8 ms·
> 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
by Ukv 3mo ago
> 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.
- expedition32 3mo agoChilling 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.
- mvdtnz 3mo agoWas 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.
- f33d5173 3mo agoIt's one of those irregular verbs. My demonstration, your freedom fighting, their act of terrorism
- find0x90 3mo agoYes, thank you, Bernard.
- goatlover 3mo agoAre 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.
- mvdtnz 3mo agoHow is that relevant to my comment?
- godwinson__4-8 3mo agoObviously 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.
- BobbyJo 3mo agoIf 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.
- stevenwoo 3mo agoUnless one is a right wing protestor like Kyle Rittenhouse.
- bluealienpie 3mo ago*Murderer
- otaconjh 3mo agoHe was tried by a jury of your peers though and found not guilty. I'm assuming these guys got a federal jury
- bandofthehawk 3mo agoI guess you don't believe in the concept of innocent until proven guilty?
- ks2048 3mo agoOne can believe in this concept and believe a decision (or the law) was wrong.
- bandofthehawk 3mo agoOne can also let themselves be misled by the media for political reasons. If you actually watched the trial and reviewed the publicly available evidence, and still think the jury made the wrong decision, then I agree, you have a right to that opinion. However, if you only believed he is guilty because your favorite media figures told you this, then I would say you don't actually believe that a person is innocent until proven guilty.
- expedition32 3mo ago[flagged]
- bandofthehawk 3mo ago[flagged]
- smsm42 3mo ago[flagged]
- mulmen 3mo agoThis 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?
- smsm42 3mo agoDomestic 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.
- goatlover 3mo agoOne 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.
- smsm42 3mo agoOne 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.
- laughing_man 3mo ago[flagged]
- supertroop 3mo agoStop conflating two different unrelated events. It is nauseating.
- laughing_man 3mo agoThese events were not unrelated. It's all part of the same conspiracy.
- vrganj 3mo agoNobody 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.
- laughing_man 3mo agoSure, sure. The initial attack and then the shooting were just an accident. Come on, man. It was a conspiracy to shoot a cop. How do you not realize this?
- supertroop 3mo agoSimple: critical thinking skills. Sorry you missed the boat on those.
- alterom 3mo agoThey didn't shoot a cop. A single individual did. What you're calling for is collective punishment (a war crime in Geneva convention), and guilt by association (a perversion of justice). Kindly, abscond and desist.
- 3mo ago
- bluescrn 3mo agoChilling effect on insurrections.
- copper-float 3mo agoHow 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. So insane for people to defend this.
- Ukv 3mo ago> They brought guns and shot government officials 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.
- will4274 3mo agoBeing aware that he was moving the zines to obstruct a federal felony investigation is surely relevant. Intent is an important aspect of crime.
- sorry_outta_gas 3mo ago[dead]
- customguy 3mo agoIn what way could that possibly have obstructed that investigation?
- will4274 3mo ago? 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.
- ktallett 3mo agoDid he know that was why though? Did she state it's so that the cops don't find it? Or did she say can you move that box of zines into the shed?
- nl 3mo agoThe link above literally says: > 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.
- stronglikedan 3mo agoIf you lie with dogs, you're going to get fleas. :shrug: