Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Prairieland defendants sentenced today to prison terms ranging from 30-100 years

prairielanddefendants.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 62 posts

Re: Prairieland defendants sentenced today to prison terms ranging from 30-100 years

#51

Post by fuckinpuppers »

queenkjuul wrote: post #16
Exoristos wrote: post #3

"Family members and supporters ... called the punishment cruel, callous and starkly disproportionate to the defendants’ actions." The defendants were convicted "on a variety of federal charges, including riot, material support for terrorists, attempted murder, possession and conspiracy to use explosives, and conspiracy to conceal documents." What is a proportionate sentence for convictions like these? In other words,…

Well one person got 30 years for "concealing documents" -- they moved a box of anarchist zines from their apartment to their car

And yet the guy concealing documents, moving them so the fbi couldn’t find them, storing them insecurely - nothing

Re: Prairieland defendants sentenced today to prison terms ranging from 30-100 years

#52

Post by tiahura »

jmye wrote: post #31
tiahura wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> You agree with essentially a life sentence for moving pamphlets around? That was the question you were asked. It was a short comment with very few big words. Why are you talking about whether it’s a crime? Why the rank dishonesty? Is it too hard a question for you to figure out how to answer?

Answering a question with false premise is tricky.

Re: Prairieland defendants sentenced today to prison terms ranging from 30-100 years

#53

Post by MisterMower »

Sabinus wrote: post #50
MisterMower wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He was charged with 37 felony counts, the most serious of which carried a maximum sentence of 20 years. Had he been convicted he would have surely gone to prison for far longer than Estrada. [1] Both the crimes Trump was charged with and Estrada was convicted of are very serious. But to some people, the severity of the penalties are only an issue when the politics of the person charged with them aligns with their own…

Why wasn't Trump convicted?

The Wikipedia link I posted should answer your question comprehensively.

Re: Prairieland defendants sentenced today to prison terms ranging from 30-100 years

#54

Post by MisterMower »

alexgieg wrote: post #39
MisterMower wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The activity in the body does not align with the title. Even putting aside whether such activities are justified in this case or acceptable in general, people do not commonly attempt murder or posses explosives at protests.

What the sentencing calls attempted murder, the defendants are describing as one of the protesters watching a police officer preparing to shoot another protester who was running away on their back, and thus shooting in the direction of the would-be cold blood murderer to prevent the assassination attempt. If this description is correct (a big if, but it seems the judge didn't care for examining the evidence), then it…

Yes, that was the defense’s argument, which was ultimately unpersuasive to a jury. Rehashing it here doesn’t make it more persuasive or effective.

I’ve been to several protests over the years and at exactly zero of them did I encounter fireworks of any kind. Maybe we run in different circles.

There is no non-criminal reason to use fireworks at a protest. Most cities ban their use altogether except for a few days a year around Independence Day and New Year’s Day.

Re: Prairieland defendants sentenced today to prison terms ranging from 30-100 years

#55

Post by alexgieg »

MisterMower wrote: post #54
alexgieg wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What the sentencing calls attempted murder, the defendants are describing as one of the protesters watching a police officer preparing to shoot another protester who was running away on their back, and thus shooting in the direction of the would-be cold blood murderer to prevent the assassination attempt. If this description is correct (a big if, but it seems the judge didn't care for examining the evidence), then it…

Yes, that was the defense’s argument, which was ultimately unpersuasive to a jury. Rehashing it here doesn’t make it more persuasive or effective. I’ve been to several protests over the years and at exactly zero of them did I encounter fireworks of any kind. Maybe we run in different circles. There is no non-criminal reason to use fireworks at a protest. Most cities ban their use altogether except for a few days a ye…

I'm not American and don't know much about how protests are done in the US. From my perspective what you describe sounds extremely weird, in a cultural shock kind of way. I mean, how is it that, in the US, one can carry actual guns, including military-grade weapons, to protests, but carrying fireworks, whose core purpose is to make loud noise to force people to pay attention to the protest, is forbidden?

This sounds to me _exactly_ as weird as when I watch on TV those little gated "free speech zones" American cities have been implementing and, even worse, protesters obediently limiting their protest to within he gated area, "conveniently" placed several blocks away from where the protest would be effective.

Weird. Very, very weird.

Re: Prairieland defendants sentenced today to prison terms ranging from 30-100 years

#56

Post by Brian_K_White »

MisterMower wrote: post #36
Brian_K_White wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Um what? The activity in the body aligns with the title. Even the part that sounds the worst if you take it out of context, was not a murder or even failed attempted murder, but the successful prevention of a murder.

The activity in the body does not align with the title. Even putting aside whether such activities are justified in this case or acceptable in general, people do not commonly attempt murder or posses explosives at protests.

It wasn't them who attempted a murder, it was them who prevented it. Holy shit dude.

Re: Prairieland defendants sentenced today to prison terms ranging from 30-100 years

#58

Post by MisterMower »

alexgieg wrote: post #55
MisterMower wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, that was the defense’s argument, which was ultimately unpersuasive to a jury. Rehashing it here doesn’t make it more persuasive or effective. I’ve been to several protests over the years and at exactly zero of them did I encounter fireworks of any kind. Maybe we run in different circles. There is no non-criminal reason to use fireworks at a protest. Most cities ban their use altogether except for a few days a ye…

I'm not American and don't know much about how protests are done in the US. From my perspective what you describe sounds extremely weird, in a cultural shock kind of way. I mean, how is it that, in the US, one can carry actual guns, including military-grade weapons, to protests, but carrying fireworks, whose core purpose is to make loud noise to force people to pay attention to the protest, is forbidden? This sounds…

I mean this in the kindest way possible: if you're not from the US and your only window into our country is TV and the internet, consider the possibility that your assumptions about how things are here might not match reality.

Re: Prairieland defendants sentenced today to prison terms ranging from 30-100 years

#59

Post by AlexeyBelov »

SauciestGNU wrote: post #44
tiahura wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

A jury of the dumbest motherfuckers found that, after the judge declared a mistrial and threw out the initial jury because he perceived them as too sympathetic to the defense. Rigged trial run by Nazis juried by Nazis.

And many people on HN are _happy_ about the outcome.

Re: Prairieland defendants sentenced today to prison terms ranging from 30-100 years

#60

Post by alexgieg »

MisterMower wrote: post #58
alexgieg wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not American and don't know much about how protests are done in the US. From my perspective what you describe sounds extremely weird, in a cultural shock kind of way. I mean, how is it that, in the US, one can carry actual guns, including military-grade weapons, to protests, but carrying fireworks, whose core purpose is to make loud noise to force people to pay attention to the protest, is forbidden? This sounds…

I mean this in the kindest way possible: if you're not from the US and your only window into our country is TV and the internet, consider the possibility that your assumptions about how things are here might not match reality.

Then please correct me on the above.

Are gated free speech zones a thing, and do Americans obey that? If no, what are the news talking about when they show those? If yes, why do Americans submit to this?

And is carrying guns into protests allowed? If not, why aren't all gun carriers arrested on the spot? If yes, how does it make sense to allow them, but not fireworks, and how are fireworks more dangerous than loaded guns, and worthy of jailing, prosecution and imprisonment, while guns aren't?

Post reply on HN