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

Signs you're a dangerous terrorist: using Signal, moving zines

werd.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 95 posts

Re: Signs you're a dangerous terrorist: using Signal, moving zines

#61

Post by prepend »

> One fired an AR-15 at the police

This is what makes this different. There’s lots of gun clubs all over the place. But if a member shoots at the police (or anyone, really) they are going to get the book thrown at them and everyone associated with them who helped them, etc.

Because that changes your club from something normal to something that tried to shoot cops.

There’s a group in my town called the NFA club or something. They get their rifles out and march around neighborhoods. They stop cars. Quite scary. But they no the law and never brandish, directly threaten, etc. But if one of them ever shoots at a cop, I expext the whole group is going to jail.

Re: Signs you're a dangerous terrorist: using Signal, moving zines

#62

Post by prepend »

stevenwoo wrote: post #35
hughw wrote: post #32

Nobody's talking about how "terrorism" has expanded to mean, in law, armed opposition the the government. Throw in terrorism and the sentence goes up dramatically. Is it possible to oppose the government with arms yet not be a terrorist? I'd say, yes. But I never expect to see a prosecution acknowledge that. They're even making drug smugglers into terrorists and murdering them extrajudicially.

Two of those people were not involved in any of the planning and discussion of weapons via Signal and still got 30 year sentences, for the magazines bit. The shooter claimed he only shot because he saw the officer shooting at the back of fleeing unarmed protestors - this type of law enforcement is frowned upon in most other countries but regularly happens unopposed in the USA and officers will claim and most of the t…

> The shooter claimed he only shot because he saw the officer shooting at the back of fleeing unarmed protestors

This is still not the right move. I think I remember people being convicted of shooting back at cops directly shooting at them. But shooting at cops because you think they are shooting at protestors is never going to end up properly.

Re: Signs you're a dangerous terrorist: using Signal, moving zines

#63

Post by muwtyhg »

armchairhacker wrote: post #57
lux-lux-lux wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> similarly long sentences Enrique Tarrio got 22 years for masterminding an attempt to violently overturn the results of a Presidential election. Daniel Sanchez-Estrada got 30 years for moving some magazines. The median Jan 6 sentence was 10 months. The shortest sentence for a protestor here was 30 years.

Ok, that guy’s sentence is egregious (they all are, as were the Jan 6 ones, but I think he shouldn’t even have jail time). I have less sympathy towards those who vandalized and the one who shot at police. 100 years is insane, but those acts are blatantly illegal.

> as were the Jan 6 ones

30 years was the MINIMUM sentence given to this group. The MAXIMUM sentence given to J6 rioters was 22 years. Are you honestly still trying to conflate the two?

Re: Signs you're a dangerous terrorist: using Signal, moving zines

#64

Post by justsomehnguy »

p0w3n3d wrote: post #4

In Poland during the Soviet occupation (1945-1989) people were beaten and jailed for having a copier that would be used for copying magazines and brochures

> during the Soviet occupation

Yep, things were waaay better in 1938, right?

NB: I like how [0] just ignores everything between 1918 and 2007.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czech_Republic%E2%80%93Poland_...

Re: Signs you're a dangerous terrorist: using Signal, moving zines

#65

Post by foobarchu »

prepend wrote: post #62
stevenwoo wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Two of those people were not involved in any of the planning and discussion of weapons via Signal and still got 30 year sentences, for the magazines bit. The shooter claimed he only shot because he saw the officer shooting at the back of fleeing unarmed protestors - this type of law enforcement is frowned upon in most other countries but regularly happens unopposed in the USA and officers will claim and most of the t…

> The shooter claimed he only shot because he saw the officer shooting at the back of fleeing unarmed protestors This is still not the right move. I think I remember people being convicted of shooting back at cops directly shooting at them. But shooting at cops because you think they are shooting at protestors is never going to end up properly.

Then what's the right to it doing in the constitution?

Re: Signs you're a dangerous terrorist: using Signal, moving zines

#66

Post by JuniperMesos »

hughw wrote: post #32

Nobody's talking about how "terrorism" has expanded to mean, in law, armed opposition the the government. Throw in terrorism and the sentence goes up dramatically. Is it possible to oppose the government with arms yet not be a terrorist? I'd say, yes. But I never expect to see a prosecution acknowledge that. They're even making drug smugglers into terrorists and murdering them extrajudicially.

Armed opposition to the government seems like a pretty central definition of terrorism to me. Of course one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, but that's true in all armed conflicts between nations and aspiring nations.

Re: Signs you're a dangerous terrorist: using Signal, moving zines

#67

Post by pasta67 »

foobarchu wrote: post #65
prepend wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The shooter claimed he only shot because he saw the officer shooting at the back of fleeing unarmed protestors This is still not the right move. I think I remember people being convicted of shooting back at cops directly shooting at them. But shooting at cops because you think they are shooting at protestors is never going to end up properly.

Then what's the right to it doing in the constitution?

The constitution is fine. The main issue is about definition of oppression that is shifted by Left. And can I point the dissonance here as you seem to not get it - you want to overthrow "oppression"... and AT THE SAME TIME complain that "opressive" government has unfair laws against you? If you do not succeed at overthrowing "oppression", expect to be punished like losers, as state has monopoly on violence and is free to punish harshly those that challenge that monopoly.

Re: Signs you're a dangerous terrorist: using Signal, moving zines

#68

Post by pasta67 »

hughw wrote: post #32

Nobody's talking about how "terrorism" has expanded to mean, in law, armed opposition the the government. Throw in terrorism and the sentence goes up dramatically. Is it possible to oppose the government with arms yet not be a terrorist? I'd say, yes. But I never expect to see a prosecution acknowledge that. They're even making drug smugglers into terrorists and murdering them extrajudicially.

To oppose goverment, you need: * Mass support of folks that recognize you as government and not the "oppressive" government.

Simply stating that government is oppressive does not qualify. Do you actually recognize those people in this article? Are they opposing government on your behalf? Have you mandated them to oppose government... that you elected? Do you have judges that have different opinion on this case?

The whole discussion and article about this topic seems to be oblivious on these very basic legal issues.

Re: Signs you're a dangerous terrorist: using Signal, moving zines

#69

Post by pasta67 »

qwery wrote: post #50
bArray wrote: post #38

This article is quite dishonest. > Let’s be clear: a few of the protesters were out of bounds. "out of bounds" is a nice way of putting it. Terrorism is an accurate description. > But these sentences far outstrip anything that’s been given to anyone on the right wing: the leader of the Proud Boys, as this article notes, was sentenced to 22 years in prison. I think the difference here is the planned terrorist activity…

> "out of bounds" is a nice way of putting it. This I agree with. > it was knowingly concealing evidence The article does not misrepresent this. The issue being raised is about how they were tried/convicted/sentenced. The part you quoted shows this. > Terrorism is an accurate description. > ... the difference here is the planned terrorist activity, ... If the Proud Boys were doing [the] same sort of thing ... I'm gen…

Terrorism comes from word terror - it is use of violence to impose terrorist goals. Usually political. The fact that they have chosen as a target police is just return to classical terrorism that existed 100+ years ago. Targeting innocents by taking hostages, 911 or blowing up cooker are quite recent developments for terrorist activities. What was your definition for terrorism?
Post reply on HN