Disputed Minneapolis Shooting Sparks Clash Over Evidence (Full Transcript)

[00:00:00] Speaker 1: Here with me now is U.S. Border Patrol Commander-at-Large Greg Bovino. Thank you for being here. Sir, you are still in Minneapolis, and I want to get to a lot of questions that we have that are unanswered. First and foremost is that Alex Pretty approached Border Patrol agents with a nine-millimeter semi-automatic handgun. I want to go back to one of the videos, and I know you can see it there, and I want to ask you about what you're seeing, because multiple angles of this incident show him holding up a cell phone and recording it, not a gun. Did he at any point pull out his weapon?

[00:00:42] Speaker 2: Dana, good morning, and thanks for having me. The weapon, and we do know that the suspect did bring a weapon, a loaded nine-millimeter high-capacity handgun to a riot. We do know that. As far as what happened in that intervening moment with the video that you just showed, that's going to come to light through the investigation that's being investigated, and those facts and those questions will be answered soon enough.

[00:01:15] Speaker 1: Okay, but the Homeland Security Secretary is not waiting for that investigation to take place before saying that Alex Pretty was, quote, brandishing a weapon. Let's go to video seven, because, of course, you know this far better than I. The definition of brandishing is saving or flourishing something, especially a weapon, as a threat or an anger and excitement. That's just a still photo of what Alex Pretty appears to be holding. There is nothing that we have seen that showed him, as Secretary Noem said, brandishing a weapon. Have you, sir, seen something different to support what the Secretary said?

[00:02:03] Speaker 2: Dana, I think what we need to take a look at here is the situation in its totality. What happened leading up to this situation? The suspect decided to inject himself into a law enforcement action. What's not being said here is the fact that Border Patrol agents and law enforcement were conducting a targeted law enforcement effort against a violent, illegal alien that was nearby, and that suspect injected himself into that law enforcement situation with a weapon. What happened between when that situation first came about and the shooting, that's going to be investigated, and we're going to get to the facts of that.

[00:02:54] Speaker 1: Well, you said yesterday that this looks like a situation where the individual wanted to do maximum damage and massacre law enforcement. What evidence do you have that he wanted to massacre law enforcement? Because all the videos that we have, and we just have this still shot up now, but I do, Control Room, want to play one of the other videos. Let's play video number one again. It doesn't look anything like he's trying to massacre law enforcement. In fact, he was filming, and then it looked like he was trying to help another individual there who was pushed down by law enforcement, and then they went after him.

[00:03:31] Speaker 2: In fact, I believe that the fantastic training that our law enforcement partners have, the fact that they're highly trained, prevented any specific shootings of law enforcement. So good job for our law enforcement in taking him down before he was able to do that. And again, Dana, let's look at why he was there in the first place. Was he simply walking by and just happened to walk into a law enforcement situation and try to direct traffic and stand in the middle of the road and then assault, delay, and obstruct law enforcement? Or was he there for a reason? Did he fall victim to that violent and heated rhetoric by a Mayor Frey, a Governor Walz? Look, Dana, they're trying to portray border patrol agents and ICE agents as Gestapo, Nazi, and many other words. Did this individual fall victim, as many others have, to that type of heated rhetoric?

[00:04:31] Speaker 1: I want to stay focused on this incident right now because what you were saying is that he went there to try to stop this law enforcement operation. All of the video that we have seen shows him documenting it with his cell phone, which is a lawful thing to do. And the only time he seemed to interact with law enforcement is when they went after him when he was trying to help an individual who law enforcement pushed down. So where do you have the evidence to show that he was trying to impede that law enforcement operation?

[00:05:05] Speaker 2: Sure, Dana. First, he was there in the scene. He was in the scene actively impeding and assaulting law enforcement to the point.

[00:05:12] Speaker 1: But that's not illegal. He wasn't impeding it. He was filming it, which is a legal thing to do in the United States of America.

[00:05:19] Speaker 2: Dana, let's don't freeze frame adjudicate this now. He was there for a reason. And that reason was to impede law enforcement to the point. What evidence do you have of that? And here's a good point, Dana, is the fact that de-escalation techniques were utilized during this action. Those de-escalation techniques, whether it was physically trying to remove them from that law enforcement scene, that active law enforcement scene in which law enforcement were going after a violent, illegal alien, or the use of pepper spray, which is another de-escalation technique. Those techniques did not work. Officers always try to use the minimum amount of force necessary to either affect an arrest, which in this case was more than likely 18 U.S.C. 111, assault on a federal officer or impede, delay, obstruct.

[00:06:09] Speaker 1: Where did he assault a federal officer in any of the video that you have seen? Because it looked, it looked to us from every angle, sir, that he was approached by them when he was helping another individual who was pushed down. What evidence do you have that he was assaulting any law enforcement?

[00:06:27] Speaker 2: Dana, we don't need a suspect's help in an active law enforcement scene. When you say suspect, what is he suspected of? That's an active law enforcement scene. He knew that was an active law enforcement scene, especially when the officers approached him and it's very evident he did not need to be where he was and he decided on his own to stay there.

[00:06:48] Speaker 1: So when somebody is pushed down and a person's instinct is to help that person, when somebody is pushed down by law enforcement, you're saying that you just stand back and let law enforcement do what they're doing? I mean, is that really human nature?

[00:07:03] Speaker 2: You know, Dana, every situation is different. What our officers are faced with here in Minneapolis are chaotic, very difficult and violent situations in which individuals and this suspect is not the only one to bring a loaded weapon to a riot. The situations are chaotic and ever changing. Follow directions for law enforcement. Don't inject yourself knowingly beforehand into a law enforcement situation.

[00:07:33] Speaker 1: With respect, it feels as though in some ways you're blaming the victim here.

[00:07:38] Speaker 2: The victims are the Border Patrol agents. I'm not blaming the Border Patrol agents. The victim are the Border Patrol agents. The suspect put himself in that situation. The victims are the Border Patrol agents there.

[00:07:51] Speaker 1: I want to go back to the gun, sir, because I think this is really, really critical. You can see an agent and I just want to go to, let's see here, video five. You can see a screenshot of an agent in a green jacket approach Pretty and then he appeared to take a gun away. When the agent took the gun away, which seems as though it was Pretty's gun, that happened before Pretty was shot. Why was an unarmed man shot multiple times by law enforcement, by your Border Patrol agents?

[00:08:31] Speaker 2: Dana, you don't know he was unarmed. I don't know he was unarmed. That's freeze frame adjudication of a crime scene via a photo. That's why we have investigators. That's why we have an investigation that is going to answer those questions. How many shots were fired? Who fired shots? Where was the guns? Where were the guns located? All those questions are going to be answered.

[00:08:54] Speaker 1: Sir, I think you can see the screen.

[00:08:56] Speaker 2: In the investigation. We're not going to adjudicate that here on TV in one freeze frame there.

[00:09:02] Speaker 1: Okay. It's not a freeze frame. We're showing a video of one of your agents taking the gun away and that happened before Pretty was shot.

[00:09:13] Speaker 2: We don't know that agent was taking any gun away that could have been the agent's because we don't know that. The facts are going to come to light. So you're disputing the video. That's what happened. That's why we investigate.

[00:09:25] Speaker 1: Well, with respect, you say that's why we investigate, but you're also drawing other conclusions that sort of fly in the face of waiting for an investigation. I just want to also go back to what I was asking about with regard to what Secretary Noem said, that he was brandishing a gun. At any point, do you have any evidence that yes, he had a gun on his person? Was he brandishing it? Was he a threat because he had a gun in his hand that put law enforcement in danger?

[00:10:01] Speaker 2: We heard the law enforcement officer say gun, gun, gun. So at some point they knew there was a gun. So again, that is going to be part of that investigation as to what was happening on the ground there between those victims, the Border Patrol agent victims and the suspect.

[00:10:19] Speaker 1: Both the police chief in Minneapolis, O'Hara and Governor Walz say Pretty was legally licensed to carry a concealed weapon. So are you saying it's not okay for him to exercise his second amendment right, not to mention his first amendment right to be there in the first place, but his second amendment right to carry a gun? And if you do, you can be shot by federal law enforcement?

[00:10:42] Speaker 2: No, I didn't say that Dana. I never said that. What I'm saying is we respect that second amendment right, but those rights don't count when you riot and assault, delay, obstruct and impede law enforcement officers. And most especially when you mean to do that beforehand. How do you know that? When you mean to do that beforehand, when you show up to an active crime scene, don't leave the crime scene and you're armed, then, you know, you've got the decision making process for that individual. It doesn't seem to be very good. Now back to the second amendment, what you're saying about the second amendment is peacefully protesting with firearms? Absolutely. I've done that myself and fully support that, but not when you perpetrate violence, obstruct, delay, or obfuscate border patrol in the performance of their duties.

[00:11:40] Speaker 1: There's no evidence that he was perpetrating violence and there's no evidence unless you have it, and we'd love to see it if there is, that he was intending to massacre law enforcement other than the fact that he was there and he had a gun lawfully.

[00:11:55] Speaker 2: He meant to be there beforehand. Again, Dana, he came there beforehand for a reason. How do you know that? Because he was there.

[00:12:03] Speaker 1: But all he was doing was filming and documenting it, which is legal. He was carrying a gun, which in Minneapolis is legal.

[00:12:09] Speaker 2: I didn't say it wasn't. And I didn't say it wasn't legal. So then what did he do that was illegal? He cannot assault federal law enforcement when he does that. That's an active law enforcement crime scene.

[00:12:22] Speaker 1: Where do you see in the video that he was assaulting law enforcement? Because from everything we have seen, law enforcement was assaulting him when he was there trying to help another individual.

[00:12:33] Speaker 2: Dana, law enforcement doesn't assault anyone. Follow directions of law enforcement. Follow directions of law enforcement in an active crime scene. It's very evident he didn't want to do that. Very evident that the other individuals didn't want to do that. And, you know, it's too bad the consequences had to be paid because he injected himself into that crime scene. I can't say that enough. He made the decision to go there. We didn't make the decision to talk to him. We didn't even know that individual was in existence until he came into that crime scene.

[00:13:08] Speaker 1: I want to go back to video number one, because you keep seeing that he injected himself into the crime scene. He was a guy on a street filming an operation. He wasn't, he was far away. He wasn't on the crime scene. And what I want you to see again is that law enforcement appears by the video we have to be approaching him and the person who is next to him, not the other way around. And so what I want to know is what evidence do you have that he went after law enforcement?

[00:13:39] Speaker 2: Sure. The fact that he was standing in the middle of the road, there was interaction between him, the bystanders and law enforcement. And again, follow directions of law enforcement. He doesn't need to be in the middle of a crime scene. Dan, I don't think you would want to be in the middle of a crime scene or you would want civilians in the middle of a crime scene injecting themselves into something that is none of their business at all.

[00:14:06] Speaker 1: Can you also just answer the question about the gun? Because again, do you have any evidence that he was brandishing his weapon? Did he ever have his hand on the weapon? Yeah.

[00:14:20] Speaker 2: Again, the officers on the ground in that meeting, we hear gun, gun, gun. So that gun at some point became visible to officers.

[00:14:31] Speaker 1: But could it have been because they were, they were, they had him on the ground and maybe his shirt came up and they saw that it was on him? That doesn't mean that he was... Pure speculation.

[00:14:40] Speaker 2: And that is why we have an investigation, Dana. Fine. I... That is what we are investigating. You're not going to know that now and I'm not going to know that.

[00:14:47] Speaker 1: I think an investigation is great, but the Homeland Security Secretary said he was brandishing a weapon. Do you have evidence that we haven't seen that he was brandishing a weapon?

[00:14:57] Speaker 2: He was, he brought a semi-automatic weapon to a riot, assaulted federal officers, and at some point they saw that weapon. So I do believe the secretary is 100% spot on in what she said. Seeing a weapon... Why would you bring a weapon and assault a federal officer if you did not have intent to harm or delay or obstruct that federal officer with a weapon?

[00:15:22] Speaker 1: You keep saying that he assaulted a federal officer, but again, we have not seen evidence that that happened. It looked like he was on the defense. And again, he had a gun legally. It just, it's, it's sort of feels like we're in the upside down where we have law enforcement and conservatives who are very pro-Second Amendment saying the problem was that he had a gun legally.

[00:15:47] Speaker 2: No, the problem is, as I said several times now, is he injected himself. He put himself where he did not need to be. He put himself in and put law enforcement officers in jeopardy through his actions. These were his actions, not law enforcement officers' action. We had to react to an individual that came there for a specific reason. And again, what that reason is, we're going to find more out about that in the coming days. I'll be interested to see what his reason for being there while border patrol agents were arresting a violent, criminal, illegal alien, doing their lawful, ethical, and moral duties in Minneapolis. That's the question.

[00:16:28] Speaker 1: Well, but the question is also why is an American citizen now dead for the second time who was there to document, in this case, and clearly to, to, to be there as a bystander, which is his First Amendment right.

[00:16:47] Speaker 2: He wasn't there to clearly document anything. Don't, don't socially engineer the topic, Dana. He was not there to document. Appeared to be. That's fair. And he obfuscated and delayed officers there on the scene. That's pretty evident to me.

[00:17:02] Speaker 1: I want to ask you about your, your agents. You said that this was a highly trained agent who had been serving on border patrol for eight years. What was he trained for? Because these are your border patrol agents, and they're now in the interior of the country, in American cities. Was he trained in urban policing?

[00:17:24] Speaker 2: Yes. All of our border patrol agents are trained in all, for all types of environments, including urban policing. This particular border patrol agent had eight years with some specific skill sets there with both firearms and less lethal munitions. Also, let's take a look at the training and the environments that border patrol agents operate in. We operate in places like San Diego, California, Tucson, Arizona, New Orleans. All those have border patrol sectors. Detroit, Michigan. We've got border patrol sectors in Buffalo. So this myth, and I saw this just last night on CNN, this myth that border patrol agents don't work in urban areas is just that. It's a myth. We're well adept at urban areas conducting that Title VIII immigration enforcement wherever we go. It doesn't matter if it's a desert or an urban environment. We're very well adept at doing that.

[00:18:25] Speaker 1: Is the agent or agents, is it your understanding that more than one agent fired a weapon at Alex Preddy?

[00:18:34] Speaker 2: Again, that's going to be part of the investigation. I'm not going to speculate on how many shots or who shot or that type of thing because I don't know.

[00:18:41] Speaker 1: Are the agents who were involved still on the job?

[00:18:47] Speaker 2: Yes. These border patrol agents are going to more than likely be on administrative duty, but they were our main border patrol agents.

[00:18:57] Speaker 1: What does that mean? So they'll be off the streets for a bit?

[00:19:00] Speaker 2: In Minneapolis, they will, but only in Minneapolis here. They'll be at a different location.

[00:19:06] Speaker 1: Okay. And before I let you go, I just want to button up one point that you were making about what Alex Preddy was doing there. Do you accept that it is the law that an individual has a right to film what law enforcement is doing?

[00:19:23] Speaker 2: I believe that all citizens of the United States have those First and Fourth Amendment rights, as long as they do so peacefully and don't delay, obstruct, or assault anyone in doing that. And that's the issue here because he was not peacefully doing anything.

[00:19:40] Speaker 1: All right. And just for the record, and we've seen this video multiple times from multiple angles, there is no evidence that he was doing anything other than being peaceful until the altercation began. Again, I look forward to seeing the other evidence in the investigation that you have, because we do want to get to the bottom of this and do want to get all of the facts as they actually happened. Chief Fovino, thank you so much for joining us. Chief Fovino, thank you so much for your time. I really appreciate you being here and answering questions.

[00:20:06] Speaker 2: Thank you, Dana.