Up until now these crazy cases have been rejected by the courts. But this feels like a crack in the dam. A judge actually sentenced someone to 30 years for hiding zines, zines that had been published for years. This was under the pretense hiding those zines was hiding evidence of criminality. And the criminality was worth 75 years. For someone who was at a protest where a federal agent was shot, but was not the shooter.
Does anyone have a link to details on the case because there must have been more details, like these two were accused of planning a murder in advance, because otherwise this seems insane. It seems insane no matter what, but if this was a judge making a bunch of logical leaps while guided by DOJ lawyers, something is really broken
appreciatorBus · 2026-06-29 21:51:09 UTC
I think all of this hinges on whether or not you think it was a protest. If they had been peacefully sitting outside the facility holding signs, I think you'd have a case that the sentencing is insane. But if they were actively planning a break-in & preparing to use deadly force, that's quite another matter. I haven't spent a lot of timing reading about it, but what I have read suggests it was much closer to the latter.
devmor · 2026-06-29 22:00:20 UTC
From what I read, the person who was arrested for transporting zines was not even at the protest or part of the group - just the husband of one of the protestors.
ipython · 2026-06-29 22:09:32 UTC
Unfortunately, the administration wants it both ways- if you were on the Capitol grounds on January 6, 2021, you were simply part of a "peaceful tour group". If you stand to the side of an ICE agent in Minneapolis, you are a "domestic terrorist", deserve to be murdered in cold blood, and any attempts to investigate further will be stonewalled.
So it's hard to take their characterization seriously when they have demonstrated that there is a clear double standard, depending on whether you are a FoT (Friend of Trump).
selectodude · 2026-06-29 22:22:34 UTC
“For my friends, everything; for my enemies, the law.”
'they' is doing a lot of work. This guy wasn't even there.
BobbyJo · 2026-06-30 00:49:55 UTC
You don't have to be present for the act to be part of the conspiracy...
saintfire · 2026-06-30 01:52:42 UTC
You presumably need to convict the conspirator on evidence that doesn't consist of having published documents on your person.
shimman · 2026-06-30 01:43:13 UTC
What hogwash. Resistance is as American as the founding of the country, acting like there is a "right way" to protest is deeply antihuman.
Manuel_D · 2026-06-30 01:57:11 UTC
The "protestors" shot someone, if that's not the wrong way to protest then what is?
thunderfork · 2026-06-30 02:18:03 UTC
An individual shot someone, unless you think multiple people were helping pull the trigger.
Manuel_D · 2026-06-30 04:02:16 UTC
This was a coordinated group of people who procured body armor, radios, and firearms, and planned to break into a Federal facility. Responsibility for this incident doesn't rest exclusively on the hands of the shooter.
An analogy is Enrique Tarrio's arrest in the wake of January 6th. Right wingers complained that he wasn't even in the capital during the riot. But of course that's not evidence his innocence. Even though he didn't personally participate in the putsch, he was still held responsible for organizing it (not for long on account of his pardon, unfortunately, but he was still rightfully convicted).
Griffinsauce · 2026-06-30 05:34:14 UTC
This depends a lot what evil you're protesting.
the_real_cher · 2026-06-30 12:34:36 UTC
America shot a bunch of people in the 1700s protesting the King of England
daedrdev · 2026-06-29 22:06:59 UTC
If you think that this was a protest then yeah it's worrying.
The feds case, which they did win convictions based on, was that they were terrorists who set off fireworks to lure police into an ambush, and there weren't more casualties because one of the members shot early and only injured one cop. An accessory to this who hid evidence is also part of the crime in the Feds case
Is this embellished by the Feds? I think so, it seems some of the group did not think this was the plan. But there did seem to be a plan and it did involve bringing guns, setting off fireworks, opening the gate and trying to break out the prisoners, and "not going quietly"
tkel · 2026-06-30 03:20:44 UTC
"Lure police into an ambush" is quite a stretch. It's quite normal to do noise demonstrations outside jails/prisons to show solidarity with the captives, the captives will often times knock on the windows to communicate back. In fact there were noise demonstrations outside the Delaney Hall ICE jail in New Jersey just this month, which you may have heard about. The mischaracterization of fireworks as "explosives" is also a huge stretch by the government in order to pursue their antifa conspiracy.
LazyGooze · 2026-06-30 09:10:44 UTC
"The mischaracterization of fireworks as "explosives" is also a huge stretch"
Thats quite a mental gymnastics number you did there, BRAVO!!
blockmarker · 2026-06-30 10:47:40 UTC
Fireworks are explosives, and people are hurt by misusing them. Just because they are less harmful than grenades doesn't mean that they are harmless, and throwing them at someone is clearly with the intention of harming them. And well, shooting them with rifles is also clearly intended to harm them.
piltdownman · 2026-06-30 12:43:43 UTC
Reducto ad absurdum. Up there with declaring Placards or Air Horns as 'offensive rioting equipment' as people can (and are) hurt through their misuse, and arguing that just because they're less harmless than an ICBM doesn't mean they're harmless.
Fireworks are first and foremost Pyrotechnics - it's only a specific subset of fireworks that contain any sort of 'explosive' element. Short of Simpsons-esque escapades involving cherrybombs and toilets, or m-80s and mailboxes, this use-case simply doesn't exist in real-life. Indeed both cherrybombs and m-80s are federal felonies to possess in the U.S. without an explosives license, alongside anything with 50 milligrams or more of flash powder.
Tannerite sits amongst dozens of other explosives you can buy OTC in the US with a drivers licence - one which generally necessitates shooting at with a rifle to ignite. Plenty of videos on youtube of enthusiasts blowing up a car or similar sized object using it.
mc32 · 2026-06-30 13:23:23 UTC
The fireworks were a distraction tactic. It wasn’t the main tool in the attempt to main injure and kill. Things went sideways for them; however the intent was there. I think that’s what the issue was. Obviously the feds always go overboard with charges in order that there be a higher likelihood of conviction and long term punishment for the convicted.
mattmaroon · 2026-06-30 12:14:40 UTC
If you don’t think fireworks are explosives you’re buying the wrong ones.
saghm · 2026-06-30 15:21:04 UTC
Or the right ones. Maybe celebrating a holiday or whatever doesn't need explosives...
aprilthird2021 · 2026-06-30 07:29:00 UTC
The pardoned Jan. 6 rioters had a lot of far worse plans that were foiled which could have resulted in more casualties. There was lots of evidence several of them planned to kidnap sitting congressmen and women.
Do you know why they were pardoned and this zine hider got 30 years? Must just be a quirk of the justice system...
throwawayffffas · 2026-06-29 22:31:02 UTC
> ... like these two were accused of planning a murder in advance, ...
That case, the incredibly bad handling of Ruby Ridge and Waco put a real freeze on the FBI dealing with domestic terrorism, and then the focus moved outward with 9/11.
But now "domestic terrorism" is priority number 1. Enjoy your choices folks.
totetsu · 2026-06-30 06:18:34 UTC
All the best discussion of this is on sites that I wouldn’t want to link to on HN incase It puts me on a list in line for a 30 year prison sentence
vrganj · 2026-06-30 06:19:55 UTC
Will you look at that, the authoritarian suppression of opposition speech is already working!
sourcecodeplz · 2026-06-30 09:32:53 UTC
prob zerohedge, i can say it. no need to link it.
totetsu · 2026-06-30 12:37:00 UTC
No I wasn’t thinking far-right libertarian I was thinking far-left anarchistic, haha
nylonstrung · 2026-06-30 11:25:13 UTC
Insane to think they'd have gotten a small fraction of the sentence had they been distributing CSAM they produced instead
Apparently Marxist film reviews and gardening tips are more criminal than child pornography
jmyeet · 2026-06-30 13:32:49 UTC
This isn't even a theoretical comparison. Consider the case of popular far-right influencer Dom Lucre. In 2023, he uploaded screenshots from what is apparently a "known" CSAM video. Not only that but he watermarked the screenshots, showing he had the screenshots on a computer he had access to and likely had access to the source video itself. Mere possession of this should land you in jail.
One side of the story is that Elon Musk personally intervened to unban him for this [1], which is a whole other aspect to this. But the Feds, as far as we know, never charged him. This leads many (including myself) to believe Dom Lucre is an asset to the FBI already.
Jeffrey Epstein was charged for his pedophile ring. Ghislaine Maxwell was convicted but is now sitting in a Work camp she should never be in for her crimes. And she was charged with trafficking. To whom exactly? Nobody has ever been charged or even named as being who minors were trafficked to. At least 4 presidents have sat on a mountain of evidence of this and done precisely nothing. The last president (Biden) and his AG (Garland) even sat on these files when the current president was credibly implicated.
And of course there are the January 6 ringleaders who were convicted of seditious conspiracy (22, 18 and 18 years) for attempting to overthrow the government and storming the Capitol. All pardoned now of course.
Thank you, at least that article doesn't require an email address to read it.
> One fired an AR-15 at the police, which goes beyond legitimate protest into inciting violence (and maybe even deliberate provocation).
Uh, I think firing a gun at someone is a bit more than "inciting violence", more like attempted murder?
The article doesn't say what the actual charges were. Was it tampering with evidence? Although 30 years for just tampering with evidence doesn't seem right either. Maybe there's more that they're leaving out?
Another comment in another HN thread shared this quote and link:
> "Prosecutors said that the group launched a premeditated terror attack on the detention facility inspired by antifa ideology, by setting off fireworks, vandalizing property, and shooting at police officers who responded. One officer was struck in the neck with a bullet and survived."
Perhaps the cop getting shot in the neck is why they're throwing the book at them.
topgrain2 · 2026-06-29 21:35:56 UTC
> Uh, I think firing a gun at someone is a bit more than "inciting violence", more like attempted murder?
The shot cop had drawn a gun on someone who was running away.
The judge didn’t even permit the defense to argue “defense of self or others” as a justification.
pc86 · 2026-06-29 21:47:45 UTC
Is it legal to shoot a uniformed police officer pulling a gun on someone?
protocolture · 2026-06-30 00:19:50 UTC
Just moral, not legal.
topgrain2 · 2026-06-30 00:29:36 UTC
Can it be defense of self or others, to shoot a cop who draws a lethal weapon on someone who's not an immediate threat?
If it can't, the second amendment is even more pointless than it already appears to be.
rationalist · 2026-06-30 03:47:20 UTC
Possibly (depending on the state's laws), but good luck staying alive to have your day in court.
pc86 · 2026-06-30 14:43:45 UTC
Who decides whether or not someone is an immediate threat? Is "immediate threat" even the bar for a police officer to draw their weapon? Police can draw their weapons in situations civilians can't legally so I'm not sure the same standards apply.
I don't think the second amendment is particularly relevant. The point of the second amendment is defense against a tyrannical government so by definition we're in extrajudicial territory and don't care if it's legal or not.
daedrdev · 2026-06-29 23:46:17 UTC
It is not legal to shoot the police who have their gun out. Considering they had much more firepower than the cops it's quite reasonable for the police to draw their gun
topgrain2 · 2026-06-30 00:37:07 UTC
Who had much more firepower? That the cops knew about? The shooter was accused of ambushing the cops, but didn't fire until the cop drew on and aimed at a retreating protester (that part wasn't in dispute, it was part of the cop's testimony). AFAIK none of the other protesters had firearms, just the single shooter hiding on the edge of the woods.
This was shortly before two people got murdered on camera by cops in Minneapolis, and after/around the same time as several other attempted murders (that would have been successfully spun as something chargeable on the victim, if not for video evidence showing plainly that the cops were lying)... so... it doesn't seem like a totally crazy notion to me, that a person might have shown up armed intending only to fire if it looked like a cop was going to shoot someone without a great reason. Maybe a jury would still have convicted (there was a bunch of fuckery with jury selection on this case, incidentally, and I mean way more than usual, even, it's worth reading about; like after what the court selected for on the jury, I believe they almost certainly would still have convicted) but not even being able to raise that defense seems nuts.
daedrdev · 2026-06-30 15:14:47 UTC
Shooting a cop gets you 50 years even if they shoot someone first. They also didnt shoot anyone. In this case where the cops had quite reasonable worry for their safety in the dead of night with explosions already having gone off and better armed people about, so it was perfectly reasonable for them to have their guns out.
arjie · 2026-06-29 00:52:59 UTC
It's pretty straightforward that if someone tells you to hide something because they've been arrested and they think it ties them to some criminal act, and then you hide it, you're an accessory to the crime. 30 years for that seems harsh though I anticipate they will be pardoned by the next Democratic Party President.
Describing such an act without the obvious context is a pretty good way to point out that it's partisan text and likely misrepresents other things. Listen, we've all been on the Internet a few decades. This kind of understatement of things is not new to any of us. "Oh so just because your country thinks it's not a big deal for someone to go to America to fly a plane means it should get bombed?" No, champ, it's the flying of the plane into the WTC and subsequent sheltering of the guy who planned it that does that.
jrflowers · 2026-06-29 00:57:16 UTC
> No, champ, it's the flying of the plane into the WTC
Sir, a second zine has struck the south tower
lovich · 2026-06-29 01:06:50 UTC
Was the speech illegal? Not giving my email to this site so I can’t read the rest but it seems odd that any sort of speech gets multi year sentences much less multi decade unless it was direct calls to violence.
ndriscoll · 2026-06-29 01:16:48 UTC
I don't think there's even a claim the speech is illegal. Rather, it's that "transporting zines" when your spouse gets arrested on suspicion of crimes related to a designated terrorist organization is about as legal as "arts and crafts" (i.e. shredding documents) when your spouse is arrested for fraud. It's the obstruction of justice part that's illegal, not the possession. As far as I know she could be fully acquitted and he'd still be on the hook for trying to conceal evidence.
lovich · 2026-06-29 03:57:14 UTC
that's a plausible and convincing argument to me other than that its 30 years. Murderers can get less than that. I don't see how that's anything other than trying to chill the idea these people had based on the connection to speech.
I am also not a proponent of absolutist free speech if you check my comment history, but I cannot imagine a realm where the details linked in the small part of the article that's not walled off and the details in this thread don't align to the government trying to prevent bad thought.
I am open to more detail if anyone has some to provide
cbarnes99 · 2026-06-29 05:25:14 UTC
It's worth noting that the average sentence for murder in the US is 15 years. And it is not actually a "designated terrorist organization". The government is claiming they are a "domestic terrorist organization" which isnt a thing under US law, additionally, there is no organization to speak of.
MSFT_Edging · 2026-06-30 12:19:43 UTC
The important thing to note here, is because it's not a real organization, but treated like one, they can simply tie anyone against the admin to a "designated terrorist organization" and put them away for decades with little evidence. As they did here.
15155 · 2026-06-30 12:57:11 UTC
> the average sentence for murder in the US is 15 years
Perhaps in the state system: in the federal system this is absolutely not the case (it's 5+ years longer), and there is no parole.
fakedang · 2026-06-29 01:21:32 UTC
If it costs 30 years for transporting zines, how much is treason and conspiracy to overthrow the government worth?
a96 · 2026-06-29 10:34:30 UTC
"Priceless"
fn-mote · 2026-06-29 22:49:20 UTC
30 years for an accessory charge? For someone who did not attend the event? Sounds excessive.
aqme28 · 2026-06-30 08:47:46 UTC
> 30 years for that seems harsh though I anticipate they will be pardoned by the next Democratic Party President.
I really doubt it.
TrackerFF · 2026-06-30 11:17:01 UTC
The writing on the wall is pretty clear now: Undoing Trump-policies and Trump-legacy should be priority for any potential presidential dem candidate, no mater how center or left leaning.
I don't think we'll get a Ocasio-Cortez type front runner, but I don't think you can be a total milquetoast "water under the bridge" candidate to win either.
If there is one thing the Trump 47 presidency has shown, it is that traditional decorum will not get you anywhere. It is the reason the Trump investigation didn't end up with anything - Biden and the DOJ were too fixated on decorum, and doing things as impartially as possible.
The Prairieland case is a direct product of Trump. They are terrorists because Trump has designated them as terrorists.
cmrdporcupine · 2026-06-30 11:55:00 UTC
Absolutely no way. The Democratic party is currently having a public freak out about 3 DSA members winning in NY primaries and about the mayor of NY. They voted en-masse last year to join with the Republicans in congress to symbolically "denounce socialism" in all its forms.
a) That party would rather lose to Trump than let even moderate social democrats have strong influence b) There is no way they're going to bat for left wing agitators in jail.
> I don't think you can be a total milquetoast "water under the bridge" candidate to win either.
Yep, and that's why they won't win. They're going to go out of their way to frame themselves as super moderate reasonable totally not the "radical left democrats" and run someone semi-Republican trying to appeal to the non-existent center. And piss off anybody "left wing" (or even just sympathetic to Gaza) under the age of 40, which is increasingly a large part of the American populace.
Red-baiting and using the power of the police and law against far left organizations is the bread and butter of the security apparatus in every western country since at least 1917. It's only been temporarily distracted by Islamic radicalism and left wingers have been remarkably disorganized and weak since the fall of the USSR.
jmyeet · 2026-06-30 12:00:34 UTC
I would love to see a detailed comparison of everyone who comments on this issue vs their comments on the age verification issue. For the latter, people bend over backwards to make it a free speech issue yet so many bend over backwards on this issue to argue this 30 year sentence was good actually because they were an accessory to domestic terrorism.
My hypothesis is that these two groups are mostly the same people.
Tad Stoermer, lecturer on American history and author of A Resistance History of the United States summed this up [1]. The person in question here wasn't even at the event. They moved a box of publications and from all this the Federal government created an domestic terrorist organization out of whole cloth (ie Antifa).
What people seem to refuse to accept is that "terrorist" is a political designation, nothing more. It's basically saying "we don't like this person or organization". Were the standards of today around in the 1960s, every civil rights organization would've been labelled domestic terrorists.
The comparisons to January 6 are apt because that was an attempted coup in which people died. The harshest sentences were Enrique Tarrio (ringleader, 22 years), Stewart Rhodes (seditious conspiracy, 18 years) and Ethan Nordean (seditious conspiracy, 18 years). All pardoned by the way.
Yet the people who want to defend 30 years for moving a box of zines by someone who wasn't at the event is astounding.
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 · 2026-06-29 12:11:01 UTC
> 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 · 2026-06-29 13:24:52 UTC
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 · 2026-06-29 22:22:13 UTC
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 · 2026-06-29 22:57:34 UTC
It's one of those irregular verbs. My demonstration, your freedom fighting, their act of terrorism
find0x90 · 2026-06-29 23:53:36 UTC
Yes, thank you, Bernard.
goatlover · 2026-06-29 23:23:50 UTC
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 · 2026-06-29 23:33:06 UTC
How is that relevant to my comment?
godwinson__4-8 · 2026-06-29 23:46:41 UTC
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 · 2026-06-30 00:48:20 UTC
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 · 2026-06-30 00:55:35 UTC
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 · 2026-06-30 01:29:07 UTC
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 · 2026-06-30 01:58:21 UTC
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.
alterom · 2026-06-30 04:44:34 UTC
This is a very well written and thought out argument.
Thank you for putting it together.
BobbyJo · 2026-06-30 05:05:06 UTC
> If someone has committed a crime is that not in some sense "fighting [the] system"?
Of course not. I'm speaking directly about intent. It's pretty obvious to me that most crime is committed without any intent regarding "the system".
> 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.
Well yeah, but again, I'm not explaining this well, I'm not saying they shouldn't expect or want due process. At issue here is "30 years is too much for X". That's not "my rights are being violated", that's "the system is being especially mean to me with respect to applying the law to me with maximum force".
I think they can expect every legal protection due and that's fine, but the outrage at getting the book thrown at them when they were trying to burn the book is what I find strange.
> But there was never - and is usually never - a state where "legality goes out the window".
My wording was really bad. I didn't mean the state shouldn't follow the law, I just meant on a logical basis the "fight the power, wait no, not that power" position becomes inconsistent IMO.
rapidaneurism · 2026-06-30 05:58:59 UTC
>It is logically inconsistent, IMO, to both want to fight a system, and want to be afforded its privileges.
But isn't this exactly what people do when they vote for a different government?
mulmen · 2026-06-30 02:10:00 UTC
> If you're fighting the executive branch, then legality goes out the window
No it doesn’t. It’s enshrined in the constitution. The entire point of the United States is to be able to change the system. I’m struggling to imagine a worse take than this.
mvdtnz · 2026-06-30 02:53:57 UTC
That must be why the American government never gets away with anything unconstitutional.
RIMR · 2026-06-29 23:54:35 UTC
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.
cygx · 2026-06-30 00:14:32 UTC
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 · 2026-06-30 08:26:11 UTC
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.
stevenwoo · 2026-06-30 01:00:34 UTC
Unless one is a right wing protestor like Kyle Rittenhouse.
bluealienpie · 2026-06-30 01:08:18 UTC
*Murderer
otaconjh · 2026-06-30 01:19:55 UTC
He was tried by a jury of your peers though and found not guilty. I'm assuming these guys got a federal jury
bandofthehawk · 2026-06-30 03:27:31 UTC
I guess you don't believe in the concept of innocent until proven guilty?
ks2048 · 2026-06-30 04:21:05 UTC
One can believe in this concept and believe a decision (or the law) was wrong.
s1artibartfast · 2026-06-30 04:16:10 UTC
Still dont see how people could have watched the videos and not seen a clear self defense angle.
TurdF3rguson · 2026-06-30 04:42:41 UTC
It may have been self defense in the moment, but he also went out there looking for trouble and found it.
s1artibartfast · 2026-06-30 04:58:43 UTC
That is a far cry from murder and someone shouldnt carry a gun unless they are willing to use it.
Inversely, someone shouldnt attack someone unless they accept the chance of death or harm.
TurdF3rguson · 2026-06-30 09:28:15 UTC
I didn't say it was murder, I made the concession about self-defense, didn't I?
A nice concession from you might be to admit that kids on your side maybe shouldn't attend protests with intention to do harm.
That's basically where right and left don't see eye to eye on this.
stale2002 · 2026-06-30 05:29:30 UTC
If it was illegal to go somewhere "lookin for trouble" I think that you would see a whole lot of people arrested from certain groups that you likely wouldn't want to be in prison.
TurdF3rguson · 2026-06-30 06:35:04 UTC
I already made the self-defense concession. I'm just hoping for a "he's not a hero" concession from your side.
Comments
Does anyone have a link to details on the case because there must have been more details, like these two were accused of planning a murder in advance, because otherwise this seems insane. It seems insane no matter what, but if this was a judge making a bunch of logical leaps while guided by DOJ lawyers, something is really broken
So it's hard to take their characterization seriously when they have demonstrated that there is a clear double standard, depending on whether you are a FoT (Friend of Trump).
Oscar R. Benavides
An analogy is Enrique Tarrio's arrest in the wake of January 6th. Right wingers complained that he wasn't even in the capital during the riot. But of course that's not evidence his innocence. Even though he didn't personally participate in the putsch, he was still held responsible for organizing it (not for long on account of his pardon, unfortunately, but he was still rightfully convicted).
The feds case, which they did win convictions based on, was that they were terrorists who set off fireworks to lure police into an ambush, and there weren't more casualties because one of the members shot early and only injured one cop. An accessory to this who hid evidence is also part of the crime in the Feds case
Is this embellished by the Feds? I think so, it seems some of the group did not think this was the plan. But there did seem to be a plan and it did involve bringing guns, setting off fireworks, opening the gate and trying to break out the prisoners, and "not going quietly"
Thats quite a mental gymnastics number you did there, BRAVO!!
Fireworks are first and foremost Pyrotechnics - it's only a specific subset of fireworks that contain any sort of 'explosive' element. Short of Simpsons-esque escapades involving cherrybombs and toilets, or m-80s and mailboxes, this use-case simply doesn't exist in real-life. Indeed both cherrybombs and m-80s are federal felonies to possess in the U.S. without an explosives license, alongside anything with 50 milligrams or more of flash powder.
Tannerite sits amongst dozens of other explosives you can buy OTC in the US with a drivers licence - one which generally necessitates shooting at with a rifle to ignite. Plenty of videos on youtube of enthusiasts blowing up a car or similar sized object using it.
Do you know why they were pardoned and this zine hider got 30 years? Must just be a quirk of the justice system...
The 30 years is for evidence tampering. The rest have been convicted of various terrorist charges. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Prairieland_ICE_detention...
It's really funny because all of this has played out in the past with people that actually conspired to do all that and more and walked away free. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Smith_sedition_trial
That case, the incredibly bad handling of Ruby Ridge and Waco put a real freeze on the FBI dealing with domestic terrorism, and then the focus moved outward with 9/11.
But now "domestic terrorism" is priority number 1. Enjoy your choices folks.
Apparently Marxist film reviews and gardening tips are more criminal than child pornography
One side of the story is that Elon Musk personally intervened to unban him for this [1], which is a whole other aspect to this. But the Feds, as far as we know, never charged him. This leads many (including myself) to believe Dom Lucre is an asset to the FBI already.
Jeffrey Epstein was charged for his pedophile ring. Ghislaine Maxwell was convicted but is now sitting in a Work camp she should never be in for her crimes. And she was charged with trafficking. To whom exactly? Nobody has ever been charged or even named as being who minors were trafficked to. At least 4 presidents have sat on a mountain of evidence of this and done precisely nothing. The last president (Biden) and his AG (Garland) even sat on these files when the current president was credibly implicated.
And of course there are the January 6 ringleaders who were convicted of seditious conspiracy (22, 18 and 18 years) for attempting to overthrow the government and storming the Capitol. All pardoned now of course.
But sure, 30 years for moving a box of zines.
[1]: https://www.forbes.com/sites/conormurray/2023/07/27/twitter-...
> One fired an AR-15 at the police, which goes beyond legitimate protest into inciting violence (and maybe even deliberate provocation).
Uh, I think firing a gun at someone is a bit more than "inciting violence", more like attempted murder?
The article doesn't say what the actual charges were. Was it tampering with evidence? Although 30 years for just tampering with evidence doesn't seem right either. Maybe there's more that they're leaving out?
Another comment in another HN thread shared this quote and link:
> "Prosecutors said that the group launched a premeditated terror attack on the detention facility inspired by antifa ideology, by setting off fireworks, vandalizing property, and shooting at police officers who responded. One officer was struck in the neck with a bullet and survived."
https://www.cbsnews.com/texas/news/ice-detention-attack-defe...
Perhaps the cop getting shot in the neck is why they're throwing the book at them.
The shot cop had drawn a gun on someone who was running away.
The judge didn’t even permit the defense to argue “defense of self or others” as a justification.
If it can't, the second amendment is even more pointless than it already appears to be.
I don't think the second amendment is particularly relevant. The point of the second amendment is defense against a tyrannical government so by definition we're in extrajudicial territory and don't care if it's legal or not.
This was shortly before two people got murdered on camera by cops in Minneapolis, and after/around the same time as several other attempted murders (that would have been successfully spun as something chargeable on the victim, if not for video evidence showing plainly that the cops were lying)... so... it doesn't seem like a totally crazy notion to me, that a person might have shown up armed intending only to fire if it looked like a cop was going to shoot someone without a great reason. Maybe a jury would still have convicted (there was a bunch of fuckery with jury selection on this case, incidentally, and I mean way more than usual, even, it's worth reading about; like after what the court selected for on the jury, I believe they almost certainly would still have convicted) but not even being able to raise that defense seems nuts.
Describing such an act without the obvious context is a pretty good way to point out that it's partisan text and likely misrepresents other things. Listen, we've all been on the Internet a few decades. This kind of understatement of things is not new to any of us. "Oh so just because your country thinks it's not a big deal for someone to go to America to fly a plane means it should get bombed?" No, champ, it's the flying of the plane into the WTC and subsequent sheltering of the guy who planned it that does that.
Sir, a second zine has struck the south tower
I am also not a proponent of absolutist free speech if you check my comment history, but I cannot imagine a realm where the details linked in the small part of the article that's not walled off and the details in this thread don't align to the government trying to prevent bad thought.
I am open to more detail if anyone has some to provide
Perhaps in the state system: in the federal system this is absolutely not the case (it's 5+ years longer), and there is no parole.
I really doubt it.
I don't think we'll get a Ocasio-Cortez type front runner, but I don't think you can be a total milquetoast "water under the bridge" candidate to win either.
If there is one thing the Trump 47 presidency has shown, it is that traditional decorum will not get you anywhere. It is the reason the Trump investigation didn't end up with anything - Biden and the DOJ were too fixated on decorum, and doing things as impartially as possible.
The Prairieland case is a direct product of Trump. They are terrorists because Trump has designated them as terrorists.
a) That party would rather lose to Trump than let even moderate social democrats have strong influence b) There is no way they're going to bat for left wing agitators in jail.
> I don't think you can be a total milquetoast "water under the bridge" candidate to win either.
Yep, and that's why they won't win. They're going to go out of their way to frame themselves as super moderate reasonable totally not the "radical left democrats" and run someone semi-Republican trying to appeal to the non-existent center. And piss off anybody "left wing" (or even just sympathetic to Gaza) under the age of 40, which is increasingly a large part of the American populace.
Red-baiting and using the power of the police and law against far left organizations is the bread and butter of the security apparatus in every western country since at least 1917. It's only been temporarily distracted by Islamic radicalism and left wingers have been remarkably disorganized and weak since the fall of the USSR.
My hypothesis is that these two groups are mostly the same people.
Tad Stoermer, lecturer on American history and author of A Resistance History of the United States summed this up [1]. The person in question here wasn't even at the event. They moved a box of publications and from all this the Federal government created an domestic terrorist organization out of whole cloth (ie Antifa).
What people seem to refuse to accept is that "terrorist" is a political designation, nothing more. It's basically saying "we don't like this person or organization". Were the standards of today around in the 1960s, every civil rights organization would've been labelled domestic terrorists.
The comparisons to January 6 are apt because that was an attempted coup in which people died. The harshest sentences were Enrique Tarrio (ringleader, 22 years), Stewart Rhodes (seditious conspiracy, 18 years) and Ethan Nordean (seditious conspiracy, 18 years). All pardoned by the way.
Yet the people who want to defend 30 years for moving a box of zines by someone who wasn't at the event is astounding.
[1]: https://www.tiktok.com/@tadstoermer/video/765517473106636316...
Texas man sentenced to 30 years for transporting pamphlets
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48659703
Signs you're a dangerous terrorist: using Signal, moving zines
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48649884
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"
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Thank you for putting it together.
Of course not. I'm speaking directly about intent. It's pretty obvious to me that most crime is committed without any intent regarding "the system".
> 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.
Well yeah, but again, I'm not explaining this well, I'm not saying they shouldn't expect or want due process. At issue here is "30 years is too much for X". That's not "my rights are being violated", that's "the system is being especially mean to me with respect to applying the law to me with maximum force".
I think they can expect every legal protection due and that's fine, but the outrage at getting the book thrown at them when they were trying to burn the book is what I find strange.
> But there was never - and is usually never - a state where "legality goes out the window".
My wording was really bad. I didn't mean the state shouldn't follow the law, I just meant on a logical basis the "fight the power, wait no, not that power" position becomes inconsistent IMO.
But isn't this exactly what people do when they vote for a different government?
No it doesn’t. It’s enshrined in the constitution. The entire point of the United States is to be able to change the system. I’m struggling to imagine a worse take than this.
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.
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".
as in well organised militia’s right to bear arms? They demonstrated a level of organisation much higher level than Rittenhouse ever did.
Inversely, someone shouldnt attack someone unless they accept the chance of death or harm.
A nice concession from you might be to admit that kids on your side maybe shouldn't attend protests with intention to do harm.
That's basically where right and left don't see eye to eye on this.