this post was submitted on 25 Jan 2026
644 points (99.7% liked)

politics

28895 readers
2755 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ThePantser@sh.itjust.works 182 points 1 month ago (4 children)

The evidence is the 10 videos all showing the same thing. ICE is guilty of murder. The videos are all over the Internet, what could they destroy? Other than the name of the murderer there isn't anymore needed to convict.

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 96 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (25 children)

Bullet casings, for one. More than one person shot him.

[–] Mirshe@lemmy.world 21 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The firearm they claim to have taken off him. The photo they posted is old and literally off Google Images.

[–] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

The CNN video shows them disarming him and it not being in the beating area when the murder happens

https://www.cnn.com/2026/01/25/us/video/minneapolis-ice-shooting-alex-pretti-visual-analysis-digvid

That picture might not be that gun, but there is proof they should have a gun in their possession.

[–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

Felony murder rule. If you take part in a felony and someone dies as an outcome, you can be charged with murder.

It's how getaway drivers for gas station robberies get convicted of murder when things go south and their buddy shoots the clerk.

load more comments (23 replies)

Photos of the scene, work timesheets showing who is there, witness information...

I also would love to see charges filed immediately, but there's a reason they collect all the evidence first. Yes, we all saw it, but a good state prosecutor has to know at this point the federal Trump DOJ and DHS will certainly remove the case to federal court (even if it proceeds under state law) and will try to intervene to dismiss. They will pull out every dirty trick possible to avoid a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. That includes sabotaging evidence solely in their custody or claiming the prosecutor did not do due diligence and then produce some magically exonerating new evidence.

If we want the charges to stick, we need to box in the DOJ and DHS.

[–] JoMiran@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

There are ten? Can you provide a link(s)? I am collecting every one I see shared and backing them up to a single Mega share.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] nova_ad_vitum@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 month ago

Do you know the identity of the shooter? Cause they're not just going to tell you.

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 84 points 1 month ago (4 children)

Why would they want to destroy evidence?

I thought this was "the most transparent administration in history"?

[–] Doomsider@lemmy.world 36 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Transparent to them means they can be openly racist, sexist, and general xenophobic cunts.

What you are looking for is honest. They are not honest

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 14 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I think they like to gaslight about the "transparent" thing, because according to them, Biden was not transparent because he wasn't doing a presser every five minutes. Donvict doesn't talk to the press to provide info, he does it because he is a narcissist.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] monkeyslikebananas2@lemmy.world 20 points 1 month ago

Transparently corrupt.

[–] tempest@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 month ago

Even if they didn't destroy evidence what is going to happen? Congress seems fine with the current set of events.

[–] Flying_Lynx@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 month ago

As "transparent" as in "nothing to see".

[–] smeg@infosec.pub 60 points 1 month ago

Evidence isn't necessary when the law doesn't matter

[–] W3dd1e@lemmy.zip 52 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The fact that this had to be said is ridiculous. America is so fucked.

[–] ameancow@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago

The fact that it had to be said, says that it's already been destroyed.

It's all going to get worse before it gets better. This is the cycle of history, we're in the pit of the trough.

[–] Strakh@lemmy.world 44 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Wait... You have to have a court tell the federal government to not destroy/alter/plant evidence?

How.. how is that a thing? Should'nt that just happen normally?

[–] BlameTheAntifa@lemmy.world 18 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Yes.

But there are no consequences so they will ignore the court order and destroy any and all evidence they can, just as they did for Renee Good’s killer, the murderer Jonathan Ross.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Bakkoda@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Law has never really accounted for bad faith actors from the prosecution side. They most likely won't enforce it either. We're very quickly finding out just how much laws won't help us.

[–] Bwaz@lemmy.world 41 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Cute that he thinks they'll obey the order.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Snapz@lemmy.world 39 points 1 month ago (7 children)

Is this not covered by standing law? When it is ever legally allowed to alter or destroy evidence?

Is the distinction more that typically this would be a slap on the wrist for law enforcement, but the TRO makes it explicit that there would be consequences?

[–] markovs_gun@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago (4 children)

That is the job of judges- to interpret existing law. The news here is that a judge agreed that it is illegal and told them not to do it.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] JohnnyCanuck@lemmy.ca 16 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Why would this have to be specified? Obviously the law doesn't matter.

[–] digitalFatteh@lemmy.ca 23 points 1 month ago (3 children)

I would like to think that Judges, especially those leaning Republican, are starting to think that some people might start thinking they’re complicit. So maybe they want to keep heads on shoulders.

[–] Serinus@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

Or we set up the judiciary to be independent, despite who appointed them, and sometimes that works.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

It’s even possible that judge is doing what he thinks is right

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] MedicPigBabySaver@lemmy.world 10 points 1 month ago
[–] TheObviousSolution@lemmy.ca 10 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

So basically another illegal act that can be thrown at him only to be ignored: manipulating evidence. Although to be fair, hard to manipulate what is already out there, so I don't think it's likely he will.

[–] lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com 10 points 1 month ago (5 children)

The state police had a search warrant, and investigating a shooting is not DHS jurisdiction. Why didn't the police arrest (for obstruction) DHS representatives blocking their investigation & let the courts sort it out as they proceed with their investigation?

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] digitalFatteh@lemmy.ca 10 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Probably waiting on orders and a stipend before they mysteriously change there mind and throw their hands on the air as there was nothing they could do.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 16 points 1 month ago

I mean. That's just ignorant at this point...

Even the judges trump was placing for the federalist society a decade ago are turning on trump, and have been this whole term.

It's not enough, we need more out of court systems. But this is something, and it is real.

Like, shits fucking serious. We need to be honest about what's happening

[–] Adderbox76@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 month ago

They...will...do...it...anyway....

Fuck it's so frustrating watching one side pretend the rule of law still means anything.

[–] bappity@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

as if a judge can stop them at this point. haven't they shown that the law doesn't matter at all?

court in America is just political theatre now

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago

It’s another crime they’re guilty of. Hopefully a continued buildup of evidence will help some true believers see the light, but more importantly it is yet another thing they can be charged with and is harder to cover up.

The court system will never be immediate or truly dramatic, but as long as the wheels of justice continue to grind forward, however slowly, there is hope

[–] feddylemmy@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

Whats the point of your comment? Is the implication they should do nothing? The judicial branch has successfully stopped the executive multiple times. Not sure what you're on about.

load more comments
view more: next ›