3 ms·

It's not illegal "because you think its illegal", it's illegal because "you had a court order to provide things that are relevant and you instead hid things you

by BobbyJo 4mo ago

It's not illegal "because you think its illegal", it's illegal because "you had a court order to provide things that are relevant and you instead hid things you thought were relevant". If I hide someone who I think did a crime to help them escape police, I've now implicated myself in the crime, whether or not my trying to hide them actually caused them to get away with it.

vel0city 4mo ago
> it's illegal because "you had a court order to provide things that are relevant and you instead hid things you thought were relevant" And yet when Trump does it with classified documents its not a problem. Where's his 30 years? Did he even have a warrant issued to him related to these documents? Are these zines even relevant evidence? Is everyone who has these magazines also now a criminal? What about other radical anti-government political pamphlets like Common Sense? > If I hide someone who I think did a crime to help them escape police Seems like quite a different thing than moving some political pamphlets. If they were shredding financial documents while being charged with financial crimes I'd agree. If they were hiding guns with a gun trafficking charge, I'd understand. Flushing drugs down the drain, sure. Moving political zines though? Really? What's the relevance again for the ownership of political pamphlets to committing crimes?
- MichaelZuo 4mo ago
  If you knew it’s significantly different from your speeding example… why did you reply with such a misleading example in the first place?
  - vel0city 4mo ago
    I mean its a very radically different thing in almost every way than what was originally proposed. The zines didn't commit any crimes. Let's say you hide someone who didn't actually commit a crime but you thought they did. Are you still guilty of hiding a suspect in the crime that wasn't a crime? The standard was: > I care if the accused believed they were and moved them for that purpose So to that poster what matters was that the zines being useful or not to the investigation was not relevant, it was if the person thought it was potentially relevant or not. The wife owning some zines is evidence of a crime? Really? Owning some zines is evidence of criminal activity these days?
- BobbyJo 4mo ago
  > "but what about.." I don't know. > Did he even have a warrant issued to him related to these documents? Yes. A zine put together by a group that later goes on to commit a crime together, that promotes the ideologies underlying the crime, feels like the kind of thing a search warrant/subpoena would apply to. The fact that the person involved in the crime asked that they be hidden makes it pretty obvious that they saw it that way as well. > Are these zines even relevant evidence? Yes. > Is everyone who has these magazines also now a criminal? No. Things can be legal and evidence of ill intent at the same time. > What about other radical anti-government political pamphlets like Common Sense? If the editor(s) of that pamphlet went on to commit a crime of a political nature, no doubt their relationship with the pamphlet would be evidence used against them. It would also still be perfectly legal to have, and legal for others to continue publishing. > Seems like quite a different thing than moving some political pamphlets. It is, but I think the core idea of involving yourself in the crime by way of trying to hide evidence etc. is similar at least. > What's the relevance again for the ownership of political pamphlets to committing crimes? Depends on the crime. If they had robbed a Wendy's, probably no relevance. If they attacked an ICE building and the pamphlets established ill intent toward ICE, probably a lot of relevance.
  - vel0city 4mo ago
    If these zines were like "here's how to attack an ICE facility" or directly promoting imminent violence against officers I'd understand. Is that what these zines were about? From the zines I've seen they're all pretty general anarchist kind of materials. One of the zines was arguing the morality of squatting a residence. Is that evidence of committing violence against an ICE facility? If there really was materials directly related to promoting imminent violence against ICE officers or materials directly related to planning the attack, please do point it out. I haven't seen anything like that yet though. I'd agree that would be evidence of the crimes involved. Just random anarchist ramblings though? Then, finally on top of that 30 years for this seems incredibly excessive. We let child sexual abusers in Texas walk free after only 30 days in a county jail while moving some magazines gets you 30 years. Tell me again how this is justice. This is the modern Republican party. 30 years for moving political magazines. 30 days for sexually assaulting a child.
pcrh 4mo ago
The crimes here are the injuring of an officer, and causing a disturbance near the ICE facility. How could the zines be evidence for those crimes?
- bawolff 4mo ago
  Easily? Documents that could speak to the accused intentions, plans and motivations seem very pertinent to an investigation. They may or may not actually contain evidence, but they certainly seem related enough that police obtaining a search warrant for them is reasonable.
  - deleted 4mo ago
    [deleted]

by BobbyJo 4mo ago

vel0city 4mo ago

> it's illegal because "you had a court order to provide things that are relevant and you instead hid things you thought were relevant" And yet when Trump does it with classified documents its not a problem. Where's his 30 years? Did he even have a warrant issued to him related to these documents? Are these zines even relevant evidence? Is everyone who has these magazines also now a criminal? What about other radical anti-government political pamphlets like Common Sense? > If I hide someone who I think did a crime to help them escape police Seems like quite a different thing than moving some political pamphlets. If they were shredding financial documents while being charged with financial crimes I'd agree. If they were hiding guns with a gun trafficking charge, I'd understand. Flushing drugs down the drain, sure. Moving political zines though? Really? What's the relevance again for the ownership of political pamphlets to committing crimes?

MichaelZuo 4mo ago
If you knew it’s significantly different from your speeding example… why did you reply with such a misleading example in the first place?
- vel0city 4mo ago
  I mean its a very radically different thing in almost every way than what was originally proposed. The zines didn't commit any crimes. Let's say you hide someone who didn't actually commit a crime but you thought they did. Are you still guilty of hiding a suspect in the crime that wasn't a crime? The standard was: > I care if the accused believed they were and moved them for that purpose So to that poster what matters was that the zines being useful or not to the investigation was not relevant, it was if the person thought it was potentially relevant or not. The wife owning some zines is evidence of a crime? Really? Owning some zines is evidence of criminal activity these days?
BobbyJo 4mo ago
> "but what about.." I don't know. > Did he even have a warrant issued to him related to these documents? Yes. A zine put together by a group that later goes on to commit a crime together, that promotes the ideologies underlying the crime, feels like the kind of thing a search warrant/subpoena would apply to. The fact that the person involved in the crime asked that they be hidden makes it pretty obvious that they saw it that way as well. > Are these zines even relevant evidence? Yes. > Is everyone who has these magazines also now a criminal? No. Things can be legal and evidence of ill intent at the same time. > What about other radical anti-government political pamphlets like Common Sense? If the editor(s) of that pamphlet went on to commit a crime of a political nature, no doubt their relationship with the pamphlet would be evidence used against them. It would also still be perfectly legal to have, and legal for others to continue publishing. > Seems like quite a different thing than moving some political pamphlets. It is, but I think the core idea of involving yourself in the crime by way of trying to hide evidence etc. is similar at least. > What's the relevance again for the ownership of political pamphlets to committing crimes? Depends on the crime. If they had robbed a Wendy's, probably no relevance. If they attacked an ICE building and the pamphlets established ill intent toward ICE, probably a lot of relevance.
- vel0city 4mo ago
  If these zines were like "here's how to attack an ICE facility" or directly promoting imminent violence against officers I'd understand. Is that what these zines were about? From the zines I've seen they're all pretty general anarchist kind of materials. One of the zines was arguing the morality of squatting a residence. Is that evidence of committing violence against an ICE facility? If there really was materials directly related to promoting imminent violence against ICE officers or materials directly related to planning the attack, please do point it out. I haven't seen anything like that yet though. I'd agree that would be evidence of the crimes involved. Just random anarchist ramblings though? Then, finally on top of that 30 years for this seems incredibly excessive. We let child sexual abusers in Texas walk free after only 30 days in a county jail while moving some magazines gets you 30 years. Tell me again how this is justice. This is the modern Republican party. 30 years for moving political magazines. 30 days for sexually assaulting a child.

pcrh 4mo ago

The crimes here are the injuring of an officer, and causing a disturbance near the ICE facility. How could the zines be evidence for those crimes?

bawolff 4mo ago
Easily? Documents that could speak to the accused intentions, plans and motivations seem very pertinent to an investigation. They may or may not actually contain evidence, but they certainly seem related enough that police obtaining a search warrant for them is reasonable.
- deleted 4mo ago
  [deleted]