Up until now these crazy cases have been rejected by the courts. But this feels like a crack in the dam. A judge actually sentenced someone to 30 years for hiding zines, zines that had been published for years. This was under the pretense hiding those zines was hiding evidence of criminality. And the criminality was worth 75 years. For someone who was at a protest where a federal agent was shot, but was not the shooter.
Does anyone have a link to details on the case because there must have been more details, like these two were accused of planning a murder in advance, because otherwise this seems insane. It seems insane no matter what, but if this was a judge making a bunch of logical leaps while guided by DOJ lawyers, something is really broken
If you think that this was a protest then yeah it's worrying.
The feds case, which they did win convictions based on, was that they were terrorists who set off fireworks to lure police into an ambush, and there weren't more casualties because one of the members shot early and only injured one cop. An accessory to this who hid evidence is also part of the crime in the Feds case
Is this embellished by the Feds? I think so, it seems some of the group did not think this was the plan. But there did seem to be a plan and it did involve bringing guns, setting off fireworks, opening the gate and trying to break out the prisoners, and "not going quietly"
"Lure police into an ambush" is quite a stretch. It's quite normal to do noise demonstrations outside jails/prisons to show solidarity with the captives, the captives will often times knock on the windows to communicate back. In fact there were noise demonstrations outside the Delaney Hall ICE jail in New Jersey just this month, which you may have heard about. The mischaracterization of fireworks as "explosives" is also a huge stretch by the government in order to pursue their antifa conspiracy.
Fireworks are explosives, and people are hurt by misusing them. Just because they are less harmful than grenades doesn't mean that they are harmless, and throwing them at someone is clearly with the intention of harming them. And well, shooting them with rifles is also clearly intended to harm them.
Reducto ad absurdum. Up there with declaring Placards or Air Horns as 'offensive rioting equipment' as people can (and are) hurt through their misuse, and arguing that just because they're less harmless than an ICBM doesn't mean they're harmless.
Fireworks are first and foremost Pyrotechnics - it's only a specific subset of fireworks that contain any sort of 'explosive' element. Short of Simpsons-esque escapades involving cherrybombs and toilets, or m-80s and mailboxes, this use-case simply doesn't exist in real-life. Indeed both cherrybombs and m-80s are federal felonies to possess in the U.S. without an explosives license, alongside anything with 50 milligrams or more of flash powder.
Tannerite sits amongst dozens of other explosives you can buy OTC in the US with a drivers licence - one which generally necessitates shooting at with a rifle to ignite. Plenty of videos on youtube of enthusiasts blowing up a car or similar sized object using it.
The fireworks were a distraction tactic. It wasn’t the main tool in the attempt to main injure and kill. Things went sideways for them; however the intent was there. I think that’s what the issue was. Obviously the feds always go overboard with charges in order that there be a higher likelihood of conviction and long term punishment for the convicted.
You can blind someone with a fork, but if the feds arrested you while you had one in you backpack and claimed you were carrying a weapon, that would be a ridiculous mischaracterization.
OK, July 4 is coming up, get ready to throw hundreds of thousands of people in jail for decades for setting off "explosives", right? Most fireworks, you can literally stand on top of them while they are going off and not be injured. I've seen videos of police doing it while just wearing light body armor, unphased. Stop being ridiculous. These laws about explosives were intended to be used for military-style weapons.
Yeah sure, if you hold the biggest firework you can legally buy in a closed fist something bad will happen, otherwise it's very unlikely... You're far more likely to cause damage by throwing rocks
Do you understand this is a non-sequitur or do I need to repeat the point of the butter knife?
Edit: NM I'm just gonna call it: this is by far the dumbest bad faith argument for why someone should be in prison for 30 years I have ever heard. You're clearly just a provocateur.
The pardoned Jan. 6 rioters had a lot of far worse plans that were foiled which could have resulted in more casualties. There was lots of evidence several of them planned to kidnap sitting congressmen and women.
Do you know why they were pardoned and this zine hider got 30 years? Must just be a quirk of the justice system...
And what happens when the “investigations” are malicious, politically motivated, and prosecuted by a DoJ that’s been bent to the will of a tinpot dictator, and adjudicated by overtly political actors?
I think all of this hinges on whether or not you think it was a protest. If they had been peacefully sitting outside the facility holding signs, I think you'd have a case that the sentencing is insane. But if they were actively planning a break-in & preparing to use deadly force, that's quite another matter. I haven't spent a lot of timing reading about it, but what I have read suggests it was much closer to the latter.
Unfortunately, the administration wants it both ways- if you were on the Capitol grounds on January 6, 2021, you were simply part of a "peaceful tour group". If you stand to the side of an ICE agent in Minneapolis, you are a "domestic terrorist", deserve to be murdered in cold blood, and any attempts to investigate further will be stonewalled.
So it's hard to take their characterization seriously when they have demonstrated that there is a clear double standard, depending on whether you are a FoT (Friend of Trump).
- who, among other things, erected a noose on the capitol grounds, brought zip ties and weapons
- forcefully overran several capital police barricades intended to deter their entrance
- used any weapon available including poles etc to violently attack any police in their way
Granted they did not explicitly shoot any federal agents with a firearm, but in the J6 case, I’d say I’d lay blame for the subsequent deaths of the police officers who did die at the hands of the rioters.
To be clear I do not condone violence in either case.
However those 1000+ individuals on January 6 were ultimately pardoned for their actions. The family of one was in fact paid $5 million in taxpayer money because she was shot in a vain attempt to repel the crowd.
Why then should these defendants be treated completely differently? One gets the law, the other has their convictions overturned completely and history rewritten in their favor.
Btw I do not believe the individual who was charged in the article shot the federal agent or was part of the “concealed position” etc. So bringing that up is just an appeal to brush that individual with the actions of others.
Yeah but imagine if you were also sentenced for 30 years not because you were there on January 6th but because your friend who was there asked you to pick up all those MAGA hats from his home.
It's shameful how the Jan 6th rioters went unpunished (well, had their punishment cut short), but it's also not good to repeat false claims. Brian Sicknick died of a stroke the next day, but the medical examiner determined that this was not caused by Sicknick being pepper sprayed the previous day:
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/19/us/politics/brian-sicknic...
The other four police officers said to have been killed in this root committed suicide over the next several months, which really cannot be attributed to the riot in an intellectually honest way. Imagine if someone said "BLM murdered dozens of cops" and then listed the suicide of every cop that had some interaction with BLM and committed suicide 6+ months afterwards.
This isn't to minimize the crimes of Jan 6th rioters and their attempt to overturn an election, but it's still best not to repeat false claims.
Where did I say it is?
I said it's the same assault as ICE protestors and either both should be jailed or both should be pardoned, but pick one of these lane, because otherwise it's just selective enforcement.
Shifting the goal posts. I’m talking about the selective prosecution and you’ve tried to equate that with hn sentiment. Does it really matter what the double standard is for a bunch of keyboard warriors arguing over imaginary internet points? No! But it makes a shit ton of difference when the state, with a monopoly on violence and justice, makes a public showing over its double standard. That double standard has impacts on the freedom and lives of people.
And your nihilism is exactly how we got into this mess in the first place. “They all suck, so why not elect the clown and see how much he can shake things up”.
So again the hn hypocrisy doesn’t matter. The only thing on the line for me is whether my imaginary internet points balance increases or decreases.
The feds on the other hand have the power to send you to federal prison or to pardon you and literally pay you off.
Given that we don’t have God himself running for president, we have to suffice with imperfect representation. And so yes I end up picking a side because that’s the system we have at the moment.
As to your point about “picking sides” - why aren’t you upset about the pardons yourself in that matter? Shouldn’t they be held accountable?
HN is a collection of people with varying viewpoints and backgrounds posting arbitrarily throughout the day. There is no single position to be hypocritical of.
The “Hypocrisy” you are experiencing here is just you having to sort through other people’s opinions and getting upset at the ones that disagree with yours.
I actually don’t view Biden pardoning his son or Fauci(lol at the covid craziness still coming out) anywhere nearly as badly as a President pardoning people who disrupted a ~245 year uninterrupted peaceful transfer of power that was one of our greatest accomplishments as a nation, especially when said President doing the pardon was the one the J6s were trying to overturn the election for.
If you think those things are equivalent well then, there are many things I’d say about you but I’ve been told by the mods that’s not allowed.
For clarity, only people who died on Jan 6th were protestors. The police officer who died on the 7th had a stroke. The two who died later were suicides. It’s negligent to conceal these facts.
(Note for clarity, almost everybody posting in this thread on every side is doing this kind of thing. Just move on to the “years of lead” phase already.)
What would you suggest? There are real divisions in this country and a lack of shared ground truth. This thread among many is an example.
I vouched for your earlier comment stating the proximate cause of death for those involved in January 6 because you’re correct.
Still, it’s hard for me to then say with a straight face that, for example, officer sicknick would have died of a stroke if the riot didn’t happen.
That said, nobody was charged with murder or manslaughter in connection with his death, and I respect that even if it doesn’t feel just. Either way, god bless his soul and the other officers who tragically took their own lives.
I don’t know what to suggest, because it’s become commonplace to lie and distort the truth among both sides. Neither one will likely stop doing it because that might give the other side an advantage.
I would say that non-partisans should hold them to account, but that’s only possible if you’re not overly concerned about the penalty for doing so. Doing this in person could lead you to catch a beating, which is ridiculous.
Somewhere there is a crown lying in the gutter with the words “The Truth” written on it. Someone could pick it up and start using it at any time, and everyone would love it. The only problem is that this person would need a strong network with powerful backers before they pick up that crown, because too many powerful people benefit when the public believes in lies. So maybe the starting point is building that network. A network of people willing to face hard truths, and to defend those truths once someone starts bringing them forward.
I’m not sure it’s possible. Americans love lying and being lied to.
For the record, I think all the deaths connected with the event were tragic, including both the protestors and officers.
The different scale of intention was to overturn the results of a federal general election, effectively a coup to seize back control over the government. I can see why you consider the incident in Texas to be terrorism, but you want to ignore the entire point of the J6 event and pretend it was just some normal event where a few participants got a little out of hand? Get real.
So in that case, what were they there to do, exactly?
Don't forget, an actual noose was erected on the capitol grounds: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/16/us/politics/jan-6-gallows.... Do I think they intended to literally drag Mike Pence out and physically hang him? No. But damned if that doesn't send a clear message.
I'm not defending them, I'm just pointing out that the two things aren't equivalent.
And yeah, sure, the message was that they thought he was a traitor. I don't agree with them on that and I certainly don't agree that's a good way to send that message. My point is that if a bunch of conservatives want to do an actual coup they would be armed to the damned teeth.
There were lots of Jan 6 weapons related convictions:
"180 defendants were charged with entering a restricted area with a dangerous or deadly weapon, which includes firearms and other types of weapons." [0]
What you described as a riot is considered by others to be part of a "fake electors" plot, to keep Trump in power after he lost the election [1], a plot which Pence didn't go along with. Trump even tweeted that day about it:
"If Vice President @Mike_Pence comes through for us, we will win the Presidency." [2]
This is the most stupid refutation, surely you can do better.
Besides the fact that several of them did bring guns or have them standing by, the ones focused on trying to derail the transfer of power were aware in advance that DC had very strict gun laws and were worried about getting caught before establishing momentum.
Even setting that aside, do you really expect people to believe Donald Trump decided to organize a giant rally, tweeting out 'Be there, will dbe wild!' for that location on January 6 just by chance? Staging the rally at the Ellipse in DC and getting large numbers of diehard MAGA people to attend cost several million dollars, are you seriously asking me to believe that it never occurred to any of the organizers or speakers that the certification of the election just happened to be taking place a short walk away? That when Trump suggested they would all walk up to the Capitol, what he expected was for people to mill around aimlessly for a while and then go home?
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
"By the way, Pennsylvania has now seen all of this. They didn't know because it was so quick. They had a vote. They voted. But now they see all this stuff, it's all come to light. Doesn't happen that fast. And they want to recertify their votes. They want to recertify. But the only way that can happen is if Mike Pence agrees to send it back. Mike Pence has to agree to send it back.
(Audience chants: "Send it back.")"
"
The Democrats are hopeless — they never vote for anything. Not even one vote. But we're going to try and give our Republicans, the weak ones because the strong ones don't need any of our help. We're going to try and give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country."
What he hoped was that the protest would show that there was a ton of support for his position that the election had been stolen and for the relevant people to take that into account.
So you're saying he expected them to mill about aimlessly chanting or whatever, and that Pence/the senators would somehow treat this as a revelation? Total BS. You're asking me to forget all the heated rhetoric leading up to and even during the event (eg Rudy Giuliani telling people to fight or they won't have a country any more).
If your version of events were true, why didn't Trump put out a message to calm down his supporters within minutes of the situation devolving into a riot, rather than hours later? What prevented him tweeting 'No, stop - I said peacefully and patriotically: No violence! PLEASE LEAVE THE CAPITOL IMMEDIATELY'?
It's not other people's job to jump through hoops to meet your chosen metric, apparently defined in ignorance of the facts. The crowd left the Capitol because Trump eventually put out a video statement telling his supporters to go home, well after the Senate chamber had been evacuated and taken over by rioters.
Testimony from within the White House indicates a large number of people worked to persuade him to issue such a statement, perhaps convincing him that he would not have the support of many cabinet members of aides otherwise. We can only speculate on what might have happened if he had told his supporters to stand their ground.
Ugh let’s not get all conspiracy theory up in here. Show me real evidence of that and I’ll believe you.
Until then - to say at the same time - the Feds are so incompetent and also the Feds are organizing an elaborate secret network of agitators to be at all major protests and riots - let’s just say the logic doesn’t logic.
>Ugh let’s not get all conspiracy theory up in here. Show me real evidence of that and I’ll believe you.
Um, like half of all these "attack the government in some capacity" plots in the last 40yr. Probably more if you count all the "radical islamic terrorists" they riled up in the 00s and 10s when that was the cool thing for law enforcement to be entrapping.
The Michigan Fednapping is probably the most hilarious case since it turned out there were more feds than not who were in on it.
Trump helped organize and encourage the January 6th insurrection. He was president during the insurrection. So yes, there was a lot of federal Republican help during that one.
This was way worse than J6 since they were actually planning to commit violence here. But 30 years for this particular case is way more egregious than any of the J6 sentencing to be sure.
You realize that there multiple armed contingents planning and organizing to literally raid the Capitol for J6 right? That's why the pround boys were a focus of much of the investigation.
Fwiw some of the people sentenced to decades in prison went home before your bullet points happened.
And although the second amendment may not cover first aid kits, that's a super lame justification for sending people to prison for the rest of their lives. I guess it's a good thing Boy Scout troops don't coordinate over signal or they'd all be locked up.
I don't know what they signal chats were, but ignoring those, only the last one of those I view as a crime. This is the US, people have second amendment rights and are allowed to possess guns and armed protestors have been a thing since forever. It is also a good idea to wear body armor when you are hanging around any US law enforcement or cops, doubly so when protesting them. Carrying a first aid kit is just a good idea in general, especially for something like a protest, and again for one where cops are likely to be shooting rubber bullets and tear gas canisters at people.
I do want violent criminals prosecuted. But the problem is that there is a very clear signal given that prosecution is highly selective.
I made my point earlier - if this administration cared about prosecuting violent criminals, they would never have even considered pardoning the J6 criminals. They would additionally call for swift and thorough investigations on the use of force against the killings of protesters in Minneapolis in order to ensure that law enforcement is seen as accountable to the public.
But none of that has happened. And won’t happen. It astounds me that this hypocrisy isn’t screaming like nails on a chalkboard!
The J6 crowd broke into and overran the legislature to prevent the Constitutional transfer of power from one President to another, following a rally organized by the President that was about to lose power. You are talking like it was a coincidence that they just happened to be there and spontaneously decided to do some trespassing for fun.
If you constrain your analysis to: who is a violent actor, and how severe was the violent act in question, I think you can produce a more reasonable comment tbf.
OK. Let's look at this case of a guy who actually murdered a security guard at a federal building in cold blood, for political reasons, in a drive-by shooting that was organized in advance using the internet. He got 41 years, vs this other guy getting 100 years for attempted murder.
Ok sure not every of the 1500 people pardoned by Trump could be considered “violent”. Have you watched the videos? There’s definitely more than one.
And you’re shifting the goalposts by implying (falsely) that the person covered in the article also personally committed all the offences you mentioned earlier, including shooting a federal officer.
And don’t just take my word for it. There is a good amount of recidivism by those who received pardons. Almost 100 have subsequently been charged with other crimes, including child molestation. I’d consider someone who, after getting pardoned for the j6 riot, continuing on to diddle kids, a violent criminal.
> Perhaps most strikingly, five recipients of presidential clemency were arrested in connection with conduct that occurred at least in part subsequent to Trump’s freeing them from prison—meaning that Trump’s clemency order on the first day of his second term may have actively facilitated criminal conduct. These include:
> Andrew Paul Johnson, who was freed from prison as a result of the pardon in 2025, was convicted of five charges, including child molestation, in February 2026, and sentenced to life in prison. The criminal conduct for which he was convicted took place both before and after his pardon.
> Zachary Alam, who was convicted of felony charges of grand larceny and burglary just months after his pardon.
> Ryan Nichols, who was charged with deadly conduct and harassment on May 10, 2026, after allegedly threatening a person with a gun in a church parking lot.
> If you want to concede that it's fascist to want violent criminals prosecuted,
I believe it is fascist to bring trumped up charges for ridiculousness. Say for example the case of “sandwich guy” who the DoJ spent three attempts at a grand jury to bring federal charges. For throwing a fully loaded Subway sandwich at a kitted out ICE officer.
> I think if you append "with the intention to commit a violent crime" to each item on the list, you'll see the issue.
That's problematic as you could literally append that to any action and thus condemn it as illegal e.g. met to have some coffees and a chat ... with the intention to commit a violent crime.
The problem is that there's not necessarily any connection between the activity and the alleged violent crime - that's what needs to be proven such as highlighting specific signal conversations that were evidence of planning the crime.
Also, what is problematic about first aid kits? How is being in a "concealed" position problematic?
My point is that there has to be evidence to link the "meeting up for coffee" and the commission of a crime. If a group of people meet for coffee and then later one of them commits a crime, it's not necessarily a conspiracy to commit that crime unless there's evidence (e.g. recorded conversation or witnesses) that the crime was being discussed and planned whilst having a coffee.
Simply appending the phrase "with the intention to commit a violent crime" should not be allowed without evidence of that intention.
ICE has behaved as violent criminals during Trump's 2nd term. Renee Good and Alex Pretty were murders. There have been other shootings ICE initiated. How many have died in ICE facilities under suspicious circumstances?
> I think if you append "with the intention to commit a violent crime" to each item on the list, you'll see the issue.
No, that doesn't fly, and the intent isn't clear. Even if there were intent, those three bullet points still are not an crime or valid charges. As a member of the jury, I would reject them 100%.
Extending your pitiful logic just a few steps, people would be locked up for 30 years just for being born.
> If you want to concede that it's fascist to want violent criminals prosectued
No relation. Violent crime must of course be prosecuted, but it shouldn't have to depend on trumped up charges or weak accusations of intent.
The actual members of the jury convicted the defendants though, accepting the .gov's evidence and witnesses that these individually innocuous elements together established their links to each other, collectively murdering an officer in the course of an attack.
Can anyone seriously define “antifa”? What would the pardon read? “Anyone who is anti-fascism is hereby pardoned…”?
Edit: downvoting me doesn’t answer the question. If you have a definition please reply! If nobody can define “antifa” how the heck can you prosecute someone for being a member of it?
Wikipedia uses "a left-wing anti-fascist and anti-racist political movement." Until recently, there was nothing controversial or illegal about being any of those things.
The historical antifa is the German Antifaschistische Aktion. You can read about some of the things those guys engaged in - they didn't just target Nazis - to see why the association is controversial.
The Proud Boys have a defined organization structure and leader, with a set of definitions of what a "Proud Boy" is expected to do upon joining (see McInnes' post introducing the group here: https://www.takimag.com/article/introducing_the_proud_boys_g...)
“That guy” had a name. His name was Alex Pretti. He was disarmed before he was shot in the head. He was not even holding his weapon at any point.
Are you implying that simply carrying a legal firearm while at a protest means you can be murdered, without any subsequent investigation?
Again the Overton window has shifted so far just in my lifetime. This would have been front page news with congressional investigations just 10-15 years ago.
Pictures of protesters openly carrying weapons at demonstrations who were not subsequently murdered by federal agents.
Have you seen the picture of Alex Pretti kicking the taillights out of a moving vehicle carrying federal agents? The guy was not stable. Who knows what he might have done with that gun?
Protesting is one thing. Going looking for trouble is another.
In fact, the federal government is using intimidation tactics to individuals who do nothing other than try to name the ICE agents who have murdered US citizens. Just a few days ago, armed ICE agents confronted a poll worker at a polling site in Syracuse NY to warn her about a social media post where she simply named the ICE agent who killed Renee Good: https://apnews.com/article/ice-poll-worker-syracuse-fa082f8a... (post in question here: https://www.instagram.com/p/DTQ1FYDkyua/)
Back to Alex, his pistol was concealed and at no point did he attempt to reach for it. There are at least a half dozen angles of video showing the entire interaction (thanks smartphones!) so it's not too hard to see for yourself from multiple vantage points.
From what I read, the person who was arrested for transporting zines was not even at the protest or part of the group - just the husband of one of the protestors.
And you think that's worth a 30 year sentence? I think the founders of the US would disagree.
Also worth noting that the husband did not conceal evidence of the wife committing a crime. Having political zines isn't illegal. The zines were circumstantial evidence that the prosecution wanted to use to characterize her general political views. They had no direct relation to the events at the ICE detention center.
Im somehow more reminded of the loyalists in the revolutionary wars. 80.000 people who fled to canada, when it became obvious they where no longer wanted or needed by the new administration. Trying to do a Che Guverra against the expressed will of the people - seems kind of extremist.
If I were transporting copies of this magazine, am I concealing evidence? What is special about this guy? Is there anything he could have legally transported, or is everything she's written banned?
The irony of The Intercept requiring my identity is funny.
she called her husband, from jail, and asked him to move them so they couldn't be used in court against her. she said "do whatever you have to do". the cops listened to the phone call, watched him load them into the car and arrested him on the drive. i think it's pretty straightforward that she was asking for his help in obstructing the investigation by hiding potential evidence against her.
I am asking those questions in good faith, to explore the new limits on free speech, and don't see any direct answers. What happens to this guy specifically is only interesting as far as it affects everyone else in the US.
Lawful investigation and prosecution would of course not hinge upon the contents of political publications. As such, any obstruction was purely aimed at the inevitable two minute hate by the addled autocrat about how antifa is hiding everywhere, making his coffee too cold and his food not taste as good as it used to.
How would possession of political material be evidence one way or the other? She can own, read, share, publish, disseminate all the revolutionary literature she wants
The wife was charged with: Rioting with the intent to commit an act of violence,
providing support to terrorists, and conspiracy to use and carry explosives.
In what way would a box of magazines be evidence of any one of those crimes? I very much doubt there was an article called "My plan to commit an act of violence by Maricela Rueda" in any of them. The ones they choose to photograph for inclusion in their criminal complaint (likely because they were the most scary looking ones) appear to have been written many years ago. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ce/Literatu...
Two of those pictured are on archive.org and War in the streets : the story of urban combat from Calais to Khafji is available at amazon.com
It sounds to me like she was just making arrangements with her husband from jail to handle their property. She told him to have her car towed because it was left on the street by someone else's house and she told him to "move whatever you need to from the house" which is a pretty sensible heads up to give someone when you know that their house will likely be ransacked later by police who could take or destroy anything.
"The government showed that there were items in the box that were the same items found in the Soto’s residence, tying Sanchez and Rueda to the Sotos, and similar items found amongst the other defendants. It also showed materials in the box contained handwritten notes on them, specifically the name “Ines,” and “Ines in bc” [Ines in book club].
This further drew the connection between Sanchez, Rueda, and the Sotos. This connection was important for purposes of Pinkerton liability and showing they all shared the same motive, intent, knowledge, and foreseeability."
No lawyer, today is the day I learned about Pinkerton Liability, but apparently under it you can be held liable for the actions of your co-conspirators.
Resisting arrest isn't a justification for shooting a law enforcement officer. The law enforcement officer had a pretty solid reason to draw his firearm, given that the rioters also had firearms.
I'm really baffled by the line of reasoning here. People, armed with guns, tried to break into a government facility. The law enforcement officers proceeded to try and arrest the rioters, and the rioters shot one of the officers.
This was a coordinated group of people who procured body armor, radios, and firearms, and planned to break into a Federal facility. Responsibility for this incident doesn't rest exclusively on the hands of the shooter.
An analogy is Enrique Tarrio's arrest in the wake of January 6th. Right wingers complained that he wasn't even in the capital during the riot. But of course that's not evidence his innocence. Even though he didn't personally participate in the putsch, he was still held responsible for organizing it (not for long on account of his pardon, unfortunately, but he was still rightfully convicted).
Responsibility is a separate question from correctly reporting on the events that occurred. "A protestor shot someone" is correct, "a protestor shot someone and the group is culpable" could be argued, but "the protestors shot someone" is simply untrue.
No, it's entirely viable to say a group of people did something. E.g. "a lynch mob killed ______." Sure only one member of the mob actually tied the noose, but the mob as a collective took that action.
This isn't even a theoretical comparison. Consider the case of popular far-right influencer Dom Lucre. In 2023, he uploaded screenshots from what is apparently a "known" CSAM video. Not only that but he watermarked the screenshots, showing he had the screenshots on a computer he had access to and likely had access to the source video itself. Mere possession of this should land you in jail.
One side of the story is that Elon Musk personally intervened to unban him for this [1], which is a whole other aspect to this. But the Feds, as far as we know, never charged him. This leads many (including myself) to believe Dom Lucre is an asset to the FBI already.
Jeffrey Epstein was charged for his pedophile ring. Ghislaine Maxwell was convicted but is now sitting in a Work camp she should never be in for her crimes. And she was charged with trafficking. To whom exactly? Nobody has ever been charged or even named as being who minors were trafficked to. At least 4 presidents have sat on a mountain of evidence of this and done precisely nothing. The last president (Biden) and his AG (Garland) even sat on these files when the current president was credibly implicated.
And of course there are the January 6 ringleaders who were convicted of seditious conspiracy (22, 18 and 18 years) for attempting to overthrow the government and storming the Capitol. All pardoned now of course.
That case, the incredibly bad handling of Ruby Ridge and Waco put a real freeze on the FBI dealing with domestic terrorism, and then the focus moved outward with 9/11.
But now "domestic terrorism" is priority number 1. Enjoy your choices folks.
It's pretty straightforward that if someone tells you to hide something because they've been arrested and they think it ties them to some criminal act, and then you hide it, you're an accessory to the crime. 30 years for that seems harsh though I anticipate they will be pardoned by the next Democratic Party President.
Describing such an act without the obvious context is a pretty good way to point out that it's partisan text and likely misrepresents other things. Listen, we've all been on the Internet a few decades. This kind of understatement of things is not new to any of us. "Oh so just because your country thinks it's not a big deal for someone to go to America to fly a plane means it should get bombed?" No, champ, it's the flying of the plane into the WTC and subsequent sheltering of the guy who planned it that does that.
I would assume they'd need something like details of specific conversations, but I am of the opinion that the U.S. administration and courts are acting in bad faith and especially with regards to the operations of ICE.
Question begging, basically. The contention is that they were railroaded and maliciously overprosecuted, it's hard for the answer to be "enough to convince a jury of their peers."
99% of people on this forum (and elsewhere) understand neither the phrase "begging the question" nor the logical fallacy (petitio principii). And thus people are imprisoned. It's sad but this is where we are (and probably always have been).
The U.S. administration seems to not require evidence for lots of statements and especially regarding ICE (c.f. statements made about Renee Good after she was murdered).
The writing on the wall is pretty clear now: Undoing Trump-policies and Trump-legacy should be priority for any potential presidential dem candidate, no mater how center or left leaning.
I don't think we'll get a Ocasio-Cortez type front runner, but I don't think you can be a total milquetoast "water under the bridge" candidate to win either.
If there is one thing the Trump 47 presidency has shown, it is that traditional decorum will not get you anywhere. It is the reason the Trump investigation didn't end up with anything - Biden and the DOJ were too fixated on decorum, and doing things as impartially as possible.
The Prairieland case is a direct product of Trump. They are terrorists because Trump has designated them as terrorists.
Absolutely no way. The Democratic party is currently having a public freak out about 3 DSA members winning in NY primaries and about the mayor of NY. They voted en-masse last year to join with the Republicans in congress to symbolically "denounce socialism" in all its forms.
a) That party would rather lose to Trump than let even moderate social democrats have strong influence b) There is no way they're going to bat for left wing agitators in jail.
> I don't think you can be a total milquetoast "water under the bridge" candidate to win either.
Yep, and that's why they won't win. They're going to go out of their way to frame themselves as super moderate reasonable totally not the "radical left democrats" and run someone semi-Republican trying to appeal to the non-existent center. And piss off anybody "left wing" (or even just sympathetic to Gaza) under the age of 40, which is increasingly a large part of the American populace.
Red-baiting and using the power of the police and law against far left organizations is the bread and butter of the security apparatus in every western country since at least 1917. It's only been temporarily distracted by Islamic radicalism and left wingers have been remarkably disorganized and weak since the fall of the USSR.
I would love to see a detailed comparison of everyone who comments on this issue vs their comments on the age verification issue. For the latter, people bend over backwards to make it a free speech issue yet so many bend over backwards on this issue to argue this 30 year sentence was good actually because they were an accessory to domestic terrorism.
My hypothesis is that these two groups are mostly the same people.
Tad Stoermer, lecturer on American history and author of A Resistance History of the United States summed this up [1]. The person in question here wasn't even at the event. They moved a box of publications and from all this the Federal government created an domestic terrorist organization out of whole cloth (ie Antifa).
What people seem to refuse to accept is that "terrorist" is a political designation, nothing more. It's basically saying "we don't like this person or organization". Were the standards of today around in the 1960s, every civil rights organization would've been labelled domestic terrorists.
The comparisons to January 6 are apt because that was an attempted coup in which people died. The harshest sentences were Enrique Tarrio (ringleader, 22 years), Stewart Rhodes (seditious conspiracy, 18 years) and Ethan Nordean (seditious conspiracy, 18 years). All pardoned by the way.
Yet the people who want to defend 30 years for moving a box of zines by someone who wasn't at the event is astounding.
Was the speech illegal? Not giving my email to this site so I can’t read the rest but it seems odd that any sort of speech gets multi year sentences much less multi decade unless it was direct calls to violence.
I don't think there's even a claim the speech is illegal. Rather, it's that "transporting zines" when your spouse gets arrested on suspicion of crimes related to a designated terrorist organization is about as legal as "arts and crafts" (i.e. shredding documents) when your spouse is arrested for fraud. It's the obstruction of justice part that's illegal, not the possession. As far as I know she could be fully acquitted and he'd still be on the hook for trying to conceal evidence.
It's worth noting that the average sentence for murder in the US is 15 years. And it is not actually a "designated terrorist organization". The government is claiming they are a "domestic terrorist organization" which isnt a thing under US law, additionally, there is no organization to speak of.
The important thing to note here, is because it's not a real organization, but treated like one, they can simply tie anyone against the admin to a "designated terrorist organization" and put them away for decades with little evidence. As they did here.
that's a plausible and convincing argument to me other than that its 30 years. Murderers can get less than that. I don't see how that's anything other than trying to chill the idea these people had based on the connection to speech.
I am also not a proponent of absolutist free speech if you check my comment history, but I cannot imagine a realm where the details linked in the small part of the article that's not walled off and the details in this thread don't align to the government trying to prevent bad thought.
I am open to more detail if anyone has some to provide
The 30 year sentence was for hiding documentation being sought under a federal warrant after being called by his wife and asking him to do so. The warrant was for documentation after the protesters shot fireworks to bring out first responders from the ICE facility, and allegedly one of the group shot a responder in the neck instead of the head.
A lot of stuff to scrutinize and complain about in the sentence, but it wasn't just "transporting Zines"
> The 30 year sentence was for hiding documentation [...] it wasn't just "transporting Zines"
As far as I can tell, the moving of zines (he was pulled over and had a box in his car) is what's being presented as "hiding documentation" - not something beyond that.
> being sought under a federal warrant
Timeline seems to be that a warrant was obtained after pulling him over ("Sanchez-Estrada was then arrested on state traffic offenses, and officers obtained a search warrant [...]"). Can't find a source saying there was a warrant prior to this.
> The warrant was for documentation after the protesters shot fireworks to bring out first responders from the ICE facility, and allegedly one of the group shot a responder in the neck instead of the head.
It's true that demonstrators were setting off fireworks, and it's true that Benjamin Song later shot at a police officer who had drawn his gun. But it's just the government's narrative/speculation that the intent of the fireworks was to draw out first responders to ambush, and that Sanchez-Estrada's zines were in some way documentation of this despite him not being at the protest and his wife not being the shooter.
Chilling effect on demonstrations. If you attend one were someone starts shooting you become an accomplice. And ofcourse this also leaves the door open for a "false flag" incident.
How completely dishonest to call this a demonstration. They brought guns and shot government officials. Trying to kill people you disagree with isn't demonstrating, it's terrorism.
Only Benjamin Song, convicted of attempted murder/discharging a firearm, shot the police officer. Some others didn't bring firearms, were not in any planning chat (in which no violence was planned regardless), weren't at the protest or had already left, yet still received absurdly harsh sentences - that's the chilling effect.
Was this a "demonstration" though? They turned up to a detention center in the middle of the night and launched an attack clearly with the intention of getting past the gate (text message exchanges show they had scoped out the operations of the gate, how long it takes to open/close, how long it remains open, etc). That's not really a "demonstration", no one outside of the facility would even see it. Demonstrations should be in public view, not in the dead of night dressed all in black and armed to the teeth in an area where the public is expressedly forbidden.
Per Wikipedia, at least at one point in time, it was supposed to be. Quote:
Prosecutors produced group chat logs showing that the participants had debated at length whether they should bring guns. The former reservist allegedly wrote that "Cops are not trained or equipped for more than one rifle, so it tends to make them back off." Other chat participants argued that a noise demonstration was low risk and the assumptions about how police would respond were "way over the top".
Americans are given the right to bear arms so they can overthrow a tyrannical government. Doesn't mean the government has to sit there and take it. And it certainly doesn't mean you can shoot cops and get away with it.
That's really hard to swallow when the current president, who is responsible for the extreme uptick in ICE activity, pardoned 1,600 people who conspired against the federal government in favor of his agenda, but then that same government hands life-ruining prison sentences to people who weren't even present for conspiring against ICE.
Especially when the crux of this entire case was that the convicted are members of a terrorist organization - a fact that was declared at the whim of this same president.
I'm not saying that some of the people convicted don't deserve consequences for their actions, especially violence like shooting at officers. I'm not saying that this was a lawful assembly, especially given the documented intent to breach the facility and use pyrotechnics offensively. I am saying that this is an extreme escalation in action against dissent against the Republican agenda, with a highly visible inequality in enforcement against those who dissent similarly against the Democratic agenda.
If this kind of heavy-handed action was taken against everyone who challenges our government, I would still be concerned, but it is doubly concerning that some members of our society appear to have the permission to do these things, while we destroy the lives of others with different politics.
One obvious distinction is that Tarrio was convicted of leading & planning the Proud Boys operation on Jan 6 while this defendant was convicted of moving zines. Tarrio wasn’t at the insurrection on Jan 6 because he’d already been barred from traveling to the city…
And he got less of a sentence. I don’t think your argument equating these 2 is arguing what you think it is.
Zines related to a shootout and murder by an armed group after retrieving them from the home of one of the parties involved, discussing it on a jail call, and placing them in a third person's apartment.
Following that principle, Bin Laden wouldn't be responsible for 9/11, ISIS shouldn't have been restricted or attacked in any way, and the mafia should be fully legal. That would be absurd.
I only have the .gov version, but 20-30 rounds were fired, Song was convicted as the attacker apparently and Baumann and Morris were evidently armed as well (the woods gunmen). It wasn’t the whole group but doesn’t appear to be just one individual.
They were successfully tied together by the prosecution as conspirators to the satisfaction of juries by their shared mission, chats, organization, papers, safe houses, and prior meetings among other things.
Are ICE detentions legal? Is what ICE under the current administration behaving legally? The shooting an officer is the one crime, assuming the protestor wasn't shot at first. This administration has repeatedly lied about these sort of events, so I have a hard time believing the official account.
Obviously because the nature of demonstrations as you describe are predicated on a counter party that follows the law.
For example one may demonstrate to get a law changed, on the premise that they will not be shot on sight or otherwise extrajudically punished for assembling. Why would you expect entities of the state that behave illegally to engender an opposition to follow legal norms?
This is not new in America. 250 years ago the Declaration was preceded by the olive branch. To the people that founded this country, the distinction meant everything.
If you're fighting the executive branch, then legality goes out the window and any outrage about punishment becomes moot, no?
Expecting the system you intended to subvert/dismantle to save you is a bit of a weird ask.
> If you're fighting the executive branch, then legality goes out the window
No it doesn’t. It’s enshrined in the constitution. The entire point of the United States is to be able to change the system. I’m struggling to imagine a worse take than this.
Not at all? To the American founders that would be a psychotic take that is completely at odds with the founding principles of this country.
Have you read about the Continental Congress? They thought pretty hard about these questions. They did not engage in insurrection (what would surely today be called "terrorism") against the crown lightly and without great consideration.
You should take the opportunity of the 250th anniversary to educate yourself as opposed to writing such comments. Nothing about your comment makes any sense in almost any legal context, in America or otherwise. How could something like laws of armed conflict even be comprehensible under your standard? Truly I am sad for the state of your mind that you wrote such a comment.
I'm sorry, I meant in terms of discussion, not in terms of legal proceedings. Obviously these people were formally charged in a court of law on legal grounds and I assume had their constitutional rights afforded to them.
I meant more along the lines of "30 years for hiding a zine" being a weird take. It is logically inconsistent, IMO, to both want to fight a system, and want to be afforded its privileges.
I disagree if only because the clarification you make in your first two sentences doe not square with your last sentence.
Why do we read people their rights or formally charge them? If someone has committed a crime is that not in some sense "fighting [the] system"? Why would then the same apparent contradiction you highlight in your last sentence not arise?
Even in cases of extreme conflict, there is a certain base state of "rights" or "privileges" one wants to be afforded, and it is not contradictory of people to do so. See the laws of armed conflict. Even if someone is a complete psychopath and doesn't respect these laws, the law itself usually does not respond in kind.
That is the nature of the law. If the law could allow for a situation where "legality goes out the window and any outrage about punishment becomes moot" then its no longer law. The only state this exists is one of anarchy. Far more likely in some situation would be the state tries to exercise some emergency power, itself sanctioned by law. In such an extreme case the contradiction no longer applies because the "privileges" have been legally suspended. However, now society has entered a dubious state re the nature of the law itself. Alternatively, take the Codes of Hammurabi. But then the proposed contradiction also does not apply. For in an eye for an eye there are far less afforded privileges to appeal to.
A state of dubious legality was essentially the state of affairs that convinced the founders revolution was inevitable. But there was never - and is usually never - a state where "legality goes out the window". That is anarchy. Even if the founders had lost, surely they would have a right to be outraged if instead of simply being hung (as was the legal remedy for their acts at the time) the British soldiers had rioted and killed all of them and their families on sight.
There is no contradiction here. It would not be a "weird take". Frankly if some among them were also outraged at being hung, I'm not sure that is a "weird take" either. It certainly doesn't strike me as "logically inconsistent". Its not like the "privileges" of life and liberty are granted by the government after all. If you believe in the principles as the founders did, those rights are given by a power beyond that of any terrestrial government. You may be deprived of them by such an entity, but it is not something the state gave you. Therefore once again, your proposed contradiction doesn't really make sense. I guess your position boils down to "if you do wrong against someone, you should have no expectations about your treatment in return"? But I don't think this is ever actually seriously considered as an ethical position when it comes to a people and their government. At least not since divine right and the like went out of fashion. At the end of the day, one can both transgress and be entitled to outrage about how the state acts in response. I fail to see how the alternative is anything less than barbarism.
> If someone has committed a crime is that not in some sense "fighting [the] system"?
Of course not. I'm speaking directly about intent. It's pretty obvious to me that most crime is committed without any intent regarding "the system".
> Even in cases of extreme conflict, there is a certain base state of "rights" or "privileges" one wants to be afforded, and it is not contradictory of people to do so. See the laws of armed conflict. Even if someone is a complete psychopath and doesn't respect these laws, the law itself usually does not respond in kind.
Well yeah, but again, I'm not explaining this well, I'm not saying they shouldn't expect or want due process. At issue here is "30 years is too much for X". That's not "my rights are being violated", that's "the system is being especially mean to me with respect to applying the law to me with maximum force".
I think they can expect every legal protection due and that's fine, but the outrage at getting the book thrown at them when they were trying to burn the book is what I find strange.
> But there was never - and is usually never - a state where "legality goes out the window".
My wording was really bad. I didn't mean the state shouldn't follow the law, I just meant on a logical basis the "fight the power, wait no, not that power" position becomes inconsistent IMO.
Nobody conspired to shoot a cop. People just happened to exert their First Amendment rights close to where it happened and got punished for speaking the wrong kind of speech.
This is an oversimplification. I am not in favor of shooting the police in the neck but I absolutely will not tolerate an hindering of peaceful first amendment expression even when it happens in proximity to violence. What are the police even protecting us from at that point?
Domestic terrorists who shoot people in the neck. Among millions of things that the government claims to protect mw from, this is one of a few things that I don't doubt I want to be protected from. There's absolutely zero free speech issues here.
One might consider ICE detention centers to be morally equivalent to concentration camps. This sounds like the federal government trying to protect a controversial agency and immigration policy under the current regime, not ordinary citizens. The man who got 30 years wasn't there and didn't fire a gun.
One might consider a lot of things. But if you are at shooting war with United States government, then when United States government puts your away, you don't get to claim it's a free speech issue. You can't sit on those two chairs at once. Either you are a Warrior of Light battling the Nazis, and then it's way beyond free speech, or it's a public discussion and then "free speech" does not include shooting people. You can't claim both. If you're "ordinary citizen", you don't get to shoot at police, or you go to jail, and everybody who helps you does too. If you're a brave revolutionary, then we have a violent revolution, and it's not about "free speech" anymore, revolution is way beyond speech.
Seven of the people jailed did not shoot the police officer or “assisted” the shooter in any form. They just happened to participate in the protest and share political affinity.
The “crime” investigation obstructed by hiding the zines is being left-wing. That has no actual relation to the shooting. That is 100% a free speech issue.
They were the part of the organized criminal group that executed the shooting and later tried to help other criminals to avoid responsibility. If you are part of the group that does the crime, everybody in the group shares the responsibility (not equally, some part of it extends to accomplices) - not only she immediate shooter, but people who helped him to do it too.
> The “crime” investigation obstructed by hiding the zines is being left-wing.
That's nonsense. There are literally tens of millions of people in the country that are left wing (including literal communists openly calling for destruction of the United States and Western civilization). As long as they don't get violent, they don't have any trouble for it - in fact, some of them even win elections (including literal communists openly calling for destruction of the United States and Western civilization). The recipe is very simple - do not shoot people. Unfortunately, for the part of the left-wing, this is somehow too hard. They think shooting people who are not left-wing is A-OK. Those people need to be stopped, and putting them in jail for a long time is a good way to stop them. Not for their speech, but for the fact that speech is not good enough for them, and they choose violence.
Doesn't matter how they morally equivocate. The reasonable way to address this is through voting and the legal system. If you want to start shooting people, then prepare for a well-deserved, long prison sentence.
" If you want to start shooting people, then prepare for a well-deserved, long prison sentence."
* unless you're a law-enforcement officer, in which case folks like laughing_man are totally okay with you killing folks for vandalism because it upholds the legal system.
Unless you're an ICE agent. Then it's okay to execute citizens who are exercising their Constitutional rights.
There is an inherent tension here in wanting the rule of law and peaceful democracy to prevail instead of political violence. But the reality is that doesn't always happen. Slavery wasn't ended with a vote, neither was the rule of King George over the colonies. Civil Rights weren't granted to black folks without a lot of civil disobedience and violent responses by the local authorities.
Hopefully the next administration will abolish ICE and will seriously reform immigration policies peacefully for the benefit of migrants and citizens alike.
This isn't to defend shooting at a police officer, but the framing by the administration and the right is this was the result of a dangerous left-wing terrorist organization, not a response to lawless actions by ICE spurred on by the administration, and how it's hurting people being ripped away from their lives because officials like Stephen Miller hate non-white immigrants.
And again, it was one person who did the shooting, not the dude who got 30 years for moving some written material.
If it was illegal to go somewhere "lookin for trouble" I think that you would see a whole lot of people arrested from certain groups that you likely wouldn't want to be in prison.
Yeah I agree people should not go to protests with the objective to harm or destroy.
I dont think that is really the major party dividing line tho. I dont think most of the right thinks they went there with intention to harm, but to "defend".
I also think many people on the "left" take issue with someone putting themselved in a situation that could require lethal self defense, particularly over property.
There was never an argument that the 30 second clip shows self defense.
The problem is that Kyle drove out of his way with a non-defensive firearm, with a clear intent to put himself in that situation so he could murder someone.
Let's say I want to experience killing someone without consequences. I leave a nice bike completely unlocked in the bad part of town and hide in the shadows, then when someone tries to steal it, I axe them in the back of the head. I'm clearly a criminal guilty of first degree murder, not a victim of theft.
Unfortunately, I'm not sure how much nuance the American legislative system has for cases like those. Let alone when exposed to the biases our executive/judicial systems have when executing them.
he drove to a town he worked in that's not out of the way. 2 of the 3 who attacked him drove similar distances or further and one of them had an illegal fire arm, were they all putting themselves in a situation to murder someone?
Where was this clear intent demonstrated? There was no evidence of them acting agressive or baiting people.
- There was photo evidence that he spent the morning cleaning grafitti of a shool in Kenosha.
- Multiple independent journalists testified they were calm and walking around calling "Medic! Does anyone need medical help?" or helping put out fires
- Independet protestors tesitfed that Rittenhouse helped them bandage injured
Regarding the bike, that would be murder. If you walked with your fancy bike and put yourself between it an a theif who attacked you for it, the answer would depend by state. Some let you stand your ground, some you have to flee until you are cornered.
It is still valid self defense if walk your bike through the neighborhood knowing with certiany be attacked. The fault is still with the attacker.
> Being aware that he was moving the zines to obstruct a federal felony investigation is surely relevant. Intent is an important aspect of crime.
A sentence of 30 years in prison for obstructing an investigation is excessive, especially when compared to the "base offense level" of Involuntary Manslaughter (section 2A1.4 found here[0]) being between 12 and 22, roughly translating to between 10 and 51 months in prison[1] (assuming no prior felony convictions).
Not 360 months, which is the length of this sentence.
Shouldn't the punishment for obstruction, in many cases, be higher than the base offense to prevent that as a default strategy to beat the base offense? Granted, not that much higher, but there is some logic to it being a greater offense.
I don’t think so. If you get a 30 year sentence for transporting zines what stops you from just shooting anyone that comes after you? Multiple lifetimes in jail are irrelevant.
> Shouldn't the punishment for obstruction, in many cases, be higher than the base offense to prevent that as a default strategy to beat the base offense?
If I am interpreting this question correctly, it assumes the same person whom commits an offense being investigated also obstructs investigation into same. These would be two different offenses and are charged as such AFAIK.
For the situation where one party obstructs an investigation, but is not a party to what is being investigated, then the premise of "a default strategy to beat the base offense" is inapplicable.
Honestly, no? I think in general failing to prosecute a crime is much less of a problem than committing a crime. Committing a crime has real first order effects (in case the law is sensible), failing to prosecute may only have secondary effects like encouraging the person to commit new crimes (or encouraging others that may become aware of possibility of obstruction). To me it would make sense to link the obstruction to the sentence of the crime (wilful obstruction of many severe crime may deserve more sanctions than of lesser crimes).
I don't disagree, but our justice system is absolutely rife with unequal sentences. That doesn't make it right, but it doesn't mean we should go crazy over an individual instance of it when the whole system should somehow be overhauled.
> I don't disagree, but our justice system is absolutely rife with unequal sentences. That doesn't make it right, but it doesn't mean we should go crazy over an individual instance of it ...
Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.[0]
Again, I don't disagree, I'm just stating it should be a broader discussion. When you pick and choose individual cases (especially political ones...) people lose the forest for the trees.
I disagree. Time and time again, it's been shown that people are more moved by a single emotional instance, not the broader statistics. Not everyone has a mind for numbers or scale. What can actually inspire change in them if not a single representation of the problem? Classically, effective rhetoric needed pathos in addition to logos. There is no problem in zooming in on this one instance (especially if it's effective in fixing the larger problem).
As an example, a lot of times when women have a bad experience with a doctor they blame it on misogyny. As a male, I've had a ton of bad experiences with doctors. I've known men (more than one!) that have died because doctors ignored their pain. My dad almost died because he had something that's more common in women.
So, when a woman has a bad experience with a doctor it could be misogyny. It's probably not, though, and if all we ever do is look into doctor's supposed misogyny then we aren't dealing with the root issue.
Intent is important but it’s not sufficient. Intent to obstruct isn’t enough. You have to actually intend to do something that would count as obstruction. It’s not illegal for me to make a sandwich even if I sincerely believe that making this sandwich will obstruct a felony investigation.
I have not enough imagination to come up with a scenario where making a sandwich would create concern that it might obstruct an investigation. But obstruction is defined by intent and outcome, not the exact means. Abstractions like this are common and necessary in law. So, in your example you'd still be guilty.
Make and leave a sandwich on your counter in case the investigators are similar to the ones who busted up Afroman's house, and you hope that being satiated will make them less diligent.
This actually seems like a halfway good analogy to this case. You're intending to obstruct the investigators, but only if they engage in their own illegality - stealing your sandwich or prosecuting based on political speech.
The "and outcome" is my point. It has to actually be something that could be a problem. Similar to how it's not attempted murder to cast a magic spell intending to kill someone with it, no matter how sincerely you believe in the magic.
Okay but in this case, the act, if successful, would have the outcome that it prevents recovery of critical evidence in a homicide, so yes that would count as obstruction. It didn't, of course, because the plan was foiled, but that's not relevant.
(With that said, I agree that 30 years is excessive, even under the heuristic that it should be a greater penalty than the crime it supported.)
? He moved them because his wife asked him to, because his wife didn't want the police to find them, because they spoke to her motive. So it would have obstructed the investigation by making it harder to prove her motive.
Like how is this complicated? Somebody commits a crime and then calls you and says "Hey can you hide X so the cops don't find it?" Always a crime to hide X in these circumstances.
> Conspiracy to Conceal Documents (Count 12) and other objects that would implicate Maricela Rueda in the riot and shooting at the Prairieland facility.
> Defendants convicted: Sanchez Estrada and Maricela Rueda
Obviously prosecutors always present things in the worst possible way for defendants, but I think the GP poster's point is pretty valid:
> Being aware that he was moving the zines to obstruct a federal felony investigation is surely relevant. Intent is an important aspect of crime.
> Obviously prosecutors always present things in the worst possible way for defendants ...
True, that is their job.
Problem is, it is the judge's job to determine appropriate punishment for the crime once it is proven the defendant is responsible for same.
30 years (360 months) for a first time offender is roughly equivalent to Second Degree Murder (see section 2A1.2 here[0]). Even assuming the defendant has 13 or more felony convictions, this sentence would be roughly equivalent to Child Exploitation Enterprises (see section 2G2.6 here[0]).
The calculation of sentence length is based on the 2025 guidelines published here[1].
That sentence very likely won't hold up on appeal as it's obviously very very excessive and non-standard. That said, I don't believe the commenters above were defending the sentencing. They were debating whether it was a legitimate charge and whether the article explained it fairly.
> That sentence very likely won't hold up on appeal as it's obviously very very excessive and non-standard.
Probably. But put yourself in the defendant's shoes when the sentence was handed down. And then imagine what comfort is had by someone saying it "likely won't hold up on appeal".
> That said, I don't believe the commenters above were defending the sentencing. They were debating whether it was a legitimate charge and whether the article explained it fairly.
Agreed. I do not think the commenters were defending the sentencing and perhaps not considering it. What I sought to provide was recognizing the punishment must fit the crime.
I don't know that i agree. If you intend to commit a crime but due to circumstances beyond your knowladge your actions did not amount to the crime even though you intended them to, i think that is still a crime.
Yes but, again for clarification, for the specific infraction that is obstruction of justice there has to have been some possibility that the action taken or intended could have or did actually obstruct justice. There government must prove "a nexus between the defendant’s conduct and a particular official proceeding before a judge or court of the United States".
>To be clear, by action i mean an action the person believes would result in the crime in question occuring.
....like putting a needle in a voodoo doll, fully believing it will result in the death of a person it represents.
>I'm pretty sure i'm just describing how our legal system actually works.
FIY, I just intentionally put a needle through your voodoo doll, fully believing it will result in your untimely death.
You might want to report me for attempted murder, and find out the defense between how our legal system actually works, and how you wish it worked.
If you're still reading this, I'm willing to repeat the above real world action of stabbing your voodoo doll as many times as it is necessary for it to work, in the presence of witnesses.
You're welcome.
>And if you think this is bad
This is not just bad, it's insane.
I'm not going to switch to another subject (conspiracy charges).
The question is whether there exists a nexus between the supposedly obstructing behavior and the judicial proceeding. It doesn't even matter about the intent, if there was no nexus. Can the act of having moved these materials actually impeded the course of Justice?
The federal felony investigation was for a protest where one asshole shot a gun, and the others, who didn't, got 70 years in prison. There is no world where this isn't completely fucking insane. There is no need to whitewash this.
(Meanwhile, the Jan 6 insurrectionists, who were a credible threat to the peaceful transfer of power - the foundation of democracy - were all pardoned. By the guy who sent them there.)
If this was an incident in Europe, comments like this would be talking about how clearly the state is corrupt, it’s account cannot be trusted, and obviously civilisation is collapsing because free speech outside of the US is dead. “You can be arrested for zines!”
Inside the US though? No, clearly the state’s account is definitely accurate, the citizen is obviously guilty, it’s not only correct they are being jailed it is actually good, free speech - oh it’s not relevant because they committed unrelated crimes (we’re told. By the state’s account).
US propaganda/copaganda on its own citizens really is something else to behold
They don't care about rule of law or consistent principle. They only care about it as a stick to beat their opponents with, if their side breaks it, it gets swept under the rug or defended with the thinnest of excuses.
I think fascism is just a symptom. People here do the same thing with Apple for example. Yesterday, I could induce cognitive dissonance quite easily, the same way when they encounter irrevocable fact against their faith in fascism. The exact same reaction with their faith in Apple.
But I understand, they are disappointed in democracy, and when they should disappoint in the thing which is presented them as the exact opposite, there would be nothing, and that’s scary. Of course, they fucked up their belief system at the first place, where they started to think about democracies in a black and white way.
The same thing with Apple. They disappointed in Google, then Apple. Then what kind of phone can you choose?
I have two 5 years oldish nieces. And looking back to kids’ world, almost everything (but that “almost” is quite new) teaches them to view the world as black and white, when most of the things are grey. I’m not sure that I ever got a teaching which tries to help this contradiction. How to choose between two wrongs. Many will base their choice on faith, and since their conditioning taught them that there is only black and white, something needs to be white. No matter what.
> US propaganda/copaganda on its own citizens really is something else to behold
I live in the deep south. It's so much worse than you think. I regularly have people argue with me that they don't deserve to have nice things (like paid vacation) because someone, somewhere, might get something they don't deserve. You know, those government employees are lazy and get paid for doing nothing.
It's bizarre to an extreme. Mixed with the constant anger makes it particularly repulsive. I'll notice that everyone simultaneously seems angry about the same issue all at once. And it's almost always an issue that has no affect on them whatsoever. But they are _angry_ because someone is getting something they don't deserve.
"Terrorist" is a floating signifier; it is not a term used by educated people intending other educated adults to discuss it. It's a term used by either the cynical or the dimwitted to elicit emotional responses from an audience that's commensurately ignorant or cruel. Saying "ah they deserved it because they were terrorists" is begging the question.
- The group was designated as "Antifa cell", and thus this became a terrorist and aiding terrorism charges.
- The judge went above and beyond to hand out harsh punishments. There's been commentary from previous state prosecutors that the sentences, and how they were carried out, were much harsher than predicted. The speculation was that these sentences are being handed out to be served consecutively, not concurrently.
Would not surprise me if some of them could be appealed as "cruel and unusual punishments" / 8th amendment.
There are murderers who get shorter sentences. This is a clear attempt to discourage ICE protests by using the label "Antifa" as some sort of left-wing terrorist organization to send a message as the Trump appointed judge stated.
I don't approve of the violence apparently planned and carried out by these people, even though their cause was seemingly just.
However, we can't afford to let the government's position dictate the particulars of all the facts here.
The theory that the fireworks were lit to "bring out first responders" is just that - a theory, from the government's lawyers.
The undisputed facts are that these people were working to disrupt an ICE facility, which is to say a facility of a lawless, criminal organization which, given its placement entirely outside any constitutional limitations, renders it, at least at a moral/ethical layer, ineligible for any sort of civic protections of its property or activities. A third party, who was employed by a police department, then aimed a firearm at these people, and one of them fired, in apparent self-defense at this person who was training a firearm on them. Again, I hate that they shot this dude who was just going his job. But it's certainly not tantamount to attempting a premeditated mruder.
All of this 'moving zines' business is downstream of this basic fact pattern. I'm not willing to buy the government's advocacy that this was a crime to society in the first place, so I certainly don't have any ruffled feathers about moving zines.
When the state brings its lawless armed kidnappers to heel and follows its own rules with the unrelenting strictness befitting a nation of laws and not of men, then we can talk about whether those same laws can be applied to persons attempting to disrupt its activities.
Of course you don't have a right to murder anyone.
If someone is pointing a gun at you, I don't think the matter of whether you can justly defend yourself turns on who their employer is. The idea that you have to pause and figure out, "Hmmm, does this person collect a paycheck from an entity that claims to be a sovereign state?" is the ludicrous part, to me.
As I say, I hate that they did this, and that they shot this dude. He didn't deserve that. It sucks all around. But their underlying impetus - to disrupt a violent criminal organization which has proved difficult to reign in - is indeed something we need to figure a peaceful solution to, and it's not obvious what that is.
Even if he did exactly what they said he did, no way that's worth 30 years. But people really need to realize that the justice system has been and never will be "blind" or "fair" or whatever you may think it is. It is wielded by those in power largely as they see fit, so keep that in mind if you're thinking about messing with the feds.
It seems especially bad now. This relativistic mindset is really bad for critical thought: "oh, it was never 100% fair". Well, if it was 80% earlier, it seems approaching 20% now. It's a whole new level.
I think you need to do some research on how the policing and legal system was used against left wing agitators, thought, and organization for most of the 20th century. From COINTELPRO to Eugene Debs being jailed (for speech), it's a pretty clear and consistent pattern and consistent with what was done here and it was done under both Democrat and Republican administrations.
It's just out of people's recent memories because the bogeyman in the last 25 years became Islamic fundamentalist radicals, not communist ones. And because far left politics fell markedly in size and impact after the collapse of the USSR.
IMO the DNC needs to grow a spine and perform hard correction and repair. Which is to say, I don't think that will happen, and some form of collapse is inevitable.
But I'm far from a political scientist. Just an engineer with a history hobby, pattern matching.
There is a persistent narrative that the DNC is incompetent. That they're just trying to be nice and to compromise. And it's simply not true and needs to be disposed of.
The DNC have known what works in elections since 2008 when Obama swept and won states like Iowa. They might argue that Obama was generationally charismatic (which is true) but it was the message that won, a message of progressive populism. Here's a 2016 quote from Chuck Schumer [1]:
> For every blue-collar Democrat we lose in western Pennsylvania, we will pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs in Philadelphia. And you can repeat that in Ohio and Illinois and Wisconsin.
Here's another [2]:
> For as long as I live, for as long as I have the privilege of serving in the Senate from New York, I will unflinchingly, unstintingly, and with all my strength, be a Guardian of Israel
Substitute "Israel" for any other country and you'll be charged with something between treason and acting as an unregistered foreign agent (eg [3]).
Also remember that the contentious Epstein files, which implicate a bunch of powerful people including the current president and will likely all but prove that Jeffrey Epstein was an Israeli agent, sat in a dark room doing nothing for 4 years of Joe Biden and Merrick Garland. And no, "ongoing cases" isn't an excuse, particularly after Maxwell was convicted in 2022.
Look at the disastrous Iran war. What was the response from Democrats? How many, particularly in leadership positions, actually opposed the war? Not many. Most of the objections were process objections, namely that Congress wasn't consulted. That's not opposition to a war because most of them don't oppose the war.
I really hope people begin to understand that none of what the DNC and establishment Democrats is doing is incompetence. It isn't.
No country has ever recovered from this sort of thing. At best the empire collapses and the country survives as a country and becomes a vassal of a different empire (likely China, or BRICS). If recovery was possible, we wouldn't have gotten this far already.
The way back to sanity would've required the opposition party to be worth anything. Right now they're busy writing up their own project 2029 plan which involves cracking down on the internet and whining about the old guard getting voted out of office for being feckless.
Here's the thing: The traditional / establishment democrats have blindly believed that you can negotiate with people like Trump, because of decorum. Establishment candidates have been more occupied with taking the moral high-road, even if that resulted in loss after loss.
There's this ingrained belief that if you just play nice with republicans, they'll play nice back. And that was valid for a long, long time. The problem is that Trump completely upended that, though he was not the start of it - he's just the natural consequence of populism and the ground that had been fertilized for years.
The reason why Trump has been allowed to hijack the republican party, is because of how the two-party system in the US works. Trump has an iron grip on a sizable number of voters, and thus the GOP had to kowtow to Trump.
Luckily Trump is MAGA, and MAGA is Trump. I fully expect that the current MAGA movement will fracture and splinter into smaller factions once Trump is out. And from the looks of it, they do not have any plan B. No front runner in sight.
No, it's worse than that. Establishment Democrats are complicit in what Trump is doing. This went so far as to intentionally lose the presidential election in 2024 rather than oppose genocide. How can Trump both be a fascist and an existential threat and a preferable outcome to stopping genocide?
For years, the Democrats have sold this "electability" lie, that the only electable Democrats are "moderates" or "centrists". This was never true and it was just an excuse for the same people funding both parties to make the Democrats the controlled opposition.
What we've seen in the last year is the right democratic socialists ousting incumbents in primaries and defeating establishment candidates. This movement is undeniably popular and what do establishment Democrats do? They side with Republicans in saying that socialism is an existential threat to the US.
As for your last point, I think we're going to find out what happens sooner than many think. MAGA is a cult and cults never survive intact when their leader dies. There's nobody to take his place so the jmost likely outcome is a descent into factionalism and the party splinters for a time until Trump 2.0 can once again unite the factions.
But we should never forget that establishment Democrats are siding and will side with Republicans to defend the current system.
Thank you, at least that article doesn't require an email address to read it.
> One fired an AR-15 at the police, which goes beyond legitimate protest into inciting violence (and maybe even deliberate provocation).
Uh, I think firing a gun at someone is a bit more than "inciting violence", more like attempted murder?
The article doesn't say what the actual charges were. Was it tampering with evidence? Although 30 years for just tampering with evidence doesn't seem right either. Maybe there's more that they're leaving out?
Another comment in another HN thread shared this quote and link:
> "Prosecutors said that the group launched a premeditated terror attack on the detention facility inspired by antifa ideology, by setting off fireworks, vandalizing property, and shooting at police officers who responded. One officer was struck in the neck with a bullet and survived."
Who decides whether or not someone is an immediate threat? Is "immediate threat" even the bar for a police officer to draw their weapon? Police can draw their weapons in situations civilians can't legally so I'm not sure the same standards apply.
I don't think the second amendment is particularly relevant. The point of the second amendment is defense against a tyrannical government so by definition we're in extrajudicial territory and don't care if it's legal or not.
> I don't think the second amendment is particularly relevant. The point of the second amendment is defense against a tyrannical government so by definition we're in extrajudicial territory and don't care if it's legal or not.
Governments can be locally tyrannical, or tyrannical in-the-moment with the actors immediately involved, but not at all levels or not over a span of time as the pool of people involved grows.
In fact 100% of the cases I know about, of the second amendment's consequences being successfully used against a tyrannical government in the US, it's been a local government that's turned tyrannical (usually very-corrupt local cops and city or county government[s], coupled with a bunch of racism).
(To be clear, though, I'd not personally advance that fact as a strong point in the 2nd's favors as an actually useful-in-practice amendment for the supposed purpose of "defending liberty", as there are at least as many cases of private arms propping up local tyranny, or sowing political terror in the name of tyranny; "a mixed bag" would be a very generous reading of the history, and "net-harmful to the cause of securing liberty" is probably the fairer judgement)
It is not legal to shoot the police who have their gun out. Considering they had much more firepower than the cops it's quite reasonable for the police to draw their gun
Who had much more firepower? That the cops knew about? The shooter was accused of ambushing the cops, but didn't fire until the cop drew on and aimed at a retreating protester (that part wasn't in dispute, it was part of the cop's testimony). AFAIK none of the other protesters had firearms, just the single shooter hiding on the edge of the woods.
This was shortly before two people got murdered on camera by cops in Minneapolis, and after/around the same time as several other attempted murders (that would have been successfully spun as something chargeable on the victim, if not for video evidence showing plainly that the cops were lying)... so... it doesn't seem like a totally crazy notion to me, that a person might have shown up armed intending only to fire if it looked like a cop was going to shoot someone without a great reason. Maybe a jury would still have convicted (there was a bunch of fuckery with jury selection on this case, incidentally, and I mean way more than usual, even, it's worth reading about; like after what the court selected for on the jury, I believe they almost certainly would still have convicted) but not even being able to raise that defense seems nuts.
Shooting a cop gets you 50 years even if they shoot someone first. They also didnt shoot anyone. In this case where the cops had quite reasonable worry for their safety in the dead of night with explosions already having gone off and better armed people about, so it was perfectly reasonable for them to have their guns out.
Obligatory reminder that what the US government considers to be extremist activities includes the obvious crime of being interested in privacy and anonymity[0].
(Hence all the age verification laws cropping up everywhere, most likely. Their primary goal isn't actually about protecting children.)
This judge has a very high rate of overturned rulings, and reliably rules for conservative causes.
Prosecutors openly acknowledge strategically filing cases in his court for conservative causes.
It isn't a mistake that he was the judge here, and there is a very good chance the sentences will be overturned if not entire cases.
Of course, that doesn't matter to these defendants, some of whom probably do deserve punishment for what they did, and all of whom will suffer through years of appeals, stress, etc. because some prosecutor wanted to make their career on a big case, and will have moved on years before this is all resolved.
In short, the case was made for headlines, and after putting the defendants through hell, appeals will invalidate most of those headlines after incurring great expense on behalf of the taxpayers and defendants.
And following on from that, this has all the hallmarks of a successful appeal for unreasonable sentences. However, it's going to go to the Fifth Circuit, who are, ah, not known for their friendliness to criminal defendants.
A lot of people in these Hacker News comments are accepting the framing that moving the zines is evidence tampering and therefore deserves a 30 year sentence. What crime are zines evidence of?
Rueda was in the jail following arrest in an armed group after a firefight at the detention center where 20-30 rifle rounds had been fired, with a police officer killed as a result.
In jail, Rueda called her mother to contact Sanchez because he would know what was going on. Rueda later directly called Sanchez and said, 'whatever you need to do, move whatever you need at the house'. Sanchez indicated to Rueda he had already been to her house.
Sanchez was then observed leaving his house with zines and was observed moving the zines to an apartment of someone else's. The zines were the same TTPs for anti-gov, anti-LE civil unrest topics as seen before and thus considered likely to be connected.
All in all, moving evidence from an investigation involving armed groups engaging in firefights with ICE isn't a stretch once we don't omit the facts known.
At worst, the zines are evidence of Rueda's political opinions. They are not evidence of conspiracy to set off fireworks near the compound, nor shoot an officer.
Prosecutors were successful in using them as evidence of connection between the members, and as a result of building that connection partly through the zines, held them jointly accountable for the groups overall actions.
You will notice that the criticism this judgement receives if not for finding Song guilty, even if the sentence is inordinately long for a non-lethal crime with minor wider repercussions.
The criticism this judgement receives is the fact that the prosecutors and judge drew these lines of association into a "terrorist organization" so much that even merely possessing literature tangentially related to this non-existent "organization" was deemed a crime worthy of 30 years imprisonment. This is the sort of thinking that sent people to the Soviet Gulags.
I do see the criticism, but those critics appear made unwilling to accept that material support to other bad actors snares one in their web. No people were punished for mere possession, you or I could possess those zines and even email the prosecution about it.
This shouldn’t be such a leap, but rationalizing is what it is.
The hefty punishments are principally from the punishment enhancements meted out for the alleged terrorist label, firearms, wounded police, etc that overflow from the chief perpetrators onto those caught in the web through membership and their support.
Perhaps hiding evidence should be merely hiding evidence, not hiding evidence in the burying of a highly political prosecution where someone is catching life plus cancer, yet here we are.
Let's say someone is driving 35MPH. They think "oh snap, I think the speed limit is 30MPH here!". The posted speed limit is actually 40MPH.
Was this person speeding or not? Should a cop ticket them for thinking they're doing something wrong, even if everything they were doing was legal?
Did they even think the zines were implicated as evidence? Were the zines implicated as evidence? What crimes were being committed by ownership of these zines?
If there's a warrant issued to search a house, and a resident of that house eats a ham sandwich for lunch while the cops are on their way, did they destroy evidence?
It's not illegal "because you think its illegal", it's illegal because "you had a court order to provide things that are relevant and you instead hid things you thought were relevant".
If I hide someone who I think did a crime to help them escape police, I've now implicated myself in the crime, whether or not my trying to hide them actually caused them to get away with it.
> it's illegal because "you had a court order to provide things that are relevant and you instead hid things you thought were relevant"
And yet when Trump does it with classified documents its not a problem. Where's his 30 years?
Did he even have a warrant issued to him related to these documents?
Are these zines even relevant evidence? Is everyone who has these magazines also now a criminal? What about other radical anti-government political pamphlets like Common Sense?
> If I hide someone who I think did a crime to help them escape police
Seems like quite a different thing than moving some political pamphlets. If they were shredding financial documents while being charged with financial crimes I'd agree. If they were hiding guns with a gun trafficking charge, I'd understand. Flushing drugs down the drain, sure. Moving political zines though? Really? What's the relevance again for the ownership of political pamphlets to committing crimes?
> Did he even have a warrant issued to him related to these documents?
Yes. A zine put together by a group that later goes on to commit a crime together, that promotes the ideologies underlying the crime, feels like the kind of thing a search warrant/subpoena would apply to. The fact that the person involved in the crime asked that they be hidden makes it pretty obvious that they saw it that way as well.
> Are these zines even relevant evidence?
Yes.
> Is everyone who has these magazines also now a criminal?
No. Things can be legal and evidence of ill intent at the same time.
> What about other radical anti-government political pamphlets like Common Sense?
If the editor(s) of that pamphlet went on to commit a crime of a political nature, no doubt their relationship with the pamphlet would be evidence used against them. It would also still be perfectly legal to have, and legal for others to continue publishing.
> Seems like quite a different thing than moving some political pamphlets.
It is, but I think the core idea of involving yourself in the crime by way of trying to hide evidence etc. is similar at least.
> What's the relevance again for the ownership of political pamphlets to committing crimes?
Depends on the crime. If they had robbed a Wendy's, probably no relevance. If they attacked an ICE building and the pamphlets established ill intent toward ICE, probably a lot of relevance.
If these zines were like "here's how to attack an ICE facility" or directly promoting imminent violence against officers I'd understand.
Is that what these zines were about? From the zines I've seen they're all pretty general anarchist kind of materials. One of the zines was arguing the morality of squatting a residence. Is that evidence of committing violence against an ICE facility?
If there really was materials directly related to promoting imminent violence against ICE officers or materials directly related to planning the attack, please do point it out. I haven't seen anything like that yet though. I'd agree that would be evidence of the crimes involved. Just random anarchist ramblings though?
Then, finally on top of that 30 years for this seems incredibly excessive. We let child sexual abusers in Texas walk free after only 30 days in a county jail while moving some magazines gets you 30 years. Tell me again how this is justice.
This is the modern Republican party. 30 years for moving political magazines. 30 days for sexually assaulting a child.
> Is that evidence of committing violence against an ICE facility?
Again, the zines relevance isn't proving they did it. It's providing context and intent. If you can't see the connection between anarchist pamphlets and trying to raid a government facility, then I don't know what else to say.
The "imminent violence" only matters if the pamphlets were themselves the crime, and they were not. To go back toy earlier example, If I buy a criminal a bus ticket to help them escape, I can be charged with a crime even though bus tickets are perfectly legal.
> Then, finally on top of that 30 years for this seems incredibly excessive.
It is, but if it's in the statutes, then its up to the judge. Obviously they wanted to make an example out of these people.
> We let child sexual abusers in Texas walk free after only 30 days
Sounds like a completely separate problem that needs solving IMO.
> This is the modern Republican party. 30 years for moving political magazines. 30 days for sexually assaulting a child.
I think sentencing is mostly left to judges, which are not elected political officials.
> If you can't see the connection between anarchist pamphlets and trying to raid a government facility, then I don't know what else to say.
My point is, its not illegal to just generally be an anarchist. Generally being an anarchist shouldn't be related to evidence of one assaulting a government facility. Once again, if these zines were like "how to raid a government facility", sure I'd see it. But it doesn't seem like these zines were that kind of material. Once again, if they are then by all means let me know.
Let's change some facts here for a different perspective. Instead of an ICE facility, its an abortion provider. Instead of anarchist, its a group of Christian extremists targeting the facility. Would owning bibles be evidence of a crime? Clearly it shows a connection to the group, they all read this stuff! Extremists which have previously bombed abortion clinics have cited the bible in justification for their actions. Would moving those bibles be trying to hide evidence? And once again, evidence of what? That you attended the same book club as others who went on to commit crimes? That you're a Christian or that you're an anarchist? Is it illegal to be these things, to think these thoughts?
Also, this then implies the books you keep on your bookshelf will be used as evidence against you, even if they don't directly pertain to the crimes you're charged with. Is that really the world you want to live in? I know that's not the world I'd like to live in. And it seems like that's the world one political party is moving towards, continuing to march towards a world where ownership of certain books implicate you as a criminal.
> Sounds like a completely separate problem that needs solving IMO.
We can solve it by voting out those who pushed for that outcome and offered the plea deal. They happen to be Republicans these days and are running for a US Senate seat in Texas.
> sentencing is mostly left to judges, which are not elected political officials.
39 states have elected judges, several of which are directly partisan elections. I do agree in this case this is federal court which means they aren't directly elected. However, they are appointed and confirmed by elected political officials. This happens to be a judge appointed by Donald Trump in 2019. So once again, yes, this is an outcome of voting for Republicans.
> My point is, its not illegal to just generally be an anarchist. Generally being an anarchist shouldn't be related to evidence of one assaulting a government facility.
Let's say someone is obsessed with classic cars, and their neighbor's classic car goes missing. It then turns up in a storage unit owned by the guy obsessed with classic cars. Do you think their obsession with classic cars is relevant to the case? Keep in mind there is nothing wrong with loving classic cars.
> Do you think their obsession with classic cars is relevant to the case?
I'd say no, just generally liking classic cars isn't material to the case. I've got tons of classic cars on my fridge from Rock Auto. Does that mean I'm likely to steal a car? Would someone removing those magnets from my fridge be hiding evidence?
Are people having a bible likely to bomb an abortion center? What percentage of people that have also read those zines likely to shoot ICE agents?
The car being in his garage is evidence. The messages of him telling his friend "check out this car I stole from that dude" is evidence. Generally being a fan of classic cars isn't.
If you're charged with illegally smoking marijuana is having a Dr. Dre CD in your car evidence? If your friend takes that CD out of your car to give to another friend is that a crime? Is that crime worth 30 years??
I mean its a very radically different thing in almost every way than what was originally proposed. The zines didn't commit any crimes.
Let's say you hide someone who didn't actually commit a crime but you thought they did. Are you still guilty of hiding a suspect in the crime that wasn't a crime?
The standard was:
> I care if the accused believed they were and moved them for that purpose
So to that poster what matters was that the zines being useful or not to the investigation was not relevant, it was if the person thought it was potentially relevant or not.
The wife owning some zines is evidence of a crime? Really? Owning some zines is evidence of criminal activity these days?
> Let's say someone is driving 35MPH. They think "oh snap, I think the speed limit is 30MPH here!". The posted speed limit is actually 40MPH.
There is a difference between incorrect belief in what the law is vs incorrect belief in what actions you are taking. Although maybe that is not the most compelling. If you see the speed limit is 40, but you want to go faster so you hit the gas until you are going 60 and then brag with photo evidence about how you don't believe in speed limits on on facebook. Unbeknownst to you your spedometer was broken and you only hit 40. Should you get a ticket?
That seems like a tougher call, but still a bit silly to give a ticket.
a different example.
You intend to murder someone. The intended victim puts their clothes on a manequin in hopes of distracting you while they make their escape. You shoot the manequin. Did you commit a crime?
Intending to murder someone is often directly a crime though, so yes. And murdering people is illegal. Moving some magazines isn't normally illegal. I wouldn't normally assume having some magazines is evidence of a crime.
And if they are, what crime was owning the magazines involved in? That you happen to read some of the same articles as someone else who committed a crime? Is sharing the same books as others now implicating you as a terrorist?
Neither is shooting a gun (at e.g. a gun range). This case has about as much to do with moving magazines as a murder charge has with discharging a firearm. Its intrinsic to the crime, but not what the actual crime is.
> I wouldn't normally assume having some magazines is evidence of a crime.
If someone called you up and told you that the magazine contained evidence of a crime, the police ard looking for them, and asked you to hide the magazines, would your assumptions change? Because that seems to be what happened here.
> And if they are, what crime was owning the magazines involved in? That you happen to read some of the same articles as someone else who committed a crime? Is sharing the same books as others now implicating you as a terrorist?
That is not even remotely what happened here. Nobody got in trouble for owning or reading the magazines in question.
If I buy a bag of white powder thinking that it’s cocaine and it turns out the person selling it to me actually gave me a bag of flour did I commit a crime? What crime?
If I’m angry at someone and I decide to kill them so I go over to their house late at night and see them sitting upright on their couch watching TV and I shoot them from the window and flee but it’s later discovered that they died of a heart attack two hours before I shot them did I commit a crime? What crime?
If someone decides to commit suicide and they jump from an apartment building and coincidentally I decide to fire my gun out my window and as they pass by my window the bullet hits them in the head killing them instantly before they hit the ground am I guilty of a crime? What crime?
These kind of Law & Order / first year law school type hypotheticals are useful ways to analyze the hypothetical that you’re raising.
Freedom of speech is absolute. It doesn't matter what the government thinks of the situation. It isn't a "crime" to move publications, even if the police think that.
It's sickening how this could even possibly happen.
It is absolutely a crime to conceal evidence in an ongoing criminal trial. The contents of the publications is absolutely irrelevant: the individual was asked to conceal evidence and agreed to do it.
The leaders of January 6 got 22, 18 and 18 years for seditious conspiracy in an attempt to overthrow the government of the United States.
This guy got 30 years for not being at an event where an officer was shot (and it was unclear who shot first, according to the FBI) when one of the arrested asked him to move a box of zines.
Now if I murder someone then ask you to dispose of the murder weapon, I've only committed a crime if I am knowingly conceling or destroying evidence. Like, maybe I'm helping you hide possession of an illegal firearm. That may still be a felony but it's in no way as serious as if I knew you killed someone with it.
so, what did the zine mover know, exactly? Did they know there was going to be a protest? Graffitti at an ICE facility? It's unclear to me that there was any plan to shoot a police officer so it's hard to argue that they should've known that was the crime at hand. Were they moving the zines so they wouldn't get confiscated and they still wanted to distribute them?
Nothing about this amounts to "domestic terrorism" under the most generous interpretation of the prosecution's theory of the case. They invented a domestic terrorist organization out of whole cloth and then used it to justify conspiracy charges. There is no "Antifa" like there is/was al-Aqeda or the Proud Boys or the Oath Keepers. Who are the leaders? How do you identify members? What are there communications? It's all completely made up to justify excessive prosecution.
It's a crime to deliberately conceal another crime, whether you do it by raking leaves, deleting Internet posts, or setting your car on fire. It's called accessory after the fact.
Insane charges, insane justifications, and judging by the comments in this thread, I feel insane for having ever believed in the myth of the "decent conservative".
Hacker News is for people who believe in the hacker ethos "It is immoral to do anything the government takes issue with and you deserve whatever punishment you get for doing so, unless it was breaking regulations to make money, the highest calling".
Also, "It's okay for the government to shoot people, use explosives, kidnap people and put them in cages for their entire lives. But if you try to stop them, you are bad and deserve to be in a cage for your entire life."
As someone living in a non-US country, I get the impression that Russians and Chinese seem to be safer from their respective governments, than residents of the US.
I hope that your country recovers from it's experiment with dictatorship.
> I get the impression that Russians and Chinese seem to be safer from their respective governments, than residents of the US.
What an utterly misguided conclusion to make from the recent news. While the current US administration is just dipping their toes in the pool of authoritarianism, the aforementioned countries have been on board that train for quite a long time. In Russia teenage girls get prison sentences for reposting anti-war Facebook memes, and LGBTQ+ people get hunted down on the streets. China runs actual concentration camps for their ethnic minorities and has the most locked down Internet in the world. And yet somehow you think a ruling from one activist judge in Texas makes US citizens as a whole less safe than that?
So I wonder if I go around saying I'm "pro-fascist", it's OK now because I'm not saying I'm "anti-fascist"? But that would be false of me. So maybe I can only declare I'm "fascism-neutral"? That would also be false.
Let me get this right… all these people got from 70-100 years in prison for spray painting slogans on the side of some ICE infrastructure, and setting off fireworks.
Then fair enough, one of them shot a police officer, but the officer survived, and even the FBI employee described in the trial that he’s not sure who shot first.
The US is insane.
What’s to stop any future antifa group from immediately opening up on all the personel involved? They were carrying the guns for it, and apparently it doesn’t make a hoot of difference to the sentencing…
A lot of HN visitors align right wing because capital usually aligns with the right wing, and people here are better off than most.
In my opinion capital will no longer serve as the reliable survival signal that it has upto now, and we're in a transitional era.
Optimizing purely for capital is not likely to ensure the survival of the human race, neither collective nor individual. Infact it is the very drive to maximize capital which is threatening our survival.
The comments here are going so easy on the US. If it had been happening in a European country there would be no end of the comments about how Europe is lost. Americans really need to get it together and save their nation from autocracy.
The wonderful thing about our current culture is that each side thinks that further empowering the federal government is the solution. And it will only be used by their side against their enemies (other american citizens). No thought at all to the fact that the other side will take power in 4 years. No, no.. short term power is all that matters. The Biden administration started targeting "right-wing terrorists", now its Trumps turn to take it up a notch. Can't wait to see what the left does when they take power in a couple years. I think the technical term for this is death spiral...
The first few examples aren't every sympathetic (SBF, some pedo, and George Santos), and their argument doesn't appear to be reinforced by the evidence. Though the source is quite long so perhaps they decided to bury the lede.
Good that Americans have a right to bear arms exactly to prevent this kind of totalitarian overtake of the country.
From the outside, it looks like what the stasi was doing, in the oh so vile communist regime (it was also a totalitarian one, and not a regime I’d want to live under). And now the US is doing it to itself.
Wait until elections time. Trump has hinted several times publicly that there won’t be a next election or any need to replace him. We assumed it was just more verbal diarrhea like he has a knack for. But in this context and in light of his modus operandi, who knows…
Prisons are political violence. War is political violence. Policing is political violence. Pretty rich to hear moralizing about "poticial violence" from US citizens, the country which has the largest military, largest prison system, and spends the most on policing out of any country on the planet.
The state has a monopoly on all kinds of violence you listed. If it wouldn't you would either end up in civil war or a failed state with local warlords.
I reject that simplistic fearmongering, the US acts as a neoliberal warlord on the international stage, but my point is that what the state chooses to do with the monopoly on violence is extremely political.
There's an ocean of difference between "moved some magazines" and "helped organize the event and explicitly called for violence". You know that, though; you're just intentionally missing the point.
> helped organize the event and explicitly called for violence
I know some other guy that did this after he was beaten in some sort of contest. Don’t think he was ever punished for it. Landed on his feet, building a new ballroom now.
Similarly, you know that "moved some magazines" doesn't accurately portray what this person was sentenced for. It was evidence tampering, and intentionally trying to frame it as "just moved some magazines" is disingenuous. You don't even have the plausible excuse of "missing the point".
You know what they say about glass houses and stones, right?
My understanding is that aiding and abetting has to be causal and happen before the alleged crime. That doesn't seem to line up with the timeline of this case (barring the existence of secret Antifa time machines)
Daniel “Des” Sanchez Estrada also didn’t shoot an enforcement officer. He wasn’t even a the protest.
For being at the protest without shooting anyone his wife got 70 years.
Go read the complaint[0]. The total nexus is (1) he spoke to a jailed suspect on the phone and (2) moved a box of zines from his parent's house to an apartment.
"Terrorist-related crime"? I mean, wouldn't the entire US air force be guilty of "terrorist-related crimes" for recently bombing a school full of children in Iran? Yet you don't see them being charged. Courts and the term "terrorist" are tools applied by the powerful to those without power in society.
I'm not trying to redefine the word for everyone, I'm speaking to you, I'm trying to get you to be more critical of your own personal usage of the word. When you adopt/parrot someone's claim about terrorism, that is not a neutral territory, and certainly isn't "fact-based". Especially if your other claims/deductions are downstream of the word "terrorism". It is almost always used as a propaganda term, commonly to justify horrific things, clearly it's been effective on you as well. There's a good book that spends a huge amount of time dissecting the use of the word terrorism you should check out: "Manufacturing Consent".
Besides I don't think you can neatly cleave the world, or this website, or the news, into "facts" and "emotions" as you seem to think.
These are your emotional-based feelings. The facts are that the DOJ has a different terrorist definition, and that the legal concept of "conspiracy" exists. On Reddit/4chan-type websites, emotional opinions get the most upvotes. On fact-based websites they don't.
Question: Do you take everything Trump declares as the absolute truth?
If Trump designates Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster to be a terrorist organization tomorrow, do you believe their church members to be terrorists?
This is a fundamental question, because at the very core of the case, these protesters have been labeled terrorists belonging to a "Antifa cell", aka. terrorist cell.
Do you believe that a anti-ICE protester transporting scream rockets is equivalent to a ISIS member transporting pipe bombs?
It is very much possible to have opinions, without basing your opinions on feelings. If Trump tomorrow declares that the sky is golden metallic, and that all humans can fly, disagreeing isn't opposing facts just because Trump has declared those as the new facts.
Why would you think I was a Trumper just because I'm complaining about the clownish framing of the "jailed for moving zines" story? I'm European so you can guess my opinion of Trump. It's possible to be against both far-left (Reddit-brained) and far-right (MAGA) populism.
> tampering with evidence in a terrorist-related crime that involved an officer shooting.
Talk about an "emotional-based framing" meant to "radicalize the less-literate" ! For starters, terrorists attack civilians rather than de facto militaries. These are like the opposite of terrorists, however misguided we might think they are.
Regardless of framing, the core argument here is that the contents of political publications (ie protected speech) are not appropriately evidence in a criminal proceeding, therefore attempting to hide them is not tampering with evidence. Anybody who believes in the first amendment to the US Constitution should be receptive to this argument.
Again, I don't understand who you guys are trying to convince here? You're justifying the shooting of a policeman by a group being charged as a terrorist organization. Who on Hacker News is going to agree with you, except those on the extreme-left fring of politics?
Hacker News is a rational fact-based website. There are lots of other populist websites where people react more emotionally to things. Surely you'd have more success posting this on Reddit or TikTok?
Such charges are outright nonsense, for one thing. And I think that's relevant since it's the only possible jutification for the utter forfeiture of rights.
That's a valid complaint, and I'd understand if that was the thrust of the conversation. But the story is that someone was jailed for "moving zines", which is obvious nonsense. You can argue your other points while still being honest about the facts of the case. Otherwise you look like a populist trying to appeal to emotionally-vulnerable people.
You started off bemoaning "emotional-based framing" and "populism", but now you don't want to accept that a word has a specific meaning beyond its popular emotional usage? Perhaps try being consistent.
If your roommate attended a protest where someone got shot, and you transported their zines that indicate your roommate shares political ideology with the shooter, is anyone really under the impression this is not criminal in nature?
If his wife who is being charged in a crime asks her husband to destroy evidence, then yes that is a crime. Transporting may be what he was doing when he was caught, but they clearly had enough evidence to support that he was doing more than that.
30 years is absolutely excessive, but that doesn't mean the guy is not guilty.
In this case, the roommate conspired to setup an ambush of police officers, an ambush which resulted in one of the police officers being shot in the neck. The roommate didn't "attend a protest" except by the broadest possible definition.
I can't imagine "both side'sing" the situation in the United States right now. The country has been taken over by a criminally corrupt, sick individual, who given his responsibility w.r.t Jan 6th isn't even eligible for the office he holds - the country is collapsing.
What? That's pretty bad guarantee. The fact that Trump releases his friends has nothing to do with what should his opposition do. If anything respecting acts of former governments should be the norm.
Sorry what now, what equivalent pardons did Biden issue compared to anything like this or the J6ers, to the many who suddenly became pardoned before/after donating money to trump affiliated projects/PACs?
Please give me a few examples of the most egregious crimes Biden pardoned, for context. I want to make sure we're comparing apples with apples, and I don't want to make assumptions about what you might have had in mind.
wow, I feel like the overton window hasn't just shifted, it's off the page. Back in the 90s we would openly share the Anarchist's Cookbook, CIA field manual for sabotage, etc. then lace our emails intentionally with "trigger words" when it was theorized that the NSA was reading all Internet traffic, so as to emphasize our free speech absolutism.
Now, an article comes out about sentences handed down for ... free speech ... and the reaction is to close the tab because they ... made some speech that you didn't like? Free speech for me, not for thee?
You're talking about a different group of people. Back then, the only people who were online were relatively technical, which for whatever reason correlates with leaning libertarian (left or right). My theory is that the experience of identifying a solution to a problem, then being told it can't be implemented because someone with authority says "no" shakes one's belief in authority fundamentally.
Regardless, nowadays online, even in tech circles like this one, you have a much broader sample of the general population. In the case of HN, it's split more evenly than you'd expect from the general population between software developers, and tech entrepreneur types (or at least wannabes). The latter group is perfectly happy with oppressive power structures as long as they help them make money, and aspire to be the authority that says "no".
I don't think you're well aware of what actually went on if you think this is what happened. Also, journalists don't have special rights. None of the rights in the constitution depend on you being employed by a particular type of entity. Unless you think a Fox News anchor has more rights than you do, for some reason?
You don't have a right to enter a private establishment as a journalist. You don't have a right to interrupt a religious ceremony under the banner of free speech. Don Lemon was up front, in the church, with his mic in the pastor's face, while the congregation was still there and the pastor had already asked them to leave.
On the topic—I’m shocked. Seems like this judge missed the last 40 years of the internet. People organize on all manner of subjects on the net with silly names, and around all subjects. Failure to see this, makes terrorists of us all.
One or two defendents were likely over prosecuted, the others it seems like a rather straight forward case. The issue is they were bombing/shooting at a federal facility which carries a higher sentence.
I find the sentences agregiously long, but that's a different discussion.
Does anyone have a link to details on the case because there must have been more details, like these two were accused of planning a murder in advance, because otherwise this seems insane. It seems insane no matter what, but if this was a judge making a bunch of logical leaps while guided by DOJ lawyers, something is really broken
reply