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.
Bullet casings, for one. More than one person shot him.
The firearm they claim to have taken off him. The photo they posted is old and literally off Google Images.
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.
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.
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.
Estimated, seems like there are so many recording.
Do you know the identity of the shooter? Cause they’re not just going to tell you.
Why would they want to destroy evidence?
I thought this was “the most transparent administration in history”?
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
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.
That makes a lot of sense. A lot of what they do is for perceived injustice against them.
Gaslighting about transparency is a sour kind of irony
Transparently corrupt.
As “transparent” as in “nothing to see”.
Even if they didn’t destroy evidence what is going to happen? Congress seems fine with the current set of events.
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?
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.
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.
Cute that he thinks they’ll obey the order.
We don’t know that he does.
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?
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.
Again, how is there not precedence in law of or being illegal to alter or destroy evidence? You have a confident response by tone, but respectfully, I don’t hear any substance you’ve offered?
It’s as if a judge explicitly ruled that murder is illegal… Nice to reestablish, Y but yes, that’s established. I’m just trying to understand what this does distinctly?
Are you familiar with how common law systems in the US and other former English colonies work? Essentially the way it works is
-
Party A does something they believe is within their rights under the law. In this case, trying to destroy evidence. Now, the crucial part here is that Party A can be wrong about their claim, but our legal system determines that courts are the ones that have to decide whether that is true.
-
Party B sues in court claiming that Party A did something illegal. In this case, the state of Minnesota is claiming that Ice is trying to do something illegal by trying to destroy evidence
-
The judge looks at the facts of the case and determines if Party A did in fact do something illegal, taking things like precedent into account.
-
If the judge believes that Party B is right and Party A’s actions were indeed illegal, like they did in this case, they issue a judgement that both parties must abide by.
In this case, it is blatantly obvious that the actions are actually illegal but our legal system is set up in a such a way that this must be proven in court.
I appreciate the expansion. Again though, we go to court to convict an accused murderer and the judge/jury rules eventually, but is there a preliminary statement by the judge in every case to reestablish for the record, the illegality of murder as an act?
My point is that it feels odd that there isn’t established law that states this clearly prior to the act where a judge is required to make a preliminary statement like this, where they wouldn’t with a murder charge in my experience.
Ah I didn’t see what was tripping you up. In this case, this is normally not noteworthy at all. Consider a case where a local car dealership owner is accused of committing tax fraud. If he was taken to court over it, the judge would issue an order like this saying not to destroy evidence that could be used. The noteworthy part is that our judicial system, particularly Trump appointed federal judges, has been mostly unwilling to reign in Trump’s abuses at all and so something like this feels like a win
-
It’s more that the judge wants the punishment to be greater than the typical punishment for tampering with evidence. When the victim is dead the law tends to give undue credence to the statements of the survivor as there is only 2nd hand testimony provided for the prosecution. We should interpret it as a judge making a stand and vowing harsh penalties and the supreme court/appeals should interpret it as the judge making it much harder to overturn the eventual decision.
Very clarifying. Thank you
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.
Why would this have to be specified? Obviously the law doesn’t matter.
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.
Or we set up the judiciary to be independent, despite who appointed them, and sometimes that works.
It’s even possible that judge is doing what he thinks is right
Funny, he doesn’t look French.
MURDER!
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.
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
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
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
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.
They…will…do…it…anyway…
Fuck it’s so frustrating watching one side pretend the rule of law still means anything.
But will that stop them? Once properly deleted, the judges words become worthless.
Surprisingly a judge was found to carry out his duties
