451–460 of 577 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
IIRC these were state charges, not federal. Only chance at the zine-hider seeing actual justice is texas doing a blue flip(hell freezing over).
federal
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
“That guy” had a name. His name was Alex Pretti. He was disarmed before he was shot in the head. He was not even holding his weapon at any point. Are you implying that simply carrying a legal firearm while at a protest means you can be murdered, without any subsequent investigation? Again the Overton window has shifted so far just in my lifetime. This would have been front page news with congressional investigations…
Protesting is one thing. Going looking for trouble is another.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>What crime are zines evidence of? Not quite the right framing. Look at the chain of events in the probable cause affidavit: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.41... Rueda was in the jail following arrest in an armed group after a firefight at the detention center where 20-30 rifle rounds had been fired, with a police officer killed as a result. In jail, Rueda called her mother to contact Sanch…
At worst, the zines are evidence of Rueda's political opinions. They are not evidence of conspiracy to set off fireworks near the compound, nor shoot an officer.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.41...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>What crime are zines evidence of? Not quite the right framing. Look at the chain of events in the probable cause affidavit: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.41... Rueda was in the jail following arrest in an armed group after a firefight at the detention center where 20-30 rifle rounds had been fired, with a police officer killed as a result. In jail, Rueda called her mother to contact Sanch…
Not killed, wounded.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't approve of the violence apparently planned and carried out by these people, even though their cause was seemingly just. However, we can't afford to let the government's position dictate the particulars of all the facts here. The theory that the fireworks were lit to "bring out first responders" is just that - a theory, from the government's lawyers. The undisputed facts are that these people were working to d…
What in God's name are you talking about? Shot at a police officer "in self defense"? In what world do you have a right to try to murder a cop?
If someone is pointing a gun at you, I don't think the matter of whether you can justly defend yourself turns on who their employer is. The idea that you have to pause and figure out, "Hmmm, does this person collect a paycheck from an entity that claims to be a sovereign state?" is the ludicrous part, to me.
As I say, I hate that they did this, and that they shot this dude. He didn't deserve that. It sucks all around. But their underlying impetus - to disrupt a violent criminal organization which has proved difficult to reign in - is indeed something we need to figure a peaceful solution to, and it's not obvious what that is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"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 a…
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.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
First, there's no "terrorist organization". Antifa doesn't exist as an organization. Second, the zines cannot be evidence of the crimes committed, i.e. setting off fireworks, and injuring an officer.
These are your emotional-based feelings. The facts are that the DOJ has a different terrorist definition, and that the legal concept of "conspiracy" exists. On Reddit/4chan-type websites, emotional opinions get the most upvotes. On fact-based websites they don't.
It's as real as claiming that "pro-gun" is an organization, or "anti-pollution" is an organization.
The zines are only evidence of Rueda's political opinions, not of intent to carry out a crime.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At worst, the zines are evidence of Rueda's political opinions. They are not evidence of conspiracy to set off fireworks near the compound, nor shoot an officer.
Prosecutors were successful in using them as evidence of connection between the members, and as a result of building that connection partly through the zines, held them jointly accountable for the groups overall actions. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.41...
The criticism this judgement receives is the fact that the prosecutors and judge drew these lines of association into a "terrorist organization" so much that even merely possessing literature tangentially related to this non-existent "organization" was deemed a crime worthy of 30 years imprisonment. This is the sort of thinking that sent people to the Soviet Gulags.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 acquitt…
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.
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.