MN - Journalist Don Lemon arrested for church protest, Minneapolis, 18 Jan 2026

[keek]

The word "mob" is appropriate. Merriam Webster defines mob as "a large and disorderly crowd of people." It fits.

Definition of MOB

a large and disorderly crowd of people; especially : one bent on riotous or destructive action; a large number of people; a criminal set : gang; especially often Mob : mafia… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

Oh very much disagree, it's a lens issue. IMO

 

[GatorsNorth]

I don’t get the church vs. mosque analogy at all. Apples vs. oranges. MOO

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

There are ushers at the door to admit those that they know after mass begins. This is really no different than a theater.
There is no code violation. There is no "right" to enter a church.
As for you videos, if i get time I will look. The video i have seen shows DL interviewing the Pastor near the alter during what should be worship service time. THAT IS disrupting the service.

If you look at the videos and view it in context, you'll see the service was ALREADY disrupted. He didn't disrupt it. He's there to interview in the aftermath, just as he would be for any news story.

MOO.

 

[Sundog]

I don't think anyone, even the protesters, are against reasonable consequences for their disruption.

Sometimes, in protests, people get arrested or get citations. It's okay, as long as they actually are reasonably suspected of breaking a law.

Nobody is against a reasonable response to the protesters.

But the protesters were against the extremely inappropriate response to a 100% legal and not trespassing observer of ICE. She was shot dead just for recording what was going on in her neighborhood.

The protesters may have thought, give me a ticket- just please don't shoot another neighbor of mine.

Then, ICE did shoot another neighbor.

So, sure. Trespass the protesters. But the federal indictments are crazy over-reaction. And as lawyers say, the indictments appear to be no more than an attempt to chill protests and journalism. Protecting worshippers is just window dressing.

MOO

The protesters were violating federal law, the FACE Act. Pure and simple. Imagine if a large group of protesters entered an abortion clinic and were shouting obscenities in the faces of the clients inside the clinic. Window dressing? I doubt it. Violations of federal law, the FACE Act, pure and simple.

 

[Sundog]

But the protesters didn't go to an ICE facility to protest, they went to a church with completely innocent people inside. Would it be ok to protest the Somali community fraud accusations by occupying Somali mosques and preventing them from worshipping?

Good analogy.

 

[SouthAussie]

Using the word 'mob' colors the interpretation of what was seen through a person's own lens. Factually it was not considered a mob by definition. It was not a large crowd nor violent. IMO

The indigenous in Australia call their family and extended family their mob. Think of it like that.

imo

Who's Your Mob?

Tracing your First Nations family history and don't know where to start? Discover key resources for family history research.

www.slq.qld.gov.au

 

[SouthAussie]

I find it interesting that none of it was captured on the 8-hour livestream or in any of the other videos floating about.

MOO.

That's what gets to me also. The affidavits say one thing, my eyes see something different in the videos.

imo

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

You don't think the protest was meant to be disruptive? Going in and taking over and shouting and stopping the preacher was not disruptive?
So let me ask this again, would it be acceptable for a group of white protesters to enter a mosque at morning prayers, stop the prayers, yell at worshipers, begin interviewing people? Would that be acceptable?

I'm confused about why you're stuck on the mosque thing. Are you thinking that those who think DL shouldn't be charged in this case are somehow prejudiced against Christians and that their opinions would change if it was a mosque because they support Muslims or something? Can you help me understand why you're repeatedly making this analogy?

MOO

 

[PrairieWind]

The indigenous in Australia call their family and extended family their mob. Think of it like that.

imo

Who's Your Mob?

Tracing your First Nations family history and don't know where to start? Discover key resources for family history research.

www.slq.qld.gov.au

So then I don't know why people should object to the term "mob."

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

The protesters were violating federal law, the FACE Act. Pure and simple. Imagine if a large group of protesters entered an abortion clinic and were shouting obscenities in the faces of the clients inside the clinic. Window dressing? I doubt it. Violations of federal law, the FACE Act, pure and simple.

The same law was applied to protestors outside an abortion clinic. But they were pardoned.

MOO.

 

[PrairieWind]

I'm confused about why you're stuck on the mosque thing. Are you thinking that those who think DL shouldn't be charged in this case are somehow prejudiced against Christians and that their opinions would change if it was a mosque because they support Muslims or something? Can you help me understand why you're repeatedly making this analogy?

MOO

That is pretty much what I am saying. Several have admitted as much. But no one seems to want to answer my question. Would THAT be ok as well?
I am asking about the protest outside of DL's involvement. Do people here think the protest into the church was ok? Legally? Morally? Lets talk about that. In doing that, lets compare it to a protest into a mosque, or a native ceremony. Would those also be treated the same?

 

[PrairieWind]

The same law was applied to protestors outside an abortion clinic. But they were pardoned.

MOO.

Why do you just deflect from the question? Protests at abortion clinics have a long history of being prosecuted.

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

That's what gets to me also. The affidavits say one thing, my eyes see something different in the videos.

imo

I think when all is said and done, we'll walk away realizing there was some gaslighting in that affidavit (at least against the journalists) and that's why two judges refused to sign an arrest warrant for DL.

MOO.

 

[SouthAussie]

Why do you just deflect from the question? Protests at abortion clinics have a long history of being prosecuted.

Maybe because it seems hypocritical for this govt to be charging on the one hand, and pardoning for the same crime on the other hand?

imo

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

That is pretty much what I am saying. Several have admitted as much.

They have? I haven't seen anyone saying their opinion would change if it was a mosque. I actually just reviewed the posts from the last day and I didn't see that at all.

But no one seems to want to answer my question. Would THAT be ok as well?

I think several of us have answered your question, including me. Many (if not all) of us would hold the same opinion whether it was a church or a mosque. You may not like the opinion, but that doesn't mean it would change depending on the people worshiping.

I am asking about the protest outside of DL's involvement. Do people here think the protest into the church was ok? Legally? Morally? Lets talk about that. In doing that, lets compare it to a protest into a mosque, or a native ceremony. Would those also be treated the same?

I already answered your question and said that if they broke the law, then they should be held accountable. Why do you insist we focus on that when the thread is about DL? And why do you insist on then going down the path of the mosque vs church? I'm asking because it feels very much like you're looking for a specific answer and when we answer contrary to what you're expecting, you ignore it and ask the question again and again and again.

MOO.

 

[SouthAussie]

I am asking about the protest outside of DL's involvement. Do people here think the protest into the church was ok? Legally? Morally? Lets talk about that. In doing that, lets compare it to a protest into a mosque, or a native ceremony. Would those also be treated the same?

When I posted about the reasons for the protest before, to discuss that further, it was deemed and moderated as off topic.

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

Why do you just deflect from the question? Protests at abortion clinics have a long history of being prosecuted.

How is it a deflection? The exact same law was used in both situations and in one situation, the protestors were pardoned. How is that deflecting from the topic at hand? The same piece of legislation should apply to everyone equally.

MOO.

 

[seasideForest]

It's in the affadavit. Paragraph 48 where witnesses note that one child told his father that he thought he was going to die and other witnesses describe traumatized children and other congregants as a result of the chants by protesters. Protesters screaming in children's faces telling them their parents were nazi's and they were going to burn in hell, etc., etc.

Affidavit for Criminal Complaint Against Protestors | PDF | U.S. Immigration And Customs Enforcement | American Government

This affidavit, submitted by Special Agent Timothy Gerber, outlines the investigation into a group of agitators who disrupted a religious service at Cities Church in St. Paul, MN on January 18, 2026. The group, led by Nekima Valdez Levy-Armstrong and Chauntyll Louisa Allen, coordinated their...

www.scribd.com

One child. One child is too many. Of course. But it’s the job of the parents or other caregivers to look after the child in the aftermath and reduce the distress. It's quite feasible.

Traumatised children? With all due respect, the word "traumatised" is severely overused, including here. Not the same meaning as "distressed". You actually need a doctor to diagnose it. Before diagnosis, measures can and should be taken to reduce distress and prevent traumatisation instead of making use of the child's state to prove some point.
JMO

 

[PrairieWind]

How is it a deflection? The exact same law was used in both situations and in one situation, the protestors were pardoned. How is that deflecting from the topic at hand? The same piece of legislation should apply to everyone equally.

MOO.

Well, if the law is applied equally, DL and the rest of the crew will be convicted and they can apply for a pardon. Honestly, if I was the US attorney here, I would NOT have charged DL, not because I don't think he didn't participate, but because he is too much of a distraction. Just use him as the prime witness against the others.

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

Well, if the law is applied equally, DL and the rest of the crew will be convicted and they can apply for a pardon.

SBMFF

Were there journalists arrested and charged in the abortion protests?