6 ms·

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 "f

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 4mo 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 4mo ago
  It's one of those irregular verbs. My demonstration, your freedom fighting, their act of terrorism
  - find0x90 4mo ago
    Yes, thank you, Bernard.
- goatlover 4mo 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 4mo ago
    How is that relevant to my comment?
    - godwinson__4-8 4mo 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.
      - BobbyJo 4mo ago
        If you're fighting the executive branch, then legality goes out the window and any outrage about punishment becomes moot, no? Expecting the system you intended to subvert/dismantle to save you is a bit of a weird ask.
        godwinson__4-8 4mo ago
        Not at all? To the American founders that would be a psychotic take that is completely at odds with the founding principles of this country. 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.
        BobbyJo 4mo ago
        I'm sorry, I meant in terms of discussion, not in terms of legal proceedings. Obviously these people were formally charged in a court of law on legal grounds and I assume had their constitutional rights afforded to them. 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.
- RIMR 4mo ago
  That's really hard to swallow when the current president, who is responsible for the extreme uptick in ICE activity, pardoned 1,600 people who conspired against the federal government in favor of his agenda, but then that same government hands life-ruining prison sentences to people who weren't even present for conspiring against ICE. 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.
  - ibejoeb 4mo ago
    [flagged]
    - kasey_junk 4mo ago
      One obvious distinction is that Tarrio was convicted of leading & planning the Proud Boys operation on Jan 6 while this defendant was convicted of moving zines. Tarrio wasn’t at the insurrection on Jan 6 because he’d already been barred from traveling to the city… And he got less of a sentence. I don’t think your argument equating these 2 is arguing what you think it is.
      - 9x39 4mo ago
        Underselling it by omission - was it intentional? 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.
- cygx 4mo ago
  Per Wikipedia, at least at one point in time, it was supposed to be. Quote: 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".
  - KaiserPro 4mo ago
    Ok, but isn't this textbook second amendment? as in well organised militia’s right to bear arms? They demonstrated a level of organisation much higher level than Rittenhouse ever did.
    - mvdtnz 4mo ago
      Americans are given the right to bear arms so they can overthrow a tyrannical government. Doesn't mean the government has to sit there and take it. And it certainly doesn't mean you can shoot cops and get away with it.
      - KaiserPro 4mo ago
        The USA is a common law system, so some actions have precedence, and shape how laws are applied. (hence why the supreme court is able to have split opinions about the 14th amendment) If you are able to use a stungun on a cop and get a pardon, then why not this? (actually pardons are usually not precedent setting, but forgive the stupid legal interpretation. )
stevenwoo 4mo ago
Unless one is a right wing protestor like Kyle Rittenhouse.
- bluealienpie 4mo ago
  *Murderer
  - otaconjh 4mo ago
    He was tried by a jury of your peers though and found not guilty. I'm assuming these guys got a federal jury
  - bandofthehawk 4mo ago
    I guess you don't believe in the concept of innocent until proven guilty?
    - ks2048 4mo ago
      One can believe in this concept and believe a decision (or the law) was wrong.
      - bandofthehawk 4mo ago
        One can also let themselves be misled by the media for political reasons. If you actually watched the trial and reviewed the publicly available evidence, and still think the jury made the wrong decision, then I agree, you have a right to that opinion. However, if you only believed he is guilty because your favorite media figures told you this, then I would say you don't actually believe that a person is innocent until proven guilty.
- expedition32 4mo ago
  [flagged]
- bandofthehawk 4mo ago
  [flagged]
smsm42 4mo ago
[flagged]
- mulmen 4mo ago
  This is an oversimplification. I am not in favor of shooting the police in the neck but I absolutely will not tolerate an hindering of peaceful first amendment expression even when it happens in proximity to violence. What are the police even protecting us from at that point?
  - smsm42 4mo ago
    Domestic terrorists who shoot people in the neck. Among millions of things that the government claims to protect mw from, this is one of a few things that I don't doubt I want to be protected from. There's absolutely zero free speech issues here.
    - goatlover 4mo ago
      One might consider ICE detention centers to be morally equivalent to concentration camps. This sounds like the federal government trying to protect a controversial agency and immigration policy under the current regime, not ordinary citizens. The man who got 30 years wasn't there and didn't fire a gun.
      - smsm42 4mo ago
        One might consider a lot of things. But if you are at shooting war with United States government, then when United States government puts your away, you don't get to claim it's a free speech issue. You can't sit on those two chairs at once. Either you are a Warrior of Light battling the Nazis, and then it's way beyond free speech, or it's a public discussion and then "free speech" does not include shooting people. You can't claim both. If you're "ordinary citizen", you don't get to shoot at police, or you go to jail, and everybody who helps you does too. If you're a brave revolutionary, then we have a violent revolution, and it's not about "free speech" anymore, revolution is way beyond speech.
laughing_man 4mo ago
[flagged]
- supertroop 4mo ago
  Stop conflating two different unrelated events. It is nauseating.
  - laughing_man 4mo ago
    These events were not unrelated. It's all part of the same conspiracy.
    - vrganj 4mo ago
      Nobody conspired to shoot a cop. People just happened to exert their First Amendment rights close to where it happened and got punished for speaking the wrong kind of speech.
      - laughing_man 4mo ago
        Sure, sure. The initial attack and then the shooting were just an accident. Come on, man. It was a conspiracy to shoot a cop. How do you not realize this?
        supertroop 4mo ago
        Simple: critical thinking skills. Sorry you missed the boat on those.
- alterom 4mo ago
  They didn't shoot a cop. 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.
  - 4mo ago
bluescrn 4mo ago
Chilling effect on insurrections.
copper-float 4mo ago
How completely dishonest to call this a demonstration. They brought guns and shot government officials. Trying to kill people you disagree with isn't demonstrating, it's terrorism. So insane for people to defend this.
- Ukv 4mo ago
  > They brought guns and shot government officials Only Benjamin Song, convicted of attempted murder/discharging a firearm, shot the police officer. Some others didn't bring firearms, were not in any planning chat (in which no violence was planned regardless), weren't at the protest or had already left, yet still received absurdly harsh sentences - that's the chilling effect.

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 4mo 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 4mo ago
It's one of those irregular verbs. My demonstration, your freedom fighting, their act of terrorism
- find0x90 4mo ago
  Yes, thank you, Bernard.
goatlover 4mo 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 4mo ago
  How is that relevant to my comment?
  - godwinson__4-8 4mo 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.
    - BobbyJo 4mo ago
      If you're fighting the executive branch, then legality goes out the window and any outrage about punishment becomes moot, no? Expecting the system you intended to subvert/dismantle to save you is a bit of a weird ask.
      - godwinson__4-8 4mo ago
        Not at all? To the American founders that would be a psychotic take that is completely at odds with the founding principles of this country. 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.
        BobbyJo 4mo ago
        I'm sorry, I meant in terms of discussion, not in terms of legal proceedings. Obviously these people were formally charged in a court of law on legal grounds and I assume had their constitutional rights afforded to them. 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.
RIMR 4mo ago
That's really hard to swallow when the current president, who is responsible for the extreme uptick in ICE activity, pardoned 1,600 people who conspired against the federal government in favor of his agenda, but then that same government hands life-ruining prison sentences to people who weren't even present for conspiring against ICE. 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.
- ibejoeb 4mo ago
  [flagged]
  - kasey_junk 4mo ago
    One obvious distinction is that Tarrio was convicted of leading & planning the Proud Boys operation on Jan 6 while this defendant was convicted of moving zines. Tarrio wasn’t at the insurrection on Jan 6 because he’d already been barred from traveling to the city… And he got less of a sentence. I don’t think your argument equating these 2 is arguing what you think it is.
    - 9x39 4mo ago
      Underselling it by omission - was it intentional? 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.
cygx 4mo ago
Per Wikipedia, at least at one point in time, it was supposed to be. Quote: 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".
- KaiserPro 4mo ago
  Ok, but isn't this textbook second amendment? as in well organised militia’s right to bear arms? They demonstrated a level of organisation much higher level than Rittenhouse ever did.
  - mvdtnz 4mo ago
    Americans are given the right to bear arms so they can overthrow a tyrannical government. Doesn't mean the government has to sit there and take it. And it certainly doesn't mean you can shoot cops and get away with it.
    - KaiserPro 4mo ago
      The USA is a common law system, so some actions have precedence, and shape how laws are applied. (hence why the supreme court is able to have split opinions about the 14th amendment) If you are able to use a stungun on a cop and get a pardon, then why not this? (actually pardons are usually not precedent setting, but forgive the stupid legal interpretation. )

stevenwoo 4mo ago

Unless one is a right wing protestor like Kyle Rittenhouse.

bluealienpie 4mo ago
*Murderer
- otaconjh 4mo ago
  He was tried by a jury of your peers though and found not guilty. I'm assuming these guys got a federal jury
- bandofthehawk 4mo ago
  I guess you don't believe in the concept of innocent until proven guilty?
  - ks2048 4mo ago
    One can believe in this concept and believe a decision (or the law) was wrong.
    - bandofthehawk 4mo ago
      One can also let themselves be misled by the media for political reasons. If you actually watched the trial and reviewed the publicly available evidence, and still think the jury made the wrong decision, then I agree, you have a right to that opinion. However, if you only believed he is guilty because your favorite media figures told you this, then I would say you don't actually believe that a person is innocent until proven guilty.
expedition32 4mo ago
[flagged]
bandofthehawk 4mo ago
[flagged]

smsm42 4mo ago

[flagged]

mulmen 4mo ago
This is an oversimplification. I am not in favor of shooting the police in the neck but I absolutely will not tolerate an hindering of peaceful first amendment expression even when it happens in proximity to violence. What are the police even protecting us from at that point?
- smsm42 4mo ago
  Domestic terrorists who shoot people in the neck. Among millions of things that the government claims to protect mw from, this is one of a few things that I don't doubt I want to be protected from. There's absolutely zero free speech issues here.
  - goatlover 4mo ago
    One might consider ICE detention centers to be morally equivalent to concentration camps. This sounds like the federal government trying to protect a controversial agency and immigration policy under the current regime, not ordinary citizens. The man who got 30 years wasn't there and didn't fire a gun.
    - smsm42 4mo ago
      One might consider a lot of things. But if you are at shooting war with United States government, then when United States government puts your away, you don't get to claim it's a free speech issue. You can't sit on those two chairs at once. Either you are a Warrior of Light battling the Nazis, and then it's way beyond free speech, or it's a public discussion and then "free speech" does not include shooting people. You can't claim both. If you're "ordinary citizen", you don't get to shoot at police, or you go to jail, and everybody who helps you does too. If you're a brave revolutionary, then we have a violent revolution, and it's not about "free speech" anymore, revolution is way beyond speech.

laughing_man 4mo ago

[flagged]

supertroop 4mo ago
Stop conflating two different unrelated events. It is nauseating.
- laughing_man 4mo ago
  These events were not unrelated. It's all part of the same conspiracy.
  - vrganj 4mo ago
    Nobody conspired to shoot a cop. People just happened to exert their First Amendment rights close to where it happened and got punished for speaking the wrong kind of speech.
    - laughing_man 4mo ago
      Sure, sure. The initial attack and then the shooting were just an accident. Come on, man. It was a conspiracy to shoot a cop. How do you not realize this?
      - supertroop 4mo ago
        Simple: critical thinking skills. Sorry you missed the boat on those.
alterom 4mo ago
They didn't shoot a cop. 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.
- 4mo ago

bluescrn 4mo ago

Chilling effect on insurrections.

copper-float 4mo ago

How completely dishonest to call this a demonstration. They brought guns and shot government officials. Trying to kill people you disagree with isn't demonstrating, it's terrorism. So insane for people to defend this.

Ukv 4mo ago
> They brought guns and shot government officials Only Benjamin Song, convicted of attempted murder/discharging a firearm, shot the police officer. Some others didn't bring firearms, were not in any planning chat (in which no violence was planned regardless), weren't at the protest or had already left, yet still received absurdly harsh sentences - that's the chilling effect.