5 ms·

The sentences are pretty crazy but what’s with the strange understatement. > One fired an AR-15 at the police, which goes beyond legitimate protest into inciti

by arjie 4mo ago

The sentences are pretty crazy but what’s with the strange understatement. > One fired an AR-15 at the police, which goes beyond legitimate protest into inciting violence (and maybe even deliberate provocation) The accurate statement is that he shot and wounded a police officer who he intentionally targeted according to his own testimony (where he claims he did so because he thought the cop was going to shoot his guys). > Signs you're a dangerous terrorist: using Signal, moving zines The accurate statement is: “hiding zines that could be considered evidence of affiliation at the request of your arrested wife”. Listen, the sentences seem politically motivated. They’re quite long. But if you joined a protest group where the organizer shoots a policeman and you’ve all got weapons at home and then you tell people to move the material you have at home that indicates you’re part of the group then I think the convictions are pretty accurate. This is pretty out there stuff. And I’m not going to give the benefit of the doubt to the guy who yells “get to the rifles” then gets to the rifles and shoots a policeman that he could have been ‘potentially inciting violence’ by shooting. He committed violence. And hiding the facts here does not make me sympathetic. https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/sentencing-for-8-accused-of-antifa-ties-convicted-on-terrorism-charges-over-shooting-at-tx-immigration-facility/4039978/ https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/sentencing-for-8-accused-o...

postpawl 4mo ago
[dead]
copper-float 4mo ago
[flagged]
- Arodex 4mo ago
  If you want a discussion, here it is: >this kind of behavior can't be normalized What happened to the Jan 6 rioters? Ashli Babbitt received military funeral honors for what? Discuss: “Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.” What is the intent of the 2nd amendment? It allows citizens to beat arms, but for what purpose?
  - Joker_vD 4mo ago
    > It allows citizens to beat arms, but for what purpose? To form state-level militia. It even starts with a sunset condition: "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, ..." — so arguably, since a well-maintained militia is universally considered in no way necessary (nor sufficient) for state security, the second amendment should have lost its power long time ago.
    - Terr_ 4mo ago
      > To form state-level militia. Right, to expand on that a bit: 1. When the Second Amendment was written, there was already an active legal framework of "well-regulated militias" through the Articles of Confederation. [0] Every single state was required to run and fund their own militia. 2. The bill of rights was originally (pre-civil-war) purely a set of restrictions on the Federal government, nothing in it bound states. One of its explicit purposes was to preserve state autonomy from the (new, worrisome) federal layer being created. 3. Therefore Second Amendment was (originally) intended to prevent the federal government from sneakily disarming individual states by literally removing their pool of arms and volunteers. Whether it should still mean the same after many years and other amendments is a much trickier problem, but the idea that it always meant an individual right to arms is a false mythology. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation
      - Joker_vD 4mo ago
        > Whether it should still mean the same If we abstract ourselves from the politics, then yes, of course it should. I mean, the amendment could've simply been "The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" but it isn't, it contains an intentionally added clarification in it as well. But the politics being what they are, some things got reinterpreted in rather baffling ways. The commerce clause is one of the most (in)famous examples; several (unchallenged) court judgements that declare that in some circumstances one has to actively invoke the fifth amendment, or else they'll lose its protections (?!) is another. The latter is personally the most baffling to me because not only it defies the very idea of such protections (you have them even if you don't have a decent lawyer) but it gives some marginal legitimacy to one of the insane juristic ideas of "sovereign citizens": if you say the right magic words, you'll get out of jail free, but you have to say them!
- Goronmon 4mo ago
  Careful, accurately portraying these people's crimes will likely get you downvoted and flagged, unfortunately. It's sad, but there's likely people here who support what happened. This type of "you can't downvote me for valid reasons" style of intro to a comment is going to lead to many people downvoting you immediately. Not many people are going to believe your appeal to "real discussion" when leading with that.
- pluralmonad 4mo ago
  Since violence is never the answer, do you think any institutions or organizations whose primary arm is violence should be disbanded in favor of non-violent alternatives?
  - cindyllm 4mo ago
    [dead]
Arodex 4mo ago
>if you joined a protest group where the organizer shoots a policeman and you’ve all got weapons at home and then you tell people to move the material you have at home that indicates you’re part of the group then I think the convictions are pretty accurate. Oh, tell that to the president of the United States and half of Congress and half of the Senate (and half of the country). Remind me what was their reaction and actions after the pardon of Jan 6 rioters?
- armchairhacker 4mo ago
  The Jan 6 rioters were convicted and given similarly long sentences. Certainly Trump doing something doesn’t make it valid.
  - like_any_other 4mo ago
    They were given similarly long sentences, despite shooting zero people.
    - armchairhacker 4mo ago
      Honestly, I think both Jan 6 and these rioters deserve punishment, but not such long sentences. Prevention and deterrence - prevention by monitoring (at least to prevent them from going near “enemy territory”) and taking their guns, deterrence by at most a few years in prison, other penalties (like fines), and the social consequences. Anything more is unnecessarily harmful and wastes prison resources.
  - Arodex 4mo ago
    Well, if he did it and there was no opposition, it certainly makes it "valid". Where exactly has it been made invalid? Has anyone done anything to make it invalid? Aren't they free, and can they do it again? And the slush fund for the Jan 6 rioters is just suspended, not canceled. It will come back.
    - armchairhacker 4mo ago
a96 4mo ago
> One fired an AR-15 at the police, which goes beyond legitimate protest into inciting violence (and maybe even deliberate provocation) Sounds like attempted murder for a start rather than incitement or provocation. Or worse, given there was a crowd.
deleted 4mo ago
[deleted]
derbOac 4mo ago
> But if you joined a protest group where the organizer shoots a policeman and you’ve all got weapons at home and then you tell people to move the material you have at home that indicates you’re part of the group then I think the convictions are pretty accurate. 30 years though? And for moving what material exactly? I think you can have some kind of rationale for why these people should be prosecuted. I'm not sure that's the issue for many though — the issue is the proportionality of the sentence.

by arjie 4mo ago

postpawl 4mo ago

[dead]

copper-float 4mo ago

[flagged]

Arodex 4mo ago
If you want a discussion, here it is: >this kind of behavior can't be normalized What happened to the Jan 6 rioters? Ashli Babbitt received military funeral honors for what? Discuss: “Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.” What is the intent of the 2nd amendment? It allows citizens to beat arms, but for what purpose?
- Joker_vD 4mo ago
  > It allows citizens to beat arms, but for what purpose? To form state-level militia. It even starts with a sunset condition: "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, ..." — so arguably, since a well-maintained militia is universally considered in no way necessary (nor sufficient) for state security, the second amendment should have lost its power long time ago.
  - Terr_ 4mo ago
    > To form state-level militia. Right, to expand on that a bit: 1. When the Second Amendment was written, there was already an active legal framework of "well-regulated militias" through the Articles of Confederation. [0] Every single state was required to run and fund their own militia. 2. The bill of rights was originally (pre-civil-war) purely a set of restrictions on the Federal government, nothing in it bound states. One of its explicit purposes was to preserve state autonomy from the (new, worrisome) federal layer being created. 3. Therefore Second Amendment was (originally) intended to prevent the federal government from sneakily disarming individual states by literally removing their pool of arms and volunteers. Whether it should still mean the same after many years and other amendments is a much trickier problem, but the idea that it always meant an individual right to arms is a false mythology. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation
    - Joker_vD 4mo ago
      > Whether it should still mean the same If we abstract ourselves from the politics, then yes, of course it should. I mean, the amendment could've simply been "The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" but it isn't, it contains an intentionally added clarification in it as well. But the politics being what they are, some things got reinterpreted in rather baffling ways. The commerce clause is one of the most (in)famous examples; several (unchallenged) court judgements that declare that in some circumstances one has to actively invoke the fifth amendment, or else they'll lose its protections (?!) is another. The latter is personally the most baffling to me because not only it defies the very idea of such protections (you have them even if you don't have a decent lawyer) but it gives some marginal legitimacy to one of the insane juristic ideas of "sovereign citizens": if you say the right magic words, you'll get out of jail free, but you have to say them!
Goronmon 4mo ago
Careful, accurately portraying these people's crimes will likely get you downvoted and flagged, unfortunately. It's sad, but there's likely people here who support what happened. This type of "you can't downvote me for valid reasons" style of intro to a comment is going to lead to many people downvoting you immediately. Not many people are going to believe your appeal to "real discussion" when leading with that.
pluralmonad 4mo ago
Since violence is never the answer, do you think any institutions or organizations whose primary arm is violence should be disbanded in favor of non-violent alternatives?
- cindyllm 4mo ago
  [dead]

Arodex 4mo ago

>if you joined a protest group where the organizer shoots a policeman and you’ve all got weapons at home and then you tell people to move the material you have at home that indicates you’re part of the group then I think the convictions are pretty accurate. Oh, tell that to the president of the United States and half of Congress and half of the Senate (and half of the country). Remind me what was their reaction and actions after the pardon of Jan 6 rioters?

armchairhacker 4mo ago
The Jan 6 rioters were convicted and given similarly long sentences. Certainly Trump doing something doesn’t make it valid.
- like_any_other 4mo ago
  They were given similarly long sentences, despite shooting zero people.
  - armchairhacker 4mo ago
    Honestly, I think both Jan 6 and these rioters deserve punishment, but not such long sentences. Prevention and deterrence - prevention by monitoring (at least to prevent them from going near “enemy territory”) and taking their guns, deterrence by at most a few years in prison, other penalties (like fines), and the social consequences. Anything more is unnecessarily harmful and wastes prison resources.
- Arodex 4mo ago
  Well, if he did it and there was no opposition, it certainly makes it "valid". Where exactly has it been made invalid? Has anyone done anything to make it invalid? Aren't they free, and can they do it again? And the slush fund for the Jan 6 rioters is just suspended, not canceled. It will come back.
  - armchairhacker 4mo ago

a96 4mo ago

> One fired an AR-15 at the police, which goes beyond legitimate protest into inciting violence (and maybe even deliberate provocation) Sounds like attempted murder for a start rather than incitement or provocation. Or worse, given there was a crowd.

deleted 4mo ago

[deleted]

derbOac 4mo ago

> But if you joined a protest group where the organizer shoots a policeman and you’ve all got weapons at home and then you tell people to move the material you have at home that indicates you’re part of the group then I think the convictions are pretty accurate. 30 years though? And for moving what material exactly? I think you can have some kind of rationale for why these people should be prosecuted. I'm not sure that's the issue for many though — the issue is the proportionality of the sentence.