He sent a harsh email to ICE's top official. Federal agents tracked him down

7/2/2026 at 3:35:53 PM

What do the flagged comments used to say #?

by kelvinjps10

7/2/2026 at 4:01:57 PM

You can turn showdead on in your profile to see them.

by orbital-decay

7/2/2026 at 6:56:49 AM

I know the ACLU is involved, but for crying out loud, the very first thing they should have done after the first visit was call a lawyer, before he even got on a plane to come home.

by ChiperSoft

7/2/2026 at 7:03:15 AM

[dead]

by vrsgjye

7/2/2026 at 12:14:49 PM

[flagged]

by Am4TIfIsER0ppos

7/2/2026 at 1:26:44 PM

They did sort of post it in their article. Here it is below from the article.

---

The email he sent had the subject line "What's next." Streever called Lyons a "monstrous human being" and predicted the ICE leader would "go down in history as America's Reinhard Heydrich, the butcher" — a reference to the Nazi official considered to be one of the architects of the Holocaust.

"The way you are protecting the obvious execution in Minnesota, even as we see the videos, will lead to your downfall. Even Trump will turn on you before the end, and you will be a sad, despised man who eats himself alive with shame at your own pathetic weakness.

Photos of Renée Macklin Good and Alex Pretti are seen among flowers and messages at the makeshift memorial for Pretti, set up in the area where he was shot and killed by federal immigration agents, in Minneapolis. Charly Triballeau/AFP via Getty Images

"You will never know peace. You will seek to lose yourself, to escape the burden of knowing the truth about yourself. But wherever you go, you will find yourself. You will torment yourself until your last day on Earth," the email read.

by OutOfHere

7/2/2026 at 1:38:16 PM

I couldn't tell for sure if that was the whole email or just portions they wanted to add commentary on either so I searched around and found this article https://archive.is/PX8KO which more traditionally displays the email & confirms it is the (albeit claimed) whole thing.

by zamadatix

7/2/2026 at 1:11:18 PM

[flagged]

by laughing_man

7/2/2026 at 1:30:10 PM

You don't know that, and are speaking out of your ass. Go back and read the article because it's in there. And the public sympathy is strong.

by OutOfHere

7/2/2026 at 7:48:08 AM

[flagged]

by gordian-mind

7/2/2026 at 7:59:37 AM

I can understand there are acceptable reasons other than intimidation to check on people sending letters like this, but this absolutely is non-violent criticism.

by neuroticnews25

7/2/2026 at 8:56:56 AM

There is no acceptable reason to "check on" him for it. It is political criticism written in an attention gathering way is all. Odds are that a standard critical message would never gain the mind's attention, so people have to get creative.

Also, for better or worse, the "check" these days allegedly happens more commonly by hacking into the person's devices to monitor them for a while.

by OutOfHere

7/2/2026 at 12:23:56 PM

>There is no acceptable reason to...

You know that. I know that. But that sort of identify and harass anyone who is a thorn in your side or otherwise noteworthy for a bad reason workflow is absolutely the status quo in government from the highest and mightiest federal agencies down to your local permitting office. These people are living in a filter bubble running organizations staffed by people from the same filter bubble. They don't understand what they're doing is even wrong.

by cucumber3732842

7/2/2026 at 10:01:33 AM

People are consistently surprised when the government doesn't operate exactly according to the letter of the law. There are ample opportunities to learn this before you get to this point. Jaywalking may be illegal but people do it right in front of a cop and get away with it. Likewise plenty of things that are perfectly legal attract law enforcement attention. If you asked 100 people on the street if that letter constitutes a threat, I believe that 5-10% would say yes, so sending something like that is definitely asking for trouble. And yes, I'm victim-blaming, because the victim is partially to blame.

by phendrenad2

7/2/2026 at 7:13:38 PM

People who are empowered to enact violence on behalf of the state must be held to a higher standard than random citizens.

Anything other than absolute adherence to the letter of the law is completely unacceptable from any part of the government.

by TheCoelacanth

7/2/2026 at 3:21:23 PM

> If you asked 100 people on the street if that letter constitutes a threat, I believe that 5-10% would say yes, so sending something like that is definitely asking for trouble

Something is "asking for trouble" if a tiny minority think it is? I think not. That would be extreme minority rule, not democracy.

If you ask 100 reasonable people if that letter constitutes a threat, and 90-95% say "no", then the remaining 5-10% should accept that their opinions are unreasonable, and defer to reasonable people, and drop the matter.

by ImPostingOnHN

7/2/2026 at 4:53:24 PM

Black people constitute 13% of the US. Should opinions exclusive to black communities be ignored and dismissed as unreasonable?

by tpoacher

7/2/2026 at 5:55:24 PM

Minorities often seek to engage in witch hunts. Opinions should never matter when it comes to law enforcement. The facts and logic should. The fact is that even if a minority assert the email to be a threat, upon probing there is no way they can explain why or how it is threat.

An objective analysis should be sought. You can read one by cgpt in its shared conversation ID 6a46a4f2-82fc-83ea-89bf-de6e6108070c which clearly determines it is not a threat.

by OutOfHere

7/2/2026 at 8:09:32 PM

> Minorities often seek to engage in witch hunts.

Some minorities sometimes seek to engage in witch hunts. Many others either don't care to waste energy on such pettiness, or simply have better things to do with their time. To be fair, there's a lot of messed up "Karen-types" among the non-minority groups that engage in witch hunting of various kinds as well, so... Yeah. Some humans are just messed up I guess...

by blooalien

7/2/2026 at 1:29:37 PM

That may be so, but it's unlikely that a jury would find him guilty. Moreover, those 5-10% would probably not be able to narrow or support their allegation if probed.

by OutOfHere

7/2/2026 at 9:56:46 AM

[flagged]

by gordian-mind

7/2/2026 at 8:14:47 AM

Where's the threat that would necessitate a visit? It's not like he had a pizza delivered to the official's home.

by goatlover

7/2/2026 at 8:24:12 AM

It is not a threat. All else is legally allowed.

The man's right to petition his government was harmed. And did he have to petition in this way? Yes, he absolutely did, for they listen to nothing else.

by OutOfHere