224
submitted 2 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

Shortly after a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer shot and killed a woman in Minneapolis on Wednesday, city leaders began looking into whether the officer had violated state criminal law.

Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey said, “We collectively are going to do everything possible to get to the bottom of this, to get justice, and to make sure that there is an investigation that is conducted in full.” Police Chief Brian O’Hara followed up by saying that the state’s Bureau of Criminal Apprehension is “investigat[ing] whether any state laws within the state of Minnesota have been violated.”

If they conclude that state law has been violated, the question is: What next? Contrary to recent assertions from some federal officials, states can prosecute federal officers for violating state criminal laws, and there is precedent for that.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] brygphilomena@lemmy.dbzer0.com 39 points 2 months ago

"could" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there.

[-] spongebue@lemmy.world 19 points 2 months ago

It's the same jurisdiction that put 4 cops in jail for murdering George Floyd. There's a good chance that AG Keith Ellison is looking into it

[-] YiddishMcSquidish@lemmy.today 1 points 2 months ago

Don't you dare give me hope!

[-] KingOfSleep@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 months ago

"Rebellions are built on hope."

[-] YiddishMcSquidish@lemmy.today 1 points 2 months ago

That feels good to read.

[-] bear@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 2 months ago

Three of the four officers are already out of prison.

[-] spongebue@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

And the one whose knee was actually on him was sentenced to 22.5 years

[-] obviouspornalt@lemmynsfw.com 2 points 2 months ago

They misspelled "should"

[-] Carmakazi@piefed.social 21 points 2 months ago

Even in the bizarro world where an arrest warrant or indictment is issued, ICE will close ranks around their brother who just got a notch on his belt. No state cops are gonna slug it out with the feds to make that arrest.

[-] mushroommunk@lemmy.today 18 points 2 months ago

Although you're probably right, part of me really hopes that's why Walz put the national guard on standby

[-] Canonical_Warlock@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 2 months ago

That's the stated reason that Walz put the national guard on standby. He said he put them on standby and that he wants ice out of our state; the implication there being that ice can leave on their own or be escorted out. He's not running for reelection so he has no reason to hold back anymore. I have never seen him quite that clipped in a press release before. He is furious. We may have ice being forcibly deported by the MN national guard shortly here and that is going to get very interesting in a lot of ways

[-] Zamboni_Driver@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 months ago

I watched his speech and he doesn't actually say that he is putting them on standby to defend against ICE. Reading between the lines, he seems to be putting them on standby to be ready to quell protest so that Trump can't use the protests as an excuse to put federal troops in the area.

[-] Canonical_Warlock@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 months ago

What I got from the speech is the following in fairly quick sucession.

  1. We won't have minnesotans fighting minnesotans.
  2. The minnesota national guard are minnesotans; they are your friends and neighbors.
  3. The minnesota national guard has been put on standby.
  4. Ice is not wanted in minnesota and they need to leave.

The fact that points 1 and 2 were said right next to each other says to me at least that the national guard isn't there for the protesters.

[-] 14th_cylon@lemmy.zip 1 points 2 months ago

He’s not running for reelection so he has no reason to hold back anymore.

i am not even an american, but i'd really like to live in a world where running for reelection would be the reason not to hold back.

[-] I_Jedi@lemmy.today 10 points 2 months ago

Oh my, what will happen?

Will we reach across the aisle and let cooler heads prevail by letting the killer go free?

Or will the killer learn first hand that having a badge doesn't mean he can kill random innocent people?

[-] chuckleslord@lemmy.world 10 points 2 months ago

Need a whole lot of this happening.

[-] SarcasticMan@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago

Don't worry, they wont.

[-] ChonkyLincoln@lemmy.zip 2 points 2 months ago

Get that Nazi fuck!!!

[-] Kolanaki@pawb.social 2 points 2 months ago

Trump can't pardon him

Trump isn't supposed to be able to do a lotta shit the fascist fuckwit is actively doing. Those checks and balances are non-fucking-existant.

[-] DylanMc6@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Please prosecute him, Minnesota

Oh and this is my 150th comment here in this instance - I DON'T have to keep telling you this

[-] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

The should start as soon as fucking possible.

[-] OshagHennessey@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

They could. But they won't. That would be more than just token resistance. Everybody knows the Dems are paid by corporations to only resist with words, motions, committees, and meaningless votes.

If we want accountability, we're going to have to demand it, like after George Floyd.

Only once it becomes cheaper to appease us than resist us, will we be appeased.

[-] drmoose@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

paid by corporations

This is so "both sides are the same"-coded

[-] Jakeroxs@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 months ago

If you think we got to this point only because of Republicans... You haven't been paying attention.

No they're not the same exactly, but democratic inaction is nearly as bad as it allows this kind of shit to happen.

[-] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago

The dems are every bit as effective as the people who stay home instead of voting. When it's important, they do nothing.

[-] Jakeroxs@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 months ago

Blaming the voters for rightly seeing the dems won't fight for them either isn't helping the situation.

We wouldn't be in this mess if the democratic party hadn't made excuse after excuse. We've been betrayed over and over and that takes its toll on people.

I still hold my nose and vote D because they're the lesser of two evils clearly, but I can understand why so many are tuned out.

[-] freddydunningkruger@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

Did you know Democrats originally tried to make single payer a part of ACA?

The problem is, they needed 60 votes in the Senate, and ONE Democrat, Joe Lieberman, joined EVERY SINGLE REPUBLICAN in voting against the public option.

1 single Republican voter crossing the aisle could have delivered single payer, but idiots blame the Dems. Electing 1 more Democrat instead of a Republican could have delivered single payer, but idiots blame the Dems. 40 Republicans and 1 Democrat voted NO against Single Payer, and brilliant minds everywhere gargled BOTH SIDES SAME!! You can't make this shit up.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] SoftestSapphic@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

The only justice that happens in this country anymore is vigilante

[-] Feedback17@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

He's a murderer, not a shooter.

[-] damnedfurry@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

The media can't legally say "murder" unless/until there's a conviction. So it's either "alleged murderer" or "shooter", and they definitely chose of the two, the one that 'safely' implies more guilt.

One can't really reasonably fault them for that choice, if one believes in his guilt, which you obviously do.

[-] SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 months ago

Yup, and it's generally "alleged murderer" only after they've been charged.

Knowing how the media uses these terms helps understand where along the line things are in terms of the justice system. If I read "murder" I'd assume the guy has been convicted (so justice is being served) because of the convention of not using that word until there's a conviction. "Shooter" means he hasn't even been charged, so I know there's been no justice.

It wouldn't be good for the media to imply justice has been served when in reality it hasn't. So it's good that they call him a shooter so those of us with media literacy know the situation accurately.

[-] inclementimmigrant@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

They could but I doubt you'd get a conviction given how many boot licking citizens there are.

[-] electric_nan@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 months ago

Look what it took to get Chauvin prosecuted. If we want pigs to face justice, we have to speak at a volume they can hear us in their mansions.

load more comments (1 replies)

Trials need evidence which Noem and others knowingly stole. Absent evidence a conviction will be hard to obtain. The state's helpless pleading here isn't about jurisdiction it's about access.

[-] Quexotic@infosec.pub 1 points 2 months ago

Couldn't they charge them with evidence tampering or obstruction or something?

IANAL

[-] ArmchairAce1944@discuss.online 0 points 2 months ago

They should arrest him and put him in the toughest prison in the state with the word Chomo written on his forehead.

[-] phx@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

At this point having other prisoners know he was ICE might be just as bad for him. I don't the modern SS is popular amongst inmates

[-] WraithGear@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago

no they can’t, the FBI stole all the evidence

[-] jjjalljs@ttrpg.network 0 points 2 months ago

What's the opposite of jury nullification?

[-] InputZero@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

Also jury nullification. Doesn't matter if the verdict the jury delivers is guilty or innocent, so long as the jury says one thing and thinks another it's jury nullification.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 08 Jan 2026
224 points (99.6% liked)

politics

28974 readers
430 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