Renee Good was killed on Jan. 7. Alex Pretti on Jan. 24. Federal agents killed both of them, and the administration labeled both of them terrorists — labels that quickly fell apart when the public learned more about each case and saw videos of the shootings.

蕾妮·古德於1月7日身亡，亞歷克斯·普雷蒂於1月24日喪生。兩人皆死於聯邦探員槍下，政府還給兩人都貼上了恐怖分子的標籤。但隨著公眾逐漸了解兩起案件的真相、看到槍擊現場影片，這些標籤迅速不攻自破。

Yet it was Mr. Pretti’s death that broke the dam, galvanizing public sentiment against the federal government’s tactics and forcing a remarkable retreat by the Trump administration.

然而正是普雷蒂之死衝破了阻塞的堤壩，激起公眾對聯邦政府執法手段的強烈不滿，迫使川普政府做出驚人讓步。

Gun-rights groups turned on the White House. Republican senators called for investigations. One poll found that support for abolishing ICE had nearly doubled among independent voters.

擁槍權益組織轉向反對白宮，共和黨參議員紛紛呼籲展開調查。一項民調顯示，獨立選民中支持廢除移民與海關執法局的比例近乎翻倍。

Both deaths provoked outrage. But Mr. Pretti’s reached further — into conservative circles that had defended the crackdown, and among independents, who had been willing to look away. Why did his death cross political lines that Ms. Good’s, for all the anger it generated, didn’t?

兩起命案都引發了公憤，但普雷蒂之死的影響範圍要深遠得多，滲透到了此前一直為移民突擊執法辯護的保守派圈子，也觸動了那些原本願意對此事視而不見的獨立選民。為何古德之死儘管同樣令人憤怒，卻未能引發同樣的反響？

It is never possible to say with certainty why one tragedy widens the circle of outrage and another does not. History offers precedents.

我們永遠無法確切地解釋為何一場悲劇能激起更廣泛的公憤，另一場卻不能。但歷史早已提供了先例。

George Floyd was not the first Black man to die at the hands of police in 2020. The searing video of his death, however, and the moment it arrived — during heightened unease around police misconduct — turned his killing into a movement. Rosa Parks was not the first person to refuse to give up her seat on a Montgomery bus; a 15-year-old named Claudette Colvin had been arrested after performing the same act months earlier. But it was Parks, for reasons both strategic and circumstantial, whose case became a catalyst. Tipping points are often visible only in hindsight.

喬治·弗洛伊德並非2020年首個死於警方之手的非裔美國人，但他遇害的影片畫面觸目驚心，而且事件發生時公眾正對警方執法失當的不滿情緒日益高漲，這一切使得他的死亡成為一場社會運動的導火線。羅莎·帕克斯也並非首個在蒙哥馬利市公車上拒絕讓座的人；數月前，15歲少女克勞德特·科爾文就因同樣的舉動遭到逮捕。但出於策略與時機等多重原因，最終是帕克斯的案件成為了民權運動的催化劑。所謂的臨界點，往往只有事後回望才能看清。

Kevin Drakulich, a criminologist at Northeastern University who studies race, crime and public opinion, put it simply: “Renee Good’s death was tragic. Alex Pretti’s is a trend.”

東北大學長期研究種族、犯罪與公眾輿論的犯罪學家凱文·德拉庫利奇對此的總結言簡意賅：「蕾妮·古德的死是一場悲劇，亞歷克斯·普雷蒂的死則則是一種趨勢。」

The federal crackdown had already produced casualties elsewhere, including a Mexican immigrant who was shot and killed by ICE agents in Chicago in September. The death did not draw sustained national attention. Minneapolis was different — two killings of American citizens, at close to the same time, in a city that had become shorthand for protest and police violence.

事實上，聯邦政府的移民突擊執法早已在其他地區造成傷亡，包括去年9月一名墨西哥移民在芝加哥被移民與海關執法局探員射殺，這起事件卻並未引發全國範圍的持續關注。明尼阿波利斯的情況則截然不同：在這座已成為抗議與警察暴力代名詞的城市，短時間內接連發生兩起美國公民被殺的事件。

Ms. Good’s death brought doubts about what federal agents were doing in Minneapolis into national view, with protests, headlines and the first serious fractures in President Trump’s public credibility on immigration. Then, four days before Mr. Pretti was killed, a photograph circulated widely: a 5-year-old boy named Liam Conejo Ramos, wearing a blue bunny hat and a school backpack, being led away by federal agents in a Minneapolis suburb. A child, detained with his father, shortly after being picked up from school. The image widened the cracks.

古德之死引發了全國對聯邦特工在明尼阿波利斯市行動的質疑，抗議活動、頭條新聞，以及川普總統在移民問題上公信力的首次嚴重動搖隨之而來。而在普雷蒂遇害四天前，一張照片在社群媒體上廣泛傳播：在明尼阿波利斯郊區，頭戴藍色兔子帽、背著書包的五歲男孩利亞姆·科內霍·拉莫斯被聯邦探員帶走。這個剛從學校接回來的孩子和父親一同遭到拘留。這張照片讓裂痕進一步擴大。

The accumulation of images and tragedies does not alone explain the difference in responses.

但輿論反應的差異絕非僅憑不斷累積的畫面與悲劇就能完全解釋。

Ms. Good was in her car when an agent shot her. Administration officials thus declared her vehicle a weapon, and said she had posed a threat to the agent. Video analysis challenged that account, but could not rule out the agent’s claim that he had feared for his safety.

古德遇襲時正身處車內，因此政府官員宣稱她的車輛構成武器，並聲稱她當時對執法探員構成了威脅。儘管影片分析對這一說法提出了質疑，但無法完全排除執法人員聲稱自身安全受到威脅的陳述。

Mr. Pretti left far less room for speculation. He was on foot, filming with his phone, helping a woman who had been shoved to the ground. The administration called him an “assassin,” who had intended to massacre law enforcement officers.

而普雷蒂的案件幾乎沒有留下任何可供猜測的空間。當時他正徒步前行，手持手機拍攝現場，並出手幫助一名被推倒在地的女性。政府卻將他稱為「刺客」，聲稱他蓄意屠殺執法人員。

Within hours, video from multiple angles showed him holding a phone, not a weapon, then being tackled, pinned face down and shot multiple times in the back. An agent had already pulled the gun from Mr. Pretti’s waistband. Video analysis concluded that the shots had come after Mr. Pretti was disarmed and restrained — a sequence that, under standard use-of-force guidelines, may be difficult to justify.

事發後數小時內，多視角的現場影片便傳遍全網：畫面中的普雷蒂手持的是手機，而非武器；隨後他被撲倒在地，臉朝下的情況下背部身中數槍。一名探員早已從普雷蒂的腰帶處搜走了槍枝。影片分析最終得出結論：槍擊發生在普雷蒂被解除武裝並控制之後——根據常規武力使用準則，這一系列操作恐難獲得正當性。

Many viewers saw an execution, not defense against a domestic terrorist. The government’s story collapsed. Still, it is not enough to account for what followed. But a look at who the victims were and how the public perceived them may help explain how opinion was changed.

在許多觀者眼中，這根本不是一場針對本土恐怖分子的防衛行動，而是一場處決。政府的敘事就此崩塌。但即便如此，這些仍不足以完全解釋後續的發展。但審視受害者身份及公眾對他們的認知或許能揭示輿論轉向的根源。

Mr. Drakulich uses a term for the kind of victim the public instinctively sympathizes with: the “ideal victim.” Two attributes make someone fit. “Someone whose life and well-being is broadly valued,” he said, “and someone who people can judge as not bearing any responsibility for their victimization.”

德拉庫利奇提出過一個術語，用來形容那種會引發公眾本能同情的遇難者——理想受害者。這類受害者通常具備兩個特質，他說：「一是其生命與福祉受到到社會的廣泛珍視；二是公眾可以判定，他們對自身遭遇的不幸沒有任何責任。」

Consider the details that circulated in the days after Mr. Pretti’s death. He was not a so-called criminal immigrant, whom officials say they were targeting, but a white American citizen. He was an intensive care-unit nurse at a V.A. hospital, caring for veterans. A video of him saluting a deceased patient had circulated months earlier. He was a legal gun owner, with a gun permit, and no criminal record. On camera, in the moments before he was killed, he displayed what a former student called his “familiar stillness and signature calm composure.”

不妨看看普雷蒂死後幾天內流傳開來的那些細節：他並非官員宣稱的打擊目標——所謂的犯罪移民，而是一名美國白人公民；他是退伍軍人事務醫院的重症監護室護士，照料退伍老兵；數月前，一段他向已故病人敬禮的影片就曾在網路上流傳；他持有合法的持槍許可證，是合規持槍者，且無任何犯罪記錄；在他遇害前的影片畫面中，他展現出一位昔日學生所言的那種「熟悉的從容與標誌性的鎮定」。

He did not run. He came to the aid of a stranger. Masked federal agents killed him nonetheless.

他沒有逃跑。他向陌生人伸出援手。儘管如此，他還是死在了蒙面聯邦探員的槍口之下。

Sarah Gaither, an associate professor of psychology and neuroscience at Duke who studies identity and perception, wrote in an email that Mr. Pretti’s profile “fit widely held cultural cues associated with respectability and being nonthreatening.”

長期研究身份認同與公眾認知的杜克大學心理學與神經科學副教授薩拉·蓋瑟在郵件中寫道，普雷蒂的個人形象 「完全符合社會大眾所認可的、代表著體面與非���脅性的文化符號」。

She added that those cues “lowered resistance to empathy among people who might otherwise dismiss criticism of ICE.”

她進一步指出，這些特質 「消除了部分人群的心理抵觸，讓他們更容易產生共情，這些人原本不願批評移民海關執法局」。

It was not that Mr. Pretti generated more sympathy. It was that his profile removed barriers. For people who had needed permission to criticize the agency, Mr. Pretti granted it.

這並非是說普雷蒂比古德更值得同情，而是他的形象打破了壁壘。對於那些需要一個正當理由才能批評移民與海關執法局的人而言，普雷蒂的遭遇就是最好的理由。

For one constituency, Mr. Pretti’s death did more than grant permission to criticize. It confirmed a long-held fear.

而對於某一特定選民群體來說，普雷蒂之死不僅提供了批評的理由，更印證了他們長久以來的恐懼。

For decades, the conservative case for the Second Amendment has rested largely on the premise that an armed citizenry is the last defense against government tyranny. N.R.A. fund-raising letters once warned of “jackbooted government thugs.” The language was apocalyptic, the scenario hypothetical.

數十年來，保守派支持美國憲法第二修正案的核心依據主要建立在這樣一個前提上：武裝公民是抵禦政府暴政的最後一道防線。全國步槍協會曾在籌款信中警告「身著軍靴的政府暴徒」的威脅。彼時，這些言辭聽起來危言聳聽，相關場景也不過是假設。

Minneapolis made it real. Masked federal agents killed a legal gun owner who had never drawn his weapon.

但明尼阿波利斯的事件讓這一假設成為了現實。蒙面的聯邦探員槍殺了一名從未拔槍的合法持槍者。

Gun rights groups pushed back. Gun Owners of America posted on social media: “Peaceful protests while armed isn’t radical — it’s American. GOA will hold any administration accountable.”

擁槍權益組織隨即發起反擊。美國持槍者協會在社群媒體上發文稱：「攜帶武器參與和平抗議並非激進——這是美國人的權利。本協會將追究任何政府的責任。」

Mr. Pretti was exactly the kind of American such groups were built to protect: a law-abiding citizen, legally armed, killed by government agents.

普雷蒂恰恰是這類組織成立之初旨在保護的那種美國人：一名遵紀守法的公民，合法持有武器，最終卻死於政府執法人員之手。

But new footage emerged on Wednesday that may yet complicate the narrative. The video shows Mr. Pretti on Jan. 13, 11 days before he was killed, in a confrontation with federal agents. He spits at them and kicks their vehicle, breaking a taillight. Agents tackle him. A gun appears to be visible in his waistband. He is released without arrest.

不過，週三曝光的一段新影片可能會讓這一既定敘事變得複雜。影片顯示，1月13日，也就是普雷蒂遇害的11天前，他曾與聯邦探員發生衝突。畫面中，他朝著探員吐口水，踢踹他們的車輛，導致尾燈破裂。隨後探員將他撲倒，普雷蒂腰間的槍枝清晰可見。但最終他未被逮捕，得以脫身。

Earlier this week, President Trump had signaled a desire to turn down the temperature. He called Mr. Pretti’s death “very unfortunate” and said he wanted to “de-escalate a little bit” in Minnesota.

本週早些時候，川普總統曾釋放出緩和局勢的信號。他稱普雷蒂的死「非常不幸」，並表示希望在明尼阿波利斯「適當降溫」。

On Friday morning, the president reversed course. “Agitator and, perhaps, insurrectionist, Alex Pretti’s stock has gone way down,” Mr. Trump posted on social media, describing the video as “quite a display of abuse and anger, for all to see, crazed and out of control.”

但在週五上午，總統卻突然反轉態度。他在社群媒體上發文稱：「煽動者，或許還是叛亂分子亞歷克斯·普雷蒂的形象一落千丈。」 他還稱這段新影片「充分展現了失當行為與憤怒，所有人都能看到他的瘋狂失控」。

The post drew swift condemnation. Some critics called it a smear of a dead man.

這條帖子隨即引發強烈譴責，不少批評者指出，這是對逝者的惡意抹黑。

The Pretti family had already commented on the release of the video. “Nothing that happened a full week before could have possibly justified Alex’s killing at the hands of ICE on Jan. 24,” it said in a statement.

普雷蒂的家人也已就影片曝光一事發表聲明：「整整一週前發生的一切絕對無法為移民與海關執法局在1月24日槍殺亞歷克斯的事件開脫。」

The tide had already turned. Even Tom Homan, the Trump administration’s border czar, had acknowledged that the Minneapolis operation was flawed, a rare concession from an official who had long defended aggressive enforcement tactics. Days later, an immigration operation in Maine was abruptly called off.

輿論的浪潮已經轉向。就連川普政府的邊境事務特別顧問湯姆·霍曼——這位長期為強硬執法手段辯護的官員——也承認，明尼阿波利斯的執法行動存在缺陷，這是他極為罕見的讓步。數日之後，緬因州的一場移民執法行動被突然叫停。

What had happened on that frozen Minneapolis street was reverberating far beyond the city where Mr. Pretti died.

發生在明尼阿波利斯那條冰冷街道上的事件影響早已超越這座普雷蒂逝去的城市，引發更廣泛的震動。