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.
> 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.
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.
> 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].
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.
? 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.
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.
To be fair I don't think conservatives have ever pretended to care about justice. They are proponents of authoritarianism. The law is just a tool to keep the opposition down.
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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
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"
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.
> 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.
The Jan 6 rioters did "get the law". They got sentenced collectively to thousands of years in prison, and many of them served 3 years of that.
Then they "got the law" again when someone sympathetic to their aims was democratically elected to the one position that can grant federal pardons. That power has a history of being used for political allies long before Trump. Perhaps that will happen to some of the ICE protestors too.
I'm sorry to disagree with a venerable python shell like this, but even if I accept your entire characterization here, these two situations look nothing alike.
> - were a group of at least 1000 people
> 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.
Oh ok, so you grant we're talking about completely different scales of intention, personal responsibility, and outcomes, but you want to keep making this comparison? Because you think it's nuanced and informative?
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.)
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.
>Granted they did not explicitly shoot any federal agents
Then you admit that makes it completely different.
>However those 1000+ individuals on January 6 were ultimately pardoned for their actions
Biden also pardoned Fauci for lying about Covid, his son, amongst other people. They're all equally crooked but somehow HN only remembers Trump's crimes.
So did anti-ICE protestors. Meaning both need to get arrested by the same yardstick. HN was ok when J6 got arrested but not OK wehn anti ICE rioters get arrested. Double standards much?
Meanwhile both political sides rob you blind but you feel the need to take sides and argue which side of corrupt pedos you think represents you when neither do.
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.
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.
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 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!
I don't accept that J6 involved over one thousand violent criminals and you seem to be incredulous that others don't hold this prior.
You also seem unwilling to acknowledge severe differences in the grade of violence being discussed, even when you begrudgingly admit that such differences exist (but then caveat them with your own speculative conclusions)
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. As is, your comment seems quite unreasonable as you don't believe anyone else can see these obvious and material differences.
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?
> 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.
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?
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.
“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.
The investigation and eventual trial will reveal the facts, until then we can only guess.
The event itself demonstrates it is dangerous to carry a pistol, even legally, around armed police, if you're potentially gonna get in a tussle with said police.
There will be no investigation at least for the foreseeable future. ICE and the federal government are actively stonewalling any attempt at one! I'd love to see an investigation.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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 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.
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."
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.
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
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."
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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?
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'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.
"Trump's efforts to outlaw free speech" is a wild thing to put in the lede. Trump isn't doing anything more to outlaw free speech here than Biden did with the Jan 6 prosecutions.
Effective propaganda needs to be subtle so that most people don't realize they're being deceived. These authors clearly have no idea what they're doing.
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"
reply