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.
Edit: For clarification, in the videos I only see one agent pull out a gun and shoot. If anyone could be so kind to show me where other agents are pulling out their weapons and shooting, that would be swell.
And for the record, fuck ICE. I hate these Nazi wannabe sons of bitches as much as anyone else on here.
EDIT2:
Thanks @notmyoldredditname@lemmy.world for providing this video! Now it's pretty clear there were more than one agent shooting Petti.
Ah! Ok. No I don't think that's what I saw. They pulled something off his back, and THEN the ICE agent pulled out THEIR gun and shot the man. That's pretty clear. The victim never even touched his own gun.
At least that's what I saw in the videos.
There was no need to shoot him. They had wrestled him to the ground. He wasn't a threat. This is absolutely an abuse of power and should be considered as a murder. There's no doubt in my mind.
I didn't think there was just stating what the debate was.
There is a gif floating about that shows what looks like the chamber of his gun shifting - but it's very low-res and there's no associated smoke/recoil or anything, could just be an artefact / light
And it seems the main shooters elbow did recoil slightly alongside the 1st shot.
Eh, calm down and toch some grass dude. This is a wee bit over the top response to a fairly normal comment, so just, you know, go smoke some weed or something
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.
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.
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.
It's not quite that bad. Accessory after the fact for murder can result in the same sentence as the murder itself. So some of these ICE pigs, they could face life in prison if they have destroyed evidence poorly.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Well no. The disappearance is unlikely. But they are largely outnumbered, so if it turned into a gun fight, they would definitely lose. Well, the feds would lose too, but not as badly as the state pigs.
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.
So the interesting thing will be that, look, the feds are going to ignore this. They have and will delete data and burn evidence. There's a name for that crime: accessory after the fact.
On the one hand, of course contempt charges don't matter to feds who don't care. On the other hand, the penalty for accessory to murder can be as long as the penalty for murder itself. So it's possible that a half dozen feds could get locked up for life, depending on who did what and when.
And there is no statute of limitations for any of this. They can never feel like they got away with it.
77 Comments
ThePantser@sh.itjust.works · 182 pts · 219d
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 pts · 219d
Bullet casings, for one. More than one person shot him.
Mirshe@lemmy.world · 21 pts · 219d
The firearm they claim to have taken off him. The photo they posted is old and literally off Google Images.
NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 219d
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 pts · 218d
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.
sik0fewl@piefed.ca · 2 pts · 219d
Out of all the angles I've seen, there only appears to be one agent that shoots him.
frog_brawler@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 219d
ZombieCyborgFromOuterSpace@piefed.ca · -10 pts · 219d
--I only saw one agent shoot him.--
Edit: For clarification, in the videos I only see one agent pull out a gun and shoot. If anyone could be so kind to show me where other agents are pulling out their weapons and shooting, that would be swell.
And for the record, fuck ICE. I hate these Nazi wannabe sons of bitches as much as anyone else on here.
EDIT2:
Thanks @notmyoldredditname@lemmy.world for providing this video! Now it's pretty clear there were more than one agent shooting Petti.
https://www.cnn.com/2026/01/25/us/video/minneapolis-ice-shooting-alex-pretti-visual-analysis-digvid
auraithx@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 7 pts · 219d
Only one agent shot him.
The debate is whether the first shot was the gun they took off him misfiring.
ZombieCyborgFromOuterSpace@piefed.ca · 4 pts · 219d
Ah! Ok. No I don't think that's what I saw. They pulled something off his back, and THEN the ICE agent pulled out THEIR gun and shot the man. That's pretty clear. The victim never even touched his own gun.
At least that's what I saw in the videos.
There was no need to shoot him. They had wrestled him to the ground. He wasn't a threat. This is absolutely an abuse of power and should be considered as a murder. There's no doubt in my mind.
auraithx@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 216d
That’s not in conflict with what I said. The debate was whether the gun misfired when the first agent walked away with it.
ZombieCyborgFromOuterSpace@piefed.ca · 1 pts · 216d
Oh. No there was no misfire. That's VERY obvious.
auraithx@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 216d
I didn't think there was just stating what the debate was.
There is a gif floating about that shows what looks like the chamber of his gun shifting - but it's very low-res and there's no associated smoke/recoil or anything, could just be an artefact / light
And it seems the main shooters elbow did recoil slightly alongside the 1st shot.
treesquid@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 219d
Not misfiring, a misfire is a malfunction of the weapon or ammo. This would be the ICE agent incompetently discharging the weapon while disarming him.
vala@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 218d
"Negligent discharge" is the legal term im pretty sure.
Implying the person who did it doesn't know how to properly handle a firearm.
auraithx@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 216d
? Yeah no shit. The debate was because the gun he had was known to misfire.
frog_brawler@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 219d
auraithx@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 0 pts · 216d
Source? Not seen anyone claim as such.
frog_brawler@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 216d
NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 219d
CNN has a good video of it all
https://www.cnn.com/2026/01/25/us/video/minneapolis-ice-shooting-alex-pretti-visual-analysis-digvid
ZombieCyborgFromOuterSpace@piefed.ca · 4 pts · 219d
Hoooooly shit.
Ok. Yeah now it's clear. What's also clear is this was a fucking execution. (As if this wasn't obvious enough from the first footage that came out.)
Absolutely disgusting.
NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 219d
Ya, the more videos that come out the worse and worse this is getting.
The first video I saw, I only heard 3 shots. I was shocked when more videos came out and it was way more than that. Like wtf.
Onyxonblack@lemmy.zip · -14 pts · 219d
phoenixz@lemmy.ca · 18 pts · 219d
Eh, calm down and toch some grass dude. This is a wee bit over the top response to a fairly normal comment, so just, you know, go smoke some weed or something
Onyxonblack@lemmy.zip · -13 pts · 219d
Galapagon@sh.itjust.works · 11 pts · 219d
Maybe he was misinformed himself, and the attitude you're presenting isn't going to change his, or anyone else's mind.
Corporal_Punishment@feddit.uk · 7 pts · 219d
Dude. The video only clearly shows one ICE agent shooting the victim.
Accepting that as fact doesn't make us fascist sympathisers ffs.
ZombieCyborgFromOuterSpace@piefed.ca · 5 pts · 219d
Holy shit dude! Calm down!
ReallyActuallyFrankenstein@lemmynsfw.com · 29 pts · 219d
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 pts · 219d
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.
ThePantser@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 219d
Estimated, seems like there are so many recording.
nova_ad_vitum@lemmy.ca · 4 pts · 219d
Do you know the identity of the shooter? Cause they're not just going to tell you.
CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world · 84 pts · 219d
Why would they want to destroy evidence?
I thought this was "the most transparent administration in history"?
Doomsider@lemmy.world · 36 pts · 219d
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 pts · 219d
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.
Doomsider@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 219d
That makes a lot of sense. A lot of what they do is for perceived injustice against them.
luciferofastora@feddit.org · 1 pts · 218d
Gaslighting about transparency is a sour kind of irony
monkeyslikebananas2@lemmy.world · 20 pts · 219d
Transparently corrupt.
tempest@lemmy.ca · 7 pts · 219d
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 pts · 219d
As "transparent" as in "nothing to see".
smeg@infosec.pub · 60 pts · 219d
Evidence isn't necessary when the law doesn't matter
W3dd1e@lemmy.zip · 52 pts · 219d
The fact that this had to be said is ridiculous. America is so fucked.
ameancow@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 218d
Strakh@lemmy.world · 44 pts · 219d
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 pts · 219d
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.
fodor@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 217d
It's not quite that bad. Accessory after the fact for murder can result in the same sentence as the murder itself. So some of these ICE pigs, they could face life in prison if they have destroyed evidence poorly.
Of course it depends on the details.
Bakkoda@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 218d
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 pts · 219d
Cute that he thinks they'll obey the order.
Drusas@fedia.io · 3 pts · 218d
We don't know that he does.
Snapz@lemmy.world · 39 pts · 219d
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 pts · 219d
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.
Snapz@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 219d
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?
markovs_gun@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 219d
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.
Snapz@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 219d
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.
markovs_gun@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 219d
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
Lasherz12@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 218d
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.
Snapz@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 218d
Very clarifying. Thank you
DeadDigger@lemmy.zip · -22 pts · 219d
I mean did you ever throw out a bill? If you did you destroyed evidence you bought something
Snapz@lemmy.world · 15 pts · 219d
Sorry, what in the everloving name of shite are you talking about?
Hodrobond@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 219d
I think thats only true if you have knowledge of a potential crime and willful intent to destroy it?
DeadDigger@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 218d
Well but you still destroyed evidence this guy is obviously against destroying any evidence ever
JohnnyCanuck@lemmy.ca · 16 pts · 219d
Why would this have to be specified? Obviously the law doesn't matter.
digitalFatteh@lemmy.ca · 23 pts · 219d
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 pts · 219d
Or we set up the judiciary to be independent, despite who appointed them, and sometimes that works.
AA5B@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 219d
It’s even possible that judge is doing what he thinks is right
SeeMarkFly@lemmy.ml · 3 pts · 219d
Funny, he doesn't look French.
TheObviousSolution@lemmy.ca · 10 pts · 218d
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.
MedicPigBabySaver@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 219d
MURDER!
digitalFatteh@lemmy.ca · 10 pts · 219d
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 pts · 219d
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
lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com · 10 pts · 218d
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?
ecvanalog@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 218d
Because there is a 50/50 chance they would all get murdered and their bodies disappeared, too.
lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com · 1 pts · 218d
Murdering police officers seems implausible & liable to instigate a nastier predicament for the federal government.
ecvanalog@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 216d
It is WILD how you continue to think there is anybody at the wheel except accelerationists.
drmoose@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 218d
Yeah what an absurd suggestion. The moment feds kill a local policeman is the moment it all collapses.
fodor@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 217d
Well no. The disappearance is unlikely. But they are largely outnumbered, so if it turned into a gun fight, they would definitely lose. Well, the feds would lose too, but not as badly as the state pigs.
Adderbox76@lemmy.ca · 7 pts · 219d
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 pts · 219d
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 pts · 219d
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 pts · 219d
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.
fodor@lemmy.zip · 2 pts · 217d
So the interesting thing will be that, look, the feds are going to ignore this. They have and will delete data and burn evidence. There's a name for that crime: accessory after the fact.
On the one hand, of course contempt charges don't matter to feds who don't care. On the other hand, the penalty for accessory to murder can be as long as the penalty for murder itself. So it's possible that a half dozen feds could get locked up for life, depending on who did what and when.
And there is no statute of limitations for any of this. They can never feel like they got away with it.
Treczoks@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 217d
But will that stop them? Once properly deleted, the judges words become worthless.
Avicenna@programming.dev · 1 pts · 219d
Surprisingly a judge was found to carry out his duties