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

[Ontario Mom]

If I recall, the church has cameras that videotape and/or stream services, am I remembering that correctly? If so I look forward to seeing any footage that the prosecution plans to use to support their case against Lemon and the protesters.

You recall correctly. Not only was the sermon being recorded for the church's YT page, once the madness began, several members of the congregation also started recording. In Lemon's live streamed video, you can see multiple people with their phones out, recording it all. Some of those people were church members, and others were the protestors themselves. I don't know how many of those videos were watched but they're mentioned in the charging docs. That's the evidence the public hasn't seen.

 

[shotgun09]

IIRC, there was a female church member videoing the disruption who was standing near the front of the church. It appeared to me that she was filming and looking directly at DL and/or his crew for some time. This was observed on DL's own video from the live broadcast that morning. ( Posted here many times ) Wondering if that specific phone video will be used in court.

 

[Ontario Mom]

I'm curious if anyone knows if there is any case law precedent that Lemon's defense can use.

Has there ever been another case where protestors entered a live, religious worship service and had a journalist tag along with them?

 

[Ruminations]

The evidence is clear, it is in DL videos, the statements of the church members. It has all been "presented." That you reject it, is fine. But that is your opinion. You can't just keep stating over and over and over and over that nothing is presented. It has been.

Time stamp? For one criminal act?

MOO

 

[Ontario Mom]

IIRC, there was a female church member videoing the disruption who was standing near the front of the church. It appeared to me that she was filming and looking directly at DL and/or his crew for some time. This was observed on DL's own video from the live broadcast that morning. ( Posted here many times ) Wondering if that specific phone video will be used in court.

My guess would be, the church members likely happily handed over any video they had.
Protestors likely not, since it might incriminate them & those with them.
I can't know that for sure, so it's just my opinion.

 

[Ontario Mom]

Time stamp? For one criminal act?

MOO

No one here can answer that because we haven't seen the same evidence mentioned in the charging docs.

 

[SouthAussie]

No one here can answer that because we haven't seen the same evidence mentioned in the charging docs.

Though, from the evidence that we have seen (which is at least several videos and many photos), Don does not appear to be committing a crime. Other than perhaps trespassing, which he has not been charged with. AFAIK

He is not protesting, he is not yelling or intimidating. Everyone was free to walk around or sit/stand and watch. Once the service had abruptly ended, he approached various people for their comments. And a couple of parishioners (two young guys) approached Don with their comments.

imo

 

[tlcya]

No one here can answer that because we haven't seen the same evidence mentioned in the charging docs.

exactly this. And I look forward to seeing that evidence. Until then all I have is an opinion, which is subject to change if the evidence doesn't bear out the charges.

As with every criminal case we follow here at WS, we have no idea what the evidence is or how compelling or not it will be until we see it at trial. We can get bits and pieces before by reading warrants and probable cause statements etc. But until a trial we won't see the specific evidence that supports the charges.

 

[SouthAussie]

exactly this. And I look forward to seeing that evidence. Until then all I have is an opinion, which is subject to change if the evidence doesn't bear out the charges.

As with every criminal case we follow here at WS, we have no idea what the evidence is or how compelling or not it will be until we see it at trial. We can get bits and pieces before by reading warrants and probable cause statements etc. But until a trial we won't see the specific evidence that supports the charges.

Though we have seen that at least two judges refused to approve charges. They thought the evidence against Don was not there.

 

[Ruminations]

No one here can answer that because we haven't seen the same evidence mentioned in the charging docs.

Well, we saw that the judges who refused to authorize the arrest of Don Lemon assert that there was no evidence to support the arrest.

And the evidence to support an arrest is not at all like evidence to support a conviction. It doesn't have to be trial ready, or trial worthy. But it does have to depict a crime. The judges said, it's not there.

MOO

 

[Ontario Mom]

Though, from the evidence that we have seen (which is at least several videos and many photos), Don does not appear to be committing a crime. Other than perhaps trespassing, which he has not been charged with. AFAIK

He is not protesting, he is not yelling or intimidating. Everyone was free to walk around or sit/stand and watch. Once the service had abruptly ended, he approached various people for their comments. And a couple of parishioners (two young guys) approached Don with their comments.

imo

As I've stated, we haven't seen the same evidence mentioned in the charging docs.
We don't know what those videos show.
But based on that, he was charged so, there's that.
Now we wait & eventually find out if the evidence is solid, or not.

jmo

 

[Ontario Mom]

Well, we saw that the judges who refused to authorize the arrest of Don Lemon assert that there was no evidence to support the arrest.

And the evidence to support an arrest is not at all like evidence to support a conviction. It doesn't have to be trial ready, or trial worthy. But it does have to depict a crime. The judges said, it's not there.

MOO

Yes, people have disagreed from the start. The judges, the grand jury, the members of the public and the folks here discussing it.
I'm satisfied to let the evidence decide it, either way.

jmo

 

[SouthAussie]

As I've stated, we haven't seen the same evidence mentioned in the charging docs.
We don't know what those videos show.
But based on that, he was charged so, there's that.
Now we wait & eventually find out if the evidence is solid, or not.

jmo

Do we know that we haven't seen the same evidence?
Let's hope that the evidence supplied to the grand jury can be revealed.

imo

 

[Ontario Mom]

Do we know that we haven't seen the same evidence?
Let's hope that the evidence supplied to the grand jury can be revealed.

imo

For a fact? No. But I suspect we have not seen all the evidence.
The public almost never does.

We can 100% agree on hoping the evidence can be revealed.

 

[SouthAussie]

For a fact? No. But I suspect we have not seen all the evidence.
The public almost never does.

We can 100% agree on hoping the evidence can be revealed.

I suspect the thing that we haven't seen are the pages of text messages/communications that are said to be part of the evidence.

imo

 

[Ontario Mom]

I suspect the thing that we haven't seen are the pages of text messages/communications that are said to be part of the evidence.

imo

Maybe? I have no idea.

Evidence collected in most cases is often a surprise for most people when they learn how much of it there was, by the time it reaches trial. I think that usually falls under the whole "protecting the integrity of the investigation" that LE always tell the public about.

jmo

 

[Ruminations]

For a fact? No. But I suspect we have not seen all the evidence.
The public almost never does.

We can 100% agree on hoping the evidence can be revealed.

This is not like most cases. The ill-prepared sophomoric prosecutors were dashing to get a high profile arrest as fast as they could, and it appears that they shared all of their shoddy materials publicly trying to get the arrest asap.

We don't have things like the actual 911 call contents. That's about all I can think of. We have video footage. A lot of it. There is not going to be a smoking gun in things like a 911 call.

MOO

 

[Ontario Mom]

This is not like most cases. The ill-prepared sophomoric prosecutors were dashing to get a high profile arrest as fast as they could, and it appears that they shared all of their shoddy materials publicly trying to get the arrest asap.

We don't have things like the actual 911 call contents. That's about all I can think of. We have video footage. A lot of it. There is not going to be a smoking gun in things like a 911 call.

MOO

Regarding the bolded. I think it's important to point out that this is your opinion, as you have clearly stated by using the "MOO" salutation. That you describe it as "ill-prepared", "sophmoric", and "shoddy materials" implies you've already decided the value of the evidence without even knowing what it is.

Contrarily, I think the more analytical approach is to wait and deliberate the evidence the prosecution has amassed, that lead to the grand jury's charges.

jmo

 

[Ruminations]

Maybe? I have no idea.

Evidence collected in most cases is often a surprise for most people when they learn how much of it there was, by the time it reaches trial. I think that usually falls under the whole "protecting the integrity of the investigation" that LE always tell the public about.

jmo

This investigation has NOT been conducted with integrity.

It was a sloppy hit job by the few people left in the federal offices willing to abuse the criminal justice system.

I get it, the executive branch did not like press coverage about ICE or protests against ICE.

We are not supposed to pick an enemy and then invent crimes around him. And after people with integrity left in droves, the prosecutors that were left cobbled together this embarrassing symptom of looming facsism.

MOO

 

[Cryptic]

We are not supposed to pick an enemy and then invent crimes around him. And after people with integrity left in droves, the prosecutors that were left cobbled together this embarrassing symptom of looming facsism.

Disrupting / intimidating worshipers in a place of worship has a been a criminal act for quite some time. In this case, a jury of Lemon's peers will determine whether or not his journalism / "journalism" constituted a disruption.

I just don't see the facsism. I do see moves towards:

Sanctioning "Red Guards" (China) or "Shock Workers" (USSR) type groups who are then permitted to attack "class enemies". As these groups are sanctioned, members are immune to the same laws that they advocate for others.