• CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    38
    ·
    5 hours ago

    Why would they want to destroy evidence?

    I thought this was “the most transparent administration in history”?

    • Doomsider@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      2 hours ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 hours ago

        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.

    • tempest@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      4 hours ago

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

  • ThePantser@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    121
    ·
    8 hours ago

    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.

      • Mirshe@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 hours ago

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

      • ZombieCyborgFromOuterSpace@piefed.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        17
        ·
        edit-2
        7 hours ago

        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.

    • Jo Miran@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      8 hours ago

      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.

  • Snapz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    7 hours ago

    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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 hour ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        52 minutes ago

        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
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          37 minutes ago

          Are you familiar with how common law systems in the US and other former English colonies work? Essentially the way it works is

          1. 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.

          2. 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

          3. 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.

          4. 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.

    • DeadDigger@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      16
      ·
      5 hours ago

      I mean did you ever throw out a bill? If you did you destroyed evidence you bought something

  • Bappity@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    5 hours ago

    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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      5 hours 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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      4 hours 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.

  • Hemingways_Shotgun@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 hours ago

    They…will…do…it…anyway…

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

    • digitalFatteh@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 hours ago

      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.

  • digitalFatteh@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    8 hours ago

    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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      8 hours 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