| The sentences are pretty crazy but what’s with the strange understatement. > One fired an AR-15 at the police, which goes beyond legitimate protest into inciting violence (and maybe even deliberate provocation) The accurate statement is that he shot and wounded a police officer who he intentionally targeted according to his own testimony (where he claims he did so because he thought the cop was going to shoot his guys). > Signs you're a dangerous terrorist: using Signal, moving zines The accurate statement is: “hiding zines that could be considered evidence of affiliation at the request of your arrested wife”. Listen, the sentences seem politically motivated. They’re quite long. But if you joined a protest group where the organizer shoots a policeman and you’ve all got weapons at home and then you tell people to move the material you have at home that indicates you’re part of the group then I think the convictions are pretty accurate. This is pretty out there stuff. And I’m not going to give the benefit of the doubt to the guy who yells “get to the rifles” then gets to the rifles and shoots a policeman that he could have been ‘potentially inciting violence’ by shooting. He committed violence. And hiding the facts here does not make me sympathetic. https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/sentencing-for-8-accused-o... |
30 years though? And for moving what material exactly?
I think you can have some kind of rationale for why these people should be prosecuted. I'm not sure that's the issue for many though — the issue is the proportionality of the sentence.