Does anyone have a link to details on the case because there must have been more details, like these two were accused of planning a murder in advance, because otherwise this seems insane. It seems insane no matter what, but if this was a judge making a bunch of logical leaps while guided by DOJ lawyers, something is really broken
The feds case, which they did win convictions based on, was that they were terrorists who set off fireworks to lure police into an ambush, and there weren't more casualties because one of the members shot early and only injured one cop. An accessory to this who hid evidence is also part of the crime in the Feds case
Is this embellished by the Feds? I think so, it seems some of the group did not think this was the plan. But there did seem to be a plan and it did involve bringing guns, setting off fireworks, opening the gate and trying to break out the prisoners, and "not going quietly"
Given the choice between the fireworks and an actual grenade? Yeah, absolutely.
Thats quite a mental gymnastics number you did there, BRAVO!!
Do you know why they were pardoned and this zine hider got 30 years? Must just be a quirk of the justice system...
And 30 years for hiding evidence of a terrorist attack is a reasonable punishment. If one of the terrorists in jail asks you to hide evidence and you do it, it's quite clear that you are a collaborator.
Simply linking to wikipedia without comment is uninteresting.
Simply saying something is bias without explaining how is equally uninteresting.
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).
Oscar R. Benavides
- were a group of at least 1000 people
- who, among other things, erected a noose on the capitol grounds, brought zip ties and weapons
- forcefully overran several capital police barricades intended to deter their entrance
- used any weapon available including poles etc to violently attack any police in their way
Granted they did not explicitly shoot any federal agents with a firearm, but in the J6 case, I’d say I’d lay blame for the subsequent deaths of the police officers who did die at the hands of the rioters.
To be clear I do not condone violence in either case.
However those 1000+ individuals on January 6 were ultimately pardoned for their actions. The family of one was in fact paid $5 million in taxpayer money because she was shot in a vain attempt to repel the crowd.
Why then should these defendants be treated completely differently? One gets the law, the other has their convictions overturned completely and history rewritten in their favor.
Btw I do not believe the individual who was charged in the article shot the federal agent or was part of the “concealed position” etc. So bringing that up is just an appeal to brush that individual with the actions of others.
https://youtu.be/DXnHIJkZZAs?si=zDKJcly9KMBY_GgJ
I mean - seriously? It’s ok to do this?
The other four police officers said to have been killed in this root committed suicide over the next several months, which really cannot be attributed to the riot in an intellectually honest way. Imagine if someone said "BLM murdered dozens of cops" and then listed the suicide of every cop that had some interaction with BLM and committed suicide 6+ months afterwards.
This isn't to minimize the crimes of Jan 6th rioters and their attempt to overturn an election, but it's still best not to repeat false claims.
Where did I say it is? I said it's the same assault as ICE protestors and either both should be jailed or both should be pardoned, but pick one of these lane, because otherwise it's just selective enforcement.
And your nihilism is exactly how we got into this mess in the first place. “They all suck, so why not elect the clown and see how much he can shake things up”.
The feds on the other hand have the power to send you to federal prison or to pardon you and literally pay you off.
Given that we don’t have God himself running for president, we have to suffice with imperfect representation. And so yes I end up picking a side because that’s the system we have at the moment.
As to your point about “picking sides” - why aren’t you upset about the pardons yourself in that matter? Shouldn’t they be held accountable?
The “Hypocrisy” you are experiencing here is just you having to sort through other people’s opinions and getting upset at the ones that disagree with yours.
If you think those things are equivalent well then, there are many things I’d say about you but I’ve been told by the mods that’s not allowed.
Have you seen the footage from the riots? They clobbered the shit out of the police trying to protect the lawmakers inside the capitol.
For example this guy: https://i.insider.com/6009c83521f52a0018cb9e21?width=1200&fo...
I’m sure he was just on his way to rebundle some loose cat5 cable down the hall with his zip ties.
And the person who is the subject of this article, did he personally commit all the acts you listed?
(Note for clarity, almost everybody posting in this thread on every side is doing this kind of thing. Just move on to the “years of lead” phase already.)
I vouched for your earlier comment stating the proximate cause of death for those involved in January 6 because you’re correct.
Still, it’s hard for me to then say with a straight face that, for example, officer sicknick would have died of a stroke if the riot didn’t happen.
That said, nobody was charged with murder or manslaughter in connection with his death, and I respect that even if it doesn’t feel just. Either way, god bless his soul and the other officers who tragically took their own lives.
I would say that non-partisans should hold them to account, but that’s only possible if you’re not overly concerned about the penalty for doing so. Doing this in person could lead you to catch a beating, which is ridiculous.
Somewhere there is a crown lying in the gutter with the words “The Truth” written on it. Someone could pick it up and start using it at any time, and everyone would love it. The only problem is that this person would need a strong network with powerful backers before they pick up that crown, because too many powerful people benefit when the public believes in lies. So maybe the starting point is building that network. A network of people willing to face hard truths, and to defend those truths once someone starts bringing them forward.
I’m not sure it’s possible. Americans love lying and being lied to.
For the record, I think all the deaths connected with the event were tragic, including both the protestors and officers.
It was stupid for many reasons, but it was a riot, not some preplanned ambush with weapons like is being talked about in the OP.
Don't forget, an actual noose was erected on the capitol grounds: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/16/us/politics/jan-6-gallows.... Do I think they intended to literally drag Mike Pence out and physically hang him? No. But damned if that doesn't send a clear message.
And yeah, sure, the message was that they thought he was a traitor. I don't agree with them on that and I certainly don't agree that's a good way to send that message. My point is that if a bunch of conservatives want to do an actual coup they would be armed to the damned teeth.
"180 defendants were charged with entering a restricted area with a dangerous or deadly weapon, which includes firearms and other types of weapons." [0]
What you described as a riot is considered by others to be part of a "fake electors" plot, to keep Trump in power after he lost the election [1], a plot which Pence didn't go along with. Trump even tweeted that day about it:
"If Vice President @Mike_Pence comes through for us, we will win the Presidency." [2]
[0] https://www.reuters.com/fact-check/us-capitol-attack-rioters...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_fake_electors_plot
[2] https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/tweets-january-6-2...
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/oath-kee...
Even setting that aside, do you really expect people to believe Donald Trump decided to organize a giant rally, tweeting out 'Be there, will dbe wild!' for that location on January 6 just by chance? Staging the rally at the Ellipse in DC and getting large numbers of diehard MAGA people to attend cost several million dollars, are you seriously asking me to believe that it never occurred to any of the organizers or speakers that the certification of the election just happened to be taking place a short walk away? That when Trump suggested they would all walk up to the Capitol, what he expected was for people to mill around aimlessly for a while and then go home?
"By the way, Pennsylvania has now seen all of this. They didn't know because it was so quick. They had a vote. They voted. But now they see all this stuff, it's all come to light. Doesn't happen that fast. And they want to recertify their votes. They want to recertify. But the only way that can happen is if Mike Pence agrees to send it back. Mike Pence has to agree to send it back.
(Audience chants: "Send it back.")"
"
The Democrats are hopeless — they never vote for anything. Not even one vote. But we're going to try and give our Republicans, the weak ones because the strong ones don't need any of our help. We're going to try and give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country."
What he hoped was that the protest would show that there was a ton of support for his position that the election had been stolen and for the relevant people to take that into account.
Testimony from within the White House indicates a large number of people worked to persuade him to issue such a statement, perhaps convincing him that he would not have the support of many cabinet members of aides otherwise. We can only speculate on what might have happened if he had told his supporters to stand their ground.
Until then - to say at the same time - the Feds are so incompetent and also the Feds are organizing an elaborate secret network of agitators to be at all major protests and riots - let’s just say the logic doesn’t logic.
Um, like half of all these "attack the government in some capacity" plots in the last 40yr. Probably more if you count all the "radical islamic terrorists" they riled up in the 00s and 10s when that was the cool thing for law enforcement to be entrapping.
The Michigan Fednapping is probably the most hilarious case since it turned out there were more feds than not who were in on it.
The disparity in sentencing is likely that they credibly set an ambush to murder law enforcement
And although the second amendment may not cover first aid kits, that's a super lame justification for sending people to prison for the rest of their lives. I guess it's a good thing Boy Scout troops don't coordinate over signal or they'd all be locked up.
- coordinating using a Signal group
- bringing firearms, body armor, and first aid kits to a location just outside a federal facility
- taking up a concealed position along a tree line
For you to even list them shows a fascist bent.
As for fireworks, they might not be illegal either. The only possible crime is the shooting, and only if it was not done in self defense.
I made my point earlier - if this administration cared about prosecuting violent criminals, they would never have even considered pardoning the J6 criminals. They would additionally call for swift and thorough investigations on the use of force against the killings of protesters in Minneapolis in order to ensure that law enforcement is seen as accountable to the public.
But none of that has happened. And won’t happen. It astounds me that this hypocrisy isn’t screaming like nails on a chalkboard!
If you constrain your analysis to: who is a violent actor, and how severe was the violent act in question, I think you can produce a more reasonable comment tbf.
OK. Let's look at this case of a guy who actually murdered a security guard at a federal building in cold blood, for political reasons, in a drive-by shooting that was organized in advance using the internet. He got 41 years, vs this other guy getting 100 years for attempted murder.
https://www.npr.org/2022/02/11/1080311940/alleged-boogaloo-m...
And you’re shifting the goalposts by implying (falsely) that the person covered in the article also personally committed all the offences you mentioned earlier, including shooting a federal officer.
And don’t just take my word for it. There is a good amount of recidivism by those who received pardons. Almost 100 have subsequently been charged with other crimes, including child molestation. I’d consider someone who, after getting pardoned for the j6 riot, continuing on to diddle kids, a violent criminal.
> Perhaps most strikingly, five recipients of presidential clemency were arrested in connection with conduct that occurred at least in part subsequent to Trump’s freeing them from prison—meaning that Trump’s clemency order on the first day of his second term may have actively facilitated criminal conduct. These include:
> Andrew Paul Johnson, who was freed from prison as a result of the pardon in 2025, was convicted of five charges, including child molestation, in February 2026, and sentenced to life in prison. The criminal conduct for which he was convicted took place both before and after his pardon.
> Zachary Alam, who was convicted of felony charges of grand larceny and burglary just months after his pardon.
> Ryan Nichols, who was charged with deadly conduct and harassment on May 10, 2026, after allegedly threatening a person with a gun in a church parking lot.
https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/the-jan-6-pardons--how-...
> If you want to concede that it's fascist to want violent criminals prosecuted,
I believe it is fascist to bring trumped up charges for ridiculousness. Say for example the case of “sandwich guy” who the DoJ spent three attempts at a grand jury to bring federal charges. For throwing a fully loaded Subway sandwich at a kitted out ICE officer.
Started by sending a full swat team of twenty armed agents to his apartment. Complete with a slickly produced propaganda video for your enjoyment! https://x.com/WhiteHouse/status/1956114803295953325
Mind you this is, once again, for the violent crime of throwing an Italian hoagie at a federal officer with full body armor.
Then they failed to get a grand jury to indict him on felony assault … finally charging him with misdemeanor assault.
Thankfully he was acquitted.
Tell me that’s not fascist.
That's problematic as you could literally append that to any action and thus condemn it as illegal e.g. met to have some coffees and a chat ... with the intention to commit a violent crime.
The problem is that there's not necessarily any connection between the activity and the alleged violent crime - that's what needs to be proven such as highlighting specific signal conversations that were evidence of planning the crime.
Also, what is problematic about first aid kits? How is being in a "concealed" position problematic?
I'm sorry, do you believe it's legal to meet someone for coffee and credibly plan the commission of a crime, which you then go on to commit?
Simply appending the phrase "with the intention to commit a violent crime" should not be allowed without evidence of that intention.
No, that doesn't fly, and the intent isn't clear. Even if there were intent, those three bullet points still are not an crime or valid charges. As a member of the jury, I would reject them 100%.
Extending your pitiful logic just a few steps, people would be locked up for 30 years just for being born.
> If you want to concede that it's fascist to want violent criminals prosectued
No relation. Violent crime must of course be prosecuted, but it shouldn't have to depend on trumped up charges or weak accusations of intent.
Edit: downvoting me doesn’t answer the question. If you have a definition please reply! If nobody can define “antifa” how the heck can you prosecute someone for being a member of it?
Are you implying that simply carrying a legal firearm while at a protest means you can be murdered, without any subsequent investigation?
Again the Overton window has shifted so far just in my lifetime. This would have been front page news with congressional investigations just 10-15 years ago.
Pictures of protesters openly carrying weapons at demonstrations who were not subsequently murdered by federal agents.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/09/us/politics/michigan-stat...
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/28/us/kyle-rittenhouse-ar15-...
https://www.reuters.com/article/world/black-armed-protesters...
Picture of Alex pretti before he was murdered.
https://media.cnn.com/api/v1/images/stellar/prod/ice-shootin...
In fact, the federal government is using intimidation tactics to individuals who do nothing other than try to name the ICE agents who have murdered US citizens. Just a few days ago, armed ICE agents confronted a poll worker at a polling site in Syracuse NY to warn her about a social media post where she simply named the ICE agent who killed Renee Good: https://apnews.com/article/ice-poll-worker-syracuse-fa082f8a... (post in question here: https://www.instagram.com/p/DTQ1FYDkyua/)
Back to Alex, his pistol was concealed and at no point did he attempt to reach for it. There are at least a half dozen angles of video showing the entire interaction (thanks smartphones!) so it's not too hard to see for yourself from multiple vantage points.
Also worth noting that the husband did not conceal evidence of the wife committing a crime. Having political zines isn't illegal. The zines were circumstantial evidence that the prosecution wanted to use to characterize her general political views. They had no direct relation to the events at the ICE detention center.
The irony of The Intercept requiring my identity is funny.
In what way would a box of magazines be evidence of any one of those crimes? I very much doubt there was an article called "My plan to commit an act of violence by Maricela Rueda" in any of them. The ones they choose to photograph for inclusion in their criminal complaint (likely because they were the most scary looking ones) appear to have been written many years ago. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ce/Literatu...
Two of those pictured are on archive.org and War in the streets : the story of urban combat from Calais to Khafji is available at amazon.com
https://dn790008.ca.archive.org/0/items/ItsVacantTakeIt/its-...
https://ia601803.us.archive.org/29/items/the-anarchist-libra...
It sounds to me like she was just making arrangements with her husband from jail to handle their property. She told him to have her car towed because it was left on the street by someone else's house and she told him to "move whatever you need to from the house" which is a pretty sensible heads up to give someone when you know that their house will likely be ransacked later by police who could take or destroy anything.
This further drew the connection between Sanchez, Rueda, and the Sotos. This connection was important for purposes of Pinkerton liability and showing they all shared the same motive, intent, knowledge, and foreseeability."
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.41...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinkerton_liability
No lawyer, today is the day I learned about Pinkerton Liability, but apparently under it you can be held liable for the actions of your co-conspirators.
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).
The 30 years is for evidence tampering. The rest have been convicted of various terrorist charges. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Prairieland_ICE_detention...
It's really funny because all of this has played out in the past with people that actually conspired to do all that and more and walked away free. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Smith_sedition_trial
That case, the incredibly bad handling of Ruby Ridge and Waco put a real freeze on the FBI dealing with domestic terrorism, and then the focus moved outward with 9/11.
But now "domestic terrorism" is priority number 1. Enjoy your choices folks.
Describing such an act without the obvious context is a pretty good way to point out that it's partisan text and likely misrepresents other things. Listen, we've all been on the Internet a few decades. This kind of understatement of things is not new to any of us. "Oh so just because your country thinks it's not a big deal for someone to go to America to fly a plane means it should get bombed?" No, champ, it's the flying of the plane into the WTC and subsequent sheltering of the guy who planned it that does that.
I would assume they'd need something like details of specific conversations, but I am of the opinion that the U.S. administration and courts are acting in bad faith and especially with regards to the operations of ICE.
The U.S. administration seems to not require evidence for lots of statements and especially regarding ICE (c.f. statements made about Renee Good after she was murdered).
I really doubt it.
Sir, a second zine has struck the south tower
I am also not a proponent of absolutist free speech if you check my comment history, but I cannot imagine a realm where the details linked in the small part of the article that's not walled off and the details in this thread don't align to the government trying to prevent bad thought.
I am open to more detail if anyone has some to provide
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"
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.
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".
as in well organised militia’s right to bear arms? They demonstrated a level of organisation much higher level than Rittenhouse ever did.
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.
And he got less of a sentence. I don’t think your argument equating these 2 is arguing what you think it is.
Zines related to a shootout and murder by an armed group after retrieving them from the home of one of the parties involved, discussing it on a jail call, and placing them in a third person's apartment.
Oh yes, how could we have forgotten the crucial detail that every single person in the group had their hands on the trigger.
Wait, that's because it didn't happen.
One individual fired their weapon. (And whether that's a murder is very questionable, but let's set that aside).
Nobody else should've been facing prosecution in this case.
I only have the .gov version, but 20-30 rounds were fired, Song was convicted as the attacker apparently and Baumann and Morris were evidently armed as well (the woods gunmen). It wasn’t the whole group but doesn’t appear to be just one individual.
They were successfully tied together by the prosecution as conspirators to the satisfaction of juries by their shared mission, chats, organization, papers, safe houses, and prior meetings among other things.
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.
No it doesn’t. It’s enshrined in the constitution. The entire point of the United States is to be able to change the system. I’m struggling to imagine a worse take than this.
Have you read about the Continental Congress? They thought pretty hard about these questions. They did not engage in insurrection (what would surely today be called "terrorism") against the crown lightly and without great consideration.
You should take the opportunity of the 250th anniversary to educate yourself as opposed to writing such comments. Nothing about your comment makes any sense in almost any legal context, in America or otherwise. How could something like laws of armed conflict even be comprehensible under your standard? Truly I am sad for the state of your mind that you wrote such a comment.
I meant more along the lines of "30 years for hiding a zine" being a weird take. It is logically inconsistent, IMO, to both want to fight a system, and want to be afforded its privileges.
But isn't this exactly what people do when they vote for a different government?
Why do we read people their rights or formally charge them? If someone has committed a crime is that not in some sense "fighting [the] system"? Why would then the same apparent contradiction you highlight in your last sentence not arise?
Even in cases of extreme conflict, there is a certain base state of "rights" or "privileges" one wants to be afforded, and it is not contradictory of people to do so. See the laws of armed conflict. Even if someone is a complete psychopath and doesn't respect these laws, the law itself usually does not respond in kind.
That is the nature of the law. If the law could allow for a situation where "legality goes out the window and any outrage about punishment becomes moot" then its no longer law. The only state this exists is one of anarchy. Far more likely in some situation would be the state tries to exercise some emergency power, itself sanctioned by law. In such an extreme case the contradiction no longer applies because the "privileges" have been legally suspended. However, now society has entered a dubious state re the nature of the law itself. Alternatively, take the Codes of Hammurabi. But then the proposed contradiction also does not apply. For in an eye for an eye there are far less afforded privileges to appeal to.
A state of dubious legality was essentially the state of affairs that convinced the founders revolution was inevitable. But there was never - and is usually never - a state where "legality goes out the window". That is anarchy. Even if the founders had lost, surely they would have a right to be outraged if instead of simply being hung (as was the legal remedy for their acts at the time) the British soldiers had rioted and killed all of them and their families on sight.
There is no contradiction here. It would not be a "weird take". Frankly if some among them were also outraged at being hung, I'm not sure that is a "weird take" either. It certainly doesn't strike me as "logically inconsistent". Its not like the "privileges" of life and liberty are granted by the government after all. If you believe in the principles as the founders did, those rights are given by a power beyond that of any terrestrial government. You may be deprived of them by such an entity, but it is not something the state gave you. Therefore once again, your proposed contradiction doesn't really make sense. I guess your position boils down to "if you do wrong against someone, you should have no expectations about your treatment in return"? But I don't think this is ever actually seriously considered as an ethical position when it comes to a people and their government. At least not since divine right and the like went out of fashion. At the end of the day, one can both transgress and be entitled to outrage about how the state acts in response. I fail to see how the alternative is anything less than barbarism.
Of course not. I'm speaking directly about intent. It's pretty obvious to me that most crime is committed without any intent regarding "the system".
> Even in cases of extreme conflict, there is a certain base state of "rights" or "privileges" one wants to be afforded, and it is not contradictory of people to do so. See the laws of armed conflict. Even if someone is a complete psychopath and doesn't respect these laws, the law itself usually does not respond in kind.
Well yeah, but again, I'm not explaining this well, I'm not saying they shouldn't expect or want due process. At issue here is "30 years is too much for X". That's not "my rights are being violated", that's "the system is being especially mean to me with respect to applying the law to me with maximum force".
I think they can expect every legal protection due and that's fine, but the outrage at getting the book thrown at them when they were trying to burn the book is what I find strange.
> But there was never - and is usually never - a state where "legality goes out the window".
My wording was really bad. I didn't mean the state shouldn't follow the law, I just meant on a logical basis the "fight the power, wait no, not that power" position becomes inconsistent IMO.
Thank you for putting it together.
Come on, man. It was a conspiracy to shoot a cop. How do you not realize this?
A single individual did.
What you're calling for is collective punishment (a war crime in Geneva convention), and guilt by association (a perversion of justice).
Kindly, abscond and desist.
nineteen people have been criminally charged. including seven people who were not at the scene at the time of the shooting. [0]
you can have whatever subjective opinion about these prosecutions that you want. but at least try to get the underlying objective facts right.
0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Prairieland_ICE_detention...
Are we talking about those domestic terrorists who call themselves ICE?
The “crime” investigation obstructed by hiding the zines is being left-wing. That has no actual relation to the shooting. That is 100% a free speech issue.
> The “crime” investigation obstructed by hiding the zines is being left-wing.
That's nonsense. There are literally tens of millions of people in the country that are left wing (including literal communists openly calling for destruction of the United States and Western civilization). As long as they don't get violent, they don't have any trouble for it - in fact, some of them even win elections (including literal communists openly calling for destruction of the United States and Western civilization). The recipe is very simple - do not shoot people. Unfortunately, for the part of the left-wing, this is somehow too hard. They think shooting people who are not left-wing is A-OK. Those people need to be stopped, and putting them in jail for a long time is a good way to stop them. Not for their speech, but for the fact that speech is not good enough for them, and they choose violence.
* unless you're a law-enforcement officer, in which case folks like laughing_man are totally okay with you killing folks for vandalism because it upholds the legal system.
There is an inherent tension here in wanting the rule of law and peaceful democracy to prevail instead of political violence. But the reality is that doesn't always happen. Slavery wasn't ended with a vote, neither was the rule of King George over the colonies. Civil Rights weren't granted to black folks without a lot of civil disobedience and violent responses by the local authorities.
Hopefully the next administration will abolish ICE and will seriously reform immigration policies peacefully for the benefit of migrants and citizens alike.
This isn't to defend shooting at a police officer, but the framing by the administration and the right is this was the result of a dangerous left-wing terrorist organization, not a response to lawless actions by ICE spurred on by the administration, and how it's hurting people being ripped away from their lives because officials like Stephen Miller hate non-white immigrants.
And again, it was one person who did the shooting, not the dude who got 30 years for moving some written material.
I have yet to see anybody assert this, and I have yet to see it happen.
Inversely, someone shouldnt attack someone unless they accept the chance of death or harm.
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.
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...
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.
Being excessive is the point. It's to deter others from trying to copy their actions.
Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.[0]
So, when a woman has a bad experience with a doctor it could be misogyny. It's probably not, though, and if all we ever do is look into doctor's supposed misogyny then we aren't dealing with the root issue.
In it, there is no "pick and choose individual cases".
Lucky you. You have a "justice" system. We all got legal system or some sort of kangaroo systems in our corner of the world.
Intent ia required aspect of most crimes.
When it’s missing, the charged crime usually includes recklessness.
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.
> 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.
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...
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.
>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.
>take an action in the real world (not a crime)
>it's a crime
You're not make it any better, you're just repeating your desire to prosecute thoughtcrimes.
"Your honor, he wanted the President dead and he breathed! That's an action in the real world! Off with his head!"
By your logic putting a pin in a voodoo doll is a crime.
I implore you, abscond and perish promptly with such twisted cognizance of justice.
...maybe to the so-called Department of Justice, but not in any moral sense.
(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.)
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
They don't care about rule of law or consistent principle. They only care about it as a stick to beat their opponents with, if their side breaks it, it gets swept under the rug or defended with the thinnest of excuses.
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.
This case is crazy, but it's not insane for free speech reasons.
I’m sure Iran agrees.
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.
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.
But I'm far from a political scientist. Just an engineer with a history hobby, pattern matching.
One or two defendents were likely over prosecuted, the others it seems like a rather straight forward case. The issue is they were bombing/shooting at a federal facility which carries a higher sentence.
I find the sentences agregiously long, but that's a different discussion.
> One fired an AR-15 at the police, which goes beyond legitimate protest into inciting violence (and maybe even deliberate provocation).
Uh, I think firing a gun at someone is a bit more than "inciting violence", more like attempted murder?
The article doesn't say what the actual charges were. Was it tampering with evidence? Although 30 years for just tampering with evidence doesn't seem right either. Maybe there's more that they're leaving out?
Another comment in another HN thread shared this quote and link:
> "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...
Perhaps the cop getting shot in the neck is why they're throwing the book at them.
The shot cop had drawn a gun on someone who was running away.
The judge didn’t even permit the defense to argue “defense of self or others” as a justification.
If it can't, the second amendment is even more pointless than it already appears to be.
This was shortly before two people got murdered on camera by cops in Minneapolis, and after/around the same time as several other attempted murders (that would have been successfully spun as something chargeable on the victim, if not for video evidence showing plainly that the cops were lying)... so... it doesn't seem like a totally crazy notion to me, that a person might have shown up armed intending only to fire if it looked like a cop was going to shoot someone without a great reason. Maybe a jury would still have convicted (there was a bunch of fuckery with jury selection on this case, incidentally, and I mean way more than usual, even, it's worth reading about; like after what the court selected for on the jury, I believe they almost certainly would still have convicted) but not even being able to raise that defense seems nuts.
https://status451.com/2017/01/20/days-of-rage/
“People have completely forgotten that in 1972 we had over nineteen hundred domestic bombings in the United States.” — Max Noel, FBI (ret.)
Current times aren't even that spicy.
Prosecutors openly acknowledge strategically filing cases in his court for conservative causes.
It isn't a mistake that he was the judge here, and there is a very good chance the sentences will be overturned if not entire cases.
Of course, that doesn't matter to these defendants, some of whom probably do deserve punishment for what they did, and all of whom will suffer through years of appeals, stress, etc. because some prosecutor wanted to make their career on a big case, and will have moved on years before this is all resolved.
In short, the case was made for headlines, and after putting the defendants through hell, appeals will invalidate most of those headlines after incurring great expense on behalf of the taxpayers and defendants.
Then fair enough, one of them shot a police officer, but the officer survived, and even the FBI employee described in the trial that he’s not sure who shot first.
The US is insane.
What’s to stop any future antifa group from immediately opening up on all the personel involved? They were carrying the guns for it, and apparently it doesn’t make a hoot of difference to the sentencing…
A lot of HN visitors align right wing because capital usually aligns with the right wing, and people here are better off than most.
In my opinion capital will no longer serve as the reliable survival signal that it has upto now, and we're in a transitional era.
Optimizing purely for capital is not likely to ensure the survival of the human race, neither collective nor individual. Infact it is the very drive to maximize capital which is threatening our survival.
Not quite the right framing.
Look at the chain of events in the probable cause affidavit:https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.41...
Rueda was in the jail following arrest in an armed group after a firefight at the detention center where 20-30 rifle rounds had been fired, with a police officer killed as a result.
In jail, Rueda called her mother to contact Sanchez because he would know what was going on. Rueda later directly called Sanchez and said, 'whatever you need to do, move whatever you need at the house'. Sanchez indicated to Rueda he had already been to her house.
Sanchez was then observed leaving his house with zines and was observed moving the zines to an apartment of someone else's. The zines were the same TTPs for anti-gov, anti-LE civil unrest topics as seen before and thus considered likely to be connected.
All in all, moving evidence from an investigation involving armed groups engaging in firefights with ICE isn't a stretch once we don't omit the facts known.
Did he move the items because he believed that they were evidence being sought by the police?
I don't really care if they are actually evidence of something or not. I care if the accused believed they were and moved them for that purpose.
Was this person speeding or not? Should a cop ticket them for thinking they're doing something wrong, even if everything they were doing was legal?
Did they even think the zines were implicated as evidence? Were the zines implicated as evidence? What crimes were being committed by ownership of these zines?
If there's a warrant issued to search a house, and a resident of that house eats a ham sandwich for lunch while the cops are on their way, did they destroy evidence?
If I hide someone who I think did a crime to help them escape police, I've now implicated myself in the crime, whether or not my trying to hide them actually caused them to get away with it.
And yet when Trump does it with classified documents its not a problem. Where's his 30 years?
Did he even have a warrant issued to him related to these documents?
Are these zines even relevant evidence? Is everyone who has these magazines also now a criminal? What about other radical anti-government political pamphlets like Common Sense?
> If I hide someone who I think did a crime to help them escape police
Seems like quite a different thing than moving some political pamphlets. If they were shredding financial documents while being charged with financial crimes I'd agree. If they were hiding guns with a gun trafficking charge, I'd understand. Flushing drugs down the drain, sure. Moving political zines though? Really? What's the relevance again for the ownership of political pamphlets to committing crimes?
I don't know.
> Did he even have a warrant issued to him related to these documents?
Yes. A zine put together by a group that later goes on to commit a crime together, that promotes the ideologies underlying the crime, feels like the kind of thing a search warrant/subpoena would apply to. The fact that the person involved in the crime asked that they be hidden makes it pretty obvious that they saw it that way as well.
> Are these zines even relevant evidence?
Yes.
> Is everyone who has these magazines also now a criminal?
No. Things can be legal and evidence of ill intent at the same time.
> What about other radical anti-government political pamphlets like Common Sense?
If the editor(s) of that pamphlet went on to commit a crime of a political nature, no doubt their relationship with the pamphlet would be evidence used against them. It would also still be perfectly legal to have, and legal for others to continue publishing.
> Seems like quite a different thing than moving some political pamphlets.
It is, but I think the core idea of involving yourself in the crime by way of trying to hide evidence etc. is similar at least.
> What's the relevance again for the ownership of political pamphlets to committing crimes?
Depends on the crime. If they had robbed a Wendy's, probably no relevance. If they attacked an ICE building and the pamphlets established ill intent toward ICE, probably a lot of relevance.
Let's say you hide someone who didn't actually commit a crime but you thought they did. Are you still guilty of hiding a suspect in the crime that wasn't a crime?
The standard was:
> I care if the accused believed they were and moved them for that purpose
So to that poster what matters was that the zines being useful or not to the investigation was not relevant, it was if the person thought it was potentially relevant or not.
The wife owning some zines is evidence of a crime? Really? Owning some zines is evidence of criminal activity these days?
There is a difference between incorrect belief in what the law is vs incorrect belief in what actions you are taking. Although maybe that is not the most compelling. If you see the speed limit is 40, but you want to go faster so you hit the gas until you are going 60 and then brag with photo evidence about how you don't believe in speed limits on on facebook. Unbeknownst to you your spedometer was broken and you only hit 40. Should you get a ticket?
That seems like a tougher call, but still a bit silly to give a ticket.
a different example.
You intend to murder someone. The intended victim puts their clothes on a manequin in hopes of distracting you while they make their escape. You shoot the manequin. Did you commit a crime?
And if they are, what crime was owning the magazines involved in? That you happen to read some of the same articles as someone else who committed a crime? Is sharing the same books as others now implicating you as a terrorist?
Neither is shooting a gun (at e.g. a gun range). This case has about as much to do with moving magazines as a murder charge has with discharging a firearm. Its intrinsic to the crime, but not what the actual crime is.
> I wouldn't normally assume having some magazines is evidence of a crime.
If someone called you up and told you that the magazine contained evidence of a crime, the police ard looking for them, and asked you to hide the magazines, would your assumptions change? Because that seems to be what happened here.
> And if they are, what crime was owning the magazines involved in? That you happen to read some of the same articles as someone else who committed a crime? Is sharing the same books as others now implicating you as a terrorist?
That is not even remotely what happened here. Nobody got in trouble for owning or reading the magazines in question.
Not at all.
Committing an act with the intent to murder is a crime. Actual intent alone isn't.
It's sickening how this could even possibly happen.
Texas man sentenced to 30 years for transporting pamphlets
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48659703
Signs you're a dangerous terrorist: using Signal, moving zines
Where can I read more about this?
Political violence is mandatory in a democracy, or you get what you have.
I know some other guy that did this after he was beaten in some sort of contest. Don’t think he was ever punished for it. Landed on his feet, building a new ballroom now.
You know what they say about glass houses and stones, right?
> https://www.newsweek.com/full-list-capitol-rioters-jailed-se...
The longest sentence of an actual rioter was 22 years.
Compare that to this and explain why he got more for less
Again your turn for an explanation.
If your roommate attended a protest where someone got shot, and you transported their zines that indicate your roommate shares political ideology with the shooter, is anyone really under the impression this is not criminal in nature?
And yes, that’s not criminal.
30 years is absolutely excessive, but that doesn't mean the guy is not guilty.
Now, an article comes out about sentences handed down for ... free speech ... and the reaction is to close the tab because they ... made some speech that you didn't like? Free speech for me, not for thee?
Regardless, nowadays online, even in tech circles like this one, you have a much broader sample of the general population. In the case of HN, it's split more evenly than you'd expect from the general population between software developers, and tech entrepreneur types (or at least wannabes). The latter group is perfectly happy with oppressive power structures as long as they help them make money, and aspire to be the authority that says "no".
You don't have a right to enter a private establishment as a journalist. You don't have a right to interrupt a religious ceremony under the banner of free speech. Don Lemon was up front, in the church, with his mic in the pastor's face, while the congregation was still there and the pastor had already asked them to leave.
Look, I get it. The "moving zines" narrative isn't for me or you, because we can read beyond the emotional-based framing. It's populism, hoping to radicalize the less-literate.
Hacker News is fact-based, not emotional-based. So these stories won't work well here compared to Reddit etc.
[0]: https://www.nlg.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/Fed-Complaint...
Besides I don't think you can neatly cleave the world, or this website, or the news, into "facts" and "emotions" as you seem to think.
Talk about an "emotional-based framing" meant to "radicalize the less-literate" ! For starters, terrorists attack civilians rather than de facto militaries. These are like the opposite of terrorists, however misguided we might think they are.
Regardless of framing, the core argument here is that the contents of political publications (ie protected speech) are not appropriately evidence in a criminal proceeding, therefore attempting to hide them is not tampering with evidence. Anybody who believes in the first amendment to the US Constitution should be receptive to this argument.
I thought the second amendment was all about stopping the bad guy with the gun?
Hacker News is a rational fact-based website. There are lots of other populist websites where people react more emotionally to things. Surely you'd have more success posting this on Reddit or TikTok?
Such charges are outright nonsense, for one thing. And I think that's relevant since it's the only possible jutification for the utter forfeiture of rights.
30-year sentence for transporting zines is a five-alarm fire for free speech
https://theintercept.com/2026/06/26/daniel-sanchez-estrada-zines-prairieland-free-speech/