[NoSalt]

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.

[mikestew]

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]

And even so, why on Earth would tampering with evidence warrant 30 years in prison? That is inhumane.

[sekh60]

They aren't a cop.

[tbrownaw]

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.

[4MOAisgoodenuf]

What is the thing being covered up that is worth 30 years in prison?

[deepsummer]

"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-defe...

[fc417fc802]

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.

[stonogo]

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.

[ryandrake]

I guess Guilt By Association is the law of the land once a cop is shot.

[marcosdumay]

"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]

> would be explicit in the article.

This is blatantly an advocacy piece, so that's not a valid assumption.

[DangitBobby]

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]

> 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_...

[lanyard-textile]

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.

[mcphage]

> 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?

[tehwebguy]

Evidence of what?