Name: CNN分析：明尼阿波利斯最新槍擊案影片曝光！ (New Minneapolis shooting video: CNN analysis)
Uploaded: 2026-01-25T17:02:26.000Z
Duration: 10 min 32 s

We have new footage from a second angle, and

情態助動詞 B1

I want to warn viewers that they might find this disturbing, but

我想提醒觀眾，你們可能會覺得這段畫面令人不安，但

進階形容詞比較級句型

we want to bring as many of the facts possible for viewers as we can.

我們希望盡可能地為觀眾呈現所有事實。

That was the guy that you just saw pushed.

那就是你剛才看到的被推擠的那個人。

We have a new analysis on some of the video that we've been showing you.

我們對之前播出的影片有新的分析。

CNN 的 Josh Campbell 現在加入我們。

Well, Jake, this is critical new information coming from our CNN Investigates analysis of different angles of this incident that we've seen, where you actually see the fatal shooting of this Minneapolis man.

Jake，這是我們 CNN 調查對這起事件不同角度分析出來的關鍵新資訊，你看到這名明尼亞波利斯男子的致命槍擊。

What we're learning from looking at these different angles, it appears at one point, as Alex Pretti is being held down on the ground, officers are trying into custody.

從這些不同角度來看，我們瞭解到，在某個時刻，當 Alex Pretti 被壓制在地時，員警正試圖將他拘留。

But at one point it appears that a federal immigration agent actually steps forward into that scrum, reaches towards his waistband and appears to disarm him, appears to pull a firearm away.

但有時候看起來，一位聯邦移民官員實際上上前介入，伸手到他的腰帶，並似乎要解除他的武裝，似乎要拿走一把槍械。

So there hasn't been in dispute, I don't think, by anyone that he actually had a firearm.

我認為，到目前為止，沒有人質疑他確實持有槍械。

The Minneapolis police chief said that he was a licensed gun owner, but

明尼亞波利斯警長表示，他是一位持槍證的槍枝擁有者，但是

it appears that that agent then pulls the weapon and he steps away.

看起來那位官員接著拔出了武器，然後他退開了。

Just about one second after that agent steps away, then you hear gunfire.

就在那位官員退開大約一秒鐘後，你聽到了槍聲。

And it's unclear which agent actually fired the first shot there.

而且目前還不清楚是哪位官員先開了槍。

It's also unclear whether that agent who appeared to remove his firearm from his waistband actually signaled to others around that he was removing the gun.

同樣不清楚的是，那位似乎從腰帶中取槍的官員，是否向周圍的人示意他正在取槍。

But that is critical information because there is this question about what type of threat did the Asian who fired first actually perceive.

但這很重要，因為這引發了一個問題，就是先開槍的官員實際上感知到的是什麼樣的威脅。

You could hear audio from agents saying, he's got a gun, he's got a gun.

你可以聽到官員的聲音說，他有槍，他有槍。

But there's no indication in any video that we've seen today that he was brandishing the weapon, that he was pointing it at any of the officers.

但我們到目前為止看到的任何影片，都沒有跡象顯示他當時正在揮舞武器，或是將武器指向任何員警。

And I can tell you, as a former law enforcement officer, by policy, agents are trained that you can only use deadly force when there is an imminent threat of death or serious physical injury to yourself, the agent, or someone else.

我可以告訴你，身為前執法人員，依規定，官員受過訓練，只有在自己、官員或他人面臨死亡或嚴重身體傷害的迫在眉睫的威脅時，才能使用致命武力。

Merely someone having a firearm on them does not in and of itself do justify the use of deadly force.

單純某人身上有槍械，本身並不能證明使用致命武力是正當的。

That person has to pose some type of threat.

So that will be the major question here about what that agent was perceiving when they opened fire.

所以這將是這裡的主要問題，關於那位官員開槍時，他感知到的是什麼。

The other critical thing I want to point out, and I've looked at different angles of this video.

我想指出的另一件關鍵事情是，我看了這段影片的不同角度。

It appears that there's this first set of shots, about one or two shots.

看起來有這第一波的槍擊，大約一兩槍。

But then you can actually see on one of the videos, Jake, that an agent then fires multiple times after Alex Preddy is still on the ground.

但在其中一段影片裡，傑克，你可以看到，在亞歷克斯·普雷迪還倒在地上時，一位官員接著開了好幾槍。

Again, we know from the video that he had been disarmed at that point.

再說一次，我們從影片中得知，他當時已經被解除武裝了。

There's this concept in law enforcement that's called sympathetic gunfire.

在執法界有個概念叫做同情性槍擊。

And what it means is that if one person opens fire, say you're a law enforcement officer, if your partner opens fire, sometimes other officers will start shooting.

它的意思是，如果一個人開槍了，假設你是一位執法人員，如果你的夥伴開槍了，有時候其他官員也會開始射擊。

It's just that response, that sympathetic response.

這只是那種回應，那種同情性回應。

That's something they train you not to do.

Every single agent has to understand what the threat is before they open fire.

每一個官員都必須在開槍前瞭解威脅是什麼。

So a lot of questions here, Jake, and as I've been saying all day, and

所以這裡有很多問題，傑克，就像我今天一直說的，

as you've mentioned, a lot of this really flies in the face of what we're hearing from the federal government.

就像你提到的，這一切都與我們從聯邦政府聽到的說法背道而馳。

Objectively speaking, the head of the Border Patrol team there, Greg Bevino, said that it appeared that Peretz was trying to massacre these agents.

客觀地說，那裡的邊境巡邏隊隊長 Greg Bevino 表示，看起來 Peretz 試圖屠殺這些官員。

No indication on that video that that's the case.

影片中沒有任何跡象表明是這樣。

So again, there will be a question raised about what type of investigation is even done when it appears law enforcement, the senior officials are already clearing the agents involved here.

所以，問題又來了，當執法人員、高級官員似乎已經為涉案官員開脫時，這種調查到底會怎麼進行？

And, Josh, just as a matter of policy, when there is what people in law enforcement call an officer involved shooting, which means a law enforcement officer has killed someone, when there is that type of situation, that kind of tragedy, is it normal for the likes of Kristi Noem, the DHS secretary, or Greg Bevino, the Border Patrol commander, or the President of the United States?

所以，Josh，就政策而言，當發生執法人員所稱的「官員涉案槍擊」時，也就是執法人員殺了人，發生這種情況、這種悲劇時，像 Kristi Noem、國土安全部長，或 Greg Bevino、邊境巡邏隊隊長，或美國總統，他們這樣做是正常的嗎？

Is it responsible to come out and say, this person was X, this person did Y, this person was going to do Z, Our officers had no choice but to do what they did.

這樣出來說，這個人做了 X，這個人做了 Y，這個人本來要做 Z，我們的官員別無選擇只能照做，這樣做負責任嗎？

It's historically abnormal for anyone at senior levels like that to essentially prejudge an investigation.

像這種高層人士，基本上預設立場調查，這在歷史上是不尋常的。

And one thing you know that I think is really concerning.

還有一個我覺得很令人擔憂的地方。

Again, I don't care where people come down on the immigration debate.

再說一次，我不在乎人們在移民辯論中持什麼立場。

When Greg Bevino made that statement that this person was looked like he was trying to massacre the agents, a reporter pressed him and said, well, did he point the weapon at those agents?

當 Greg Bevino 說這個人看起來像是要屠殺那些官員時，一位記者追問他，他有沒有把武器指向那些官員？

And he quickly clammed up and pivoted to, well, there will be an ongoing investigation to look into all of that.

然後他馬上就閉嘴，轉而說，嗯，會有一項持續的調查來檢視這一切。

You can't prejudge from the beginning and say, we think the agents were right.

你不能從一開始就預設立場，說我們認為官員們是正確的。

This person was a domestic terrorist, as White House adviser Stephen Miller described it, while also saying, well, we're going to have an investigation and expect the public to actually believe that that investigation will be done.

這人是國內恐怖分子，正如白宮顧問 Stephen Miller 所形容的，同時又說，嗯，我們會進行調查，並期望公眾真的相信這項調查會被完成。

Does anyone watching right now believe that any of those senior officials in government are going to contradict what the President has already said and these other senior officials based on what this investigation may come out with?

現在有任何人在看這段影片的人相信，政府裡那些高官會反駁總統已經說過的話，以及其他高官的話，根據這項調查可能會得出什麼結果？

So it's really a crisis of confidence right now when we see this prejudgment of an investigation.

所以當我們看到這種對調查的預設立場時，這真的就是一場信任危機。

And then, of course, there's a major question about whether this will be the federal government only, whether local law enforcement will be involved.

然後，當然，還有一個大問題是，這會是聯邦政府單獨進行，還是地方執法單位也會被牽涉進來。

Interestingly, Jake, the chief of police told me earlier today, after this event happened, his officers responded.

有趣的是，Jake，警長今天早些時候告訴我，這件事發生後，他的警員們有出動。

Federal government agents tried to prevent his officers from even accessing the crime scene.

聯邦政府官員試圖阻止他的警員進入犯罪現場。

He ordered his officers to stay there as part of procedure to preserve that evidence.

他命令他的警員依程序留在現場，以保存證據。

So we're seeing the tension between local and federal law enforcement.

所以我們看到地方和聯邦執法單位之間的緊張關係。

There'll be a big question about the credibility of what this federal review looks like.

這份聯邦審查報告的可信度將會是一個大問題。

Josh Campbell, thank you so much for your reporting.

Josh Campbell，非常感謝你的報導。

John, what was your reaction when you saw the videos?

John，你看到影片時有什麼反應？

Well, my first reaction is the video is very confusing and not quite clear, because what you miss there is the beginning.

嗯，我第一時間的反應是影片很令人困惑，而且不太清楚，因為你錯過了開頭的部分。

And the beginning is going to be really important.

Jake，這對我們來說是個很大的斷層。

What we want to know is how exactly did this begin?

我們想知道的是，這到底是怎麼開始的？

Number one, an agent detects a bulge that he thinks is a weapon on a person who's moving around the agents on the set, or his jacket blows back and he sees the gun in a waistband or the individual brandished it.

第一個，一名官員發現某人身上有他認為是武器的隆起，這個人正在官員周圍移動，或者他的夾克吹開，他看到槍在腰帶裡，或者這個人揮舞了它。

We have no information as to what brought them to this individual, Mr. Preddy, in the first place.

我們沒有任何資訊知道他們一開始為什麼會找到這位 Preddy 先生。

And it may have been none of those things.

It may have been that they tried to stop and question him for some other reason.

也許他們是想因為其他原因攔下並盤問他。

And as we have learned from these, they are using extraordinarily broad discretion in that regard of who they stop and why.

而我們從這些事件中得知，他們在這方面擁有非常廣泛的裁量權，決定攔下誰以及為什麼。

And when he struggled, they might have spotted, seen, or even felt the gun when somebody yells gun when he's on the ground.

當他掙扎時，他們可能在有人在地上大喊「槍」時，就發現、看到，甚至感覺到槍了。

All of this is important to understand, and we've gotten no detail on that.

這一切都很重要，但我們對此沒有任何細節。

And it may be because they don't understand it yet either.

也許是因為他們自己也還沒搞懂。

There's protocol about interviewing each of the agents who were involved in trying to get him into custody, pinning him down.

關於盤問那些涉及將他拘留、壓制他的官員，有標準作業流程。

Obviously, the shooting agents, we don't know if there were one or more that fired Shots.

顯然，開槍的官員，我們不知道是有一位或多位開了槍。

Now, is it different from the case of Renee Goode?

那麼，這跟 Renee Goode 的案子有什麼不同嗎？

Yes, because there is a weapon introduced into this scenario in the hands of somebody who's not an agent.

是的，因為在這個情境中，出現了一把非官員手中的武器。

But it doesn't really mean anything until we have those other facts.

但在我們掌握了那些其他事實之前，這並沒有什麼實質意義。

John, what do we know about the FBI investigation into the incident?

John，我們對 FBI 針對這起事件的調查有什麼瞭解？

What would be the first steps if we were in a normal world where there was going to be a thorough, vigorous, fair investigation?

在一個正常、會進行徹底、積極、公平調查的世界裡，我們會採取什麼步驟？

You know, I've been involved in literally dozens, if not hundreds, of investigations of officer involved shootings both in New York and Los Angeles.

說真的，我參與過數十甚至數百起官員涉入槍擊案的調查，無論是在紐約還是洛杉磯。

字幕列表影片播放

CNN分析：明尼阿波利斯最新槍擊案影片曝光！ (New Minneapolis shooting video: CNN analysis)

struggle

individual

critical

controversial