6 ms·

Being 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 ago
In 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 ago
    Did 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 ago
  The 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.
  - jeffbee 3mo ago
    Yeah, but I think the question is whether his actions did in fact obstruct justice. Both are relevant.
    - bawolff 3mo ago
      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.
      - jeffbee 3mo ago
        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?
      - alterom 3mo ago
        >your actions didn't amount to a crime >it is still a crime Pardon me, but effin what? Ah yes. There's a word for it. You're literally calling for prosecuting thoughtcrimes. Good job, making Orwell proud.
        bawolff 3mo ago
        If you take an action in the real world it is no longer a thought crime.
        alterom 3mo ago
        >think of a crime >take an action in the real world (not a crime) >it's a crime You're not make it any better, you're just repeating your desire to prosecute thoughtcrimes. "Your honor, he wanted the President dead and he breathed! That's an action in the real world! Off with his head!" By your logic putting a pin in a voodoo doll is a crime. I implore you, abscond and perish promptly with such twisted cognizance of justice.
AdieuToLogic 3mo ago
> 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. 0 - https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/guidelines-manual/2025/GLMFull.pdf https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/guidelines-manu... 1 - https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/guidelines-manual/2025/Sentencing_Table.pdf https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/guidelines-manu...
- Auracle 3mo ago
  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.
  - crossroadsguy 3mo ago
    > our justice system Lucky you. You have a "justice" system. We all got legal system or some sort of kangaroo systems in our corner of the world.
  - AdieuToLogic 3mo ago
    > 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] 0 - https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/martin_luther_king_jr_122559 https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/martin_luther_king_jr_122...
    - Auracle 3mo ago
      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.
wat10000 3mo ago
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.
- aaron695 3mo ago
  [dead]
- gmueckl 3mo ago
  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.
  - mindslight 3mo ago
    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.
  - wat10000 3mo ago
    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.
    - SilasX 3mo ago
      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.)
jMyles 3mo ago
> Being aware that he was moving the zines to obstruct a federal felony investigation is surely relevant. Intent is an important aspect of crime. ...maybe to the so-called Department of Justice, but not in any moral sense.
vkou 3mo ago
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.)
koolba 3mo ago
> Intent is an important aspect of crime. Intent ia required aspect of most crimes. When it’s missing, the charged crime usually includes recklessness.

sorry_outta_gas 3mo ago

[dead]

customguy 3mo ago

In 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 ago
  Did 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 ago
The 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.
- jeffbee 3mo ago
  Yeah, but I think the question is whether his actions did in fact obstruct justice. Both are relevant.
  - bawolff 3mo ago
    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.
    - jeffbee 3mo ago
      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?
    - alterom 3mo ago
      >your actions didn't amount to a crime >it is still a crime Pardon me, but effin what? Ah yes. There's a word for it. You're literally calling for prosecuting thoughtcrimes. Good job, making Orwell proud.
      - bawolff 3mo ago
        If you take an action in the real world it is no longer a thought crime.
        alterom 3mo ago
        >think of a crime >take an action in the real world (not a crime) >it's a crime You're not make it any better, you're just repeating your desire to prosecute thoughtcrimes. "Your honor, he wanted the President dead and he breathed! That's an action in the real world! Off with his head!" By your logic putting a pin in a voodoo doll is a crime. I implore you, abscond and perish promptly with such twisted cognizance of justice.

AdieuToLogic 3mo ago

> 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. 0 - https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/guidelines-manual/2025/GLMFull.pdf https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/guidelines-manu... 1 - https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/guidelines-manual/2025/Sentencing_Table.pdf https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/guidelines-manu...

Auracle 3mo ago
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.
- crossroadsguy 3mo ago
  > our justice system Lucky you. You have a "justice" system. We all got legal system or some sort of kangaroo systems in our corner of the world.
- AdieuToLogic 3mo ago
  > 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] 0 - https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/martin_luther_king_jr_122559 https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/martin_luther_king_jr_122...
  - Auracle 3mo ago
    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.

wat10000 3mo ago

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.

aaron695 3mo ago
[dead]
gmueckl 3mo ago
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.
- mindslight 3mo ago
  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.
- wat10000 3mo ago
  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.
  - SilasX 3mo ago
    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.)

jMyles 3mo ago

> Being aware that he was moving the zines to obstruct a federal felony investigation is surely relevant. Intent is an important aspect of crime. ...maybe to the so-called Department of Justice, but not in any moral sense.

vkou 3mo ago

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.)

koolba 3mo ago

> Intent is an important aspect of crime. Intent ia required aspect of most crimes. When it’s missing, the charged crime usually includes recklessness.