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"

Ukv 12 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> 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.

▲

will4274 an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Being aware that he was moving the zines to obstruct a federal felony investigation is surely relevant. Intent is an important aspect of crime.

▲

customguy 37 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

In what way could that possibly have obstructed that investigation?

	▲	will4274 34 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		? 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.

▲

sorry_outta_gas 40 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]

▲

expedition32 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

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.

▲

mvdtnz 2 hours ago | parent [-]

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.

▲

f33d5173 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It's one of those irregular verbs. My demonstration, your freedom fighting, their act of terrorism

	▲	find0x90 39 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Yes, thank you, Bernard.

▲

cygx 19 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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".

▲

RIMR 38 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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.

▲

goatlover an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

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.

▲

mvdtnz an hour ago | parent [-]

How is that relevant to my comment?

	▲	godwinson__4-8 an hour ago \| parent [-]
		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.

▲

CobrastanJorji 12 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Exactly. The content of the zines was not an issue in the case.

This case is insane, but it's not insane for free speech reasons.

▲

sbseitz 25 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

yeah you know that's still a crock of sh*t.

▲

goatlover an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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.

▲

htx80nerd 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]