Unsubstantiated claims abound after Border Patrol agents shot and killed a man during an immigration enforcement operation in Minneapolis on Saturday.
Within hours of the incident — and before any investigation was conducted — officials on both sides had already concluded that the shooting was either justified self-defense or an execution, depending on their partisan affiliation. But rendering a verdict before all the facts are known is prejudice, not justice. True justice, as God himself shows in Scripture, establishes the facts first.
Videos circulating on social media show federal officers surrounding Alex Pretti, who had been filming them, after Pretti stepped between an officer and a woman the officer had pushed to the ground. After a brief struggle, an officer yelled “gun!” and shots rang out an instant later. Pretti was legally licensed to carry a firearm, and DHS said they found a semiautomatic 9mm pistol and a second magazine on Pretti’s person, but videos do not show him holding a gun before the altercation.
Less than three hours later, the Department of Homeland Security published an account of the incident to social media, claiming that “an individual approached US Border Patrol officers with a 9 mm semi-automatic handgun, seen here. The officers attempted to disarm the suspect but the armed suspect violently resisted.” The statement added that the officer who killed Pretti “fired defensive shots,” and “this looks like a situation where an individual wanted to do maximum damage and massacre law enforcement.”
Administration officials echoed this account. In a Saturday press conference, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem described Pretti as “wishing to inflict harm on these officers, coming, brandishing like that.” Homeland Security Advisor Stephen Miller dismissed the incident curtly, stating that “an assassin tried to murder federal agents.”
However, Democratic politicians were eager to prove that the Trump administration has no monopoly on hyperbole. “This appears to be an execution by immigration enforcement,” claimed Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) on Saturday. “I am absolutely heartbroken, horrified, and appalled that federal agents murdered another member of our community … Minnesota was once a place of refuge, and Trump has turned it into a war zone where unchecked federal forces murder our neighbors.” Fellow squad member Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) likewise remarked Saturday, “Our Constitution is being shredded and our rights are dissolving. Resist.”
Compared to these equal and opposite conclusions, President Trump sounded an uncharacteristic note of reasonable caution. “In a five-minute telephone interview with The Wall Street Journal on Sunday,” the Journal reported, “Trump didn’t directly answer when asked twice whether the officer who shot Alex Pretti had done the right thing. Pressed further, the president said, ‘We’re looking, we’re reviewing everything and will come out with a determination.’”
This preliminary response is far more consistent with the preliminary nature of the investigation. “This is a breaking story, so it would not be surprising if, as more details come in, early reporting proves to be incomplete or inaccurate,” explained former federal prosecutor Andy McCarthy. “At this early point, it is not clear from various videos in circulation whether Pretti had the gun in his possession at the time of the altercation, whether he had it but was disarmed by the agents during the struggle, or whether the Border Patrol agent who shot him saw Pretti either in possession of or reaching for a gun.”
Until basic facts like these are not only uncovered but proven, any judgment about the officer-involved shooting is, by definition, premature.
This principle is supported not only by reason and common sense, but also by the testimony of God’s word. Throughout Scripture, we find that God’s perfect justice is demonstrated, among other things, by the fact that he always delivers judgment in accord with all the facts.
Of course, it is not possible for God to judge with incomplete information, because He knows everything. But Scripture takes care to emphasize the factual basis for God’s judgments. In the final judgment before God’s great white throne, John records that “books were opened … and the dead were judged by what was written in the books, according to what they had done” (Revelation 20:12). The point is that God records every person’s deeds and judges accordingly.
While God’s final judgment tarries, His common grace has established human governments to administer temporal justice (Romans 13:1-4). Because human rulers are creatures, they possess only a subset of the Creator’s knowledge, and their limited knowledge is further impeded by the corrupted state of their reason under sin. Therefore, even though human justice is a good gift from God, it falls far short of God’s perfect justice.
“The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom” (Proverbs 9:10), so the wiser human governments recognize their penultimate status. The omniscient Creator metes out perfect justice. Fallen, limited creatures fall short of that standard. Since human governments cannot administer justice with perfect knowledge, they ought to be humble about the judgments they render. They should not consider themselves incapable of errors in judgment.
Yet another conclusion follows. If human governments can err in judgment, and if they wish to avoid unjust outcomes, then they should institute safeguards to correct erroneous judgments. These safeguards are called due process, and they form an essential part of the American legal system by ensuring fairness and transparency. These neutral rules exist for the benefit of everyone, so that even neutral observers can affirm the justice of judgments reached through due process. But, as the term itself implies, it takes time to fulfill the requirements of “due process.”
Surprisingly, even the notion of due process finds a basis in God’s conduct in Scripture. As the omniscient Creator and Lord of all, God does not need to conduct an investigation or help his creatures understand his reasoning before he renders judgment. But, as a God who reveals himself to us, Scripture records how God does these very things.
A striking example occurs in Genesis 18-19. “The Lord appeared” (Genesis 18:1) to Abraham when “three men” (Genesis 18:2) arrived at his tent. The Lord stays to reveal his plan to Abraham (Genesis 18:20-33) while “two angels” (Genesis 19:1) then proceed to Sodom. “Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great and their sin is very grave,” God explains, “I will go down to see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry that has come to me. And if not, I will know” (Genesis 18:20-21).
Of course, the “Judge of all the earth” (Genesis 18:25) already knew the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah. The Lord has already claimed exhaustive knowledge of the “iniquity of the Amorites” in the covenant with Abraham, when he said their sins were “not yet complete” (Genesis 15:16). The Lord did not need to embark upon this elaborate, physical, and confusing mission to Sodom to ascertain its sinful character.
Instead, the Lord’s mission served to reveal His plan to Abraham, eliciting Abraham’s prophetic intercession and his affirmation of God’s justice (Genesis 18:25). It served to expose the utter depravity of the Sodomites in the most undeniable way (Genesis 19:4-11). And it provided the means for Lot’s deliverance, demonstrating that “the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment until the day of judgment” (2 Peter 2:9).
God could have justly obliterated Sodom and Gomorrah with fire from Heaven, with no further explanation to mankind. But He chose to act in the way that most clearly demonstrated His justice.
This is a consistent pattern of God’s action across Scripture. When Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit, God knew their guilt immediately, but He did not mention it immediately. Instead, His gentle questioning — “where are you?”; “who told you that you were naked?” — caused them to realize how their own actions exposed their guilt (Genesis 3:9-11). Likewise with Cain, God does not open with an accusation, but with a question, “Where is your brother?” (Genesis 4:9).
This pattern even continues through God’s messengers, the prophets. Nathan’s parable to David induces David to pronounce his own sentence before being confronted with his guilt (2 Samuel 12:5-6). Indeed, all of the prophetic books patiently lay out the argument to prove why God was just to send his people into exile, before the end finally arrives.
Thus, God provides an example of justice that is patient and unhurried. Because God is certain of ultimate victory, He does not immediately vindicate. God’s “due process,” as it were, is simply showing His work, so that outside observers may see and believe that His judgment is the right one.
Human rulers should take note. If the perfect judge can take time to “show His work,” how much more should His fallible creatures? Government officials should investigate the facts before making judgments. And, if they want to be taken seriously, government critics should follow the same policy.
Originally published at The Washington Stand.
Joshua Arnold is a senior writer at The Washington Stand, contributing both news and commentary from a biblical worldview.
