7 ms·

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

by 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.
        godwinson__4-8 4mo ago
        I disagree if only because the clarification you make in your first two sentences doe not square with your last sentence. Why do we read people their rights or formally charge them? If someone has committed a crime is that not in some sense "fighting [the] system"? Why would then the same apparent contradiction you highlight in your last sentence not arise? Even in cases of extreme conflict, there is a certain base state of "rights" or "privileges" one wants to be afforded, and it is not contradictory of people to do so. See the laws of armed conflict. Even if someone is a complete psychopath and doesn't respect these laws, the law itself usually does not respond in kind. That is the nature of the law. If the law could allow for a situation where "legality goes out the window and any outrage about punishment becomes moot" then its no longer law. The only state this exists is one of anarchy. Far more likely in some situation would be the state tries to exercise some emergency power, itself sanctioned by law. In such an extreme case the contradiction no longer applies because the "privileges" have been legally suspended. However, now society has entered a dubious state re the nature of the law itself. Alternatively, take the Codes of Hammurabi. But then the proposed contradiction also does not apply. For in an eye for an eye there are far less afforded privileges to appeal to. A state of dubious legality was essentially the state of affairs that convinced the founders revolution was inevitable. But there was never - and is usually never - a state where "legality goes out the window". That is anarchy. Even if the founders had lost, surely they would have a right to be outraged if instead of simply being hung (as was the legal remedy for their acts at the time) the British soldiers had rioted and killed all of them and their families on sight. There is no contradiction here. It would not be a "weird take". Frankly if some among them were also outraged at being hung, I'm not sure that is a "weird take" either. It certainly doesn't strike me as "logically inconsistent". Its not like the "privileges" of life and liberty are granted by the government after all. If you believe in the principles as the founders did, those rights are given by a power beyond that of any terrestrial government. You may be deprived of them by such an entity, but it is not something the state gave you. Therefore once again, your proposed contradiction doesn't really make sense. I guess your position boils down to "if you do wrong against someone, you should have no expectations about your treatment in return"? But I don't think this is ever actually seriously considered as an ethical position when it comes to a people and their government. At least not since divine right and the like went out of fashion. At the end of the day, one can both transgress and be entitled to outrage about how the state acts in response. I fail to see how the alternative is anything less than barbarism.
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. )

by mvdtnz 4mo ago

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.
        godwinson__4-8 4mo ago
        I disagree if only because the clarification you make in your first two sentences doe not square with your last sentence. Why do we read people their rights or formally charge them? If someone has committed a crime is that not in some sense "fighting [the] system"? Why would then the same apparent contradiction you highlight in your last sentence not arise? Even in cases of extreme conflict, there is a certain base state of "rights" or "privileges" one wants to be afforded, and it is not contradictory of people to do so. See the laws of armed conflict. Even if someone is a complete psychopath and doesn't respect these laws, the law itself usually does not respond in kind. That is the nature of the law. If the law could allow for a situation where "legality goes out the window and any outrage about punishment becomes moot" then its no longer law. The only state this exists is one of anarchy. Far more likely in some situation would be the state tries to exercise some emergency power, itself sanctioned by law. In such an extreme case the contradiction no longer applies because the "privileges" have been legally suspended. However, now society has entered a dubious state re the nature of the law itself. Alternatively, take the Codes of Hammurabi. But then the proposed contradiction also does not apply. For in an eye for an eye there are far less afforded privileges to appeal to. A state of dubious legality was essentially the state of affairs that convinced the founders revolution was inevitable. But there was never - and is usually never - a state where "legality goes out the window". That is anarchy. Even if the founders had lost, surely they would have a right to be outraged if instead of simply being hung (as was the legal remedy for their acts at the time) the British soldiers had rioted and killed all of them and their families on sight. There is no contradiction here. It would not be a "weird take". Frankly if some among them were also outraged at being hung, I'm not sure that is a "weird take" either. It certainly doesn't strike me as "logically inconsistent". Its not like the "privileges" of life and liberty are granted by the government after all. If you believe in the principles as the founders did, those rights are given by a power beyond that of any terrestrial government. You may be deprived of them by such an entity, but it is not something the state gave you. Therefore once again, your proposed contradiction doesn't really make sense. I guess your position boils down to "if you do wrong against someone, you should have no expectations about your treatment in return"? But I don't think this is ever actually seriously considered as an ethical position when it comes to a people and their government. At least not since divine right and the like went out of fashion. At the end of the day, one can both transgress and be entitled to outrage about how the state acts in response. I fail to see how the alternative is anything less than barbarism.

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. )