[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.

[KaiserPro]

The USA is a common law system, so some actions have precedence, and shape how laws are applied. (hence why the supreme court is able to have split opinions about the 14th amendment)

If you are able to use a stungun on a cop and get a pardon, then why not this? (actually pardons are usually not precedent setting, but forgive the stupid legal interpretation. )

[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.

[BobbyJo]

If you're fighting the executive branch, then legality goes out the window and any outrage about punishment becomes moot, no? Expecting the system you intended to subvert/dismantle to save you is a bit of a weird ask.

[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?

[s1artibartfast]

The evidence presented at trial was that they spent the morning before the protest in Kenosha cleaning grafitti off a local school.

[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.

[TurdF3rguson]

I already made the self-defense concession. I'm just hoping for a "he's not a hero" concession from your side.

[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.

[TurdF3rguson]

I didn't say it was murder, I made the concession about self-defense, didn't I?

A nice concession from you might be to admit that kids on your side maybe shouldn't attend protests with intention to do harm.

That's basically where right and left don't see eye to eye on this.

[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.

[bandofthehawk]

One can also let themselves be misled by the media for political reasons.

If you actually watched the trial and reviewed the publicly available evidence, and still think the jury made the wrong decision, then I agree, you have a right to that opinion.

However, if you only believed he is guilty because your favorite media figures told you this, then I would say you don't actually believe that a person is innocent until proven guilty.

[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.

[cwnyth]

I disagree. Time and time again, it's been shown that people are more moved by a single emotional instance, not the broader statistics. Not everyone has a mind for numbers or scale. What can actually inspire change in them if not a single representation of the problem? Classically, effective rhetoric needed pathos in addition to logos. There is no problem in zooming in on this one instance (especially if it's effective in fixing the larger problem).

[AdieuToLogic]

What broader discussion could there be than the King quote provided?

In it, there is no "pick and choose individual cases".

[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.)

[wat10000]

Is that actually true? Were the zines critical evidence in a homicide?

[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.

[AdieuToLogic]

> That sentence very likely won't hold up on appeal as it's obviously very very excessive and non-standard.

Probably. But put yourself in the defendant's shoes when the sentence was handed down. And then imagine what comfort is had by someone saying it "likely won't hold up on appeal".

> 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.

Agreed. I do not think the commenters were defending the sentencing and perhaps not considering it. What I sought to provide was recognizing the punishment must fit the crime.

[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.

[jeffbee]

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]

>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.

[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.)