Hacker News Reader

Comment by floor2 | Hacker News Reader

What you are misleadingly calling "evidence" here is constitutionally protected free speech political materials. It's only "evidence" that he disagreed with the president on immigration, not anything related to a crime.

Take a step back and be honest about this situation, even if you dislike the people or disagree with their political views. This is an authoritarian attack on political opponents.

Everyone, regardless of political views or party affiliation should be outraged and horrified by this. This is the type of government violence against dissidents and opposition that we decry when it happens in other countries, and we shouldn't tolerate it here.

View on HN

You ... may want to read the indictment before you form an opinion on this one. There were free speech materials in the box, but in the same box there was also evidence of conspiracy to commit violent felonies, and THAT is what the guy's wife had asked him to hide.

EDIT to add: as for a crackdown on dissidents and protestors, how many of the people attending "No Kings" protests have been arrested? How many people attending anti-ICE protests who were not committing other crimes (such as trespassing) in the process have been arrested? And of those arrested, how many of them got length sentences like this?

According to the indictment — and the jury who saw the evidence was convinced enough to convict them on most of the charges — this was a group that had planned ahead to commit violent crimes and claim that they were just protesting. (They showed up with weapons and body armor, clearly prepared ahead of time for violence — and there was more, but the indictment is lengthy and I don't want to repeat all of it). THAT kind of behavior, I want to see cracked down on with as lengthy sentences as the law allows for. Because it endangers everyone, including all the non-violent protestors. (Because at every protest later, the cops will be on edge, wondering at what point someone is going to start shooting at them. And nervous cops are more likely to make mistakes in judgment — and when someone is nervous and armed, mistakes in judgment have a tendency to be lethal.)

I do NOT want peaceful protestors slammed with ridiculous sentences. But these people were NOT peaceful protestors. And I WANT the kind of thing they did cracked down on. My parents lived through the 1970's, with domestic terrorist groups active all over the place, using peaceful protestors as their cover and endangering everyone by their behavior. I do NOT want to live through a repeat of that.

> They showed up with weapons and body armor, clearly prepared ahead of time for violence

How come this argument doesn't hold water in so many other cases? Americans can't be anti-second amendment but only for people who disagree with the government.

Body armor. Showing up with weapons is normal in some places, including Texas. Body armor, not so much. It's the body armor that's the real evidence of preparation.

P.S. Also, there's no inconsistency. Simply apply basic logic. You have the right to be armed. You do not have the right to shoot at law enforcement officials; that's a felony. Nor do you have the right to plan ahead of time to commit a felony, including shooting at law enforcement officials.

Is wearing body armour illegal?

You're shifting the goalposts rather a lot here; at first you said that just bearing arms (allowed by 2nd amendment) and wearing body armour (not forbidden) was proof that they're 'clearly prepared ahead of time for violence', and now you're saying that they're simply not allowed to shoot at law enforcement, which no one disputed.

Which is it? And why don't you apply that standard evenly?

I'm going to lose interest in this conversation soon, but to clarify for anyone else who might be reading: wearing body armor is not common, and tends to be evidence that you are preparing for violence. When you commit a crime of violence, such as attempted murder, preparations ahead of time become evidence of prior intent, which raises the level of the felony involved. E.g., if you get into a verbal confrontation and, in the heat of the moment, pull out a gun and shoot the guy you were fighting with, that's murder, but it's not premeditated murder. It'll be murder in the third degree or second degree, depending on circumstances (and, I think, the definition of degree might vary from state to state).

But if you put on body armor before going into the confrontation, a prosecutor is likely to argue that you were preparing ahead of time for a fight, and that it's evidence that you were planning ahead of time to get into a gunfight. Which means he may well charge you with murder in the first degree, premeditated murder. Whether the jury buys his argument that you were planning the confrontation is up to them, and the other evidence the prosecution advances.

Perhaps I was unwise to assume that people would read the indictment and that I didn't need to repeat what it contained. So, to be clear: the evidence of pre-planning in the indictment included purchasing rifles ahead of time because "Cops are not trained or equipped for more than one rifle so it tends to make them back off" (direct quote by the guy who ended up sentenced to 100 years for, among several other crimes, shooting an ICE officer in the neck). This suggests that the intent was to use the weapons to shoot at law enforcement officers. Carrying weapons is protected under the Second Amendment, but preparing to commit a violent crime is not.

That's the standard. The only thing that's been shifting is my opinion of whether you're actually looking at the evidence vs. forming an opinion ahead of time and not letting yourself be budged by evidence. Which is why I will no longer engage with you after this comment.

Given that police routinely assault peaceful demonstrators, journalists and random bystanders, wearing body armor if you might be anywhere near a protest (whether as a protestor or just because you live, work or transit through such an area) seems like common sense.

Body armor is the most obviously genuine "self defense" item a person could have. A gun, knife or pepper spray might be used for self defense or attack, but armor is purely defensive.

Your whole argument makes no sense. You just hate liberals and are happy to have your perceived enemy behind bars, no matter what degree of authoritarian police state it requires to achieve that end.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com