[appreciatorBus]

I think all of this hinges on whether or not you think it was a protest. If they had been peacefully sitting outside the facility holding signs, I think you'd have a case that the sentencing is insane. But if they were actively planning a break-in & preparing to use deadly force, that's quite another matter. I haven't spent a lot of timing reading about it, but what I have read suggests it was much closer to the latter.

[devmor]

From what I read, the person who was arrested for transporting zines was not even at the protest or part of the group - just the husband of one of the protestors.

[lelandfe]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Prairieland_ICE_detention...

[snvzz]

Do not just link some Wikipedia article.

Express your point.

[reverius42]

The parent comment has a lot of "if this" and "if that", but the linked Wikipedia article has a thorough sequence of events. The point is clearly: we don't need to surmise.

[ipython]

Unfortunately, the administration wants it both ways- if you were on the Capitol grounds on January 6, 2021, you were simply part of a "peaceful tour group". If you stand to the side of an ICE agent in Minneapolis, you are a "domestic terrorist", deserve to be murdered in cold blood, and any attempts to investigate further will be stonewalled.

So it's hard to take their characterization seriously when they have demonstrated that there is a clear double standard, depending on whether you are a FoT (Friend of Trump).

[selectodude]

“For my friends, everything; for my enemies, the law.”

Oscar R. Benavides

[felixgallo]

'they' is doing a lot of work. This guy wasn't even there.

[BobbyJo]

You don't have to be present for the act to be part of the conspiracy...

[saintfire]

You presumably need to convict the conspirator on evidence that doesn't consist of having published documents on your person.

[shimman]

What hogwash. Resistance is as American as the founding of the country, acting like there is a "right way" to protest is deeply antihuman.

[Manuel_D]

The "protestors" shot someone, if that's not the wrong way to protest then what is?

[wak90]

The "officer" was chasing people on foot and drew his weapon. He was then shot.

Given the Pretti and Good murders, in my opinion this is a clear cut case of self defense.

[Manuel_D]

Resisting arrest isn't a justification for shooting a law enforcement officer. The law enforcement officer had a pretty solid reason to draw his firearm, given that the rioters also had firearms.

I'm really baffled by the line of reasoning here. People, armed with guns, tried to break into a government facility. The law enforcement officers proceeded to try and arrest the rioters, and the rioters shot one of the officers.

In what world is this justifiable self defense?

[wak90]

Your interpretation of the facts and institutions here are thoroughly alien to me.

There's so much unpacking to be done I'm not sure I have the time on my smoke break but I'll give it a shot.

First, law enforcement as a concept is not static. It is a social construct. For me, the only acceptable reason for LE to draw a firearm is to exercise deadly force to protect civilians from a deadly force. For you, it seems you find it justifiable for agents of the state to exercise deadly force against people for vandalism and protest. I do not accept your view. Calling people rioters doesn't really change any facts except to bias the reader against them. Stating that the protesters were armed is not a good argument either. In Texas it is legal to open carry firearms so that is not a justification for deadly force.

You don't actually know that these people tried to break into a government facility. The case centers around the protesters allegedly luring law enforcement out of the facility. Sort of the opposite. Then the prosecution said the intent was to create an ambush.

But all of that is "well technically". The root here is that ICE is now an unaccountable irregular military equipped occupation force. When someone, anyone, raises a firearm toward you, you can either get shot to death and hope they get convicted after the fact (and again I point to Pretti and Good) or you defend yourself and then deal with survivor problems later.

Just because someone has a badge and a uniform does not mean you don't have a right to defend yourself from them, even if the courts are not honoring that right.

[Manuel_D]

This group showed up at the ICE facility with a dozen sets of body armor, multiple firearms, and radios. They shot fireworks at the facility, and when the law enforcement officers went to go arrest them a member of the group shot the officer. Those facts are not disputed.

Using deadly force in self defense against law enforcement officer is only justified when that law enforcement officer is acting outside the bounds of the law. The fact that said law enforcement officer had a drawn firearm does not make it legal to shoot that officer. The officers having their firearms drawn was also reasonable given that the rioters were armed with guns. These officers were making a legal arrest, and thus any claim of self defense by the rioters is moot.

Like it or not, ICE is still law enforcement. You don't get to just say "I don't like this agency, so I am justified in gunning down any member of that agency that tries to arrest me."

[xdennis]

Why the scare quotes? Are you denying he was a cop?

[wak90]

They were protesting an ICE facility. Sort of famous for not wearing uniforms and hiding their faces. Maybe you think these tactics are justified but it has led to a lot of police impersonation.

[Griffinsauce]

This depends a lot what evil you're protesting.

[thunderfork]

An individual shot someone, unless you think multiple people were helping pull the trigger.

[Manuel_D]

This was a coordinated group of people who procured body armor, radios, and firearms, and planned to break into a Federal facility. Responsibility for this incident doesn't rest exclusively on the hands of the shooter.

An analogy is Enrique Tarrio's arrest in the wake of January 6th. Right wingers complained that he wasn't even in the capital during the riot. But of course that's not evidence his innocence. Even though he didn't personally participate in the putsch, he was still held responsible for organizing it (not for long on account of his pardon, unfortunately, but he was still rightfully convicted).

[thunderfork]

Responsibility is a separate question from correctly reporting on the events that occurred. "A protestor shot someone" is correct, "a protestor shot someone and the group is culpable" could be argued, but "the protestors shot someone" is simply untrue.

[Manuel_D]

No, it's entirely viable to say a group of people did something. E.g. "a lynch mob killed ______." Sure only one member of the mob actually tied the noose, but the mob as a collective took that action.

[the_real_cher]

America shot a bunch of people in the 1700s protesting the King of England

[Manuel_D]

No, the colonies didn't protest the rebelled. The colonies procured arms, raised an army, and fought attempts by the British to reassert control.

It wasn't a protest, it was a war.

[the_real_cher]

Are there wars where one party isnt protesting?

[Manuel_D]

This is just a nonsensical question. The US Revolutionary War was a war. Whether or not there were non violent protests happening contemporaneously doesn't change the fact that it was a war.