensic body language and behavioral analyst, known online as Dr. G Explains. A clinical and forensic psychologist, Dr. G reviewed the publicly available footage and released a detailed analysis that has intensified calls for an independent investigation.

In his breakdown, Dr. G focused not only on Pretti’s behavior but on the actions of the agents themselves, particularly one officer wearing a gray jacket. According to Dr. G, this individual’s movements raise serious questions about whether the situation was being de-escalated or, instead, rapidly escalated by law enforcement.

“This is not somebody who is trying to de-escalate,” Dr. G said in his analysis. “This is someone who is actively escalating the situation very, very quickly.”

Dr. G pointed out moments in the footage where Pretti, already on the ground and surrounded, is repeatedly pepper-sprayed at close range. He described the agent’s behavior as aggressive and unnecessary, noting that Pretti appeared overwhelmed and physically restrained.

The most critical moment, however, comes seconds later. Dr. G urged viewers to “pay very close attention to the man in the gray jacket.”

As Pretti is on his knees, Dr. G observed that the agent in gray appears to reach into Pretti’s waistband and remove the firearm from its holster. Almost immediately after the weapon is pulled free, someone on the scene can be heard yelling “gun.”

What happens next, according to Dr. G, is deeply concerning.

Rather than loudly announcing that the firearm had been secured and that Pretti had been disarmed, the agent in gray jacket turns away. Within moments, other agents raise their weapons. The gun is no longer visible on Pretti’s body, yet gunfire erupts. Pretti is shot in the back.

Dr. G emphasized a key behavioral inconsistency: if officers genuinely believed Pretti remained an armed and imminent threat, it would make little sense for an agent who had just secured the weapon to turn his back and run away.

“It would be a really bad idea to turn your back on someone if you believe that they are still armed and dangerous,” Dr. G explained. “That behavior does not align with someone who believes they are facing an immediate lethal threat.”

He acknowledged that some might argue the agent feared Pretti could have had a second weapon. However, Dr. G noted that such a belief would typically prompt heightened caution, communication, and coordination — not retreat without warning fellow officers that the primary weapon had already been removed.

The implication of this analysis is stark: if Pretti was disarmed and no longer posed an immediate threat at the moment shots were fired, then the official narrative offered by DHS may not accurately reflect what occurred.

This body language assessment has added fuel to a growing wave of public anger and skepticism. Community members, civil rights advocates, and legal experts are now calling for the release of all body camera footage, radio communications, and internal reports related to the incident. Many are also demanding an independent investigation, arguing that federal agencies cannot credibly police themselves in cases involving lethal force.

Pretti’s family has maintained that he was a compassionate, gentle person who devoted his career to caring for veterans as an ICU nurse at the Minneapolis VA Health Care System. They have rejected claims that he intended to harm officers, pointing instead to video evidence showing him holding a phone and attempting to protect another protester.

Across Minneapolis, the site of the shooting has become a place of mourning and protest. Candles, flowers, and handwritten notes line the street where Pretti lost his life. Demonstrations have continued, not only against ICE operations but against what many residents see as a pattern of unchecked force and shifting narratives after deadly encounters.

As investigations move forward, the questions surrounding the man in the gray jacket — and what he did, saw, and communicated in those critical seconds — are unlikely to fade. For many, that moment represents the difference between a justified use of force and a tragic, avoidable death.

The growing scrutiny underscores a broader issue facing federal law enforcement: public trust. When official statements appear to conflict with video evidence and expert analysis, that trust erodes quickly. In the case of Alex Pretti, each new detail has only deepened the sense that the full truth has yet to be acknowledged.

Whether that truth will emerge through transparent investigation or remain contested in public debate may shape not only the outcome of this case, but the future of federal enforcement operations under intense national scrutiny.