Minneapolis shooting: Eyewitness disputes DHS account, says Alex Pretti ‘did not brandish a weapon’. 

Detected Manipulations & Suggested Changes

Unbalanced reporting

Presenting one side’s evidence or narrative in more detail or with more apparent credibility than the other, without clearly signaling evidentiary limits.

The article provides detailed, step‑by‑step narrative from the eyewitness declaration (including the witness’s profession, actions, and specific observations) but offers only a short, high‑level summary of DHS Secretary Kristi Noem’s position. There is no mention of any official incident report, body‑cam or surveillance evidence, or statements from ICE/Border Patrol beyond Noem’s brief quote. This can make the eyewitness account appear more complete and implicitly more credible, even though it is a single, partially obstructed view and the witness is anonymous to readers. Examples: - Detailed witness narrative: “I saw him yelling at the ICE agents, but I did not see him attack the agents or brandish a weapon of any kind… ‘Suddenly, an ICE agent shoved him to the ground’… ‘I then saw the agents shoot the man at least six or seven times.’” - Limited DHS narrative: “Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem told reporters on January 24 that Pretti ‘came with weapons and ammunition to stop a law enforcement operation…’ and described the incident as an act of ‘domestic terrorism.’” The imbalance is not extreme, but the asymmetry in detail and context can subtly favor the eyewitness side.

3 suggestions

Include additional official sources from DHS/ICE/Border Patrol (e.g., written statements, preliminary reports, or spokesperson comments) that explain their version of events, not just the Secretary’s brief characterization.

Explicitly note the evidentiary status of each account (e.g., ‘This account is based on a single sworn declaration from a witness whose view was partially obstructed and whose name is redacted in court filings’ and ‘DHS has not yet released full investigative findings or body‑camera footage, if any exists’).

Add context on what information is currently unavailable or under investigation, to signal that both narratives are preliminary and may change as more evidence emerges.

Selective use of sources

Relying on a narrow set of sources that support a particular angle while omitting other relevant perspectives or expert input.

The article’s central challenge to DHS’s account rests on a single, redacted eyewitness declaration. No other neighbors, bystanders, medical personnel, or independent experts (e.g., use‑of‑force or emergency medicine experts) are cited to corroborate or contextualize the claims about the shooting sequence or alleged lack of medical aid. For example: - The article emphasizes: “A witness to the fatal shooting… said in newly filed court documents that he did not see the man brandish a weapon and that federal agents failed to render first aid…” - The witness’s medical critique is presented without any additional expert commentary: “‘I was confused as to why the victim was on his side, because that is not standard practice,’ the witness, identified in the filing as a pediatrician, wrote. ‘Checking for a pulse and administering CPR is standard practice.’” This can give the impression that the witness’s medical and factual interpretations are definitive, even though they are uncorroborated and may not fully account for tactical or safety protocols in an active‑shooter or weapons‑present scenario.

3 suggestions

Seek and include comments from additional witnesses, if available, or clearly state that attempts to reach other witnesses were unsuccessful.

Consult independent experts (e.g., emergency medicine physicians, tactical EMS, or policing/use‑of‑force experts) to explain standard practices for rendering aid when weapons may still be present, and present their views alongside the pediatrician’s observations.

Include any available information from local authorities (e.g., Minneapolis police, medical examiner, EMS) about response times, medical interventions, and cause of death, or explicitly note that such information has not yet been released.

Anonymous sources

Using unnamed or redacted sources whose credibility cannot be fully evaluated by readers, without sufficiently clarifying limitations.

The key eyewitness is described only as a physician and pediatrician, with the name redacted: “According to the filing, the witness — whose name was redacted — is a physician who lives near the scene of the shooting.” The article notes the declaration is ‘under threat of perjury,’ which supports credibility, but readers cannot independently assess the witness’s identity, potential conflicts of interest, or proximity beyond what is stated. Because this anonymous witness provides the central factual challenge to DHS’s account (no weapon brandished, alleged lack of aid), the anonymity increases the need for explicit caveats about limitations.

3 suggestions

Add a clear caveat such as: ‘The witness’s name is redacted in court filings, so USA TODAY has not independently identified them to readers, though the declaration states they are a pediatrician living near the scene.’

Explain why the name is redacted (e.g., court practice, safety concerns) if known, and note any verification steps the outlet took (e.g., ‘USA TODAY reviewed the sworn declaration filed in federal court’ is already present but could be expanded).

Balance reliance on this anonymous witness by including additional on‑the‑record sources or clearly stating that the account is one perspective among others that are still being investigated.

Appeal to authority

Using the status or expertise of a person to lend weight to claims beyond what the evidence alone supports.

The article highlights that the witness is a physician and pediatrician when critiquing the agents’ medical response: “‘I was confused as to why the victim was on his side, because that is not standard practice,’ the witness, identified in the filing as a pediatrician, wrote. ‘Checking for a pulse and administering CPR is standard practice.’” While medical training is relevant, pediatric practice does not necessarily equate to expertise in tactical or combat‑adjacent emergency care where scene safety and weapons are factors. Presenting the pediatrician’s view as ‘standard practice’ without any nuance or additional expert input can over‑leverage their authority.

3 suggestions

Clarify the scope of the witness’s expertise, e.g., ‘The witness, a pediatrician, said that in his medical practice, checking for a pulse and administering CPR is standard practice.’

Include commentary from emergency or trauma specialists familiar with law‑enforcement scenes to explain how protocols may differ when weapons are present or the scene is not fully secure.

Frame the pediatrician’s statements as observations and opinions rather than definitive judgments on whether agents followed all applicable protocols.

Framing effect

Influencing interpretation by how information is introduced or ordered, even when the underlying facts are accurate.

The headline and lede foreground the eyewitness dispute and the claim that Pretti ‘did not brandish a weapon,’ while DHS’s characterization of ‘domestic terrorism’ appears later. This ordering can prime readers to view the DHS account as less credible or as an overreaction. - Title: “Minneapolis shooting: Eyewitness disputes DHS account, says Alex Pretti ‘did not brandish a weapon’” - Only later: “Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem told reporters… and described the incident as an act of ‘domestic terrorism.’” The framing is not overtly sensational, but it emphasizes the conflict and the challenge to DHS more than the underlying uncertainty and ongoing investigation.

3 suggestions

Adjust the headline to reflect that multiple accounts are preliminary and under review, e.g., ‘Witness account challenges DHS description of Minneapolis shooting involving Border Patrol agent’ rather than asserting ‘did not brandish a weapon’ as the main takeaway.

In the lede, explicitly note that the witness’s account is one of multiple perspectives and that official investigations are ongoing.

Add a sentence early on clarifying that key facts (e.g., whether a weapon was brandished, exact sequence of events) remain disputed and under investigation.

Appeal to emotion (mild)

Using emotionally charged details that may sway readers’ feelings more than they add to factual understanding.

The article notes that Pretti was “a 37-year-old US citizen and Veterans Affairs ICU nurse,” which can evoke sympathy and contrast with the DHS label of ‘domestic terrorism.’ While this biographical detail is newsworthy, its placement in the lede, combined with the later ‘domestic terrorism’ label, can subtly frame DHS’s characterization as especially harsh or incongruent. The description of agents ‘appeared to be counting his bullet wounds’ also carries emotional weight and may provoke outrage, though it is presented as the witness’s perception rather than as established fact.

3 suggestions

Clarify why Pretti’s occupation is relevant (e.g., community impact, public interest) and avoid implying that his profession alone contradicts the possibility of violent intent.

Attribute emotionally charged observations clearly as perceptions, e.g., ‘According to the witness, the agents appeared to be counting his bullet wounds rather than administering CPR.’

Balance emotional details with neutral procedural information (e.g., timelines of EMS arrival, standard post‑shooting protocols) where available.