[Xorakios]

Here's the case: https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndtx/pr/antifa-cell-members-con...

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]

> 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]

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]

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]

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

[find0x90]

Yes, thank you, Bernard.

[cygx]

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".

[KaiserPro]

Ok, but isn't this textbook second amendment?

as in well organised militia’s right to bear arms? They demonstrated a level of organisation much higher level than Rittenhouse ever did.

[mvdtnz]

Americans are given the right to bear arms so they can overthrow a tyrannical government. Doesn't mean the government has to sit there and take it. And it certainly doesn't mean you can shoot cops and get away with it.

[RIMR]

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]

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]

How is that relevant to my comment?

[godwinson__4-8]

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.

[copper-float]

How 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]

> 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.

[stevenwoo]

Unless one is a right wing protestor like Kyle Rittenhouse.

[s1artibartfast]

Still dont see how people could have watched the videos and not seen a clear self defense angle.

[Tadpole9181]

There was never an argument that the 30 second clip shows self defense.

The problem is that Kyle drove out of his way with a non-defensive firearm, with a clear intent to put himself in that situation so he could murder someone.

Let's say I want to experience killing someone without consequences. I leave a nice bike completely unlocked in the bad part of town and hide in the shadows, then when someone tries to steal it, I axe them in the back of the head. I'm clearly a criminal guilty of first degree murder, not a victim of theft.

Unfortunately, I'm not sure how much nuance the American legislative system has for cases like those. Let alone when exposed to the biases our executive/judicial systems have when executing them.

[s1artibartfast]

Where was this clear intent demonstrated? There was no evidence of them acting agressive or baiting people.

- There was photo evidence that he spent the morning cleaning grafitti of a shool in Kenosha.

- Multiple independent journalists testified they were calm and walking around calling "Medic! Does anyone need medical help?" or helping put out fires

- Independet protestors tesitfed that Rittenhouse helped them bandage injured

Regarding the bike, that would be murder. If you walked with your fancy bike and put yourself between it an a theif who attacked you for it, the answer would depend by state. Some let you stand your ground, some you have to flee until you are cornered.

It is still valid self defense if you choose walk your bike through the neighborhood knowing with certiany you will be attacked. If you are legally allowed to be there, the fault is still with the attacker.

[jayGlow]

he drove to a town he worked in that's not out of the way. 2 of the 3 who attacked him drove similar distances or further and one of them had an illegal fire arm, were they all putting themselves in a situation to murder someone?

[TurdF3rguson]

It may have been self defense in the moment, but he also went out there looking for trouble and found it.

[stale2002]

If it was illegal to go somewhere "lookin for trouble" I think that you would see a whole lot of people arrested from certain groups that you likely wouldn't want to be in prison.

[s1artibartfast]

That is a far cry from murder and someone shouldnt carry a gun unless they are willing to use it.

Inversely, someone shouldnt attack someone unless they accept the chance of death or harm.

[bluealienpie]

*Murderer

[otaconjh]

He was tried by a jury of your peers though and found not guilty. I'm assuming these guys got a federal jury

[bandofthehawk]

I guess you don't believe in the concept of innocent until proven guilty?

[ks2048]

One can believe in this concept and believe a decision (or the law) was wrong.

[bluescrn]

Chilling effect on insurrections.

[stronglikedan]

If you lie with dogs, you're going to get fleas. :shrug:

[will4274]

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

[AdieuToLogic]

> 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-manu...

1 - https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/guidelines-manu...

[rileymat2]

Shouldn't the punishment for obstruction, in many cases, be higher than the base offense to prevent that as a default strategy to beat the base offense? Granted, not that much higher, but there is some logic to it being a greater offense.

[Aeolun]

I don’t think so. If you get a 30 year sentence for transporting zines what stops you from just shooting anyone that comes after you? Multiple lifetimes in jail are irrelevant.

[AdieuToLogic]

> Shouldn't the punishment for obstruction, in many cases, be higher than the base offense to prevent that as a default strategy to beat the base offense?

If I am interpreting this question correctly, it assumes the same person whom commits an offense being investigated also obstructs investigation into same. These would be two different offenses and are charged as such AFAIK.

For the situation where one party obstructs an investigation, but is not a party to what is being investigated, then the premise of "a default strategy to beat the base offense" is inapplicable.

[thinking_cactus]

Honestly, no? I think in general failing to prosecute a crime is much less of a problem than committing a crime. Committing a crime has real first order effects (in case the law is sensible), failing to prosecute may only have secondary effects like encouraging the person to commit new crimes (or encouraging others that may become aware of possibility of obstruction). To me it would make sense to link the obstruction to the sentence of the crime (wilful obstruction of many severe crime may deserve more sanctions than of lesser crimes).

[xdennis]

> A sentence of 30 years in prison for obstructing an investigation is excessive

Being excessive is the point. It's to deter others from trying to copy their actions.

[Auracle]

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.

[AdieuToLogic]

> 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_122...

[Auracle]

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.

[crossroadsguy]

> 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.

[wat10000]

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.

[gmueckl]

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]

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]

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]

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.)

[koolba]

> Intent is an important aspect of crime.

Intent ia required aspect of most crimes.

When it’s missing, the charged crime usually includes recklessness.

[customguy]

In what way could that possibly have obstructed that investigation?

[will4274]

? 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]

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]

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.

[AdieuToLogic]

> Obviously prosecutors always present things in the worst possible way for defendants ...

True, that is their job.

Problem is, it is the judge's job to determine appropriate punishment for the crime once it is proven the defendant is responsible for same.

30 years (360 months) for a first time offender is roughly equivalent to Second Degree Murder (see section 2A1.2 here[0]). Even assuming the defendant has 13 or more felony convictions, this sentence would be roughly equivalent to Child Exploitation Enterprises (see section 2G2.6 here[0]).

The calculation of sentence length is based on the 2025 guidelines published here[1].

0 - https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/guidelines-manu...

1 - https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/guidelines-manu...

[dmix]

That sentence very likely won't hold up on appeal as it's obviously very very excessive and non-standard. That said, I don't believe the commenters above were defending the sentencing. They were debating whether it was a legitimate charge and whether the article explained it fairly.

[jeffbee]

Yeah, but I think the question is whether his actions did in fact obstruct justice. Both are relevant.

[bawolff]

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.

[jMyles]

> 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]

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.)

[dwroberts]

If this was an incident in Europe, comments like this would be talking about how clearly the state is corrupt, it’s account cannot be trusted, and obviously civilisation is collapsing because free speech outside of the US is dead. “You can be arrested for zines!”

Inside the US though? No, clearly the state’s account is definitely accurate, the citizen is obviously guilty, it’s not only correct they are being jailed it is actually good, free speech - oh it’s not relevant because they committed unrelated crimes (we’re told. By the state’s account).

US propaganda/copaganda on its own citizens really is something else to behold

[antoniojtorres]

Yeah I feel like I’m going insane reading some of these comments.

[N_Lens]

HN swings pretty far right.

[copper-float]

Not sure how you're getting this. 90% of these comments are as left leaning as they come.

[sixothree]

> US propaganda/copaganda on its own citizens really is something else to behold

I live in the deep south. It's so much worse than you think. I regularly have people argue with me that they don't deserve to have nice things (like paid vacation) because someone, somewhere, might get something they don't deserve. You know, those government employees are lazy and get paid for doing nothing.

It's bizarre to an extreme. Mixed with the constant anger makes it particularly repulsive. I'll notice that everyone simultaneously seems angry about the same issue all at once. And it's almost always an issue that has no affect on them whatsoever. But they are _angry_ because someone is getting something they don't deserve.

It's worse than you can imagine.

[CobrastanJorji]

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

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

[TrackerFF]

Let's not ignore the fact that:

- The group was designated as "Antifa cell", and thus this became a terrorist and aiding terrorism charges.

- The judge went above and beyond to hand out harsh punishments. There's been commentary from previous state prosecutors that the sentences, and how they were carried out, were much harsher than predicted. The speculation was that these sentences are being handed out to be served consecutively, not concurrently.

Would not surprise me if some of them could be appealed as "cruel and unusual punishments" / 8th amendment.

[Tadpole9181]

I would be shocked if this doesn't get overturned on the basis that the judge hand selected the jury without allowing participation of the defense.

[flossposse]

> The 30 year sentence was for hiding documentation being sought under a federal warrant

Can you cite a source to support the claim that the stuff he transported was being sought under a federal warrant at the time he transported it? And is there documentation showing that he was aware of the warrant?

[DoneWithAllThat]

It’s not “alleged” that one of the terrorists shot an officer in the neck. It was proven in court that he did and he was convicted for it.

[Aeolun]

> make clear that those who choose violence over lawful expression will face the full force of the American justice system

I’m sure Iran agrees.

[goatlover]

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.

[sbseitz]

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

[viccis]

>choose violence over lawful expression

You mean the ICE agents who've already chosen to respond with violence to any expression, lawful or otherwise, against them?

Ah no, you mean the people upset about them illegally acting as secret police.

[jMyles]

I don't approve of the violence apparently planned and carried out by these people, even though their cause was seemingly just.

However, we can't afford to let the government's position dictate the particulars of all the facts here.

The theory that the fireworks were lit to "bring out first responders" is just that - a theory, from the government's lawyers.

The undisputed facts are that these people were working to disrupt an ICE facility, which is to say a facility of a lawless, criminal organization which, given its placement entirely outside any constitutional limitations, renders it, at least at a moral/ethical layer, ineligible for any sort of civic protections of its property or activities. A third party, who was employed by a police department, then aimed a firearm at these people, and one of them fired, in apparent self-defense at this person who was training a firearm on them. Again, I hate that they shot this dude who was just going his job. But it's certainly not tantamount to attempting a premeditated mruder.

All of this 'moving zines' business is downstream of this basic fact pattern. I'm not willing to buy the government's advocacy that this was a crime to society in the first place, so I certainly don't have any ruffled feathers about moving zines.

When the state brings its lawless armed kidnappers to heel and follows its own rules with the unrelenting strictness befitting a nation of laws and not of men, then we can talk about whether those same laws can be applied to persons attempting to disrupt its activities.

[polski-g]

What in God's name are you talking about? Shot at a police officer "in self defense"? In what world do you have a right to try to murder a cop?

[jMyles]

Of course you don't have a right to murder anyone.

If someone is pointing a gun at you, I don't think the matter of whether you can justly defend yourself turns on who their employer is. The idea that you have to pause and figure out, "Hmmm, does this person collect a paycheck from an entity that claims to be a sovereign state?" is the ludicrous part, to me.

As I say, I hate that they did this, and that they shot this dude. He didn't deserve that. It sucks all around. But their underlying impetus - to disrupt a violent criminal organization which has proved difficult to reign in - is indeed something we need to figure a peaceful solution to, and it's not obvious what that is.