Following on from the comments below and my own research on reports and quotes from officials, it seems clear Alex Pretti was shot by a US Border Patrol agent and not ICE.

USBP has been in Minnesota to support ICE in their efforts and between that and the tendency for the public not to differentiate between USBP and ICE agents, the discourse has become a bit misleading. Journalistic outlets referring to Border Patrol coupled with Bovino being removed from his post within the USBP following this shooting support arguments that ICE wasn't responsible this time.

I'm unresolving this market as the criteria have not yet been met.

@shankypanky

I strongly disagree with your decision to take control of my question. Your decision to unilaterally change the status without making any attempt to contact me is unacceptable. Manifold, like many online forums, holds all the cards and makes all the rules with complete disregard for the users.

Thanks.

@CivilizedGuy Resolving in a way that conflicts with the market description is unfair to the 62 other users participating here. I'd say that in itself is a forgivable mistake given the Fog of News.

@CivilizedGuy I'm with you on this. I do think it's generally better to go according to the exact language of a market description, but this case isn't clear-cut enough to justify overruling the market creator's judgement.

In fact, in this market https://manifold.markets/GuyCohen/what-will-happen-as-a-result-of-the-ZUlNhtULns?r=QWhyb25NYWxpbmU

the same YES resolution is still in place. AFAICT the difference is that in the comments on that market the creator clearly considered the ambiguity and made an explicit judgement call, while you brusquely turned away a mod (Evan) attempting to discuss it with you.

@AhronMaline Does it impact your opinion at all that this market text appears to be entirely LLM generated, rather than written by the creator?

@nfd I agree, it's definitely a forgivable thing (under the interpretation where it's a mistake), and I see no reason to assume anything other than good faith by anyone here.

I kinda like the framing of "would a newspaper issue a correction", and I think that given the current available info, if a newspaper had initially reported the homicide as by an ICE agent they likely would have corrected that statement by now to clarify it was a CBP agent.

@EvanDaniel Not really in this space

ICE is often used to mean "armed personnel in the streets as part of ICE operations". There is the odd pedantic person online pointing out which agent is with which agency but they are all there supporting an ICE operation.

Since the question made no attempt to clarify it was taking the narrower definition then it seemed to me, and I'm sure many others (including the person creating the question), to take the broader common usage.

If anything this is an NA

@BodeyBaker Here's a strong example in a strongly aligned question:

https://manifold.markets/CommanderKeen/will-any-one-of-the-ice-members-inv?r=Qm9kZXlCYWtlcg#tzd3uok7oon

How can that interpretation be okay there, but this question has its creator overruled?

@BodeyBaker For an authoritative answer, I hope @shankypanky weighs in, but here are a few of my thoughts:

• This question clearly separates ICE and CBP in its background info, but specifies ICE alone in its criteria.

• This question is sensible with either reading; the other one isn't. You could argue a bunch of things about what to do with a question with a false premise, many of them reasonable, but "make minimal reasonable corrections until the premise isn't false" seems basically fine, and matches the "question intent" idea.

• ICE is often used in confusing or technically incorrect ways in casual conversation. Manifold is only sometimes that, and when a question spends paragraphs explaining the details it's reasonable to assume those paragraphs are precise.

• A newspaper would issue corrections about either one of these two questions; what Manifold should do with those corrections might reasonably vary.

• Fixing up definitions in a way that changes the question has less impact when the event remains in the future and is uncertain, vs. an event that has already happened. One might reasonably balance the impact level against other needs and decide that matters.

Clearly a horrific thing happened here. I understand the reluctance by a number of folks to debate the details, but personally I think it's important to hold to a truth-seeking and technically correct approach even in questions with high moral valence. Carefully reporting the truth is valuable to Manifold users and the world. Being fair to existing traders is how we ensure Manifold continues to provide that value.

Anyway, those are my personal and moderator opinions; they're not law or final answers or anything of the sort. Stefanie will continue to have the final answers. I'd like the ability to remove my mod hat sometimes and just engage in debate as something closer to a normal user, though I'm not sure I'd use it here. But regardless, I hope people continue to understand that contrary opinions, suggestions, complaints, and so on are very welcome, especially when supported by reasoning, examples, or cases where other mods (or the same mods!) have reached differing conclusions.

I appreciate everyone continuing to debate this and bring up useful and constructive points in a respectful fashion; thank you.

@EvanDaniel Sure, all of that is reasonable for the creator to consider

Overruling the creator, on something you've said can be read either way seems a more than a bit beyond reasonable.

Who decides this market now? Or for the next year are all users mislead by Civilised Guy having his name attached? Surely that alone is enough for an NA

@BodeyBaker That's a question for @shankypanky, not me.

@EvanDaniel

Clearly a horrific thing happened here. I understand the reluctance by a number of folks to debate the details, but personally I think it's important to hold to a truth-seeking and technically correct approach even in questions with high moral valence.

Ahh... so I would assume then the mods would tread carefully and not overrule the creator unless they had something solid? Or maybe just run in gung-ho shooting from the hip and retroactively try to justify it?

@BodeyBaker This decision involved discussion among multiple mods, escalation to the community manager, and her making the final judgment call and taking actions. Other actions came out of this as well, in particular an attempt to find every single other market on Manifold using the term ICE and asking the creators to clarify in advance how they were using it. I think that's the opposite of shooting from the hip and retroactive justification.

@EvanDaniel fair as described presuming the "asking the creators to clarify" is more than this comment:

https://manifold.markets/CivilizedGuy/before-december-31-2026-will-an-ice#t4gg9hoc4b

If it's solely that comment, then its a gross misrepresentation of what actually happened since the creator gave clear response. I can see how it might not meet required standards but I see no follow up that defines what's required from the creator

Actually, your comment in this thread as a whole is *also* a misrepresentation because this well thought out discussion appears to be retroactively applied to a closed question

Hi everyone, I want to respond because I understand why this has been frustrating for traders and for the market creator. I hope it clears things up and diffuses the frustration here.

This market’s resolution criteria is not “an immigration enforcement officer” or “DHS broadly.” It explicitly says: an ICE agent kills an American citizen. That is the standard the market has to be resolved against, even if the term “ICE” is often used loosely in everyday conversation. Common discourse doesn't differentiate, which can lead to a lot of confusion in cases like this.

All credible reporting indicates the agent(s) who shot Alex Pretti was CBP/Border Patrol, not ICE. Under the criteria as written, that doesn't satisfy the condition for resolution.

Separately, I agree the process here could have been handled better and I take ownership of that. The decision wasn't made unilaterally and as Evan mentioned, there were discussions around it after it was flagged to me. I know reversals are disruptive when markets have volume, even moreso the longer time passes while Mana is moving around which is why I tried to make a swift move. But I could have made additional effort to contact the creator when they didn't respond to Evan's previous comment and communicate clearly before unresolving, and I get that it's (understandably) upset a few folks here.

As Evan said, the foundation of Manifold is to resolve to the truth, and I know that sometimes we have these outlier scenarios where a question and criteria seem clear and direct until a situation arises. It's not the intention of Manifold (or any of us representing the site) to take over markets, so that's not what's happening here. I see that we need clearer criteria and understanding on the guidelines of when mods/admins do step in to override resolutions and I'll work on that with the team and update the guidelines. 

@shankypanky personally, I had little in the market and it's wins/losses on a death so it's tough to pull motivation there. It's easy to find motivation in comments like: "resolve to the truth". There isn't really such a thing, it's mostly interpretations and overruling the creator on a mixed case like this, that wasn't reducing "truth" just using an ambiguous term in a specific way that no one had questioned ahead of time and is used that way elsewhere on this platform has left at least me looking for alternatives. Why so heavy a hand in moderation here when I have to scroll through so many new questions that violate guidlines (will this coin be heads) and you leave them up? Unfortunately this product does seem to be a bit of a niche offering

@shankypanky wait, did I miss the explanation for what happens now with the creators name attached but them being overruled? Who now owns and resolves this question? The system still lists Civilised Guy but that's clearly not accurate, what is accurate?

Which event led to this resolution? Looks like the shooting today was committed by Border Patrol, but maybe you're referring to something else?

@nfd @CivilizedGuy Could you comment on this? The market says ICE, but it sounds like you actually had something broader in mind?

@EvanDaniel

The question is closed.

Many media reports continue to say “ICE”.

The question is closed.

@CivilizedGuy I can see that the question is closed; I'm trying to ask if it should be. As best I can tell, based mostly on Wikipedia and its sources, the agents involved were CBP.

United States Border Patrol on-site commander Gregory Bovino said an officer who shot Pretti had been serving with the Border Patrol for eight years and had "extensive training as a Range Safety Officer".[28][59]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Alex_Pretti#Shooters

If you're working from different sources, I think that would help to clarify the resolution.

Thanks for the prompt reply!

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jan/24/minneapolis-shooting-federal-agents#:~:text=Minneapolis-,Man%20believed%20to%20be%2037%2Dyear%2Dold%20US%20citizen%20shot,federal%20immigration%20agent%20in%20city Likely will cause this to resolve if agents are confirmed ICE; may be DHS or etc.

Man believed to be 37-year-old US citizen shot and killed by federal agents in Minneapolis

Fatal shooting comes less than three weeks after Renee Good was killed by federal immigration agent in city

someone already got killed...