Resolution criteria
A man died after an ICE-involved shooting in Minneapolis on January 24, 2026. This market resolves YES if any ICE or Border Patrol agent involved in this shooting faces any negative consequences, including but not limited to: criminal charges, indictment, conviction, administrative discipline, suspension, termination, or civil liability. Resolution will be determined by official statements from federal agencies, court records, or credible news reporting from established outlets. The market resolves NO if no agents involved face any consequences at all in the next 30 days. I will not count them being put on paid leave for the duration of the investigation (if that happens) since that is not a disciplinary measure.
Considerations
None of the shootings examined by investigative journalists resulted in an ICE agent being indicted, even in cases where someone was killed. None of the federal agents who fired their weapons at civilians has been charged with a crime in recent ICE shooting incidents. White House adviser Stephen Miller stated, "To all ICE officers: you have federal immunity in the conduct of your duties."
Update 2026-01-24 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Unpaid administrative leave will count as a consequence if it is ordered as a disciplinary measure.
Update 2026-01-24 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Administrative leave clarification: Routine administrative leave during an investigation does not count as a consequence. Administrative leave only counts if it is explicitly ordered as a disciplinary measure, not as part of standard procedure following a shooting.
Update 2026-01-28 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Consequences to individuals not directly involved in the shooting (such as supervisors being relieved of other duties) do not count toward resolution. Only consequences faced by agents directly involved in the shooting will count.
Update 2026-01-28 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Being charged with a crime in the context of this shooting will resolve the market YES, even if the agent is subsequently cleared of charges.
1,000People are also trading
This is not enough time to resolve NO. Gemini estimates the 90th percentile of police misconduct charges take 12 months to be filed.
@TiredCliche I'll bet you 100 mana to your 1000 mana that charges will be filed after February 23, 2026, but before January 24, 2027.
@GG about the length of this market: I will not change the closing time. It would change the odds and thus be unfair to all bettors.
NO limit orders up at 50 - 53.
@GastropodGaming Nobody was disputing that this was a homicide. There are competing narratives of whether it was a murder, a manslaughter, or a justified homicide. But everyone agrees that a USBP agent shot Pretti.
The "perp" was not "found", because he was never missing. USBP immediately knew it was Jesus Ochoa, and would have shared that information with any prosecutor who requested it. The news this week is that his identity was released to the public.
https://x.com/sentdefender/status/2016572643382640727?s=20
Just paid leave for now... but it's a strong signal.
Are we talking legal consequences only or would social consequences count? Would being charged and subsequently cleared resolve NO, even if there was substantial negative stuff that happened to them after being charged? I mean things like having to hire private security, pull their kids out of school, being denied service at places they'd go where there live, that kind of thing.
@WilliamGunn About being charged: https://manifold.markets/CommanderKeen/will-any-one-of-the-ice-members-inv#0iypgkfo0ix
To reiterate: if they get charged with a crime in the context of this shooting, I would resolve YES
@CommanderKeen Why use the "any consequences at all" language if you meant "be charged with a crime"? Any "legal" consequences, maybe?
@WilliamGunn During creation I thought about adding "negative" to the title but instead just elaborated in the description. The question is not about legal consequences only, though.
For example, "termination" is not a legal consequence, so i cannot just add "legal" to the title, it would change the question's meaning.
After some thinking I decided to add "negative" to the description. I will not add it to the title, it is long enough as it is, and to clarify that the consequences cannot be stuff like promotions or raises, I think it is sufficient to have that in the description.
@CommanderKeen I'm not a big fan of descriptions that are far off from the question wording, it makes me feel like the asker didn't think carefully before asking and thus might not think carefully before resolving, but I know question writing is hard.
@WilliamGunn What is your suggestion then? Add "negative"?
Also, it is not "far off", what are you talking about? I think you might rather be annoyed by the implications ^
@CommanderKeen It's fine. I think I probably would have asked something like "fired or charged with a crime". I appreciate you engaging with me on this.