A lot of people in these Hacker News comments are accepting the framing that moving the zines is evidence tampering and therefore deserves a 30 year sentence. What crime are zines evidence of?
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 Sanchez because he would know what was going on. Rueda later directly called Sanchez and said, 'whatever you need to do, move whatever you need at the house'. Sanchez indicated to Rueda he had already been to her house.
Sanchez was then observed leaving his house with zines and was observed moving the zines to an apartment of someone else's. The zines were the same TTPs for anti-gov, anti-LE civil unrest topics as seen before and thus considered likely to be connected.
All in all, moving evidence from an investigation involving armed groups engaging in firefights with ICE isn't a stretch once we don't omit the facts known.
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.
You will notice that the criticism this judgement receives if not for finding Song guilty, even if the sentence is inordinately long for a non-lethal crime with minor wider repercussions.
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.
I do see the criticism, but those critics appear made unwilling to accept that material support to other bad actors snares one in their web. No people were punished for mere possession, you or I could possess those zines and even email the prosecution about it.
This shouldn’t be such a leap, but rationalizing is what it is.
The hefty punishments are principally from the punishment enhancements meted out for the alleged terrorist label, firearms, wounded police, etc that overflow from the chief perpetrators onto those caught in the web through membership and their support.
Perhaps hiding evidence should be merely hiding evidence, not hiding evidence in the burying of a highly political prosecution where someone is catching life plus cancer, yet here we are.
What if you believe (correctly) that a corrupt government intends to punish you exorbitantly beyond reason for possession of these zines? Is it still immoral to move the zines? Is it so immoral that it therefore justifies 30 years of imprisonment for moving the zines?
> What if you believe (correctly) that a corrupt government intends to punish you exorbitantly beyond reason for possession of these zines?
Well the belief is incorrect, since to date nobody was punished for possessing them, and there is no reason to suspect anyone would be.
> Is it still immoral to move the zines?
Morality and legality are totally separate things. Whether it is immoral depends on which system of morality you subscribe to, although i think you could make a reasonable argument that it was immoral in most popular morality systems.
That said, i think your framing does a disservice. The question is, is it immoral to cover up a crime. The method used to do the cover up is irrelavent.
> therefore justifies 30 years
I tend to think 30 years is a bit steep, personally.
Let's say someone is driving 35MPH. They think "oh snap, I think the speed limit is 30MPH here!". The posted speed limit is actually 40MPH.
Was this person speeding or not? Should a cop ticket them for thinking they're doing something wrong, even if everything they were doing was legal?
Did they even think the zines were implicated as evidence? Were the zines implicated as evidence? What crimes were being committed by ownership of these zines?
If there's a warrant issued to search a house, and a resident of that house eats a ham sandwich for lunch while the cops are on their way, did they destroy evidence?
It's not illegal "because you think its illegal", it's illegal because "you had a court order to provide things that are relevant and you instead hid things you thought were relevant".
If I hide someone who I think did a crime to help them escape police, I've now implicated myself in the crime, whether or not my trying to hide them actually caused them to get away with it.
Easily? Documents that could speak to the accused intentions, plans and motivations seem very pertinent to an investigation. They may or may not actually contain evidence, but they certainly seem related enough that police obtaining a search warrant for them is reasonable.
> it's illegal because "you had a court order to provide things that are relevant and you instead hid things you thought were relevant"
And yet when Trump does it with classified documents its not a problem. Where's his 30 years?
Did he even have a warrant issued to him related to these documents?
Are these zines even relevant evidence? Is everyone who has these magazines also now a criminal? What about other radical anti-government political pamphlets like Common Sense?
> If I hide someone who I think did a crime to help them escape police
Seems like quite a different thing than moving some political pamphlets. If they were shredding financial documents while being charged with financial crimes I'd agree. If they were hiding guns with a gun trafficking charge, I'd understand. Flushing drugs down the drain, sure. Moving political zines though? Really? What's the relevance again for the ownership of political pamphlets to committing crimes?
> Did he even have a warrant issued to him related to these documents?
Yes. A zine put together by a group that later goes on to commit a crime together, that promotes the ideologies underlying the crime, feels like the kind of thing a search warrant/subpoena would apply to. The fact that the person involved in the crime asked that they be hidden makes it pretty obvious that they saw it that way as well.
> Are these zines even relevant evidence?
Yes.
> Is everyone who has these magazines also now a criminal?
No. Things can be legal and evidence of ill intent at the same time.
> What about other radical anti-government political pamphlets like Common Sense?
If the editor(s) of that pamphlet went on to commit a crime of a political nature, no doubt their relationship with the pamphlet would be evidence used against them. It would also still be perfectly legal to have, and legal for others to continue publishing.
> Seems like quite a different thing than moving some political pamphlets.
It is, but I think the core idea of involving yourself in the crime by way of trying to hide evidence etc. is similar at least.
> What's the relevance again for the ownership of political pamphlets to committing crimes?
Depends on the crime. If they had robbed a Wendy's, probably no relevance. If they attacked an ICE building and the pamphlets established ill intent toward ICE, probably a lot of relevance.
If these zines were like "here's how to attack an ICE facility" or directly promoting imminent violence against officers I'd understand.
Is that what these zines were about? From the zines I've seen they're all pretty general anarchist kind of materials. One of the zines was arguing the morality of squatting a residence. Is that evidence of committing violence against an ICE facility?
If there really was materials directly related to promoting imminent violence against ICE officers or materials directly related to planning the attack, please do point it out. I haven't seen anything like that yet though. I'd agree that would be evidence of the crimes involved. Just random anarchist ramblings though?
Then, finally on top of that 30 years for this seems incredibly excessive. We let child sexual abusers in Texas walk free after only 30 days in a county jail while moving some magazines gets you 30 years. Tell me again how this is justice.
This is the modern Republican party. 30 years for moving political magazines. 30 days for sexually assaulting a child.
> Is that evidence of committing violence against an ICE facility?
Again, the zines relevance isn't proving they did it. It's providing context and intent. If you can't see the connection between anarchist pamphlets and trying to raid a government facility, then I don't know what else to say.
The "imminent violence" only matters if the pamphlets were themselves the crime, and they were not. To go back toy earlier example, If I buy a criminal a bus ticket to help them escape, I can be charged with a crime even though bus tickets are perfectly legal.
> Then, finally on top of that 30 years for this seems incredibly excessive.
It is, but if it's in the statutes, then its up to the judge. Obviously they wanted to make an example out of these people.
> We let child sexual abusers in Texas walk free after only 30 days
Sounds like a completely separate problem that needs solving IMO.
> This is the modern Republican party. 30 years for moving political magazines. 30 days for sexually assaulting a child.
I think sentencing is mostly left to judges, which are not elected political officials.
> If you can't see the connection between anarchist pamphlets and trying to raid a government facility, then I don't know what else to say.
My point is, its not illegal to just generally be an anarchist. Generally being an anarchist shouldn't be related to evidence of one assaulting a government facility. Once again, if these zines were like "how to raid a government facility", sure I'd see it. But it doesn't seem like these zines were that kind of material. Once again, if they are then by all means let me know.
Let's change some facts here for a different perspective. Instead of an ICE facility, its an abortion provider. Instead of anarchist, its a group of Christian extremists targeting the facility. Would owning bibles be evidence of a crime? Clearly it shows a connection to the group, they all read this stuff! Extremists which have previously bombed abortion clinics have cited the bible in justification for their actions. Would moving those bibles be trying to hide evidence? And once again, evidence of what? That you attended the same book club as others who went on to commit crimes? That you're a Christian or that you're an anarchist? Is it illegal to be these things, to think these thoughts?
Also, this then implies the books you keep on your bookshelf will be used as evidence against you, even if they don't directly pertain to the crimes you're charged with. Is that really the world you want to live in? I know that's not the world I'd like to live in. And it seems like that's the world one political party is moving towards, continuing to march towards a world where ownership of certain books implicate you as a criminal.
> Sounds like a completely separate problem that needs solving IMO.
We can solve it by voting out those who pushed for that outcome and offered the plea deal. They happen to be Republicans these days and are running for a US Senate seat in Texas.
> sentencing is mostly left to judges, which are not elected political officials.
39 states have elected judges, several of which are directly partisan elections. I do agree in this case this is federal court which means they aren't directly elected. However, they are appointed and confirmed by elected political officials. This happens to be a judge appointed by Donald Trump in 2019. So once again, yes, this is an outcome of voting for Republicans.
> My point is, its not illegal to just generally be an anarchist. Generally being an anarchist shouldn't be related to evidence of one assaulting a government facility.
Let's say someone is obsessed with classic cars, and their neighbor's classic car goes missing. It then turns up in a storage unit owned by the guy obsessed with classic cars. Do you think their obsession with classic cars is relevant to the case? Keep in mind there is nothing wrong with loving classic cars.
> Do you think their obsession with classic cars is relevant to the case?
I'd say no, just generally liking classic cars isn't material to the case. I've got tons of classic cars on my fridge from Rock Auto. Does that mean I'm likely to steal a car? Would someone removing those magnets from my fridge and giving it to a friend be hiding evidence if I were to steal a car?
Are people having a bible likely to bomb an abortion center? What percentage of people that have also read those zines likely to shoot ICE agents?
The car being in his garage is evidence. The messages of him telling his friend "check out this car I stole from that dude" is evidence. Generally being a fan of classic cars isn't.
If you're charged with illegally smoking marijuana is having a Dr. Dre CD in your car evidence? If your friend takes that CD out of your car to give to another friend is that a crime? Is that crime worth 30 years?? Wake up my dude.
So you do think that I'm likely to steal a car because I've got some magnets on a fridge? When the neighbor's car went missing I should be the prime suspect because I shop at Rock Auto from time to time?
You do want to live in a world where something as innocent as magnets on a fridge with some classic cars are used as evidence you stole a car?
I guess my house should just be devoid of any kind of media, artwork, designs, or anything at all really. Having any kind of flair to a space could be used as evidence against me. Having a Dr. Dre CD clearly means I'm trafficking marijuana. Having a car magazine means I'm out there stealing cars. Having a bible means I'm a religious extremist bombing abortion clinics. It's a risk for me to own any of these as they'll be misconstrued and used against me as evidence for crimes I didn't commit.
Whew, threw out all my stuff, dodged a bullet there. I guess I should also be concerned about the colors in my home though. Green, the color of money, obviously means I'm obsessed with money, could be used as evidence against me for financial crimes. Red, seems pretty aggressive, could be used against me for violent actions. Guess I shouldn't paint my house any specific colors, that could be used as evidence against me as well.
> Every lawyer would disagree, but you do you.
Given you didn't even know most judges (nearly 80% of them in the US) face some form of elections I don't exactly trust your opinions of what "every lawyer" would think.
Honest question: Let's say you had a neighbor who was always asking about your daughter and telling you how lovely she is. Then your daughter goes missing. Would you not want you neighbor questioned on the grounds that he was overly focused on your daughter?
Keep in mind that your hypothetical daughter is 20 years old, and there is nothing illegal or wrong with your neighbor liking her a little too much.
Follow up, another neighbor has magnets of a Ford Taurus. Do you think they should be questioned as well, with just as much urgency?
Honest question: is listening to The Chronic evidence you traffic illegal drugs?
If my family members ever go missing I'd hope the cops knock on the doors of everyone relevant to their lives. Neighbors, friends, pastors, teachers/professors, all of them.
I don't think someone should go to jail because they at one point in time in the past hit on an adult daughter who went missing.
I mean its a very radically different thing in almost every way than what was originally proposed. The zines didn't commit any crimes.
Let's say you hide someone who didn't actually commit a crime but you thought they did. Are you still guilty of hiding a suspect in the crime that wasn't a crime?
The standard was:
> I care if the accused believed they were and moved them for that purpose
So to that poster what matters was that the zines being useful or not to the investigation was not relevant, it was if the person thought it was potentially relevant or not.
The wife owning some zines is evidence of a crime? Really? Owning some zines is evidence of criminal activity these days?
> Let's say someone is driving 35MPH. They think "oh snap, I think the speed limit is 30MPH here!". The posted speed limit is actually 40MPH.
There is a difference between incorrect belief in what the law is vs incorrect belief in what actions you are taking. Although maybe that is not the most compelling. If you see the speed limit is 40, but you want to go faster so you hit the gas until you are going 60 and then brag with photo evidence about how you don't believe in speed limits on on facebook. Unbeknownst to you your spedometer was broken and you only hit 40. Should you get a ticket?
That seems like a tougher call, but still a bit silly to give a ticket.
a different example.
You intend to murder someone. The intended victim puts their clothes on a manequin in hopes of distracting you while they make their escape. You shoot the manequin. Did you commit a crime?
Intending to murder someone is often directly a crime though, so yes. And murdering people is illegal. Moving some magazines isn't normally illegal. I wouldn't normally assume having some magazines is evidence of a crime.
And if they are, what crime was owning the magazines involved in? That you happen to read some of the same articles as someone else who committed a crime? Is sharing the same books as others now implicating you as a terrorist?
Neither is shooting a gun (at e.g. a gun range). This case has about as much to do with moving magazines as a murder charge has with discharging a firearm. Its intrinsic to the crime, but not what the actual crime is.
> I wouldn't normally assume having some magazines is evidence of a crime.
If someone called you up and told you that the magazine contained evidence of a crime, the police ard looking for them, and asked you to hide the magazines, would your assumptions change? Because that seems to be what happened here.
> And if they are, what crime was owning the magazines involved in? That you happen to read some of the same articles as someone else who committed a crime? Is sharing the same books as others now implicating you as a terrorist?
That is not even remotely what happened here. Nobody got in trouble for owning or reading the magazines in question.
> If someone called you up and told you that the magazine contained evidence of a crime, the police ard looking for them, and asked you to hide the magazines, would your assumptions change? Because that seems to be what happened here.
Is it? I've read the testimony provided by the FBI agent who was surveilling Rueda and Sanchez, and the quote he provided from her phone call (presumably he would have selected the most incriminating one) was, "whatever you need to do. Move whatever you need to move from the house."
There are many other reasonable interpretations of that sentence other than "please remove incriminating evidence from the house". Like, that could just mean, "If YOU need anything from the house, go ahead and get it."
As far as I've been able to tell from the publicly available documents I've seen, the materials he moved from the house didn't contain any evidence of any crime. I haven't seen any indications as to whether they belonged to Rueda or Sanchez. It seems plausible that he moved the zines from the city of Garland to the city of Denton because Denton is a college town where political demonstrations and the distribution of pamphlets and whatnot is extremely common, and he was intending to distribute the zines there in the coming days.
It seems to me like law enforcement had justifiable cause to be suspicious and to seize the materials, but I haven't yet seen compelling evidence that the investigation was actually hindered by Sanchez or that he had intent to hinder it. I'm open to revising that conclusion if other evidence is provided.
If I buy a bag of white powder thinking that it’s cocaine and it turns out the person selling it to me actually gave me a bag of flour did I commit a crime? What crime?
If I’m angry at someone and I decide to kill them so I go over to their house late at night and see them sitting upright on their couch watching TV and I shoot them from the window and flee but it’s later discovered that they died of a heart attack two hours before I shot them did I commit a crime? What crime?
If someone decides to commit suicide and they jump from an apartment building and coincidentally I decide to fire my gun out my window and as they pass by my window the bullet hits them in the head killing them instantly before they hit the ground am I guilty of a crime? What crime?
These kind of Law & Order / first year law school type hypotheticals are useful ways to analyze the hypothetical that you’re raising.
