A body language expert says people should watch closely for the man in the gray jacket, highlighting his actions in the footage from the second Minneapolis shooting that followed the death of Alex Pretti.

Increasing scrutiny is calling into question the official explanation surrounding the death of 37-year-old ICU nurse Alex Pretti during a federal immigration enforcement action in Minneapolis, as a forensic body language specialist urges the public to focus on one pivotal moment caught on video.

Minneapolis has once again become a flashpoint for national anger following two deadly shootings involving ICE within weeks of each other. The first was the death of Renée Nicole Good. The second occurred on January 24, when Alex Pretti was fatally shot by federal agents during an anti-ICE protest. Together, the incidents have reignited fierce debate over federal use of force, transparency, and accountability.

In the immediate aftermath of Pretti’s death, officials from the Department of Homeland Security and the Trump administration moved swiftly to defend the agents involved. Speaking to the Wall Street Journal on January 25, President Donald Trump characterized Pretti as armed and dangerous, arguing that the presence of a firearm justified the shooting.

“I don’t like any shooting. I don’t like it,” Trump said. “But I also don’t like it when someone shows up at a protest with a very powerful, fully loaded gun and extra magazines. That’s not good either.”

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

However, as videos recorded by multiple bystanders quickly spread online, a far more complex picture began to take shape.

Footage from several angles does not clearly show Pretti holding or reaching for a firearm. Instead, he appears to be holding a phone as officers converge on him. Witnesses say he was trying to assist a woman who had been knocked to the ground amid the chaos. The videos show Pretti being pepper-sprayed, forced onto his knees, and surrounded by multiple agents.

While it is undisputed that Pretti legally owned a gun and had it in a holster on his belt, none of the circulating videos show him pointing it or threatening officers with it. Legal experts and former law enforcement officials who have reviewed the footage have publicly questioned whether the force used was warranted based on what can be seen.

Amid the growing controversy, a well-known forensic body language and behavioral analyst known online as Dr. G Explains entered the discussion. A clinical and forensic psychologist, Dr. G analyzed the publicly available footage and released a detailed breakdown that intensified calls for an independent investigation.

His analysis focused not only on Pretti’s actions but also on the behavior of the agents, especially one officer wearing a gray jacket. Dr. G said the movements and decisions of this agent raise serious concerns about whether the situation was being calmed or rapidly escalated by law enforcement.

“This is not someone trying to de-escalate,” Dr. G said. “This is someone who is accelerating the situation very quickly.”

Dr. G highlighted moments in which Pretti, already on the ground and surrounded, is repeatedly pepper-sprayed at close range. He described the conduct as aggressive and unnecessary, noting that Pretti appeared overwhelmed and restrained.

The most critical point, according to Dr. G, comes moments later. He urged viewers to closely watch the man in the gray jacket.

As Pretti kneels on the ground, Dr. G observed that the agent in gray appears to reach into Pretti’s waistband and remove the firearm from its holster. Almost immediately afterward, someone can be heard shouting, “gun.”

What followed is what Dr. G described as deeply troubling.

Rather than clearly announcing that the weapon had been secured and that Pretti had been disarmed, the agent in the gray jacket turns away. Seconds later, other agents raise their weapons. The gun is no longer visible on Pretti, yet shots are fired. Pretti is struck in the back.

Dr. G emphasized a critical inconsistency in behavior. If officers truly believed Pretti remained armed and posed an immediate threat, it would make little sense for the agent who had just removed the weapon to turn his back and leave.

“If you believe someone is still armed and dangerous, turning your back would be extremely risky,” Dr. G explained. “That behavior doesn’t match someone who thinks they are facing an immediate lethal threat.”

He acknowledged that some might argue the agent feared a second weapon. But he noted that such a belief would normally lead to heightened communication, coordination, and caution, not withdrawal without alerting other officers that the primary weapon had already been removed.

The implication is significant. If Pretti had been disarmed and no longer posed an immediate danger when the shots were fired, the official DHS narrative may not accurately reflect what happened.

This analysis has intensified public outrage and skepticism. Community members, civil rights advocates, and legal experts are now demanding the release of all body camera footage, radio transmissions, and internal reports tied to the incident. Many are also calling for an independent investigation, arguing that federal agencies should not investigate themselves in cases involving deadly force.

Pretti’s family has described him as a compassionate and gentle man who dedicated his career to caring for veterans as an ICU nurse at the Minneapolis VA Health Care System. They have rejected claims that he intended harm, pointing to video footage that shows him holding a phone and attempting to help another protester.

In Minneapolis, the site of the shooting has become both a memorial and a protest space. Candles, flowers, and handwritten messages now line the street where Pretti died. Demonstrations continue, fueled not only by opposition to ICE but by what many residents see as a pattern of excessive force and shifting official narratives after fatal encounters.

As the investigation unfolds, questions surrounding the actions of the man in the gray jacket and what he did or failed to communicate in those crucial seconds are unlikely to fade. For many, that moment marks the line between justified force and a preventable tragedy.

The mounting scrutiny reflects a larger crisis facing federal law enforcement: public trust. When official statements appear to conflict with video evidence and expert analysis, that trust erodes rapidly. In Alex Pretti’s case, each new detail has only strengthened the belief that the full truth has yet to be openly acknowledged.

Whether that truth ultimately emerges through transparent investigation or remains contested in the public sphere may influence not only this case, but the future of federal enforcement actions under intense national scrutiny.