Talk:Killing of Alex Pretti

new video?

So, a video surfaced of Alex spitting on officers and even kicking off a tail light of a ICE truck. Should this be added to the article, or is it just AI bullshit? I honestly feel like it's a AI-generated video. StupidCookieMuncher (talk) 22:20, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

I have seen AI generated videos of Pretti, but sources such as the New York Times and NBC have reported on this video, and a posted over a week before Pretti's killing (you cannot add content to a youtube video after published) shows the same incident. Highly unlikely to be AI. ALittleClass (talk) 22:26, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

I believe that you now can, indeed, edit a published video. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 21:19, 31 January 2026 (UTC).

It is my understanding that editing on youtube is only subtractive (trimming, blurring, replacing music with music from youtube's library), unless something has changed. ALittleClass (talk) 01:38, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

I think ALittleClass is right. See --Orgullomoore (talk) 02:06, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

The video has been heavily scrutinized and it has been deemed highly unlikely to be AI. Simply because AI cannot create the same video of an incident that takes place from two vantage points without obvious AI discrepancies. StephanieMGarza1 (talk) 01:57, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

It cannot be used, per WP:BLPSPS. FactOrOpinion (talk) 02:42, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Even if it's legit, it's completely irrelevant to the murder of him carried out later by ICE fascists. ~2025-32680-75 (talk) 14:57, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

• We have PBS and other RS on this kicking tailights video. Is that what StupidCookieMuncher (talk · contribs) was referring to? PBS, NYT, etc. Plenty of RS on this. The present LEAD is probably not NPOV as it seems to indicate this person was an innocent bystander rather than a repeat protester how had previous run ins with ICE. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:26, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

  This article generally fails NPOV. It doesn't convey that Pretti was being told to stay out of the road, or that he had engaged in violent attacks on ICE days prior, and generally glazing over any contect unfavorable to Pretti in an attempt to paint him, as you suggested, an innocent bystander who was randomly attacked without any kind of rational or provocation. Guile's Theme (talk) 11:30, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Update: I take back my words on it being AI bullshit, because it's real. StupidCookieMuncher (talk) 22:01, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Homicide inclusion in lede

@Orgullomoore, starting discussion here on whether to make edits to "Later, the county medical examiner ruled Pretti's death a homicide." from the lede rather than going back and forth on the edit. Tagging @Einsof as well due to being original contributor.

I concur on homicide being a classification and not a legal ruling. I actually was the one who added the info about the homicide determination and was careful to make that distinction. I removed the sentence due to a few concerns: 1) The language of "ruled" rather than classified or something of the sort is likely misleading to most people who won't know this is not referring to a legal ruling, 2) The placement in the lede at the end of the description of events is likely to be misleading for the same reasons, at least as currently worded, and 3) The lede is pretty long as it is and I'm not sure it provides value to include there. It's not as if this was originally understood to be an accidental death and then later determined to be homicide, most people understood that Pretti was killed by another person from the beginning so having the technical term in the lede isn't really new info.

All that being said, like I mentioned in my edit notes I am open to its inclusion elsewhere in the article or even the lede, provided the "ruled" language is addressed and there is demonstrated value. As it stands now though I would still support removing the sentence. WinstonDewey (talk) 19:41, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

• I mean...it is a legal ruling by a public official. It's just not a judicial ruling. But manner of death still carries a legal weight, and can for example affect how or whether insurance policies will apply coverage. GMG^talk 20:24, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

I think it’s reasonable to assume that some readers and editors may have a preconceived idea of what homicide means. “Ruled” is the wrong word to use here.

It is not necessary for the lead because it is redundant with the first sentence of the lead which contains “was […] killed by […] agents”. Killed by agents means homicide. If we’re willing to say that first sentence in wikivoice, then we don’t need to attribute homicide to the medical examiner later in the lead. Mikewem (talk) 20:36, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

I agree that it's not needed in the lead / is redundant with what's already there. FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:39, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

I put it in the lede because it seemed pertinent, but if others feel it's not needed, I won't oppose removal. Einsof (talk) 20:54, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

I would agree that it doesn't belong in the lead. We say he was shot to death which, by default, is a homicide. I worry it would confuse readers who might think it means "criminal homicide" (the judicial/court ruling of a criminal act). EvergreenFir (talk) 21:19, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Ok, removed. Einsof (talk) 22:10, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't think this is necessary, given we mention him being shot multiple times. There's no question that action by another human being caused Pretti's death. Bremps... 21:20, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

The original editor removed it per consensus here, I suppose this whole section should get archived. WinstonDewey (talk) 21:22, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

I reverted the removal (before this discussion) because the rationale given was that there had been no judicial ruling. But homicide simply means one human killing another, regardless of culpability, and the person who "rules" (deems) that it's a homicide is typically an examiner. But also, those who say this word is redundant with the description of the man being shot to death are correct. As to whether people confuse homicide with legally culpable homicides, it's possible. I don't personally know of anyone who confuses the two, but I don't discount the possibility. --Orgullomoore (talk) 04:27, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

What the heck do "judicial rulings" have to do with homicides? That is the job of coroners and medical examiners, not corrupt judges. See the main article. Dimadick (talk) 07:59, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Coroner saying it was a homicide is essentially saying he didn't die from natural natural causes or an accident but the actions of another person and not much else from what I understand.

Homicide is commonly used in the context of a legal charge decided in court; within the legal framework there are also several different types of homicide, ie First-degree murder, Second-degree murder, Voluntary manslaughter, & Involuntary manslaughter. Guile's Theme (talk) 12:44, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

the amount of posturing nonsense posted here as 'rationale' for using the more neutral word 'killing' instead of thr more accurate one 'murder' is a microcosm of the moral decay of american society. ~2026-29862-9 (talk) 13:26, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

This isn't reddit; go politicize elsehwere. Guile's Theme (talk) 17:17, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

For an encyclopedia, the problem with costantly privileging judicial truth over historical truth, is the risk of never telling the truth, or telling it too late, whenever a guilty politics prevents its ascertainment. As in this case ~2026-19506-41 (talk) 10:45, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't about 'truth'. It is about Neutrality and Reliable secondary sources from unbiased 3rd parties. Guile's Theme (talk) 12:34, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Am adjusting the auto-archiving for this talk page

From 7 days -> 14 days and am changing the # of posts/threads kept from 15 -> 10. There are closed threads on here and threads from early January with no new posts since then. I think this main talk page would benefit from some archiving of the older threads, it's become quite large - the Prosize gadget is showing the following stats:

• HTML document size: 622 kB
• Prose size (including all HTML code): 20 kB
• References (including all HTML code): 1463 B
• Wiki text: 175 kB
• Prose size (text only): 6222 B (1038 words) "readable prose size"
• References (text only): 192 B

- Shearonink (talk) 17:20, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Result of RFC not correctly implemented

The result of "RfC on mentioning Pretti's previous confrontation with ICE in "Background " section was to Inlcude. Instead one of the editors who was opposed edited it such that it reflects the 'Don't include but Refer' option which was explicity not the result of the RFC. Guile's Theme (talk) 11:34, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Seems pretty clear to me, so I moved the few sentences in the investigation section to the background section. If there is any continued doubt, it may be helpful for Beland to reiterate the appropriate course of action in the close. Einsof (talk) 11:49, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

@Einsof: could you explain your removal of the sourced content Homeland Security Investigations is reviewing the incident.? Mikewem (talk) 17:13, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

If you read the options given in the RfC, the wordings of #1 and #3 are basically indistinguishable. I think your edits make the writing less coherent, but if it’s correct, then it’s correct. Mikewem (talk) 17:22, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

It just seemed like WP:NOTNEWS to me. Einsof (talk) 19:19, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't see how it can be made more clear that the words of Option 1 are binding. -- Beland (talk) 18:25, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

In your view, was I wrong to characterize the words of 1 and 3 as basically indistinguishable? Mikewem (talk) 18:34, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Option 3 directs putting the bulk of the content on this incident in the Investigations section and referring to it from Background, and Option 1 directs putting the bulk of the content on this incident inside the Background section and referring to it from other sections (such as Investigations). In one sense, then, they are opposites. -- Beland (talk) 19:20, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

I didn’t see any direct, textual support for any distinction of “bulk of” in option 1, though that is most likely a fair presumption of the spirit and intent of the question. I do see some “Include” !votes that explicitly say they want the bulk in Investigations, though I think the majority of include !votes likely expected their vote to be meant to support having the bulk in Background, and I trust your weighting of the nuance in the responses. Mikewem (talk) 19:48, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

@Guile's Theme: Better? Mikewem (talk) 17:56, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, but in my opinion this part, "On January 30, Trump called Pretti an "agitator and, perhaps, insurrectionist" in response to the video.", belongs in the reactions. In my view we don't need to be potentially coloring anything with the words of politicans outside the reactions section where all such reactions can all be given together. Guile's Theme (talk) 18:16, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

It’s not a reaction to the shooting, so I don’t think it should go with reactions to the shooting Mikewem (talk) 18:22, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Then remove it entirely. I can't see how Trump's reaction belongs in the background or anywhere outside the section where all other responses and reactions are placed.

Although, in the large section titled 'Trump Adminstration' in Responses there is a chronological telling of Trump and his adminstrations reactions and I don't see why it wouldn't fit in the 2nd or 3rd paragraph quite well. Guile's Theme (talk) 18:32, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

My general understanding is that now that the inclusion of the information is bound by RfC, we can’t just simply remove any of it entirely without a superseding (new) RfC that addresses the inclusion of any specific part of the information. Though I could be wrong. Mikewem (talk) 18:38, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

RFC was to include information of the Jan 13th video in the background, only refer to another section about it, or not inlcude it all, the first option was picked.

Trump's reaction to said video has nothing to do with inclusion and should have never been in the investigations to begin with and cannot be possibly explained or substainiated because it obviously has nothing to do with 'investigations'. There is a section called Responses. So put the responses in the responses section with all the politically partisan political figures. Putting them elsewhere selectively can only serve to color what should be strictly neutral sections. Guile's Theme (talk) 18:43, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Again, the expanded title of that section can be presumed to be “Responses to the killing of Alex Pretti”. RS do not say that this was a response to the killing of Alex Pretti. RS say this was a response to a similar incident that occurred before the killing and is now being investigated.

We can’t just excise Trump’s extremely notable reaction because it contains an accusation. Excising it on those grounds would mean acting non-neutrally. Neutral editing would generally mean doing something like adding a counter-view to Trump’s accusation alongside his quote. Mikewem (talk) 20:01, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

You shouldn't presume the 'expanded' title of a section in way so convinient for your arguement. It says responses. Not 'responses only to the shooting itself and not to any other relevant contextual events concerning Pretti mentioned elsewhere in the article'. The same sort of logic you are using was used by those in the RFC who wanted to exclude any and all mention of the January 13th video in the background on the basis that it 'didn't take place during the shooting'. IE the logic of those who were ultimately ruled against in the RFC.

Trump's reaction serves absolutely no purpose in the background over the responses section except to politically color what should be a stricly neutral section as opposed to placing it in the section that was created for such responses. What does including it in the background as opposed to in the reactions achieve? Nothing but a less neutral background section while actively ignoring there is an entire section created for such reactions for a reason so the rest of the article can focus on facts and NPOV and leave inherently biased comments from politicians out of it regardless of how notable an individual they are.

"We can’t just excise Trump’s extremely notable reaction because it contains an accusation"

We are only talking about excising it if it doesn't merit inclusion in the reactions section. I have not heard a single reason why if it needs to be included it would need to be outside the section created for such reactions by politicians but in the background to only the effect of reducing the article's NPOV. Guile's Theme (talk) 20:37, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

As the RFC closer, I think it's well within the chosen RFC option to have reactions to the January 13 incident in the Reactions section, and the investigation of that in the Investigations section, having those sections refer back to the main explanation about the shooting in the Background section. This distribution of text keeps things chronological.

If all of this is kept in the Background section, speaking personally, I think it should say something like "After the January 24 shooting," before discussing events on January 30 and February 2. Otherwise, as a reader it's easy to be confused about the order of events. -- Beland (talk) 23:52, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

I'll point out a few things here. The Response section does refer to responses to the shooting, less so responses to other things. You aren't fully understanding the arguments against including the Jan 13 video in the background. The objection to inclusion in that section is that the incident wasn't known to the public or the law enforcement officers involved in Pretti's killing at the time of the killing. That incident came to light later. The RFC determined by consensus that the Jan 13 video/incident should be referenced in the background.

You spent more time advocating for that than anyone to the point that you engaged in personalities and were sent to ANI over it. I have noticed that you have threatened to refer other users to ANI over content disputes in the time since then, which goes against the spirit of the Wikipedia project. Nevertheless, the video and incident are now mentioned prominently in the background section of the article. You now quibble about the inclusion of a Donald Trump quote in the background section. Perhaps it's best to simply pick our battles and focus on areas of the project that require the most help versus nitpicking verbiage on one contentious topics page after another. Happy editing! Bill Heller (talk) 09:17, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

The Response section does refer to responses to the shooting, less so responses to other things.

Where does it say that? Also, 'less so responses to other things' is rather vague. This isn't some random 'other thing' but a video of Pretti in similar circumstance days prior that has recieved almost as much attention, coverage, notability, and discourse as the shooting videos.

You aren't fully understanding the arguments against including the Jan 13 video in the background.

As you are failing to understand that particular question has already been resolved by the RFC in favor of inclusion so there is no reason to rehash anything; trying to do so would be failing to drop the WP:STICK.

You spent more time advocating for that than anyone to the point that you engaged in personalities and were sent to ANI over it.

And that was resolved, this is yet another topic you should drop the WP:STICK over because me being taken to ANI once isn't something to beat me over the head with.

You now quibble about the inclusion of a Donald Trump quote in the background section.

Describing this as a 'quibble' is deragatory or minimizing in my view. I've made clear arguments based in core wiki policy, NPOV, that you have not rebutted. That if it merits inclusion it should be with all other politician responses in the responses section to improve overall neutrality, be more consistent, and adhere to what the sections are actually titled. Finally, that if it doesn't merit inclusion in the responses then it doesn't merit inclusion at all.

I have noticed that you have threatened to refer other users to ANI over content disputes in the time since then, which goes against the spirit of the Wikipedia project.

That wasn't a content dispute, that was someone being uncivil, failing to drop the stick, and insinuating everyone who disagreed with him, which was everyone else, was part of a bad faith 'team up' against them. That user ended up getting a 1 year ban from the article in question and later a 48 hours block for trying to proxy edit the same article. If you have an issue with my conduct you can take me to ANI but otherwise I find all of this to be a little droll. Guile's Theme (talk) 13:04, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

My 2¢ is that it doesn't read sensibly to have a post-facto reaction placed in a section of background material, regardless of its content. For the same reason I think the sentence "His father told reporters..." is borderline; it's not quite a reaction, but it's a post-facto contextualization that might belong somewhere else (personally I would just remove it). Einsof (talk) 13:22, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

I agree, the events of the January 13th video are 'background' regardless of if the video itself had not yet come to light in a way that Trump's comment about the video made after the shooting are not. Perhaps that was the most straightfoward argument instead of saying it felt like it reduced NPOV as I did. Guile's Theme (talk) 13:33, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 April 2026

change "appears to show an agent removing a gun and moving away from Pretti roughly one second before another agent fires at him.[10][11][12][13" to "appears to show an agent removing a gun from Pretti and moving away from Pretti roughly one second before another agent fires at him.[10][11][12][13]

Lance Strosser ~2026-20482-81 (talk) 04:28, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: This wording is less clear than the original. InfernoHues (talk) 04:51, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of comments by Tricia McLaughlin

I disagree with the wording in Special:Diff/1347098132 by @Mikewem

The referenced source says that

McLaughlin added that the person had two magazines and no ID and that it "looks like a situation where an individual wanted to do maximum damage and massacre law enforcement. She says more information will be provided later.

I don't believe this source says that McLaughlin said anything conclusive about what happened here. We could say she "concluded that it looks like" that that's what happened but I don't see how that is any different from my edit. I may have worded it poorly and I don't know much about this subject but I think this needs to either have its wording changed or have its claims properly sourced if it's to faithfully represent what is said in the sources. – Mullafacation『talk』 14:55, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

I've redone the wording again. Please revert if it's rubbish! – Mullafacation『talk』 15:13, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Ok to change ‘seemed that’ to ‘looked like’? Mikewem (talk) 15:23, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, that makes more sense. – Mullafacation『talk』 15:26, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

I was going to write "appeared" or something but I forgot. I don't even know why I worded it like that – Mullafacation『talk』 15:30, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

 Done – Mullafacation『talk』 15:33, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 April 2026

Alex Pretti was born November 9th https://www.forevermissed.com/alex-pretti/about

He also had a wife named Rachel Calhoun

https://www.facebook.com/61560504697326/photos/im-not-surprised-alex-prettis-ex-wife-rachel-canoun-said-she-wasnt-shocked-by-hi/122207756450350156/ ButteyFelicity (talk) 17:24, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want made. Facebook posts and memorial websites are not reliable sources. Day Creature (talk) 17:52, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

https://www.mprnews.org/story/2026/01/24/alex-pretti-was-fatally-shot-in-minneapolis-by-us-border-patrol-officer Here’s it about his Ex-Wife. ButteyFelicity (talk) 18:04, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/us-news/who-is-rachel-canoun-alex-prettis-ex-wife-breaks-silence-after-minneapolis-shooting-it-doesn-t-surprise-me-that-101769343398003.html ButteyFelicity (talk) 18:05, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

https://jeffreynall.substack.com/p/the-courage-of-good-neighbors-alex ButteyFelicity (talk) 18:05, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

https://coloradosun.com/2026/01/24/colorado-parents-minneapolis-protester-shot-killed/ Heres some more. He lived a quiet life it said. It seemed he had some inner turmoil with what happened with ICE. ButteyFelicity (talk) 18:07, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

@ButteyFelicity unless his ex-wife is pertinent to his death, then mention of her is not WP:DUE. Editors have known for some time he had an ex-wife and have chosen not to include her. Also, please read User-generated sources. Blogs, social media, etc. are not considered reliable sources (outside of very specific uses). Please provide a WP:reliable source that states his exact date of birth S0091 (talk) 19:04, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Agree with your point S0091. - Shearonink (talk) 15:44, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Then why include mentions of Renee Goods Ex husband? That doesn’t make sense. Wouldn’t it make sense not to out of respect? Considering hes dead? ButteyFelicity (talk) 00:53, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Because information included or not included in individual articles is up to the editorial consensus *only* for that article. Keep the essay WP:OTHERCONTENT in mind...just because article X has (or doesn't have) certain information doesn't mean article Y must follow the same format or have similar/corresponding information. - Shearonink (talk) 15:44, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Alex Pretti’s Date Of birth

From this TMZ Report, it mentions that Pretti’s mother marked what would have been his 38th birthday in March 2026 ButteyFelicity (talk) 21:08, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#TMZ. TMZ is considered a somewhat unreliable source. If a reliable source stated the same information, then it would be possible to include a firm 1988 date. - Shearonink (talk) 15:33, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15605387/alex-pretti-mother-heartbreaking-tribute-son-birthday.html This source also confirms the date of birth. ButteyFelicity (talk) 16:14, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

@ButteyFelicity see WP:DAILYMAIL. It is a deprecated source so cannot be used. I suggest checking WP:RSP first before proposing sources. While it is not an exhaustive list, it is helpful for many major sources. Also, in general, do not use tabloids. S0091 (talk) 17:30, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 April 2026

Summary of suggested changes: Removal one of the duplicate references to the Billy Bragg song, and corrected the release date given. Replaced the future tense with past tense for the Dropkick Murphys show now that it has happened. Summarised the section by removing irrelevant information i.e. the exact time and ticket prices of the Tom Morello concert, the fact that the Dropkick Murphys show was livestreamed, etc. I don't know if I can change links in an edit request but the link to the New England Forever EP could be moved to the song itself, rather than having its own mention.

Change: "On January 28, 2026, Bruce Springsteen released "Streets of Minneapolis", a protest song in response to Operation Metro Surge and the deaths of Pretti and Renée Good. Springsteen wrote the song on January 24 and recorded it on January 27. The single within two days ended up charting at number-one in 19 different countries.[238] Billy Bragg also wrote a song about his response, "City of Heroes", and released it on January 28.[239] On January 30, 2026, musician Tom Morello held the "Defend Minnesota" benefit concert in Minneapolis which also included performances by Rise Against and by Bruce Springsteen who performed two songs including the live debut of "Streets of Minneapolis". The concert was held at 10:30am with tickets costing $25. Morello said that all of the proceeds from the concert would go to the families of Pretti and Renée Good.[240][241]

British protest singer Billy Bragg released the song "City of Heroes" on January 29, 2026. Bragg wrote the song two days earlier and said "The murder of Alex Pretti was horrifically shocking, all the more so as we are still reeling from the images of the murder of Renee Good. That these crimes can be committed in broad daylight, on camera and yet no one is held accountable only adds to the injustice."[239]

On February 4, 2026, in response to the killings of Pretti and Good, punk band Dropkick Murphys, along with hardcore punk band Haywire, released the single "Citizen I.C.E.", which appears on their EP New England Forever. In a statement, the band said: "As Americans are being executed in the street, we feel it is our duty to raise consciousness, and be one of the voices speaking against this nightmare. 'Citizen I.C.E.' is FOR THE PEOPLE. Stand strong against tyranny. Use it however you want."[242]The Dropkick Murphys will perform a free acoustic show and fundraiser event for Pretti and Good on the afternoon of March 6, 2026, at the Black Forest Inn parking lot on 26th and Nicollet Avenue which is not far from where Pretti lost his life. "We are so proud of how Minnesota stood up and met this moment and we are so sad for the community and for the Pretti and Good families for what they've gone through. [So] it is an honor to come down and be able to play some music for the people and let them know we stand in solidarity with them" Ken Casey said in a statement. The show will be livestreamed.[243]"

To: "On January 28, 2026, Bruce Springsteen released "Streets of Minneapolis", a protest song in response to Operation Metro Surge and the deaths of Pretti and Renée Good. Springsteen wrote the song on January 24 and recorded it on January 27. The single within two days ended up charting at number-one in 19 different countries.[238]

Billy Bragg also wrote a song about his response, "City of Heroes", and released it on January 28. Bragg wrote the song the previous day and said "The murder of Alex Pretti was horrifically shocking, all the more so as we are still reeling from the images of the murder of Renee Good. That these crimes can be committed in broad daylight, on camera and yet no one is held accountable only adds to the injustice."[239]

On January 30, 2026, musician Tom Morello held the "Defend Minnesota" benefit concert in Minneapolis which included performances by Rise Against and by Bruce Springsteen who performed two songs including the live debut of "Streets of Minneapolis". Morello said that all of the proceeds from the concert would go to the families of Pretti and Renée Good.[240][241]

On February 4, 2026, punk band Dropkick Murphys, along with hardcore punk band Haywire, released the single "Citizen I.C.E.". In a statement, the band said: "As Americans are being executed in the street, we feel it is our duty to raise consciousness, and be one of the voices speaking against this nightmare. 'Citizen I.C.E.' is FOR THE PEOPLE. Stand strong against tyranny. Use it however you want."[242] The Dropkick Murphys performed a free acoustic show and fundraiser event for Pretti and Good on the afternoon of March 6, 2026, at the Black Forest Inn parking lot on 26th and Nicollet Avenue which is not far from where Pretti lost his life. "We are so proud of how Minnesota stood up and met this moment and we are so sad for the community and for the Pretti and Good families for what they've gone through. [So] it is an honor to come down and be able to play some music for the people and let them know we stand in solidarity with them" Ken Casey said in a statement.[243]" blackdog (talk) 05:18, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

 Done I cut down the section even further than your proposal, removing some of the unnecessary quotes and details. Day Creature (talk) 18:37, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

The updated article has kept the wrong date for the Billy Bragg song, which released on the 28th, not the 29th blackdog (talk) 06:54, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Fixed, thank you. Day Creature (talk) 16:18, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Title shouldn't be italicized

I don't see an {{italic title}} tag, and don't know why it is. Help? All the best, Miniapolis 17:14, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Fixed. Someone added the {{Infobox court case}} template without turning the auto-italicize feature off. -- Veggies (talk) 17:25, 6 May 2026 (UTC)