Reason no. 1358 I can’t and won’t risk traveling to the U.S. – as a tourist or worker – under the current administration, unfortunately, maybe even longer. I’m not a terrorist, yet I’ll continue...
Reason no. 1358 I can’t and won’t risk traveling to the U.S. – as a tourist or worker – under the current administration, unfortunately, maybe even longer.
I’m not a terrorist, yet I’ll continue to use Signal to communicate with friends and family. Incomprehensible to the average Trump-loyal prosecutor from Texas (and a bunch of other states just as bad in that regard), it seems.
I'm a US citizen living overseas, and even I'm too nervous to travel to the US now. I particularly don't want to travel there with my partner (not a US citizen).
I'm a US citizen living overseas, and even I'm too nervous to travel to the US now.
I particularly don't want to travel there with my partner (not a US citizen).
Ah yes, the typical '2nd amendment and privacy for me, and not for thee.' Tellin ya, if we want America to ban all guns, all we have to do is arm black people to the teeth.
Ah yes, the typical '2nd amendment and privacy for me, and not for thee.'
Tellin ya, if we want America to ban all guns, all we have to do is arm black people to the teeth.
I'm convinced that this was a major component behind banning gun ownership for felons and drug users since that happened in the Gun Control Act of 1968 which was shortly before incarceration rates...
Tellin ya, if we want America to ban all guns, all we have to do is arm black people to the teeth.
I'm convinced that this was a major component behind banning gun ownership for felons and drug users since that happened in the Gun Control Act of 1968 which was shortly before incarceration rates ticked up, especially against black people. Set up a route by which to disenfranchise specific people, and then follow it up by pushing on all the levers.
Man, if we ever make it out of this nightmare, I'd like to make a big coffee table book with all the stupid and forgotten scandals of Trump 1 and 2. Just imagine you're over at friend's house for...
Man, if we ever make it out of this nightmare, I'd like to make a big coffee table book with all the stupid and forgotten scandals of Trump 1 and 2.
Just imagine you're over at friend's house for dinner and games, and you get there a little early so you sit down on the couch, start flipping through their coffee table book, and say, "Oh my god! I forgot about Anthony Scarmucci!" Or, "Oh yeah, Rex Tillerson found out he got fired while was taking a dump."
What the hell reporting nonsense is this? “Out of bounds”? “Inciting”? “Provocation”? She literally shot a cop. The rest of the charges are ridiculous but that’s a crime that deserves a long, long...
Let’s be clear: a few of the protesters were out of bounds. One fired an AR-15 at the police, which goes beyond legitimate protest into inciting violence (and maybe even deliberate provocation). I would never condone that kind of activity.
What the hell reporting nonsense is this? “Out of bounds”? “Inciting”? “Provocation”? She literally shot a cop. The rest of the charges are ridiculous but that’s a crime that deserves a long, long sentence.
When a police officer arrived at the scene, drawing his gun, an armed protester shot her rifle, hitting the officer in the shoulder. The officer survived.
The person that shot the officer stated that at the time, they were worried that the officer was going to shoot someone instead, arguing that they were acting in defense. Given the recent (even...
The person that shot the officer stated that at the time, they were worried that the officer was going to shoot someone instead, arguing that they were acting in defense.
Given the recent (even more recent at the time of this action) killings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti, I think that is relevant context to the state of mind.
In my opinion, that should have resulted in a lower penalty, rather than a life sentence. I admittedly don’t know any of the actual facts around the timeline though, so this is really just my uninformed opinion.
I've been reading up on it since @KapteinB posted about the sentencing yesterday. There is video of the incident. I've only seen it by way of these "What Really Happened" clips which are an...
Exemplary
I've been reading up on it since @KapteinBposted about the sentencing yesterday.
There is video of the incident. I've only seen it by way of these "What Really Happened" clips which are an unfortunate combination of cringe + LLM-backed conspiracy theorizing + some legitimately decent armchair detective work. Mostly they're hampered by too much squinting at the terrible-quality videos and filling in details about them that may or may not be defensible. The primary sources are a faraway security camera and the body cam of the officer who was shot, neither of which is very enlightening.
The video shows a series of impacts from suppressive fire hitting the ground well away from the officer, targeted across his path but not aimed at him. That corroborates this statement from Benjamin Song:
When I saw Lieutenant Thomas Gross stop pursuing and point his gun at the back of a running, unarmed protester, like he testified, I was terrified. As a firearms instructor and a United States Marine Corps veteran, I understood what I was seeing. I knew what it meant for someone to lean forward into a gun, like he testified, to prepare for recoil.
As the evidence shows, I did not want to hurt anyone. I never had the intent to hurt anyone. I tried my best to avoid hurting anyone.
It's not clear how the officer was injured. It seems perhaps he was hit by a ricochet from from the suppressive fire. It's possible Song also shot him deliberately but that seems at odds with what's shown in the video and Song's defense. A video on that page I linked speculates (irresponsibly, I think) that the officer also fired accidentally, and it was his own shot that ricocheted into his shoulder — a self-inflicted injury. There's a single frame in the video that appears to show a muzzle flash from the officer's gun and some handwavey suggestions about how the officer contorted himself to be in his own bullet's path. I don't find that argument compelling but either way his wounds were not serious and Song clearly didn't intend to kill.
Benjamin Song was sentenced to 100 years for the following...
Riot with intent to commit violence
I see no evidence of a riot having occurred.
Providing material support to terrorists
"Terrorists" only because of the Trump administration's political crusade against the non-existent "organization" Antifa.
Conspiracy to use and carry an explosive, and using/carrying an explosive during a riot
As far as I can tell, these were typical fireworks of the sort millions enjoy every 4th of July. This incident happened on the 4th of July, which is why the fireworks were there. These weren't weapons of terror, as they've been construed.
Attempted murder of officers and employees of the United States
A single person received a non-fatal gunshot wound from an indeterminate source, with abundant evidence that the intent was suppressive fire in defense of others.
Discharging a firearm during and in furtherance of a crime of violence.
A meaningless point-multiplier in light of the other charges.
You don't have to search very hard to find the rabble cheering on this 100-year sentence, which is extremely disheartening. Anyone acting in good faith should be able to see plainly that the punishment was not even remotely commensurate to the crime. I think it's debatable whether there even was a crime other than being leftist. But even assuming the absolute worst about Song and the others — that they were violent terrorists with premeditated murderous intent, etc. — a sane person would never be able to justify even a 10-year sentence for what actually occurred. This was a complete miscarriage of justice, executed by an unaccountable farce of a kangaroo court.
These are real people's lives, tossed into a trash heap to score political points with the MAGA morons because of inane culture war nonsense. Disgusting.
This is the kind of shit that led to reddit "solving" the boston marathon bombing and crap like 9/11 conspiracy theories. There is 0 decent armchair detective work. Professionals rely on facts,...
which are an unfortunate combination of cringe + LLM-backed conspiracy theorizing + some legitimately decent armchair detective work.
This is the kind of shit that led to reddit "solving" the boston marathon bombing and crap like 9/11 conspiracy theories. There is 0 decent armchair detective work. Professionals rely on facts, and we have a court case full of them. I don't have time to dive into what's publicly available, but if you're starting with conspiracy bait, then you should probably readjust how you get your information.
Further:
Mostly they're hampered by too much squinting at the terrible-quality videos and filling in details about them that may or may not be defensible. The primary sources are a faraway security camera and the body cam of the officer who was shot, neither of which is very enlightening.
Followed by
The video shows.....
Is just...not how this works.
Conspiracy to use and carry an explosive, and using/carrying an explosive during a riot
As far as I can tell, these were typical fireworks of the sort millions enjoy every 4th of July. This incident happened on the 4th of July, which is why the fireworks were there. These weren't weapons of terror, as they've been construed.
And would still qualify as explosives if used to commit a crime.
Attempted murder of officers and employees of the United States
A single person received a non-fatal gunshot wound from an indeterminate source, with abundant evidence that the intent was suppressive fire in defense of others.
There is no such thing as suppressive fire in a civilian context ESPECIALLY "preemptive" suppressive fire. If you fire a gun at someone you will be charged with attempted murder, full stop. There's mountains of examples. You might be downgraded if they determine you're an idiot who did it accidentally (didn't know they were there, negligent discharge), but if you go into a court room and say "I was just shooting near them" you will absolutely get a attempted murder every time because that's what it was.
If you point a weapon designed to kill people at someone and use it, then that is the assumption. Only in hollywood is there shooting to wound or disarm, and only on battlefields does "suppressive fire" exist, in which case you are still aiming to kill people, just can't at the moment.
If there is any evidence (which should be easy to show in the prosecution) that a bullet from his gun hit that cop (not some random armchair's ballistics analysis) that is a slam dunk attempted murder, and is how anyone sane should expect EVERYONE who shoots people to be charged (yes cops too).
Discharging a firearm during and in furtherance of a crime of violence.
A meaningless point-multiplier in light of the other charges.
Not at all? A large difference between if he shoots this cop or throws a rock at him.
You don't have to search very hard to find the rabble cheering on this 100-year sentence,
You don't have to search very hard to find rabble cheering on anything. As a % of this country, it's a minority.
Anyone acting in good faith should be able to see plainly that the punishment was not even remotely commensurate to the crime.
I agree 100% with all the people being "felony murder" charged (not exactly it, but same fucked up logic). This guy? Yes 100 years is overcharging...however
But even assuming the absolute worst about Song and the others — that they were violent terrorists with premeditated murderous intent, etc. — a sane person would never be able to justify even a 10-year sentence for what actually occurred.
Really? A sane person wouldn't say that a 10 year sentence wasn't okay for violent premeditated murderous intent resulting in injury wasn't fair? I get you're taking the extreme, but like....this is a total whiff on standards. You say that someone with premeditated murderous intent shot someone and only wounded them, yeah most people will go for a 20 to life sentence.
There are all sorts of things being overcharged here, this entire situation is a wildly dangerous miscarriage of justice, and it's why it frustrates me to no end to watch people wade in to try and make it something it's not. If you shoot at people you will go to jail is not something that's debatable.
If someone with you shoots at someone should you go to jail is 100% worth discussing, and why I've always been against felony murder style charges, even when talking about Jan 6th, and these wild takes on "well it's just because a leftist shot a guy...." distract from a vastly bigger issue.
Good call on the source material, I think. I didn't have time to look it over myself, and I trusted a little too quickly in retrospect, so I'm glad for your post helping me to realize that. That...
Good call on the source material, I think. I didn't have time to look it over myself, and I trusted a little too quickly in retrospect, so I'm glad for your post helping me to realize that.
That all said, I feel like discussions like these are at risk of going all over the place, since it becomes kinda hard to tell if people are speaking from legal perspectives or moral ones. Is the attempted murder charge fair in the latter? For reasons I outlined elsewhere in this thread, I'd say no. For the former? Haven't a clue, and so I stay out of that discussion.
I'm getting that problem here with your comment. Because at first, it sounds like you're talking about what the law says, and that seems fair. But then there's this:
Really? A sane person wouldn't say that a 10 year sentence wasn't okay for violent premeditated murderous intent resulting in injury wasn't fair? I get you're taking the extreme, but like....this is a total whiff on standards. You say that someone with premeditated murderous intent shot someone and only wounded them, yeah most people will go for a 20 to life sentence.
I find "violent premeditated murderous intent" to be a... very uncharitable take on what happened. Now, if you're still talking about what the law explicitly defines things as, then yeah, maybe you've got cause to say this qualifies as what you called it – in which case I have issues with how the law's written – but if not, where are you getting "murderous intent," much less "premeditated"?
The cop drew their weapon first, and police in this country have a terrible reputation for violence. Your description makes it sound like they planned to murder a cop for thrills, when what I've read suggests that something closer to "bad decision resulting from genuine fear for others' safety" would be a plenty believable interpretation. Is there some other factor I'm unaware of?
Legally - and probably ethically too, frankly, but in any event legally - if you cause a situation, your ability to claim reasonable fear changes. A trite but common example is that if you start a...
when what I've read suggests that something closer to "bad decision resulting from genuine fear for others' safety" would be a plenty believable interpretation. Is there some other factor I'm unaware of?
Legally - and probably ethically too, frankly, but in any event legally - if you cause a situation, your ability to claim reasonable fear changes. A trite but common example is that if you start a fight and the fight escalates, by statute in most states you lose the ability to claim that you needed to use lethal force to defend yourself, whereas that claim could be completely legitimate if you were attacked unprovoked in an otherwise identical situation.
Similarly, Song's group protested/rioted/attacked the ICE facility while armed and wearing body armor. Even if you think their actions were justified, they clearly incited the event and thus lose the ability (legally) to claim that they feared for their own safety.
It's worth noting that the jury - not the judge, but the jury - convicted after a 12-day trial with 46 witnesses and 200+ exhibits. Not after just watching a grainy bodycam video.
To be clear I agree, however the person I was responding to was saying that even in that case 10 years would be too much, which I disagree with. That said while being someone who is some what pro...
I find "violent premeditated murderous intent" to be a... very uncharitable take on what happened.
To be clear I agree, however the person I was responding to was saying that even in that case 10 years would be too much, which I disagree with.
That said while being someone who is some what pro 2a I’m also pro “if you choose to use a killing weapon you should be treated as such”.
You do no shoot at people and I’m fine with the law assuming that if you did you meant to kill them.
Further drawing a weapon, while often brandishing and its own problem, is not ever a reason to shoot at someone.
Cops having a reputation is a problem. Doesn’t mean you have the right to just open fire on one the moment he pulls his weapon.
My friend, even if this is exactly true with no qualifiers, that is still a crime.
I think it's debatable whether there even was a crime other than being leftist. ... abundant evidence that the intent was suppressive fire in defense of others.
My friend, even if this is exactly true with no qualifiers, that is still a crime.
Annnd almost always charged as attempted murder. "Suppressive fire" is not a thing legally because it's NEVER a thing anywhere outside of a literal war zone and certainly never valid in any...
Annnd almost always charged as attempted murder.
"Suppressive fire" is not a thing legally because it's NEVER a thing anywhere outside of a literal war zone and certainly never valid in any civilian context (and even police included outside of a couple of infamous shootouts).
If you shoot a gun at someone, it is assumed you were attempting to kill them, because that's the ONLY reason you should be shooting a gun at someone. Your only other option is negligence which this clearly wasn't as you have intent.
You’re both right, and I was stretching too far to suggest there was no crime committed. I’m sympathetic to Song and the others but they did some reckless, irresponsible shit. Not 100 years...
You’re both right, and I was stretching too far to suggest there was no crime committed. I’m sympathetic to Song and the others but they did some reckless, irresponsible shit. Not 100 years reckless and irresponsible, but still criminal.
At the same time, I expect the person whose murder Song averted is grateful to still be alive. There’s no legal path to intervene meaningfully against impending police abuse.
I propose that Song recieve the same punishment the cop would get if he shot the protester in the back. So like a slap on the wrist and a paid vacation. Maybe a bonus if the officer was brown....
I propose that Song recieve the same punishment the cop would get if he shot the protester in the back.
So like a slap on the wrist and a paid vacation. Maybe a bonus if the officer was brown.
Yeah it's that partisan tiptoeing around issues that makes people incredibly annoyed at journalists. It erodes a little trust every time someone plays down clear cut issues. It's not inciting...
Yeah it's that partisan tiptoeing around issues that makes people incredibly annoyed at journalists. It erodes a little trust every time someone plays down clear cut issues. It's not inciting violence when you're enacting it already. The rest of the article highlights an actual issue, unusually high punishment on trumped up charges, but then diminishes the entire thing by undercutting another crime. Now it makes me question if the rest of the charges really are "just moving zines" or if something else is being concealed by the author. They're clearly unable to effectively report on other issues.
It's propaganda and manipulation pure and simple and people are right to be untrustworthy of it. It's the same thing when Trump claims it was only peaceful protestors on the 6th or Antifa or...
Yeah it's that partisan tiptoeing around issues that makes people incredibly annoyed at journalists.
It's propaganda and manipulation pure and simple and people are right to be untrustworthy of it. It's the same thing when Trump claims it was only peaceful protestors on the 6th or Antifa or whatever. There's no reason to trust someone willing to bend the facts to get the reaction they want.
Edit for a disclaimer: I'm less confident in the post I've linked here than I was when I first posted this. I unfortunately don't have the time or energy for a deep dive, but from a quick look,...
Edit for a disclaimer: I'm less confident in the post I've linked here than I was when I first posted this. I unfortunately don't have the time or energy for a deep dive, but from a quick look, the sources it has are unfortunately not very compelling and others have pointed out some errors in its analysis. It's not without value, but I still think I may've jumped the gun on agreeing with it as quickly as I did.
The rest of the charges are ridiculous but that’s a crime that deserves a long, long sentence.
balooga's post is a much better breakdown and argument here, making it thoroughly clear why the charges were bullshit to begin with and trying to paint this as attempted murder is ridiculous, but I also want to bring another point to the pile:
I don't think 100 years is a reasonable sentence for literally anything.
People change in 10 years, much less their whole entire lives. Believing that a life sentence is reasonable requires either a) that the person in question is about to die anyway for unrelated reasons or b) believing that people who've done a crime will be a "Bad Person" forever, with absolutely no hope of change. And that is a hateful worldview.
I don't think the charges are entirely bullshit. I frankly don't believe the shooter's story -- he was laying down "suppressive fire" in the direction of the officer, as a firearms instructor?...
I don't think the charges are entirely bullshit. I frankly don't believe the shooter's story -- he was laying down "suppressive fire" in the direction of the officer, as a firearms instructor? Anyone in that position knows you don't aim a gun at something you don't intend to destroy, and you sure as hell don't start shooting in the direction of someone. He was fully aware that he was shooting at the officer, and that's attempted murder.
I'm not going to wade into what an appropriate punishment is for it, other than it is definitely attempted murder and whatever range the laws state would be not unreasonable. The terrorism add-ons are clearly excessive.
To be clear, I say "the charges were bullshit" more on a matter of what they were charged with, rather than the concept of them being charged at all. Were it that they'd been charged with less...
I don't think the charges are entirely bullshit.
To be clear, I say "the charges were bullshit" more on a matter of what they were charged with, rather than the concept of them being charged at all. Were it that they'd been charged with less over-the-top offenses, I wouldn't have so much of a problem with it.
I frankly don't believe the shooter's story
I believe it, not because I think this would be a reasonable first response from Song (it obviously wouldn't be), but because it doesn't look to have been a first response at all, since the cop had their weapon out first.
Given how police tend to act in the States, I do not fault someone for feeling that they or their friends lives are under threat when the police here pull out a weapon. I'm not exactly prepared to say this justifies what was done in response, but I am saying that I can understand why someone would make a rash decision in this scenario. From my understanding, any military training of theirs probably exacerbates this, since that training's not meant to be applied to civilian environments but will nevertheless be drilled in.
The question from there on whether it's "attempted murder" is something that I feel shouldn't continue without clarifying if we're talking a legal context or not. If we are, I've got no grounding because I'm not a lawyer. If we aren't, then I personally wouldn't consider this attempted murder at all. That implies intent that I don't believe was present.
whatever range the laws state would be not unreasonable.
I still disagree here. Were it that we had a rehabilitative justice system – or hell, even a less incredibly vindictive and for-profit one – I'd be more open to sentences of 15-30 years. But I find it difficult to believe that sentences that long are truly necessary, as I don't think they make us safer. It seems to me an artifact of the attitudes that got us the revenge-based systems we have today, rather than anything practical or justified.
This is also BS from the journalist. Hiding evidence that you KNOW will be used as evidence is a crime. 30 years for that sounds pretty absurd though. This article sucks.
“The ninth defendant, Daniel Sanchez-Estrada was not at the protest, but was convicted of corruptly concealing a document or record after prosecutors said he moved leftwing zines and other materials at the request of Rueda, his wife, after she was arrested.
This is also BS from the journalist. Hiding evidence that you KNOW will be used as evidence is a crime. 30 years for that sounds pretty absurd though.
Reason no. 1358 I can’t and won’t risk traveling to the U.S. – as a tourist or worker – under the current administration, unfortunately, maybe even longer.
I’m not a terrorist, yet I’ll continue to use Signal to communicate with friends and family. Incomprehensible to the average Trump-loyal prosecutor from Texas (and a bunch of other states just as bad in that regard), it seems.
I'm a US citizen living overseas, and even I'm too nervous to travel to the US now.
I particularly don't want to travel there with my partner (not a US citizen).
Ah yes, the typical '2nd amendment and privacy for me, and not for thee.'
Tellin ya, if we want America to ban all guns, all we have to do is arm black people to the teeth.
I'm convinced that this was a major component behind banning gun ownership for felons and drug users since that happened in the Gun Control Act of 1968 which was shortly before incarceration rates ticked up, especially against black people. Set up a route by which to disenfranchise specific people, and then follow it up by pushing on all the levers.
See California for an example
It's interesting knowing that president of USA was using Signal himself.
It’s like we’re all just supposed to forget that Signalgate was a thing.
Man, if we ever make it out of this nightmare, I'd like to make a big coffee table book with all the stupid and forgotten scandals of Trump 1 and 2.
Just imagine you're over at friend's house for dinner and games, and you get there a little early so you sit down on the couch, start flipping through their coffee table book, and say, "Oh my god! I forgot about Anthony Scarmucci!" Or, "Oh yeah, Rex Tillerson found out he got fired while was taking a dump."
Did you remember Sean Spicer hiding in the bushes? Ah the good old days. /S
Oooh, the Spicer mention just reminded me of "alternative facts." That's a perfect name for every uncorroborated rumor that's too good to pass on.
McSweeneys keeps a monthly log of it all. Here is April
That suggestion lowkey sounds like a civil war waiting to happen
Civil War 2: Electric Boogaloo
not funny
Depressingly accurate with a thin veneer of humor is definitely my vibe today.
What the hell reporting nonsense is this? “Out of bounds”? “Inciting”? “Provocation”? She literally shot a cop. The rest of the charges are ridiculous but that’s a crime that deserves a long, long sentence.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2026/jun/24/prairieland-texas-ice-protests-zines
The person that shot the officer stated that at the time, they were worried that the officer was going to shoot someone instead, arguing that they were acting in defense.
Given the recent (even more recent at the time of this action) killings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti, I think that is relevant context to the state of mind.
In my opinion, that should have resulted in a lower penalty, rather than a life sentence. I admittedly don’t know any of the actual facts around the timeline though, so this is really just my uninformed opinion.
I've been reading up on it since @KapteinB posted about the sentencing yesterday.
There is video of the incident. I've only seen it by way of these "What Really Happened" clips which are an unfortunate combination of cringe + LLM-backed conspiracy theorizing + some legitimately decent armchair detective work. Mostly they're hampered by too much squinting at the terrible-quality videos and filling in details about them that may or may not be defensible. The primary sources are a faraway security camera and the body cam of the officer who was shot, neither of which is very enlightening.
The video shows a series of impacts from suppressive fire hitting the ground well away from the officer, targeted across his path but not aimed at him. That corroborates this statement from Benjamin Song:
It's not clear how the officer was injured. It seems perhaps he was hit by a ricochet from from the suppressive fire. It's possible Song also shot him deliberately but that seems at odds with what's shown in the video and Song's defense. A video on that page I linked speculates (irresponsibly, I think) that the officer also fired accidentally, and it was his own shot that ricocheted into his shoulder — a self-inflicted injury. There's a single frame in the video that appears to show a muzzle flash from the officer's gun and some handwavey suggestions about how the officer contorted himself to be in his own bullet's path. I don't find that argument compelling but either way his wounds were not serious and Song clearly didn't intend to kill.
Benjamin Song was sentenced to 100 years for the following...
I see no evidence of a riot having occurred.
"Terrorists" only because of the Trump administration's political crusade against the non-existent "organization" Antifa.
As far as I can tell, these were typical fireworks of the sort millions enjoy every 4th of July. This incident happened on the 4th of July, which is why the fireworks were there. These weren't weapons of terror, as they've been construed.
A single person received a non-fatal gunshot wound from an indeterminate source, with abundant evidence that the intent was suppressive fire in defense of others.
A meaningless point-multiplier in light of the other charges.
You don't have to search very hard to find the rabble cheering on this 100-year sentence, which is extremely disheartening. Anyone acting in good faith should be able to see plainly that the punishment was not even remotely commensurate to the crime. I think it's debatable whether there even was a crime other than being leftist. But even assuming the absolute worst about Song and the others — that they were violent terrorists with premeditated murderous intent, etc. — a sane person would never be able to justify even a 10-year sentence for what actually occurred. This was a complete miscarriage of justice, executed by an unaccountable farce of a kangaroo court.
These are real people's lives, tossed into a trash heap to score political points with the MAGA morons because of inane culture war nonsense. Disgusting.
This is the kind of shit that led to reddit "solving" the boston marathon bombing and crap like 9/11 conspiracy theories. There is 0 decent armchair detective work. Professionals rely on facts, and we have a court case full of them. I don't have time to dive into what's publicly available, but if you're starting with conspiracy bait, then you should probably readjust how you get your information.
Further:
Followed by
Is just...not how this works.
And would still qualify as explosives if used to commit a crime.
There is no such thing as suppressive fire in a civilian context ESPECIALLY "preemptive" suppressive fire. If you fire a gun at someone you will be charged with attempted murder, full stop. There's mountains of examples. You might be downgraded if they determine you're an idiot who did it accidentally (didn't know they were there, negligent discharge), but if you go into a court room and say "I was just shooting near them" you will absolutely get a attempted murder every time because that's what it was.
If you point a weapon designed to kill people at someone and use it, then that is the assumption. Only in hollywood is there shooting to wound or disarm, and only on battlefields does "suppressive fire" exist, in which case you are still aiming to kill people, just can't at the moment.
If there is any evidence (which should be easy to show in the prosecution) that a bullet from his gun hit that cop (not some random armchair's ballistics analysis) that is a slam dunk attempted murder, and is how anyone sane should expect EVERYONE who shoots people to be charged (yes cops too).
Not at all? A large difference between if he shoots this cop or throws a rock at him.
You don't have to search very hard to find rabble cheering on anything. As a % of this country, it's a minority.
I agree 100% with all the people being "felony murder" charged (not exactly it, but same fucked up logic). This guy? Yes 100 years is overcharging...however
Really? A sane person wouldn't say that a 10 year sentence wasn't okay for violent premeditated murderous intent resulting in injury wasn't fair? I get you're taking the extreme, but like....this is a total whiff on standards. You say that someone with premeditated murderous intent shot someone and only wounded them, yeah most people will go for a 20 to life sentence.
There are all sorts of things being overcharged here, this entire situation is a wildly dangerous miscarriage of justice, and it's why it frustrates me to no end to watch people wade in to try and make it something it's not. If you shoot at people you will go to jail is not something that's debatable.
If someone with you shoots at someone should you go to jail is 100% worth discussing, and why I've always been against felony murder style charges, even when talking about Jan 6th, and these wild takes on "well it's just because a leftist shot a guy...." distract from a vastly bigger issue.
Good call on the source material, I think. I didn't have time to look it over myself, and I trusted a little too quickly in retrospect, so I'm glad for your post helping me to realize that.
That all said, I feel like discussions like these are at risk of going all over the place, since it becomes kinda hard to tell if people are speaking from legal perspectives or moral ones. Is the attempted murder charge fair in the latter? For reasons I outlined elsewhere in this thread, I'd say no. For the former? Haven't a clue, and so I stay out of that discussion.
I'm getting that problem here with your comment. Because at first, it sounds like you're talking about what the law says, and that seems fair. But then there's this:
I find "violent premeditated murderous intent" to be a... very uncharitable take on what happened. Now, if you're still talking about what the law explicitly defines things as, then yeah, maybe you've got cause to say this qualifies as what you called it – in which case I have issues with how the law's written – but if not, where are you getting "murderous intent," much less "premeditated"?
The cop drew their weapon first, and police in this country have a terrible reputation for violence. Your description makes it sound like they planned to murder a cop for thrills, when what I've read suggests that something closer to "bad decision resulting from genuine fear for others' safety" would be a plenty believable interpretation. Is there some other factor I'm unaware of?
Legally - and probably ethically too, frankly, but in any event legally - if you cause a situation, your ability to claim reasonable fear changes. A trite but common example is that if you start a fight and the fight escalates, by statute in most states you lose the ability to claim that you needed to use lethal force to defend yourself, whereas that claim could be completely legitimate if you were attacked unprovoked in an otherwise identical situation.
Similarly, Song's group protested/rioted/attacked the ICE facility while armed and wearing body armor. Even if you think their actions were justified, they clearly incited the event and thus lose the ability (legally) to claim that they feared for their own safety.
It's worth noting that the jury - not the judge, but the jury - convicted after a 12-day trial with 46 witnesses and 200+ exhibits. Not after just watching a grainy bodycam video.
To be clear I agree, however the person I was responding to was saying that even in that case 10 years would be too much, which I disagree with.
That said while being someone who is some what pro 2a I’m also pro “if you choose to use a killing weapon you should be treated as such”.
You do no shoot at people and I’m fine with the law assuming that if you did you meant to kill them.
Further drawing a weapon, while often brandishing and its own problem, is not ever a reason to shoot at someone.
Cops having a reputation is a problem. Doesn’t mean you have the right to just open fire on one the moment he pulls his weapon.
My friend, even if this is exactly true with no qualifiers, that is still a crime.
Annnd almost always charged as attempted murder.
"Suppressive fire" is not a thing legally because it's NEVER a thing anywhere outside of a literal war zone and certainly never valid in any civilian context (and even police included outside of a couple of infamous shootouts).
If you shoot a gun at someone, it is assumed you were attempting to kill them, because that's the ONLY reason you should be shooting a gun at someone. Your only other option is negligence which this clearly wasn't as you have intent.
You’re both right, and I was stretching too far to suggest there was no crime committed. I’m sympathetic to Song and the others but they did some reckless, irresponsible shit. Not 100 years reckless and irresponsible, but still criminal.
At the same time, I expect the person whose murder Song averted is grateful to still be alive. There’s no legal path to intervene meaningfully against impending police abuse.
I propose that Song recieve the same punishment the cop would get if he shot the protester in the back.
So like a slap on the wrist and a paid vacation. Maybe a bonus if the officer was brown.
Policing in Amerikkka is fubar.
Yeah it's that partisan tiptoeing around issues that makes people incredibly annoyed at journalists. It erodes a little trust every time someone plays down clear cut issues. It's not inciting violence when you're enacting it already. The rest of the article highlights an actual issue, unusually high punishment on trumped up charges, but then diminishes the entire thing by undercutting another crime. Now it makes me question if the rest of the charges really are "just moving zines" or if something else is being concealed by the author. They're clearly unable to effectively report on other issues.
It's propaganda and manipulation pure and simple and people are right to be untrustworthy of it. It's the same thing when Trump claims it was only peaceful protestors on the 6th or Antifa or whatever. There's no reason to trust someone willing to bend the facts to get the reaction they want.
Edit for a disclaimer: I'm less confident in the post I've linked here than I was when I first posted this. I unfortunately don't have the time or energy for a deep dive, but from a quick look, the sources it has are unfortunately not very compelling and others have pointed out some errors in its analysis. It's not without value, but I still think I may've jumped the gun on agreeing with it as quickly as I did.
balooga's post is a much better breakdown and argument here, making it thoroughly clear why the charges were bullshit to begin with and trying to paint this as attempted murder is ridiculous, but I also want to bring another point to the pile:
I don't think 100 years is a reasonable sentence for literally anything.
People change in 10 years, much less their whole entire lives. Believing that a life sentence is reasonable requires either a) that the person in question is about to die anyway for unrelated reasons or b) believing that people who've done a crime will be a "Bad Person" forever, with absolutely no hope of change. And that is a hateful worldview.
What if people decided that about you?
I don't think the charges are entirely bullshit. I frankly don't believe the shooter's story -- he was laying down "suppressive fire" in the direction of the officer, as a firearms instructor? Anyone in that position knows you don't aim a gun at something you don't intend to destroy, and you sure as hell don't start shooting in the direction of someone. He was fully aware that he was shooting at the officer, and that's attempted murder.
I'm not going to wade into what an appropriate punishment is for it, other than it is definitely attempted murder and whatever range the laws state would be not unreasonable. The terrorism add-ons are clearly excessive.
To be clear, I say "the charges were bullshit" more on a matter of what they were charged with, rather than the concept of them being charged at all. Were it that they'd been charged with less over-the-top offenses, I wouldn't have so much of a problem with it.
I believe it, not because I think this would be a reasonable first response from Song (it obviously wouldn't be), but because it doesn't look to have been a first response at all, since the cop had their weapon out first.
Given how police tend to act in the States, I do not fault someone for feeling that they or their friends lives are under threat when the police here pull out a weapon. I'm not exactly prepared to say this justifies what was done in response, but I am saying that I can understand why someone would make a rash decision in this scenario. From my understanding, any military training of theirs probably exacerbates this, since that training's not meant to be applied to civilian environments but will nevertheless be drilled in.
The question from there on whether it's "attempted murder" is something that I feel shouldn't continue without clarifying if we're talking a legal context or not. If we are, I've got no grounding because I'm not a lawyer. If we aren't, then I personally wouldn't consider this attempted murder at all. That implies intent that I don't believe was present.
I still disagree here. Were it that we had a rehabilitative justice system – or hell, even a less incredibly vindictive and for-profit one – I'd be more open to sentences of 15-30 years. But I find it difficult to believe that sentences that long are truly necessary, as I don't think they make us safer. It seems to me an artifact of the attitudes that got us the revenge-based systems we have today, rather than anything practical or justified.
This is also BS from the journalist. Hiding evidence that you KNOW will be used as evidence is a crime. 30 years for that sounds pretty absurd though.
This article sucks.
They still have Buc-ees. But besides that not much reason to exist in Texas.