4 ms·

FBI arrests US Army veteran for 'conspiracy' over protest against ICE

117 points by BallsInIt 1y ago

nomel 1y ago
Facts start at the third section, "‘An issue of selective prosecution’", after ~30 paragraphs of character/story/emotion building. > Mavalwalla was one of hundreds of people to respond to a 11 June social media post from the former president of the Spokane city council that encouraged protesters to block an Ice transport they believed would carry two Venezuelan immigrants who were in the country legally, petitioning for asylum when they were detained. > “I am going to sit in front of the bus,” Ben Stuckart, the former city council president, wrote. “Feel free to join me.” With this "problem" for the prosecutors quoted: > In this case, prosecutors would just have to prove that defendants agreed in concert to impede or injure an officer.
- malcolmgreaves 1y ago
  The facts start at the beginning: - the actual US attorney for the area was pressured to resign from Republicans (Trump) - Republicans put in a guy with 0 legal experience who was previously working for a political group. Said guy also wanted the US government overthrown on January 6th as he supports the insurrectionists. This is also the guy who supports the Republican's attempt to illegally erase the 14th amendment. - The person who was arrested and charged was merely exercising his first amendment rights to peacefully assemble and protest. He did nothing violent nor criminal.
  - nomel 1y ago
    > nor criminal IANAL, but it appears to be criminal: 18 U.S.C. 111 This does not appear to be covered under "peaceful protest": https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/protesters-rights https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/protesters-rights
    - xracy 1y ago
      you're quoting a lot of legal code for someone starting all of their posts with "IANAL" The point of commenting IANAL, is that legal code is complicated. The ACLU is likely giving "best-practices", but that's not legal code. It's guidelines. This feels pretty first-amendment to me, but I have little doubt that SCOTUS would think that people's first-amendment rights are less important than the Gov't's ability to do what it's doing. I just also think that SCOTUS is wrong and full of very political actors who are grossly partial towards the current administration.
- rafram 1y ago
  The Bundy brothers - the ones who led an armed occupation of a wildlife refuge for 41 days - were charged with that same crime, and they were acquitted: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/27/oregon-militia-standoff-bundy-brothers-not-guilty-trial https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/27/oregon-milit... So I would caution against reading a short description of the law and thinking it's an open-and-shut case against the protesters.
  - nomel 1y ago
    IANAL, but that cases seem very different. This appears direct (prevent the federal officer from completing their enforcement action), where the Bundy brothers appears to have been indirect (in response to a federal officers that completed their action): > In response to the imprisonment of two Harney County ranchers, who were prosecuted for arson, Ammon and Ryan led a group of activists in an occupation of the Malheur national wildlife refuge, an obscure sanctuary for birds. > Ammon declared that he and other protesters, some who openly carried firearms and took over government buildings and equipment, would stay until the ranchers were freed and the refuge land was given to locals to control.
    - rafram 1y ago
      The thing that prompted the occupation isn't relevant. They physically occupied federal property and prevented federal officers from entering or from performing their duties. Much like in this case!
      - throwawayffffas 1y ago
        And much like the other case there is a first amendment component, and the balance of how much the government can override ones right to express one's self when doing so impedes the work of the government.
everyone 1y ago
Seeing, not just stuff like this, but a myriad of things, imo the US is cooked. EU countries that still have enlightenment ideals alive need to cut ties asap. In particular we need our own completely independent armies, arms production, and nuclear deterrence. Imo what we're seeing in the US now is the visible "blooming" of things which have been growing and metastasizing since the 80's.
- linohh 1y ago
  "Thank you Ronald Reagan, your legacy is intact"
- leoh 1y ago
  I agree for the moment. My hope is that cases like this will form the basis of positive change in the next few years.
standardUser 1y ago
The complete lack of pushback from traditional conservatives against Trump's constant overreach and his complete disregard for basic civil liberties and the rule of law continues to shock me.
- aYsY4dDQ2NrcNzA 1y ago
  It was always just a mask.
- PieTime 1y ago
  I’ve asked myself why my grandparents did not try to overthrow their Nazi regime. They were not the most immoral people on the surface, they just viewed their actions happening as the only way of survival. I think the answer lies in seeing what really happening instead of what’s portrayed as happening on their propaganda outlets. Articles like this start to transition people away from supporting fascism if they are believed.
  - onetimeusename 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - krapp 1y ago
      >There was large scale mass migration into the country that appeared to be facilitated by the last administration. Did you forget to specify "illegal" migration in regards to this conspiracy theory or did the mask just slip here?
      - anonfordays 1y ago
        No need to be any more specific. The only mass migration into the country over the past decade that appeared to be facilitated by the last admimistration was an illegal one.
      - like_any_other 1y ago
        You think this is an argument about paperwork?
mrinterweb 1y ago
"Conspiracy to Impede or Injure Officers" seems like a pretty broad category, and should be separate things. Conspiracy to impede is one thing. That might be applied to planning to be at a protest where you may be in the way of an officer. Injuring is a very different thing. Conflating the two into a single charge seems disproportionate. This conflation seems intentional to give an excuse to just round up anyone who plans to be at a protest, and charge them with a crime that has a punishment equal to assaulting an officer.
- malcolmgreaves 1y ago
  Conspiracy to impede is unconstitutional, as people in the US have the right to peacefully assemble. If cops decide to illegally break up a protest, then they can say "oh you're impending me!" and no one actually has a 1st amendment right.
  - mrinterweb 1y ago
    I'm certainly not advocating that "conspiracy to impede" should be illegal. I just feel that putting "impede" and "injure" together into a single charge seems like a way to deal excessive punishments in a way that could be very broadly interpreted.
  - throwawayffffas 1y ago
    Taking this to its logical conclusion you should be able to walk up the hill, push aside the cops, enter the rotunda, occupy the chambers of Congress all within your first amendment rights. There is nuance and balance to be had in law, your rights end where others begin.
    - clipsy 1y ago
      > Taking this to its logical conclusion you should be able to walk up the hill, push aside the cops, enter the rotunda, occupy the chambers of Congress all within your first amendment rights. Isn't this exactly what the MAGA crowd has professed to believe since 1/6/2021?
Aurornis 1y ago
This article is confusing. I think the actual charges are this: > According to the indictment, Mavalwalla and his co-defendants “physically blocked the drive-way of the federal facility and/or physically pushed against officers despite orders to disperse and efforts to remove them from the property”. And it was recorded and posted to Instagram: > A one-minute video posted on Instagram shows the army veteran briefly jostle with an officer whose face is covered by a ski mask and sunglasses. Mavalwalla then locks arms with other demonstrators to block the gate. Sidestepping the political hot topic, if you use Facebook to coordinate with others to block federal officers from doing their job and then someone from your group records it and posts it to Instagram, your lawyer is going to have a hard time finding a way out of charges like this.
- nemo44x 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - kccoder 1y ago
    > The problem is authorities just let people get away with these things for so long, especially if it was from a certain side. Are we talking about the rich, powerful, and the politically connected side? Because they kinda get away with everything. Just look at the current administration, they clearly don't believe any laws apply to themselves. When the justice system doesn't administer justice, eventually the people take justice into their own hands, which is what we're starting to see more and more often. Hopefully justice will eventually prevail.
xtiansimon 1y ago
I’m passively auditing articles and IG reports on federal arrest, indictment, protests, and military action on US citizens. In this mode I’m asking myself, What’s being reported here. Is it same as previous stories or different? This story features a citizen, participating in a protest. That’s not unusual. What is unusual is a federal arrest 30 days after the event. I’m not saying this as fact of arrests (could be happening a lot for all I know), but only in terms of what is reported. And when you watch the videos of someone who gets in the face of law enforcement (I can’t see the video on the gift link, so I’m going by descriptions) invariably they are pulled offline and taken down by 4-6 police. Police are taking any physical interaction as assault and arresting people on the spot. (Maybe the police were overwhelmed or afraid this veteran would hurt them compared to the women I see shoved and dragged in IG videos). Also, why 30 days later? The person who would have had the responsibility to arrest and charge resigned, and their replacement is reportedly unqualified? As a citizen who has the right to protest (1st amendment), I’m not thinking that the government is taking names. Now I am, which is possibly the point. AND! The president is calling for the end of No-Cash Bail. Do you see the chilling effect potential? Not to mention the hypocrisy/asymmetry of January 6th as an event of obvious violent obstruction of federal procedure (every accusation is a confession). This arrest is notable in comparison to other reported arrests.

117 points by BallsInIt 1y ago

Facts start at the third section, "‘An issue of selective prosecution’", after ~30 paragraphs of character/story/emotion building. > Mavalwalla was one of hundreds of people to respond to a 11 June social media post from the former president of the Spokane city council that encouraged protesters to block an Ice transport they believed would carry two Venezuelan immigrants who were in the country legally, petitioning for asylum when they were detained. > “I am going to sit in front of the bus,” Ben Stuckart, the former city council president, wrote. “Feel free to join me.” With this "problem" for the prosecutors quoted: > In this case, prosecutors would just have to prove that defendants agreed in concert to impede or injure an officer.

malcolmgreaves 1y ago
The facts start at the beginning: - the actual US attorney for the area was pressured to resign from Republicans (Trump) - Republicans put in a guy with 0 legal experience who was previously working for a political group. Said guy also wanted the US government overthrown on January 6th as he supports the insurrectionists. This is also the guy who supports the Republican's attempt to illegally erase the 14th amendment. - The person who was arrested and charged was merely exercising his first amendment rights to peacefully assemble and protest. He did nothing violent nor criminal.
- nomel 1y ago
  > nor criminal IANAL, but it appears to be criminal: 18 U.S.C. 111 This does not appear to be covered under "peaceful protest": https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/protesters-rights https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/protesters-rights
  - xracy 1y ago
    you're quoting a lot of legal code for someone starting all of their posts with "IANAL" The point of commenting IANAL, is that legal code is complicated. The ACLU is likely giving "best-practices", but that's not legal code. It's guidelines. This feels pretty first-amendment to me, but I have little doubt that SCOTUS would think that people's first-amendment rights are less important than the Gov't's ability to do what it's doing. I just also think that SCOTUS is wrong and full of very political actors who are grossly partial towards the current administration.
rafram 1y ago
The Bundy brothers - the ones who led an armed occupation of a wildlife refuge for 41 days - were charged with that same crime, and they were acquitted: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/27/oregon-militia-standoff-bundy-brothers-not-guilty-trial https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/27/oregon-milit... So I would caution against reading a short description of the law and thinking it's an open-and-shut case against the protesters.
- nomel 1y ago
  IANAL, but that cases seem very different. This appears direct (prevent the federal officer from completing their enforcement action), where the Bundy brothers appears to have been indirect (in response to a federal officers that completed their action): > In response to the imprisonment of two Harney County ranchers, who were prosecuted for arson, Ammon and Ryan led a group of activists in an occupation of the Malheur national wildlife refuge, an obscure sanctuary for birds. > Ammon declared that he and other protesters, some who openly carried firearms and took over government buildings and equipment, would stay until the ranchers were freed and the refuge land was given to locals to control.
  - rafram 1y ago
    The thing that prompted the occupation isn't relevant. They physically occupied federal property and prevented federal officers from entering or from performing their duties. Much like in this case!
    - throwawayffffas 1y ago
      And much like the other case there is a first amendment component, and the balance of how much the government can override ones right to express one's self when doing so impedes the work of the government.

everyone 1y ago

Seeing, not just stuff like this, but a myriad of things, imo the US is cooked. EU countries that still have enlightenment ideals alive need to cut ties asap. In particular we need our own completely independent armies, arms production, and nuclear deterrence. Imo what we're seeing in the US now is the visible "blooming" of things which have been growing and metastasizing since the 80's.

linohh 1y ago
"Thank you Ronald Reagan, your legacy is intact"
leoh 1y ago
I agree for the moment. My hope is that cases like this will form the basis of positive change in the next few years.

standardUser 1y ago

The complete lack of pushback from traditional conservatives against Trump's constant overreach and his complete disregard for basic civil liberties and the rule of law continues to shock me.

aYsY4dDQ2NrcNzA 1y ago
It was always just a mask.
PieTime 1y ago
I’ve asked myself why my grandparents did not try to overthrow their Nazi regime. They were not the most immoral people on the surface, they just viewed their actions happening as the only way of survival. I think the answer lies in seeing what really happening instead of what’s portrayed as happening on their propaganda outlets. Articles like this start to transition people away from supporting fascism if they are believed.
- onetimeusename 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - krapp 1y ago
    >There was large scale mass migration into the country that appeared to be facilitated by the last administration. Did you forget to specify "illegal" migration in regards to this conspiracy theory or did the mask just slip here?
    - anonfordays 1y ago
      No need to be any more specific. The only mass migration into the country over the past decade that appeared to be facilitated by the last admimistration was an illegal one.
    - like_any_other 1y ago
      You think this is an argument about paperwork?

mrinterweb 1y ago

"Conspiracy to Impede or Injure Officers" seems like a pretty broad category, and should be separate things. Conspiracy to impede is one thing. That might be applied to planning to be at a protest where you may be in the way of an officer. Injuring is a very different thing. Conflating the two into a single charge seems disproportionate. This conflation seems intentional to give an excuse to just round up anyone who plans to be at a protest, and charge them with a crime that has a punishment equal to assaulting an officer.

malcolmgreaves 1y ago
Conspiracy to impede is unconstitutional, as people in the US have the right to peacefully assemble. If cops decide to illegally break up a protest, then they can say "oh you're impending me!" and no one actually has a 1st amendment right.
- mrinterweb 1y ago
  I'm certainly not advocating that "conspiracy to impede" should be illegal. I just feel that putting "impede" and "injure" together into a single charge seems like a way to deal excessive punishments in a way that could be very broadly interpreted.
- throwawayffffas 1y ago
  Taking this to its logical conclusion you should be able to walk up the hill, push aside the cops, enter the rotunda, occupy the chambers of Congress all within your first amendment rights. There is nuance and balance to be had in law, your rights end where others begin.
  - clipsy 1y ago
    > Taking this to its logical conclusion you should be able to walk up the hill, push aside the cops, enter the rotunda, occupy the chambers of Congress all within your first amendment rights. Isn't this exactly what the MAGA crowd has professed to believe since 1/6/2021?

Aurornis 1y ago

This article is confusing. I think the actual charges are this: > According to the indictment, Mavalwalla and his co-defendants “physically blocked the drive-way of the federal facility and/or physically pushed against officers despite orders to disperse and efforts to remove them from the property”. And it was recorded and posted to Instagram: > A one-minute video posted on Instagram shows the army veteran briefly jostle with an officer whose face is covered by a ski mask and sunglasses. Mavalwalla then locks arms with other demonstrators to block the gate. Sidestepping the political hot topic, if you use Facebook to coordinate with others to block federal officers from doing their job and then someone from your group records it and posts it to Instagram, your lawyer is going to have a hard time finding a way out of charges like this.

nemo44x 1y ago
[flagged]
- kccoder 1y ago
  > The problem is authorities just let people get away with these things for so long, especially if it was from a certain side. Are we talking about the rich, powerful, and the politically connected side? Because they kinda get away with everything. Just look at the current administration, they clearly don't believe any laws apply to themselves. When the justice system doesn't administer justice, eventually the people take justice into their own hands, which is what we're starting to see more and more often. Hopefully justice will eventually prevail.

xtiansimon 1y ago

I’m passively auditing articles and IG reports on federal arrest, indictment, protests, and military action on US citizens. In this mode I’m asking myself, What’s being reported here. Is it same as previous stories or different? This story features a citizen, participating in a protest. That’s not unusual. What is unusual is a federal arrest 30 days after the event. I’m not saying this as fact of arrests (could be happening a lot for all I know), but only in terms of what is reported. And when you watch the videos of someone who gets in the face of law enforcement (I can’t see the video on the gift link, so I’m going by descriptions) invariably they are pulled offline and taken down by 4-6 police. Police are taking any physical interaction as assault and arresting people on the spot. (Maybe the police were overwhelmed or afraid this veteran would hurt them compared to the women I see shoved and dragged in IG videos). Also, why 30 days later? The person who would have had the responsibility to arrest and charge resigned, and their replacement is reportedly unqualified? As a citizen who has the right to protest (1st amendment), I’m not thinking that the government is taking names. Now I am, which is possibly the point. AND! The president is calling for the end of No-Cash Bail. Do you see the chilling effect potential? Not to mention the hypocrisy/asymmetry of January 6th as an event of obvious violent obstruction of federal procedure (every accusation is a confession). This arrest is notable in comparison to other reported arrests.