5 ms·

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.
- jeffbee 3mo ago
  Yeah, but I think the question is whether his actions did in fact obstruct justice. Both are relevant.
  - bawolff 3mo ago
    I don't know that i agree. If you intend to commit a crime but due to circumstances beyond your knowladge your actions did not amount to the crime even though you intended them to, i think that is still a crime.
    - jeffbee 3mo ago
      The question is whether there exists a nexus between the supposedly obstructing behavior and the judicial proceeding. It doesn't even matter about the intent, if there was no nexus. Can the act of having moved these materials actually impeded the course of Justice?
    - alterom 3mo ago
      >your actions didn't amount to a crime >it is still a crime Pardon me, but effin what? Ah yes. There's a word for it. You're literally calling for prosecuting thoughtcrimes. Good job, making Orwell proud.
      - bawolff 3mo ago
        If you take an action in the real world it is no longer a thought crime.
        alterom 3mo ago
        >think of a crime >take an action in the real world (not a crime) >it's a crime You're not make it any better, you're just repeating your desire to prosecute thoughtcrimes. "Your honor, he wanted the President dead and he breathed! That's an action in the real world! Off with his head!" By your logic putting a pin in a voodoo doll is a crime. I implore you, abscond and perish promptly with such twisted cognizance of justice.
        bawolff 3mo ago
        To be clear, by action i mean an action the person believes would result in the crime in question occuring. > your desire I don't think it's my desire. I'm pretty sure i'm just describing how our legal system actually works. And if you think this is bad, go look up the requirements for a conspiracy charge which are even less than this.
        jeffbee 3mo ago
- AdieuToLogic 3mo ago
  > Obviously prosecutors always present things in the worst possible way for defendants ... True, that is their job. Problem is, it is the judge's job to determine appropriate punishment for the crime once it is proven the defendant is responsible for same. 30 years (360 months) for a first time offender is roughly equivalent to Second Degree Murder (see section 2A1.2 here[0]). Even assuming the defendant has 13 or more felony convictions, this sentence would be roughly equivalent to Child Exploitation Enterprises (see section 2G2.6 here[0]). The calculation of sentence length is based on the 2025 guidelines published here[1]. 0 - https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/guidelines-manual/2025/GLMFull.pdf https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/guidelines-manu... 1 - https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/guidelines-manual/2025/Sentencing_Table.pdf https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/guidelines-manu...
  - dmix 3mo ago
    That sentence very likely won't hold up on appeal as it's obviously very very excessive and non-standard. That said, I don't believe the commenters above were defending the sentencing. They were debating whether it was a legitimate charge and whether the article explained it fairly.
    - AdieuToLogic 3mo ago
      > That sentence very likely won't hold up on appeal as it's obviously very very excessive and non-standard. Probably. But put yourself in the defendant's shoes when the sentence was handed down. And then imagine what comfort is had by someone saying it "likely won't hold up on appeal". > That said, I don't believe the commenters above were defending the sentencing. They were debating whether it was a legitimate charge and whether the article explained it fairly. Agreed. I do not think the commenters were defending the sentencing and perhaps not considering it. What I sought to provide was recognizing the punishment must fit the crime.

? 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.

jeffbee 3mo ago
Yeah, but I think the question is whether his actions did in fact obstruct justice. Both are relevant.
- bawolff 3mo ago
  I don't know that i agree. If you intend to commit a crime but due to circumstances beyond your knowladge your actions did not amount to the crime even though you intended them to, i think that is still a crime.
  - jeffbee 3mo ago
    The question is whether there exists a nexus between the supposedly obstructing behavior and the judicial proceeding. It doesn't even matter about the intent, if there was no nexus. Can the act of having moved these materials actually impeded the course of Justice?
  - alterom 3mo ago
    >your actions didn't amount to a crime >it is still a crime Pardon me, but effin what? Ah yes. There's a word for it. You're literally calling for prosecuting thoughtcrimes. Good job, making Orwell proud.
    - bawolff 3mo ago
      If you take an action in the real world it is no longer a thought crime.
      - alterom 3mo ago
        >think of a crime >take an action in the real world (not a crime) >it's a crime You're not make it any better, you're just repeating your desire to prosecute thoughtcrimes. "Your honor, he wanted the President dead and he breathed! That's an action in the real world! Off with his head!" By your logic putting a pin in a voodoo doll is a crime. I implore you, abscond and perish promptly with such twisted cognizance of justice.
        bawolff 3mo ago
        To be clear, by action i mean an action the person believes would result in the crime in question occuring. > your desire I don't think it's my desire. I'm pretty sure i'm just describing how our legal system actually works. And if you think this is bad, go look up the requirements for a conspiracy charge which are even less than this.
        jeffbee 3mo ago
AdieuToLogic 3mo ago
> Obviously prosecutors always present things in the worst possible way for defendants ... True, that is their job. Problem is, it is the judge's job to determine appropriate punishment for the crime once it is proven the defendant is responsible for same. 30 years (360 months) for a first time offender is roughly equivalent to Second Degree Murder (see section 2A1.2 here[0]). Even assuming the defendant has 13 or more felony convictions, this sentence would be roughly equivalent to Child Exploitation Enterprises (see section 2G2.6 here[0]). The calculation of sentence length is based on the 2025 guidelines published here[1]. 0 - https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/guidelines-manual/2025/GLMFull.pdf https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/guidelines-manu... 1 - https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/guidelines-manual/2025/Sentencing_Table.pdf https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/guidelines-manu...
- dmix 3mo ago
  That sentence very likely won't hold up on appeal as it's obviously very very excessive and non-standard. That said, I don't believe the commenters above were defending the sentencing. They were debating whether it was a legitimate charge and whether the article explained it fairly.
  - AdieuToLogic 3mo ago
    > That sentence very likely won't hold up on appeal as it's obviously very very excessive and non-standard. Probably. But put yourself in the defendant's shoes when the sentence was handed down. And then imagine what comfort is had by someone saying it "likely won't hold up on appeal". > That said, I don't believe the commenters above were defending the sentencing. They were debating whether it was a legitimate charge and whether the article explained it fairly. Agreed. I do not think the commenters were defending the sentencing and perhaps not considering it. What I sought to provide was recognizing the punishment must fit the crime.