9 ms·

Here's the case: https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndtx/pr/antifa-cell-members-convicted-prairieland-ice-detention-center-shooting https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndtx/

Here's the case: https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndtx/pr/antifa-cell-members-convicted-prairieland-ice-detention-center-shooting https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndtx/pr/antifa-cell-members-con... 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"

Ukv 3mo ago
> The 30 year sentence was for hiding documentation [...] 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.
- expedition32 3mo ago
  Chilling effect on demonstrations. If you attend one were someone starts shooting you become an accomplice. And ofcourse this also leaves the door open for a "false flag" incident.
  - mvdtnz 3mo ago
    Was this a "demonstration" though? They turned up to a detention center in the middle of the night and launched an attack clearly with the intention of getting past the gate (text message exchanges show they had scoped out the operations of the gate, how long it takes to open/close, how long it remains open, etc). That's not really a "demonstration", no one outside of the facility would even see it. Demonstrations should be in public view, not in the dead of night dressed all in black and armed to the teeth in an area where the public is expressedly forbidden.
    - f33d5173 3mo ago
      It's one of those irregular verbs. My demonstration, your freedom fighting, their act of terrorism
      - find0x90 3mo ago
        Yes, thank you, Bernard.
    - goatlover 3mo ago
      Are ICE detentions legal? Is what ICE under the current administration behaving legally? The shooting an officer is the one crime, assuming the protestor wasn't shot at first. This administration has repeatedly lied about these sort of events, so I have a hard time believing the official account.
      - mvdtnz 3mo ago
        How is that relevant to my comment?
        godwinson__4-8 3mo ago
        Obviously because the nature of demonstrations as you describe are predicated on a counter party that follows the law. 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.
- will4274 3mo ago
  Being aware that he was moving the zines to obstruct a federal felony investigation is surely relevant. Intent is an important aspect of crime.
  - sorry_outta_gas 3mo ago
    [dead]
  - customguy 3mo ago
    In what way could that possibly have obstructed that investigation?
    - will4274 3mo ago
      ? He moved them because his wife asked him to, because his wife didn't want the police to find them, because they spoke to her motive. So it would have obstructed the investigation by making it harder to prove her motive. 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.
      - ktallett 3mo ago
        Did he know that was why though? Did she state it's so that the cops don't find it? Or did she say can you move that box of zines into the shed?
    - nl 3mo ago
      The link above literally says: > 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.
- stronglikedan 3mo ago
  If you lie with dogs, you're going to get fleas. :shrug:
htx80nerd 3mo ago
[dead]
goatlover 3mo ago
There are murderers who get shorter sentences. This is a clear attempt to discourage ICE protests by using the label "Antifa" as some sort of left-wing terrorist organization to send a message as the Trump appointed judge stated.
sbseitz 3mo ago
yeah you know that's still a crock of sh*t.
CobrastanJorji 3mo ago
Exactly. The content of the zines was not an issue in the case. This case is crazy, but it's not insane for free speech reasons.
jasonlotito 3mo ago
[flagged]
- justinhj 3mo ago
  [flagged]
jMyles 3mo ago
I don't approve of the violence apparently planned and carried out by these people, even though their cause was seemingly just. 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.
- polski-g 3mo ago
  What in God's name are you talking about? Shot at a police officer "in self defense"? In what world do you have a right to try to murder a cop?
  - jMyles 3mo ago
    Of course you don't have a right to murder anyone. If someone is pointing a gun at you, I don't think the matter of whether you can justly defend yourself turns on who their employer is. The idea that you have to pause and figure out, "Hmmm, does this person collect a paycheck from an entity that claims to be a sovereign state?" is the ludicrous part, to me. As I say, I hate that they did this, and that they shot this dude. He didn't deserve that. It sucks all around. But their underlying impetus - to disrupt a violent criminal organization which has proved difficult to reign in - is indeed something we need to figure a peaceful solution to, and it's not obvious what that is.
dwroberts 3mo ago
If this was an incident in Europe, comments like this would be talking about how clearly the state is corrupt, it’s account cannot be trusted, and obviously civilisation is collapsing because free speech outside of the US is dead. “You can be arrested for zines!” 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
- snvzz 3mo ago
  [flagged]
  - supertroop 3mo ago
    I agree but trump pardoned 1600 of them! Sucks? I agree.
  - viccis 3mo ago
    "Terrorist" is a floating signifier; it is not a term used by educated people intending other educated adults to discuss it. It's a term used by either the cynical or the dimwitted to elicit emotional responses from an audience that's commensurately ignorant or cruel. Saying "ah they deserved it because they were terrorists" is begging the question.
- antoniojtorres 3mo ago
  Yeah I feel like I’m going insane reading some of these comments.
  - N_Lens 3mo ago
    HN swings pretty far right.
    - vrganj 3mo ago
Aeolun 3mo ago
> make clear that those who choose violence over lawful expression will face the full force of the American justice system I’m sure Iran agrees.
viccis 3mo ago
>choose violence over lawful expression 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.
TrackerFF 3mo ago
Let's not ignore the fact that: - The group was designated as "Antifa cell", and thus this became a terrorist and aiding terrorism charges. - The judge went above and beyond to hand out harsh punishments. There's been commentary from previous state prosecutors that the sentences, and how they were carried out, were much harsher than predicted. The speculation was that these sentences are being handed out to be served consecutively, not concurrently. Would not surprise me if some of them could be appealed as "cruel and unusual punishments" / 8th amendment.
- Tadpole9181 3mo ago
  I would be shocked if this doesn't get overturned on the basis that the judge hand selected the jury without allowing participation of the defense.
DoneWithAllThat 3mo ago
It’s not “alleged” that one of the terrorists shot an officer in the neck. It was proven in court that he did and he was convicted for it.
flossposse 3mo ago
> The 30 year sentence was for hiding documentation being sought under a federal warrant Can you cite a source to support the claim that the stuff he transported was being sought under a federal warrant at the time he transported it? And is there documentation showing that he was aware of the warrant?

Ukv 3mo ago

> The 30 year sentence was for hiding documentation [...] 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.

expedition32 3mo ago
Chilling effect on demonstrations. If you attend one were someone starts shooting you become an accomplice. And ofcourse this also leaves the door open for a "false flag" incident.
- mvdtnz 3mo ago
  Was this a "demonstration" though? They turned up to a detention center in the middle of the night and launched an attack clearly with the intention of getting past the gate (text message exchanges show they had scoped out the operations of the gate, how long it takes to open/close, how long it remains open, etc). That's not really a "demonstration", no one outside of the facility would even see it. Demonstrations should be in public view, not in the dead of night dressed all in black and armed to the teeth in an area where the public is expressedly forbidden.
  - f33d5173 3mo ago
    It's one of those irregular verbs. My demonstration, your freedom fighting, their act of terrorism
    - find0x90 3mo ago
      Yes, thank you, Bernard.
  - goatlover 3mo ago
    Are ICE detentions legal? Is what ICE under the current administration behaving legally? The shooting an officer is the one crime, assuming the protestor wasn't shot at first. This administration has repeatedly lied about these sort of events, so I have a hard time believing the official account.
    - mvdtnz 3mo ago
      How is that relevant to my comment?
      - godwinson__4-8 3mo ago
        Obviously because the nature of demonstrations as you describe are predicated on a counter party that follows the law. 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.
will4274 3mo ago
Being aware that he was moving the zines to obstruct a federal felony investigation is surely relevant. Intent is an important aspect of crime.
- sorry_outta_gas 3mo ago
  [dead]
- customguy 3mo ago
  In what way could that possibly have obstructed that investigation?
  - will4274 3mo ago
    ? He moved them because his wife asked him to, because his wife didn't want the police to find them, because they spoke to her motive. So it would have obstructed the investigation by making it harder to prove her motive. 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.
    - ktallett 3mo ago
      Did he know that was why though? Did she state it's so that the cops don't find it? Or did she say can you move that box of zines into the shed?
  - nl 3mo ago
    The link above literally says: > 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.
stronglikedan 3mo ago
If you lie with dogs, you're going to get fleas. :shrug:

htx80nerd 3mo ago

[dead]

goatlover 3mo ago

There are murderers who get shorter sentences. This is a clear attempt to discourage ICE protests by using the label "Antifa" as some sort of left-wing terrorist organization to send a message as the Trump appointed judge stated.

sbseitz 3mo ago

yeah you know that's still a crock of sh*t.

CobrastanJorji 3mo ago

Exactly. The content of the zines was not an issue in the case. This case is crazy, but it's not insane for free speech reasons.

jasonlotito 3mo ago

[flagged]

justinhj 3mo ago
[flagged]

jMyles 3mo ago

I don't approve of the violence apparently planned and carried out by these people, even though their cause was seemingly just. 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.

polski-g 3mo ago
What in God's name are you talking about? Shot at a police officer "in self defense"? In what world do you have a right to try to murder a cop?
- jMyles 3mo ago
  Of course you don't have a right to murder anyone. If someone is pointing a gun at you, I don't think the matter of whether you can justly defend yourself turns on who their employer is. The idea that you have to pause and figure out, "Hmmm, does this person collect a paycheck from an entity that claims to be a sovereign state?" is the ludicrous part, to me. As I say, I hate that they did this, and that they shot this dude. He didn't deserve that. It sucks all around. But their underlying impetus - to disrupt a violent criminal organization which has proved difficult to reign in - is indeed something we need to figure a peaceful solution to, and it's not obvious what that is.

dwroberts 3mo ago

If this was an incident in Europe, comments like this would be talking about how clearly the state is corrupt, it’s account cannot be trusted, and obviously civilisation is collapsing because free speech outside of the US is dead. “You can be arrested for zines!” 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

snvzz 3mo ago
[flagged]
- supertroop 3mo ago
  I agree but trump pardoned 1600 of them! Sucks? I agree.
- viccis 3mo ago
  "Terrorist" is a floating signifier; it is not a term used by educated people intending other educated adults to discuss it. It's a term used by either the cynical or the dimwitted to elicit emotional responses from an audience that's commensurately ignorant or cruel. Saying "ah they deserved it because they were terrorists" is begging the question.
antoniojtorres 3mo ago
Yeah I feel like I’m going insane reading some of these comments.
- N_Lens 3mo ago
  HN swings pretty far right.
  - vrganj 3mo ago

Aeolun 3mo ago

> make clear that those who choose violence over lawful expression will face the full force of the American justice system I’m sure Iran agrees.

viccis 3mo ago

>choose violence over lawful expression 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.

TrackerFF 3mo ago

Let's not ignore the fact that: - The group was designated as "Antifa cell", and thus this became a terrorist and aiding terrorism charges. - The judge went above and beyond to hand out harsh punishments. There's been commentary from previous state prosecutors that the sentences, and how they were carried out, were much harsher than predicted. The speculation was that these sentences are being handed out to be served consecutively, not concurrently. Would not surprise me if some of them could be appealed as "cruel and unusual punishments" / 8th amendment.

Tadpole9181 3mo ago
I would be shocked if this doesn't get overturned on the basis that the judge hand selected the jury without allowing participation of the defense.

DoneWithAllThat 3mo ago

It’s not “alleged” that one of the terrorists shot an officer in the neck. It was proven in court that he did and he was convicted for it.

flossposse 3mo ago

> The 30 year sentence was for hiding documentation being sought under a federal warrant Can you cite a source to support the claim that the stuff he transported was being sought under a federal warrant at the time he transported it? And is there documentation showing that he was aware of the warrant?