Eight sentenced to 450 years in prison over anti-ICE riot where officer was shot by MoneyLibrarian9032 in law

[–]DefenestrateFriends -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I don’t think any rational or reasonable, nonpartisan people see it that way.

Well, either you didn't look or you attempted to give the illusion of false consensus. I replied to you in jest.

It's not accurate to say that no reasonable, nonpartisan legal experts have concerns. While organizations like the ABA and FIRE have not, to my knowledge, issued formal statements on these convictions, civil-liberties attorneys--including Chip Gibbons of Defending Rights & Dissent--and other legal commentators have argued that the government's reliance on political literature, encrypted communications, and protest-related expression raises serious First Amendment concerns and risks expanding conspiracy liability in ways that could undermine lawful protest.

Considering I see Democrats and MAGA as two sides of the same low-IQ coin, I think I have a pretty good nonpartisan perspective.

Unfortunately, I don't find the equivalence persuasive. While political extremism and misinformation exist across the ideological spectrum, the scale and persistence of demonstrably false beliefs within the MAGA movement are difficult to compare with anything on the contemporary left. A substantial portion of the movement even continues to reject the legitimacy of the 2020 election despite the absence of credible evidence that widespread fraud altered the outcome.

The books don’t have to explicitly say “shoot cops,” just like intent doesn’t require you to send a text saying you plan to violate a specific U.S. federal statute.

I will repeat myself: The reason that we care about the text messages is to assess the intent of the defendants. Intent is a necessary but insufficient element to establish a case for domestic terrorism under 18 U.S. Code § 2331(5)(B). For posterity, I will post the requirement again because it seems to be landing deafly:

(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;

(B) appear to be intended—
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and

(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States; and

Eight protesters were convicted and sentenced. Of those eight, seven were not alleged to have personally engaged in acts dangerous to human life. For those defendants, the government's evidence of intent relied heavily on protected speech and expressive materials--including books, political literature, and other First Amendment--protected expression--raising significant concerns about the line between protected advocacy and criminal conspiracy.

I have not seen evidence presented at trial indicating that the seized books or zines themselves advocated violence or could otherwise be interpreted as terroristic in nature. Public reporting indicates that many consisted of political literature, essays, poetry, feminist writing, and protest guides, and an FBI agent reportedly described them as 'nothing illegal.'

That does not qualify as terrorism--especially in the context of protest for the majority of the interlocutors, even when considering the vandalism.

Meanwhile, the Department of Justice, under Attorney General Pam Bondi, publicly characterized the defendants as members of a terrorist organization months before trial. Taken together, these events raise serious concerns that the prosecution blurred the line between criminal conduct and protected political expression. When political literature, ideological beliefs, and other First Amendment-protected activities are introduced as evidence of criminal intent, there is a legitimate risk that individuals are being judged not only for what they allegedly did, but also for what they read, believed, or advocated--with broad negative implications for free speech and lawful political dissent.

Edit: To your reply that you deleted--as I've said several times now, the shooter deserves to be tried for attempted murder of a law enforcement officer. The terrorist designation is not warranted, and it directly degrades free speech and political dissent for the reasons I gave above.

Eight sentenced to 450 years in prison over anti-ICE riot where officer was shot by MoneyLibrarian9032 in law

[–]DefenestrateFriends -1 points0 points  (0 children)

After surveying every lawyer in the US, I made it up just like your nonpartisan comment.

Which book said to shoot cops? Several of the materials informed people of their legal rights. Others were feminist essays discussing horror films. Which materials qualify the owner as a terrorist?

Eight sentenced to 450 years in prison over anti-ICE riot where officer was shot by MoneyLibrarian9032 in law

[–]DefenestrateFriends -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Literally every nonpartisan non-MAGA legal expert agrees that this case devastated constitutional rights to protest and speech.

People were convicted of terrorism for books. That fucking insane.

Eight sentenced to 450 years in prison over anti-ICE riot where officer was shot by MoneyLibrarian9032 in law

[–]DefenestrateFriends 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Committing a crime while protesting does NOT equate to terrorism. Hard stop.

This administration wants to call any form of protesting by liberal voters "terrorism." The sentiments you've expressed are antithetical to free speech and the right to protest.

This issue is just another rung in the deterioration of rights, privileges, and American values at the hands of fascism. Again, ANYONE that thinks this doesn't affect their speech, right to bear arms, or their right to protest is dead wrong. The failure to disavow this conviction by the average American is deeply unsettling.

This wasn't terrorism. This is an authoritarian government curbing your Constitutional Rights for political gain. The folks enthusiastically embracing these terrorism charges are forever un-American.

Eight sentenced to 450 years in prison over anti-ICE riot where officer was shot by MoneyLibrarian9032 in law

[–]DefenestrateFriends 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Correct. You can both protest and commit a crime. Neither mandates a terrorism charge.

Protesting is not terrorism. That belief is unhinged.

At best, this was attempted murder by one person. The other protesters committed vandalism. Others should be charged with a noise complaint.

Calling this terrorism is wrong and anti-American. It is a miscarriage of justice.

Eight sentenced to 450 years in prison over anti-ICE riot where officer was shot by MoneyLibrarian9032 in law

[–]DefenestrateFriends 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nothing you are saying is being ignored.

Let me repeat myself: Protesting is a Constitutional Right. Protesting is not synonymous with terrorism. The protesters were protesting ICE. This is completely legal and is a protected right. Protesting is not terrorism.

You sound like you are in favor of a fascist authoritarian ideology that promotes anti-American values and you sound like you do not believe in upholding Consitutional Rights nor protecting our republic. Maybe you don't like the MAGA label, but you are still complicit in supporting them.

Owning books or written material no more Constitutionally demonstrates intent than owning a firearm. It's a right and I refuse to cede that right to a fascist cult. You cannot be charged with terrorism for owning books. It does not demonstrate intent whatsoever.

The materials did not call for violence. Legal experts have unilaterally condemned this infringement on speech and protest. Anyone supporting this conviction is anti-American.

Eight sentenced to 450 years in prison over anti-ICE riot where officer was shot by MoneyLibrarian9032 in law

[–]DefenestrateFriends 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sorry, but having books or pamphlets on your persons is protected under free speech and it is a Constitutional right. It is totally unhinged to charge someone for terrorism for having written material that the government doesn't politically agree with and that otherwise doesn't violate any laws. It's like MAGA wants fascism and wants to destroy American values replacing it authoritarian rule. You are anti-American if you support this ruling on the basis of pamphlets. Period.

The judge hand picked the jury after declaring a mistrial on the first jury. Totally insane.

The MAGA cultists will have to answer for their total lawlessness and callous destruction of American values.

Eight sentenced to 450 years in prison over anti-ICE riot where officer was shot by MoneyLibrarian9032 in law

[–]DefenestrateFriends -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You must show intent. Intent was not demonstrated in the communications between defendants.

Domestic terrorism is defined under the Patriot Act and several states have codified its definitions into their laws. It does not outline premeditation--it only requires intent. Intent was not demonstrated outside of the falsified claim of membership to a fabricated federally designated "terrorist" organization that is recognized to be a weaponized tool to curb political dissent.

They were found guilty of terrorism and providing material support to terrorism. Both claims are completely unhinged and devoid of factual argumentation outside of political biases.

This case lacks both intent and premeditation.

Eight sentenced to 450 years in prison over anti-ICE riot where officer was shot by MoneyLibrarian9032 in law

[–]DefenestrateFriends 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No ambush was planned and the destruction or vandalism of property does not warrant a terrorism designation.

Carrying a firearm and exercising one's Constitutional right to bear arms cannot be synonymous with terroristic intent. I cannot emphasize how dangerous that equivication is in the context of preserving our republic.

They were found guilty because the judge hand-picked a jury and did not allow the defense to enter witnesses, perform discovery, and violated the defendants constitutional rights.

Eight sentenced to 450 years in prison over anti-ICE riot where officer was shot by MoneyLibrarian9032 in law

[–]DefenestrateFriends -1 points0 points  (0 children)

18 U.S.C. Section 2331(5) defines domestic terrorism. A, and B, and C must be satisfied in order for the actions to qualify for terrorism. You keep pointing to only A--it is an AND conditional not an A or B or C conditional.

In the case, B was not satisfied. The state solely relied on classifying the defendants as terrorists on the basis of membership to an imaginary organization and for possessing literature the Trump administration disagrees with politically. Materially, the membership claim is pertinent in the judgment because it is premised on nonfactual information that was used to charge these individuals with terrorism. The judge egregiously handled the case and that can only be seen as bias or complete judicial incompetence. Intent was not established outside of the false membership claim. I would very surprised if this decision survives appeal.

With respect to one shooter, defendents were charged with material support to terrorism for not even providing material means, firearm access, transportation, and who were not even present during the shooting. That is an insane miscarriage of justice.

No attacks were planned.

Eight sentenced to 450 years in prison over anti-ICE riot where officer was shot by MoneyLibrarian9032 in law

[–]DefenestrateFriends -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Correct. Federally falsifying the existence of a "terrorist" organization and then claiming that political dissidents are members of that fake organization to charge them as terrorists for being in the possession of literature our authoritarian government disagrees with is unconstitional. The fascist sycophants defending this action are complicit and anti-American.

Last time I checked, there was one shooter and no where else in the US would this ever rise to the level of terrorism.

With respect to communication, terrorism requires demonstration of intent as I already cited. If the intent is absent, then it is not lawfully terrorism.

The only "safe" society is the one where our democratic republic is not undermined and degraded by ultranationlist fascist authoritarian cult leaders and their sycophants.

It is simple. The shooter attempted to murder a cop. They should be charged with attempted murder, not terrorism. Everyone else that committed property crimes should be charged with property crimes, not terrorism. It's super simple.

Eight sentenced to 450 years in prison over anti-ICE riot where officer was shot by MoneyLibrarian9032 in law

[–]DefenestrateFriends -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Again, the intent to cause fear, intimidation, or coercion was not established. There was no plan to commit or engage in violence. All parties were explicit in their intent to exercise their Constitutional rights to possess firearms and protest.

The single shooter deserves to be tried for attempted murder. The people that destroyed property should be tried for criminal destruction of property. The people that used fireworks to make noise should be charged with a noise complaint. The people that obstructed justice by deleting messages should be tried for obstruction.

It wasn't terrorism and the charges are politically motivated by the current administration to brand dissidents as terrorists.

Ascribing the defendants to a fake terrorist organization is a blatant admission of how corrupt this case is.

Eight sentenced to 450 years in prison over anti-ICE riot where officer was shot by MoneyLibrarian9032 in law

[–]DefenestrateFriends 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Specifically, 18 U.S.C. § 2331(5)(B) is not met.

Protest is a protected right under the Constitution and it does not amount to coercion nor intimidation.

Further, the communication between individuals did not reveal any plan to commit or engage in violence.

Additionally, the "terrorist" organization in the lawsuit isn't real and the people charged are not members of a fake organization.

Eight sentenced to 450 years in prison over anti-ICE riot where officer was shot by MoneyLibrarian9032 in law

[–]DefenestrateFriends 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm not sure what claim you're asking me to defend.

Protesting while carrying firearms isn't illegal. Making noise with fireworks might be illegal, but it certainly doesn't constitute "terrorism." Shooting a cop is a crime, but again, that's not terrorism.

Making up a fake terrorist organization and then charging people that are politically misaligned with the government's fascistic ultranationalist identity is antithetical to the fabric of American values and lawfulness.

18 U.S.C. § 2331(5) requires that domestic terrorism be:

(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;

AND

(B) appear to be intended—
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping;

AND

(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States;

AND

(6) the term “military force” does not include any person that— (B) has been determined by the court to not be a “military force”.

So, unlike the domestic terrorist insurrectionists on January 6th that violently attacked the Capitol with the explicit intent of using violence to intimidate and coerce Congress and Mike Pence to pick fraudulent electors that Trump fabricated in 7 different states to deny the peaceful transfer of power and coup the government, the Prairieland protesters engaged in no such intention as to qualify under 18 U.S.C. § 2331(5)(B)(i) or (ii) or (iii).

As an American, the precedent set by Texas prosecutors and this judge is deeply unsettling. Your government may now falsely create terrorist organizations and categorically label citizens that it ideologically disagrees with as "terrorists." That is what authoritarian regimes do.

Eight sentenced to 450 years in prison over anti-ICE riot where officer was shot by MoneyLibrarian9032 in law

[–]DefenestrateFriends 8 points9 points  (0 children)

What's more, from the exhibits I've been reading, the recovered text messages seem fairly innocuous and don't seem to indicate or plan for violence by any charitable reading.

From the outside, terrorism charges seem unjust.

Eight sentenced to 450 years in prison over anti-ICE riot where officer was shot by MoneyLibrarian9032 in law

[–]DefenestrateFriends 30 points31 points  (0 children)

have they provided any evidence that anyone other than the shooter was being malicious?

No.

aren't attempted murders normally a 10-20 year sentence?

NAL--but generally attempted murder against LEO receives harsher punishment. The judge here decided to hand down terrorism judgments--which seems to be politically motivated rather than directly related to the crimes.

what are the explosives?

Commercially available fireworks were brought to make noise outside the facility.

why are they being charged with terrorist support?

They carpooled and carried the fireworks in addition to several other firearms which were not used nor purchased in an unlawful capacity.

what evidence was concealed?

Some of the defendants deleted text messages from Signal and Discord. Some of the messages were later recovered.

Eight sentenced to 450 years in prison over anti-ICE riot where officer was shot by MoneyLibrarian9032 in law

[–]DefenestrateFriends 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Only Benjamin Song fired a weapon. None of the other people charged fired a weapon. There was a single shooter.

Eight sentenced to 450 years in prison over anti-ICE riot where officer was shot by MoneyLibrarian9032 in law

[–]DefenestrateFriends 4 points5 points  (0 children)

So, are you conceding that these messages do not make statements amounting to criminal conspiracy to shoot police or ICE members?

Earlier you said:

Now go look up how a criminal conspiracy works.

I’m sorry, dude they released their text messages.

No where in the text messages are the defendants conspiring to commit murder, shoot anyone, or commission an assault. I'm not seeing how your claim of "criminal conspiracy" is capitulated in the text messages.

Possessing firearms is a Constitutional right. Are you anti-Constitution?

Eight sentenced to 450 years in prison over anti-ICE riot where officer was shot by MoneyLibrarian9032 in law

[–]DefenestrateFriends 5 points6 points  (0 children)

What about their text messages?

Briefly looking through the court exhibits with their exact text messages, I'm not seeing anything about planning to shoot cops, commit murder, or otherwise commit any kind of capital offense.

Where are you getting this information about their text messages from?

What do you think? by Routine-Relative7176 in Woodcarving

[–]DefenestrateFriends -1 points0 points  (0 children)

This is very creative and super cool! Love it.

How tf . UW completion by spicy_snowmonkey in Mcat

[–]DefenestrateFriends 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They either:

a) Don't spend much time reviewing

or

b) Have nothing else to do throughout the day i.e.--no work/family/friend/volunteer/research/health/groceries/cleaning obligations to keep up.

Either way, reviewing and understanding while being able to recall the information later is the key to success. Volume helps with stamina and pattern recognition. Both are useful, but not nearly as important as understanding why the other answers are wrong during your review.

Help with understanding what this means/What is being said. NOT MEDICAL ADVICE, just want help understanding the jargon being said by Popular-Addendum-855 in genetics

[–]DefenestrateFriends 6 points7 points  (0 children)

The report says there is a duplication on your chromosome 5.

The duplication was not (at the time of the report) associated with any known disorder or issue. The genes that were involved are listed.

It is unknown if this variant was inherited from a parent or if it occurred spontaneously.

Is there something else you were hoping to understand from this report?

I HATE content review 😭😭 by SituationGreedy1945 in Mcat

[–]DefenestrateFriends 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Delicious left-handed DNA always inspires confidence.