Here's the case: <a href="https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndtx/pr/antifa-cell-members-convicted-prairieland-ice-detention-center-shooting" rel="nofollow">https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndtx/pr/antifa-cell-members-con...</a><p>The 30 year sentence was for hiding documentation being sought under a federal warrant after being called by his wife and asking him to do so. The warrant was for documentation after the protesters shot fireworks to bring out first responders from the ICE facility, and allegedly one of the group shot a responder in the neck instead of the head.<p>A lot of stuff to scrutinize and complain about in the sentence, but it wasn't just "transporting Zines"
> The 30 year sentence was for hiding documentation [...] it wasn't just "transporting Zines"<p>As far as I can tell, the moving of zines (he was pulled over and had a box in his car) is what's being presented as "hiding documentation" - not something beyond that.<p>> being sought under a federal warrant<p>Timeline seems to be that a warrant was obtained <i>after</i> pulling him over ("Sanchez-Estrada was then arrested on state traffic offenses, and officers obtained a search warrant [...]"). Can't find a source saying there was a warrant prior to this.<p>> The warrant was for documentation after the protesters shot fireworks to bring out first responders from the ICE facility, and allegedly one of the group shot a responder in the neck instead of the head.<p>It's true that demonstrators were setting off fireworks, and it's true that Benjamin Song later shot at a police officer who had drawn his gun. But it's just the government's narrative/speculation that the intent of the fireworks was to draw out first responders to ambush, and that Sanchez-Estrada's zines were in some way documentation of this despite him not being at the protest and his wife not being the shooter.
There are murderers who get shorter sentences. This is a clear attempt to discourage ICE protests by using the label "Antifa" as some sort of left-wing terrorist organization to send a message as the Trump appointed judge stated.
[dead]
Up until now these crazy cases have been rejected by the courts. But this feels like a crack in the dam. A judge actually sentenced someone to 30 years for hiding zines, zines that had been published for years. This was under the pretense hiding those zines was hiding evidence of criminality. And the criminality was worth 75 years. For someone who was at a protest where a federal agent was shot, but was not the shooter.<p>Does anyone have a link to details on the case because there must have been more details, like these two were accused of planning a murder in advance, because otherwise this seems insane. It seems insane no matter what, but if this was a judge making a bunch of logical leaps while guided by DOJ lawyers, something is really broken
I think all of this hinges on whether or not you think it was a protest. If they had been peacefully sitting outside the facility holding signs, I think you'd have a case that the sentencing is insane. But if they were actively planning a break-in & preparing to use deadly force, that's quite another matter. I haven't spent a lot of timing reading about it, but what I have read suggests it was much closer to the latter.
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Prairieland_ICE_detention_center_incident" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Prairieland_ICE_detention...</a>
From what I read, the person who was arrested for transporting zines was not even at the protest or part of the group - just the husband of one of the protestors.
Unfortunately, the administration wants it both ways- if you were on the Capitol grounds on January 6, 2021, you were simply part of a "peaceful tour group". If you stand to the side of an ICE agent in Minneapolis, you are a "domestic terrorist", deserve to be murdered in cold blood, and any attempts to investigate further will be stonewalled.<p>So it's hard to take their characterization seriously when they have demonstrated that there is a clear double standard, depending on whether you are a FoT (Friend of Trump).
“For my friends, everything; for my enemies, the law.”<p>Oscar R. Benavides
Just to be clear, the Prairieland case involves defendants:<p>- coordinating using a Signal group<p>- bringing firearms, body armor, and first aid kits to a location just outside a federal facility<p>- taking up a concealed position along a tree line<p>- throwing fireworks to distract and lure agents<p>- shooting a police officer in the neck<p>Readers should be aware of these facts: they bear on whether your comparison here is offered sincerely.
Just to be clear, the January 6 defendants:<p>- were a group of at least 1000 people<p>- who, among other things, erected a noose on the capitol grounds, brought zip ties and weapons<p>- forcefully overran several capital police barricades intended to deter their entrance<p>- used any weapon available including poles etc to violently attack any police in their way<p>Granted they did not explicitly shoot any federal agents with a firearm, but in the J6 case, I’d say I’d lay blame for the subsequent deaths of the police officers who did die at the hands of the rioters.<p>To be clear I do not condone violence in either case.<p>However those 1000+ individuals on January 6 were ultimately pardoned for their actions. The family of one was in fact paid $5 million in taxpayer money because she was shot in a vain attempt to repel the crowd.<p>Why then should these defendants be treated completely differently? One gets the law, the other has their convictions overturned completely and history rewritten in their favor.<p>Btw I do not believe the individual who was charged in the article shot the federal agent or was part of the “concealed position” etc. So bringing that up is just an appeal to brush that individual with the actions of others.
I'm sorry to disagree with a venerable python shell like this, but even if I accept your entire characterization here, these two situations look nothing alike.<p>> - were a group of at least 1000 people<p>> Granted they did not explicitly shoot any federal agents with a firearm, but in the J6 case, I’d say I’d lay blame for the subsequent deaths of the police officers who did die at the hands of the rioters.<p>Oh ok, so you grant we're talking about completely different scales of intention, personal responsibility, and outcomes, but you want to keep making this comparison? Because you think it's nuanced and informative?
So you’re telling me the jan6 defendants had no intention to cause harm to the lawmakers? Actual people died on jan6- nobody died at prarieland afaik.<p>Have you seen the footage from the riots? They clobbered the shit out of the police trying to protect the lawmakers inside the capitol.<p>For example this guy: <a href="https://i.insider.com/6009c83521f52a0018cb9e21?width=1200&format=jpeg" rel="nofollow">https://i.insider.com/6009c83521f52a0018cb9e21?width=1200&fo...</a><p>I’m sure he was just on his way to rebundle some loose cat5 cable down the hall with his zip ties.<p>And the person who is the subject of this article, did he personally commit all the acts you listed?
<i>>Granted they did not explicitly shoot any federal agents</i><p>Then you admit that makes it completely different.<p><i>>However those 1000+ individuals on January 6 were ultimately pardoned for their actions</i><p>Biden also pardoned Fauci for lying about Covid, his son, amongst other people. They're all equally crooked but somehow HN only remembers Trump's crimes.
Fwiw some of the people sentenced to decades in prison went home before your bullet points happened.<p>And although the second amendment may not cover first aid kits, that's a super lame justification for sending people to prison for the rest of their lives. I guess it's a good thing Boy Scout troops don't coordinate over signal or they'd all be locked up.
Huh. None of your first three points is meant to be illegal.<p>- coordinating using a Signal group<p>- bringing firearms, body armor, and first aid kits to a location just outside a federal facility<p>- taking up a concealed position along a tree line<p>For you to even list them shows a fascist bent.<p>As for fireworks, they might not be illegal either. The only possible crime is the shooting, and only if it was not done in self defense.
I think if you append "with the intention to commit a violent crime" to each item on the list, you'll see the issue.<p>> For you to even list them shows a fascist bent.<p>If you want to concede that it's fascist to want violent criminals prosecuted, then sure, the shoe fits.
I do want violent criminals prosecuted. But the problem is that there is a very clear signal given that prosecution is <i>highly</i> selective.<p>I made my point earlier - if this administration cared about prosecuting violent criminals, they would never have even considered pardoning the J6 criminals. They would additionally call for swift and thorough investigations on the use of force against the killings of protesters in Minneapolis in order to ensure that law enforcement is seen as accountable to the public.<p>But none of that has happened. And won’t happen. It astounds me that this hypocrisy isn’t screaming like nails on a chalkboard!
I don't accept that J6 involved <i>over one thousand violent criminals</i> and you seem to be incredulous that others don't hold this prior.<p>You also seem unwilling to acknowledge severe differences in the grade of violence being discussed, even when you begrudgingly admit that such differences exist (but then caveat them with your own speculative conclusions)<p>If you constrain your analysis to: who is a violent actor, and how severe was the violent act in question, I think you can produce a more reasonable comment tbf. As is, your comment seems quite unreasonable as you don't believe anyone else can see these obvious and material differences.
> I think if you append "with the intention to commit a violent crime" to each item on the list, you'll see the issue.<p>No, that doesn't fly, and the intent isn't clear. Even if there were intent, those three bullet points still are not an crime or valid charges. As a member of the jury, I would reject them 100%.<p>Extending your pitiful logic just a few steps, people would be locked up for 30 years just for being born.<p>> If you want to concede that it's fascist to want violent criminals prosectued<p>No relation. Violent crime must of course be prosecuted, but it shouldn't have to depend on trumped up charges or weak accusations of intent.
Whataboutism
This cuts both ways. Trump pardoned J6ers so a future Democrat may feel justified in pardoning Antifa.
Can anyone seriously define “antifa”? What would the pardon read? “Anyone who is anti-fascism is hereby pardoned…”?<p>Edit: downvoting me doesn’t answer the question. If you have a definition please reply! If nobody can define “antifa” how the heck can you prosecute someone for being a member of it?
Imagine having to pardon an anti-fascist in the USA.
Imagine a Democratic president with a spine like that.
If you think that this was a protest then yeah it's worrying.<p>The feds case, which they did win convictions based on, was that they were terrorists who set off fireworks to lure police into an ambush, and there weren't more casualties because one of the members shot early and only injured one cop. An accessory to this who hid evidence is also part of the crime in the Feds case<p>Is this embellished by the Feds? I think so, it seems some of the group did not think this was the plan. But there did seem to be a plan and it did involve bringing guns, setting off fireworks, opening the gate and trying to break out the prisoners, and "not going quietly"
> ... like these two were accused of planning a murder in advance, ...<p>The 30 years is for evidence tampering. The rest have been convicted of various terrorist charges. See <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Prairieland_ICE_detention_center_incident" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Prairieland_ICE_detention...</a><p>It's really funny because all of this has played out in the past with people that actually conspired to do all that and more and walked away free. See <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Smith_sedition_trial" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Smith_sedition_trial</a><p>That case, the incredibly bad handling of Ruby Ridge and Waco put a real freeze on the FBI dealing with domestic terrorism, and then the focus moved outward with 9/11.<p>But now "domestic terrorism" is priority number 1. Enjoy your choices folks.
This judge has a very high rate of overturned rulings, and reliably rules for conservative causes.<p>Prosecutors openly acknowledge strategically filing cases in his court for conservative causes.<p>It isn't a mistake that he was the judge here, and there is a very good chance the sentences will be overturned if not entire cases.<p>Of course, that doesn't matter to these defendants, some of whom probably do deserve punishment for what they did, and all of whom will suffer through years of appeals, stress, etc. because some prosecutor wanted to make their career on a big case, and will have moved on years before this is all resolved.<p>In short, the case was made for headlines, and after putting the defendants through hell, appeals will invalidate most of those headlines after incurring great expense on behalf of the taxpayers and defendants.<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reed_O%27Connor" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reed_O%27Connor</a>
It's pretty straightforward that if someone tells you to hide something because they've been arrested and they think it ties them to some criminal act, and then you hide it, you're an accessory to the crime. 30 years for that seems harsh though I anticipate they will be pardoned by the next Democratic Party President.<p>Describing such an act without the obvious context is a pretty good way to point out that it's partisan text and likely misrepresents other things. Listen, we've all been on the Internet a few decades. This kind of understatement of things is not new to any of us. "Oh so just because your country thinks it's not a big deal for someone to go to America to fly a plane means it should get bombed?" No, champ, it's the flying of the plane into the WTC and subsequent sheltering of the guy who planned it that does that.
30 years for an accessory charge? For someone who <i>did not attend</i> the event? Sounds excessive.
> No, champ, it's the flying of the plane into the WTC<p>Sir, a second zine has struck the south tower
If it costs 30 years for transporting zines, how much is treason and conspiracy to overthrow the government worth?
Was the speech illegal? Not giving my email to this site so I can’t read the rest but it seems odd that any sort of speech gets multi year sentences much less multi decade unless it was direct calls to violence.
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 acquitted and he'd still be on the hook for trying to conceal evidence.
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.
that's a plausible and convincing argument to me other than that its 30 years. Murderers can get less than that. I don't see how that's anything other than trying to chill the idea these people had based on the connection to speech.<p>I am also not a proponent of absolutist free speech if you check my comment history, but I cannot imagine a realm where the details linked in the small part of the article that's not walled off and the details in this thread don't align to the government trying to prevent bad thought.<p>I am open to more detail if anyone has some to provide
5 days ago, 90 comments: <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48649884">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48649884</a>
Thank you, at least that article doesn't require an email address to read it.<p>> One fired an AR-15 at the police, which goes beyond legitimate protest into inciting violence (and maybe even deliberate provocation).<p>Uh, I think firing a gun at someone is a bit more than "inciting violence", more like attempted murder?<p>The article doesn't say what the actual charges were. Was it tampering with evidence? Although 30 years for just tampering with evidence doesn't seem right either. Maybe there's more that they're leaving out?<p>Another comment in another HN thread shared this quote and link:<p>> "Prosecutors said that the group launched a premeditated terror attack on the detention facility inspired by antifa ideology, by setting off fireworks, vandalizing property, and shooting at police officers who responded. One officer was struck in the neck with a bullet and survived."<p><a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/texas/news/ice-detention-attack-defendants-sentencing-6-23-2026/" rel="nofollow">https://www.cbsnews.com/texas/news/ice-detention-attack-defe...</a><p>Perhaps the cop getting shot in the neck is why they're throwing the book at them.
> Uh, I think firing a gun at someone is a bit more than "inciting violence", more like attempted murder?<p>The shot cop had drawn a gun on someone who was running away.<p>The judge didn’t even permit the defense to argue “defense of self or others” as a justification.
Is there a functional Samizdat in US?<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samizdat" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samizdat</a>
Freedom of speech is absolute. It doesn't matter what the government thinks of the situation. It isn't a "crime" to move publications, even if the police think that.<p>It's sickening how this could even possibly happen.
> But lots of people believe political violence is sometimes justified. If someone who believes punching Nazis is justified...<p>This article seems a bit based though. Political violence can obviously not be tolerated in a democracy.
Not surprising. Trump supporters really need to stop pretending that they aren't fascists, because this shit is clearly fascistic
More discussion:<p><i>Texas man sentenced to 30 years for transporting pamphlets</i><p><a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48659703">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48659703</a><p><i>Signs you're a dangerous terrorist: using Signal, moving zines</i><p><a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48649884">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48649884</a>
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
My understanding is that aiding and abetting has to be causal and happen before the alleged crime. That doesn't seem to line up with the timeline of this case (barring the existence of secret Antifa time machines)
Please review the legal definition of aiding and abetting before giving bad legal advice
If your roommate blows up an airplane and you hide his copies of "Inspire" for him is anyone really under the impression this is not criminal in nature?
More exactly:<p>If your roommate attended a protest where someone got shot, and you transported their zines that indicate your roommate shares political ideology with the shooter, is anyone really under the impression this is not criminal in nature?<p>And yes, that’s not criminal.
Except that's not even remotely similar to what happened in this case.
What an incredibly lazy and dishonest interpretation of what happened here.
"Trump's efforts to outlaw free speech" is a wild thing to put in the lede. Trump isn't doing anything more to outlaw free speech here than Biden did with the Jan 6 prosecutions.<p>Effective propaganda needs to be subtle so that most people don't realize they're being deceived. These authors clearly have no idea what they're doing.
"The harsh sentence for a defendant who wasn’t even at the Prairieland protest"<p>The proud boys leader, that spent 5 years in prison for J6, wasn't even at the protest.<p><i>shrug</i>
I was try to understand the news/situation but after seeing the reference to Don Lemon I stop taking that article seriously.<p>He, who says is a journalist, incited a crime live on stream. Then pretended it didn't happened and he's not a journalist.
wow, I feel like the overton window hasn't just shifted, it's off the page. Back in the 90s we would openly share the Anarchist's Cookbook, CIA field manual for sabotage, etc. then lace our emails intentionally with "trigger words" when it was theorized that the NSA was reading all Internet traffic, so as to emphasize our free speech absolutism.<p>Now, an article comes out about sentences handed down for ... free speech ... and the reaction is to close the tab because they ... made some speech that you didn't like? Free speech for me, not for thee?
These free speech warriors didn’t actually care about free speech. They just wanted to be able to say horrible things without consequences.
You're talking about a different group of people. Back then, the only people who were online were relatively technical, which for whatever reason correlates with leaning libertarian (left or right). My theory is that the experience of identifying a solution to a problem, then being told it can't be implemented because someone with authority says "no" shakes one's belief in authority fundamentally.<p>Regardless, nowadays online, even in tech circles like this one, you have a much broader sample of the general population. In the case of HN, it's split more evenly than you'd expect from the general population between software developers, and tech entrepreneur types (or at least wannabes). The latter group is perfectly happy with oppressive power structures as long as they help them make money, and aspire to be the authority that says "no".
It seems pretty standard for political prosecutions like this to convict for an absurd timeframe, but always early into the next opposition government they will all get pardons.<p>It is therefore a ~2 year prison term.<p>Both sides do it to the other.
I can't imagine "both side'sing" the situation in the United States right now. The country has been taken over by a criminally corrupt, sick individual, who given his responsibility w.r.t Jan 6th isn't even eligible for the office he holds - the country is collapsing.
What? That's pretty bad guarantee. The fact that Trump releases his friends has nothing to do with what should his opposition do. If anything respecting acts of former governments should be the norm.
... but also, you probably want the Trump clan to rule, forever.
Top tier copium. The fascists are making it unsafe to not be Nazis and you shrug, both sides.