JOIN LUNASHARK® PREMIUM

When Did Holding Government Accountable Become ‘Political’?

All Articles, Cup of Justice News

Why We Cover the Renee Good and Alex Pretti Cases: A Response to Our Listeners

Thank you for your support of our mission and thank you for taking the time to share your perspective. I understand your concern, and I want to address it directly because it touches on something fundamental to what we do at LUNASHARK and why Cup of Justice exists in the first place.

The coverage of Renee Good and Alex Pretti’s killings by ICE agents isn’t politics—it’s constitutional law, criminal justice, and government accountability. These are precisely the throughlines that have defined our journalism and content from day one.

This Is About Constitutional Rights, Not Political Sides

When armed federal agents kill an American citizen on American soil without a warrant, without identification, and without any subsequent investigation or public accountability, we’re not witnessing a political issue—we’re witnessing a constitutional crisis. The Fourth Amendment protects all Americans from unreasonable searches and seizures. The Fifth Amendment guarantees due process before the government can deprive any person of life, liberty, or property. The Fourteenth Amendment extends these protections and prohibits states from depriving any person of life without due process of law.

The Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms, and the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) explicitly affirmed an individual’s right to possess firearms in the home for self-defense. And while Pretti was outside his home… the question is still: Can federal agents kill someone for exercising Second Amendment rights without first establishing probable cause, obtaining a warrant, or identifying themselves as law enforcement?

Private citizens have the right under the Second Amendment to possess an ordinary type of weapon and use it for lawful, historically established situations such as self-defense in a home, even when there is no relationship to a local militia.

– District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

Minnesota is a concealed carry permit state under Minnesota Statute 624.714, meaning law-abiding citizens can obtain permits to carry firearms. And arguably one of the most difficult states to do so in. According to reports, Alex Pretti held a valid Minnesota permit to carry. He wasn’t breaking any underlying law by being armed—he was exercising a state-authorized, constitutionally protected right. The Minnesota statute explicitly recognizes that permit holders have lawfully demonstrated their fitness to carry firearms. When unidentified masked agents attack someone—who is acting lawfully under both state and federal law—and then kill him for ‘possessing’ a firearm they’re legally entitled to carry, we’re witnessing the lethal nullification of both the Second Amendment and state sovereignty.

The Supreme Court’s decision in McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) further incorporated this right against state and federal action. If the government can execute citizens for lawfully possessing firearms —without warrants, without due process, without even identifying themselves—then the Second Amendment becomes meaningless.

The First Amendment concerns are equally profound. Our ability as journalists to investigate and report on this incident is itself a constitutional right. The Supreme Court in New York Times Co. v. United States (1971) reinforced that the press serves as a check on government power. When federal agencies operate in secrecy, kill citizens without explanation, and face no accountability, journalism becomes the only remaining constitutional safeguard. Labeling that journalism “political” is itself an attack on the First Amendment’s core function: exposing government misconduct to public scrutiny.

These aren’t Republican amendments or Democratic amendments. They’re American amendments. They apply regardless of who occupies the White House, who controls Congress, or what someone’s immigration status might be.

When Mandy, Liz, and Eric examined the Renee Good and Alex Pretti cases, they asked the same questions they ask in every case we cover: What does the evidence show? What does the law require? Where are the systems of accountability? And most importantly: Is justice being served?

The fact that this case involves a federal agency rather than a state or local one doesn’t make it political—it makes it more important to scrutinize. Federal power, exercised without transparency or accountability, is exactly what the Constitution’s framers feared most. As James Madison wrote in Federalist No. 51:

“If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.”

We need those controls. We need journalism that demands them. That’s not politics—that’s civics.

Why This Fits Cup of Justice’s Mission

From our very first episode, Cup of Justice has been about examining how power operates within the legal system, who it protects, who it harms, and whether justice is truly being served.

We’ve covered:

  • State prosecutors who manipulate evidence or judges they elect to gain desired outcomes
  • Law enforcement officers who abuse their authority or conspire to protect friends
  • Judges who protect the powerful – and then allegedly rape babies
  • Bar associations that weaponize civility rules
  • Defense attorneys who game the system
  • And yes, federal agencies that operate in the shadows

What connects these stories isn’t partisan politics—it’s a consistent examination of institutional power and accountability. Whether it’s a solicitor in South Carolina dismissing charges against a wealthy lawyer-legislator’s client or federal agents killing someone without cause, the constitutional questions are the same: Did the government follow the law? Can citizens seek redress? Will anyone be held accountable?

Consider our extensive coverage of Scott Spivey. Scott Spivey was shot and killed by two men who were, according to evidence we’ve discovered, aided by police officers to “Act Like A Victim”, potentially plant evidence and then cover it all up…. then Prosecutors aided the killers with an assumptive self-defense AND Stand Your Ground rationale for not prosecuting. Our coverage has asked: What does the evidence show? Do the witness statements align? What does the law actually require for Stand Your Ground immunity? These are legal questions, not political ones.

We’ve also covered corruption in our True Sunlight Podcast, examining how government power can be abused when oversight fails. The questions we ask are consistent: Where is the accountability? What does the Constitution require? Is justice being served?

Federal agents are not immune from scrutiny simply because they are federal. The Supreme Court has been explicit that law enforcement power is constrained by constitutional limits, even in immigration enforcement contexts.

Relevant cases and statutes:

The Expertise That Matters

People have mentioned wanting us to “get back to your” cases. But this IS our case. Government accountability, constitutional rights, and the intersection of law enforcement and justice are exactly what Mandy, Liz, and Eric bring expertise to examine.

Mandy is an investigative journalist who has spent years uncovering how powerful institutions protect themselves from accountability. She broke the Murdaugh story precisely because she asked questions others wouldn’t: Why isn’t this being investigated? Why are these crimes being covered up? Who benefits from this silence?

Liz Farrell is an investigative journalist who specializes in examining institutional corruption, legal manipulation, and how narratives are constructed to protect power. Her work consistently reveals how systems fail when accountability mechanisms are deliberately disabled.

Eric Bland is a celebrated attorney who has dedicated his practice to holding powerful institutions and Corrupt Officials accountable—whether that’s law enforcement agencies, government officials, or wealthy individuals who believe they’re above the law. He understands 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal statute that allows citizens to sue government officials for constitutional violations. He knows Tennessee v. Garner, the Supreme Court case that established when deadly force by police is constitutionally permissible. He understands Graham v. Connor, which governs excessive force claims.

This expertise isn’t suddenly irrelevant because the badge belongs to ICE instead of a local sheriff’s deputy. In fact, it’s more relevant—because federal agencies often operate with even less transparency and oversight than local departments.

Justice Isn’t Red or Blue—It’s Right and Wrong

Here’s what we’re not doing: We’re not advocating for any political party. We’re not advancing any partisan agenda.

When we talk about due process, probable cause, transparency, and limits on government power, we are not choosing “left” or “right,” “blue” or “red.” We are choosing law over lawlessness.

Here’s what we are doing: We’re asking whether armed government agents (WHO ARE STILL NOT IDENTIFIED) can kill American citizens without warrants, without identification, without investigation, and without accountability—and still claim to be operating within constitutional bounds.

If you believe the answer to that question changes depending on which party controls the presidency, then you’ve accepted that constitutional rights are negotiable based on politics. We haven’t. We won’t.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the government cannot deprive individuals of life without due process. That principle doesn’t have an asterisk that says “*unless Congress is controlled by your preferred party” or “*except during immigration enforcement operations.”

Due process (or due process of law) primarily refers to the concept found in the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution, which says no one shall be “deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law” by the federal government. 

– Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute

When we covered Scott Spivey’s case, we didn’t ask whether he was a Republican or Democrat. We asked: Did the evidence support the claim of self-defense? Were constitutional standards met? When we covered the Murdaugh murders, we didn’t examine Alex Murdaugh’s voter registration—we examined whether he received preferential treatment from a corrupt system.

The same standard applies here. The Constitution protects everyone. Due process applies to everyone. And journalism that demands accountability from government power isn’t political activism—it’s the free press doing exactly what the First Amendment was designed to protect.

When Accountability Becomes “Political”

There’s a troubling pattern we’ve observed: The moment journalism examines federal power, it gets labeled “political.” When we investigated local corruption in South Carolina, we were doing important work. But scrutinize federal agencies, and suddenly we’re “getting political.”

This is exactly how institutional power protects itself—by framing accountability as partisanship. If you can convince the public that examining government misconduct is “taking sides,” then you’ve effectively immunized that misconduct from scrutiny.

We reject that framework entirely.

Holding the government accountable is not a political position—it’s a constitutional obligation that falls to journalists, courts, and citizens. When we stop asking hard questions about government power because we fear being labeled “political,” we’ve already lost something essential to democracy.

So many people have looked at the videos of the shooting incident and come up with different analysis… but none except law enforcement would have access to the evidence that should be public… if it’s a closed case of a justified shooting, then all the evidence that points in that direction should be shared and vetted by the public.

In this case, the feds have closed ranks which is wild and Minnesota has filed a lawsuit based on its 10th Amendment sovereignty.

At the moment I believe too soon for any of that hard evidence (if there is any) to come out but fine for folks to have their opinions…. but I certainly have not seen anything that would conclusively prove that the ICE shooter or the driver deserves the death penalty under the color of the 5th Amendment and due process guarantees…. and long-standing Supreme Court precedent governing use of deadly force (e.g., Tennessee v. Garner, Graham v. Connor).

So here’s the uncomfortable question: Do law enforcement agencies have the right to permanently seal fatal shooting evidence and rely on snap judgments—especially when public trust is already fragile?

What if the roles were reversed? What if there was no video?

We know from the Spivey case, Murdaugh, etc etc etc … We’ve seen—time and again—that government institutions are not infallible… rather I believe we MUST NOT TRUST THEM IMPLICITLY (and so did the founders of America). History and recent high-profile cases (Spivey, Murdaugh, and others) reinforce why blind trust is dangerous, and why the First and Second Amendments exist—to protect scrutiny, dissent, and accountability…

On the training element… I think there is a lot to be said for educating protesters on their constitutional rights—what lawful “Peaceably Assembly” actually means, where the lines are, and how to avoid escalation. If there are organized protest-training efforts, the public deserves to know who is funding them, what is being taught, and whether those efforts are designed to de-escalate—or to inflame divisions along political, racial, or ideological lines.

That same scrutiny must apply to law enforcement—because the public pays for it. What training is ICE receiving? What use-of-force standards govern these specific circumstances? What emphasis is placed on de-escalation, as opposed to defaulting to lethal outcomes under the preposterous concept of “absolute immunity” (Note: Vice President Vance claimed this, though federal agents have at most qualified immunity, not absolute immunity).

There’s also an unresolved human element. If ICE shooter Jonathan Ross was allegedly dragged by the other motorist prior to the shooting, what post-incident evaluation, counseling, or vetting occurred? How does that factor into assessing judgment, proportionality, and subsequent decision-making?

I appreciate the discussion and genuinely hope that more facts are released publicly—because transparency matters. As Justice Brandeis famously observed, “Sunlight is the best disinfectant” (quote attributed to Justice Louis Brandeis, 1913). Secrecy, by contrast, breeds mistrust, speculation, and—ultimately—more violence.

Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

justice louis brandeis

My Bias and POV

Regarding my personal views: I hold libertarian perspectives centered on limited government and individual liberty. My favorite amendments in order are the First (speech/press), Second (bear arms), 13th/14th (abolish slavery/equal protection), Fourth (search and seizure), sixth (public Trial), 9th (rights retained by the people) then Fifth (due process)… and least favorite are the 18th (obviously because cups up), the 26th (lower voting age) and 27th (didn’t go far enough to regulate congressional compensation). My concerns about government overreach aren’t partisan—they applied to both the current and previous administrations.

The Path Forward

I genuinely hope you’ll continue listening. Not because we expect you to agree with every case we cover or every question we ask, but because we believe this conversation matters. Cup of Justice has always been a space where evidence, law, and constitutional principles guide the discussion—not partisan talking points.

If you believe we’ve gotten facts wrong, we want to hear about it. If you think we’ve misapplied legal standards, let’s discuss it. But if the concern is simply that we’re examining federal power with the same scrutiny we apply to state and local power, then I’d respectfully suggest that’s not us getting political—that’s us being consistent.

Justice doesn’t care about party affiliation. Neither do we.

The Constitution protects all of us, or it protects none of us. We’re going to keep asking whether those protections are being honored—regardless of who’s in power, regardless of which agency is involved, and regardless of who finds those questions uncomfortable.

Because that’s not politics. That’s journalism.

You don’t have to agree with every question we ask. Healthy disagreement is part of a free society. But asking journalists and lawyers to look away from a civilian death involving armed and masked government agents is not neutrality — it is acquiescence in my opinion.

Cup of Justice will always choose justice over convenience, law over authority, and truth over comfort. That isn’t politics.

Wishing sunshine in everyone’s world and I appreciated folks participating in the conversation!

-David as David

Views expressed are the personal beliefs of the poster alone and do not explicitly express the views or opinions of Luna Shark Productions, LLC or its entire ownership. 🦈 ⚖️ ☀️

Additional Context & Resources: