3 ms·

The second paragraph of the article contradicts the title. There, it is stated that the charges are against a husband for removing evidence (presumably circumst

by 7e 11mo ago

The second paragraph of the article contradicts the title. There, it is stated that the charges are against a husband for removing evidence (presumably circumstantial evidence) against his wife. Evidence tampering is always illegal, even if it is a box of ideological literature (which presumably would be used to establish motive).

mrala 11mo ago
The article continues to argue the point: > Sanchez was charged following a search that ICE proclaimed on social media turned up “literal insurrectionist propaganda” he had allegedly transported from his home to an apartment, noting that “insurrectionary anarchism is regarded as the most serious form of domestic (non-jihadi) terrorist threat.” The tweet also said that Sanchez is a green card holder granted legal status through the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. > The indictment claims Sanchez was transporting those materials to conceal them because they incriminated his wife. But how can possession of literature incriminate anyone, let alone someone who isn’t even accused of anything but being present when someone else allegedly fired a gun? Zines aren’t contraband; it’s not illegal to be an anarchist or read about anarchism. I don’t know why Sanchez allegedly moved the box of documents, but if it was because he (apparently correctly) feared prosecutors would try to use them against his wife, that’s a commentary on prosecutors’ lawlessness, not Sanchez’s.
- Ferret7446 11mo ago
  This is some serious mental gymnastics. Possessing "legal" goods can absolutely be circumstantially incriminating. Carrying around a bat can be circumstantial evidence of a crime. Carrying lockpicks (in CA at least) is legal, but carrying them around a neighborhood where you don't live at 2am is going to get you brought to the police station.
  - handoflixue 11mo ago
    I feel like you are ignoring the bit where this is presented as "the most serious form of domestic (non-jihadi) terrorist threat." Also "someone who isn’t even accused of anything"
  - Volundr 11mo ago
    I understand how one might use a bat to hurt someone or break something. I understand how one might use lockpicks to steal something. I don't understand how one might use a magazine or pamphlet to shoot a police officer.

by 7e 11mo ago

mrala 11mo ago

The article continues to argue the point: > Sanchez was charged following a search that ICE proclaimed on social media turned up “literal insurrectionist propaganda” he had allegedly transported from his home to an apartment, noting that “insurrectionary anarchism is regarded as the most serious form of domestic (non-jihadi) terrorist threat.” The tweet also said that Sanchez is a green card holder granted legal status through the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. > The indictment claims Sanchez was transporting those materials to conceal them because they incriminated his wife. But how can possession of literature incriminate anyone, let alone someone who isn’t even accused of anything but being present when someone else allegedly fired a gun? Zines aren’t contraband; it’s not illegal to be an anarchist or read about anarchism. I don’t know why Sanchez allegedly moved the box of documents, but if it was because he (apparently correctly) feared prosecutors would try to use them against his wife, that’s a commentary on prosecutors’ lawlessness, not Sanchez’s.

Ferret7446 11mo ago
This is some serious mental gymnastics. Possessing "legal" goods can absolutely be circumstantially incriminating. Carrying around a bat can be circumstantial evidence of a crime. Carrying lockpicks (in CA at least) is legal, but carrying them around a neighborhood where you don't live at 2am is going to get you brought to the police station.
- handoflixue 11mo ago
  I feel like you are ignoring the bit where this is presented as "the most serious form of domestic (non-jihadi) terrorist threat." Also "someone who isn’t even accused of anything"
- Volundr 11mo ago
  I understand how one might use a bat to hurt someone or break something. I understand how one might use lockpicks to steal something. I don't understand how one might use a magazine or pamphlet to shoot a police officer.