7 ms·

Misleading title. The relevant sentence is this: > "The prosecution claimed Sanchez moved the zines so they wouldn’t incriminate his wife, who attended a prote

by NoSalt 3mo ago

Misleading title. The relevant sentence is this: > "The prosecution claimed Sanchez moved the zines so they wouldn’t incriminate his wife, who attended a protest outside the Prairieland immigration detention center near Dallas, where a police officer was wounded by gunfire." The "Texas man" in question was involved in evidence tampering in a case that involved the shooting of a police officer. The title here makes it sound like simply moving paper around is against the law.

josefritzishere 3mo ago
[dead]
mikestew 3mo ago
It’s still a flimsy basis for the case. He didn’t attend the protest nor even knew about it. The motivation wasn’t proven, it’s all in the prosecution’s head for all we know.
- frakt0x90 3mo ago
  And even so, why on Earth would tampering with evidence warrant 30 years in prison? That is inhumane.
  - tbrownaw 3mo ago
    I would think that a coverup should always be treated as slightly worse than the thing being covered up. Because of general "don't design systems with perverse incentives" principles.
    - stonogo 3mo ago
      The thing being covered up here is being in the general area when someone else committed a crime. I'm not seeing how 30 years lines up with slightly worse than that.
    - fc417fc802 3mo ago
      Only in the case that you can prove both thing and intent to cover up thing beyond a reasonable doubt. And in that case since you've got both convictions then covering it up only needs to carry a small penalty (relative to thing). If you don't have to prove thing then you end up with a situation where all sorts of mundane actions can be construed as covering something up.
    - 4MOAisgoodenuf 3mo ago
      What is the thing being covered up that is worth 30 years in prison?
      - deepsummer 3mo ago
        "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." https://www.cbsnews.com/texas/news/ice-detention-attack-defendants-sentencing-6-23-2026/ https://www.cbsnews.com/texas/news/ice-detention-attack-defe...
  - sekh60 3mo ago
    They aren't a cop.
- ryandrake 3mo ago
  I guess Guilt By Association is the law of the land once a cop is shot.
lanyard-textile 3mo ago
I understand your inference but I don't think we know enough to conclude that with the information here, especially judging by other comments. We don't know if he was truly involved in any kind of evidence tampering, if he was prosecuted for it, or something else.
marcosdumay 3mo ago
"Involved" the shooting of a police officer in the loosest possible sense. If the guy's wife had any relation at all with the shooting, it would be explicit in the article.
- tbrownaw 3mo ago
  > would be explicit in the article. This is blatantly an advocacy piece, so that's not a valid assumption.
DangitBobby 3mo ago
I recommend reading the whole thing to find the relevant bits. The judge says he is sentencing based on thought crime. > U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor said he intended to “send a message to anyone who shares a similar ideology.” > The following can be attributed to Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) Chief of Advocacy Seth Stern: “If prosecutors are correct that Sanchez moved zines because he feared they’d try to use them against his wife, that’s a commentary on prosecutors’ lawlessness, not Sanchez’s. Under the First Amendment, possessing literature cannot be criminal, so what legitimate evidence could he possibly have been concealing? Political zines like those Sanchez possessed are no different from the pro-Revolution pamphlets this country’s founders had in mind when they drafted the First Amendment’s press clause. “Sanchez’s case is the latest example of the Trump administration grasping at any legal straws it can to criminalize disfavored ideologies and writings, from conflating dissent with terrorism to deporting immigrants who report on protests or criticize wars the U.S. bankrolls. Americans should not make the mistake of believing Sanchez’s sentence only threatens immigrants, leftists, or so-called Antifa members — they’re just the low-hanging fruit, not the end game.”
- like_any_other 3mo ago
  > The judge says he is sentencing based on thought crime. > Under the First Amendment, possessing literature cannot be criminal The existence of hate crime laws in the US says otherwise - political motivation to a crime has long been a component in sentencing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime_laws_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime_laws_in_the_United_...
  - M95D 3mo ago
    So now hate the government is a hate crime?
    - like_any_other 3mo ago
      Nowhere did I say that. I addressed the "thought crime" claim, i.e. both take into account the perpetrators motivations and beliefs.
tehwebguy 3mo ago
Evidence of what?
mcphage 3mo ago
> was involved in evidence tampering in a case that involved the shooting of a police officer Did the zines shoot the police officer? Or was the police officer shot with the zines?

by NoSalt 3mo ago

josefritzishere 3mo ago

[dead]

mikestew 3mo ago

It’s still a flimsy basis for the case. He didn’t attend the protest nor even knew about it. The motivation wasn’t proven, it’s all in the prosecution’s head for all we know.

frakt0x90 3mo ago
And even so, why on Earth would tampering with evidence warrant 30 years in prison? That is inhumane.
- tbrownaw 3mo ago
  I would think that a coverup should always be treated as slightly worse than the thing being covered up. Because of general "don't design systems with perverse incentives" principles.
  - stonogo 3mo ago
    The thing being covered up here is being in the general area when someone else committed a crime. I'm not seeing how 30 years lines up with slightly worse than that.
  - fc417fc802 3mo ago
    Only in the case that you can prove both thing and intent to cover up thing beyond a reasonable doubt. And in that case since you've got both convictions then covering it up only needs to carry a small penalty (relative to thing). If you don't have to prove thing then you end up with a situation where all sorts of mundane actions can be construed as covering something up.
  - 4MOAisgoodenuf 3mo ago
    What is the thing being covered up that is worth 30 years in prison?
    - deepsummer 3mo ago
      "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." https://www.cbsnews.com/texas/news/ice-detention-attack-defendants-sentencing-6-23-2026/ https://www.cbsnews.com/texas/news/ice-detention-attack-defe...
- sekh60 3mo ago
  They aren't a cop.
ryandrake 3mo ago
I guess Guilt By Association is the law of the land once a cop is shot.

lanyard-textile 3mo ago

I understand your inference but I don't think we know enough to conclude that with the information here, especially judging by other comments. We don't know if he was truly involved in any kind of evidence tampering, if he was prosecuted for it, or something else.

marcosdumay 3mo ago

"Involved" the shooting of a police officer in the loosest possible sense. If the guy's wife had any relation at all with the shooting, it would be explicit in the article.

tbrownaw 3mo ago
> would be explicit in the article. This is blatantly an advocacy piece, so that's not a valid assumption.

DangitBobby 3mo ago

I recommend reading the whole thing to find the relevant bits. The judge says he is sentencing based on thought crime. > U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor said he intended to “send a message to anyone who shares a similar ideology.” > The following can be attributed to Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) Chief of Advocacy Seth Stern: “If prosecutors are correct that Sanchez moved zines because he feared they’d try to use them against his wife, that’s a commentary on prosecutors’ lawlessness, not Sanchez’s. Under the First Amendment, possessing literature cannot be criminal, so what legitimate evidence could he possibly have been concealing? Political zines like those Sanchez possessed are no different from the pro-Revolution pamphlets this country’s founders had in mind when they drafted the First Amendment’s press clause. “Sanchez’s case is the latest example of the Trump administration grasping at any legal straws it can to criminalize disfavored ideologies and writings, from conflating dissent with terrorism to deporting immigrants who report on protests or criticize wars the U.S. bankrolls. Americans should not make the mistake of believing Sanchez’s sentence only threatens immigrants, leftists, or so-called Antifa members — they’re just the low-hanging fruit, not the end game.”

like_any_other 3mo ago
> The judge says he is sentencing based on thought crime. > Under the First Amendment, possessing literature cannot be criminal The existence of hate crime laws in the US says otherwise - political motivation to a crime has long been a component in sentencing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime_laws_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime_laws_in_the_United_...
- M95D 3mo ago
  So now hate the government is a hate crime?
  - like_any_other 3mo ago
    Nowhere did I say that. I addressed the "thought crime" claim, i.e. both take into account the perpetrators motivations and beliefs.

tehwebguy 3mo ago

Evidence of what?

mcphage 3mo ago

> was involved in evidence tampering in a case that involved the shooting of a police officer Did the zines shoot the police officer? Or was the police officer shot with the zines?