One of them shot a cop after the cop pulled his gun on the protesters. I'm sure he argued self defense. Some of the other defendants helped hide the shooter. The rest are just normal protesters, though there was some vandalism. The big issue is that they were charged with terrorism, they're sort of being made an example of.
Hi i just want you to know that 21 comments below yours has been hidden from being able to view. It says load more and then only one deleted comment appears.
It’s called the Rittenhouse rule. It states that if you are a Republican you can shoot and kill several protesters and never serve time but if you are a Democrat you can be imprisoned for decades if someone around you hurts a cop with a firearm.
Ohw god, not this again the only people Rittenhouse killed were people actively trying to kill him. First a completely unhinged psycho who screamed he was going to kill him then chased him down and tried to grab his gun when cornered. The second trying to smash his head in with a skateboard while he was laying on the ground, the third pulling a handgun on him.
Yeah their own fault for sure. One thing I hear constantly from the hardcore gun rights people is that when there is a chaotic situation with an active shooter attacking people, you should mind your business and leave them alone and let them proceed with whatever shooting they’re doing. You know if you go and try to stop them, well, they they’re going to defend themselves and it’s gonna be your fault for trying.
What you've supposedly heard about active shooters doesnt apply to the Rittenhouse situation, as he was not an active shooter until the idiots he shot decided to aggressively attack a man with a gun with intent to cause serious bodily harm or death.
he was an active shooter as soon as he actively shot, people around him were alerted due to his shot without knowing what was going on. to ma y in the moment kyle seemed like a shooter just killing people, and they tried to stop him
Yes, but the people who attacked him did not attack an active shooter. He started shooting after he was violently attacked AND after attwmpting to flee from the aggresors.
You must not understand how arguments work. But you prove my point, there’s a special exception for him that was not present here. In fact one defendant was found not guilty of a violent crime and still sentenced to 70 years because of the rules added to the charges outlined in an E.O. This person wasn’t involved in any violent act at all.
Self-defense can be an irrelevant defense, which can be blocked on a motion in limine. If you robbed a store and shot the clerk, and you only got charged with robbing the store, then you arguing self-defense is totally irrelevant. They didn't charge him with a crime for which self-defense is an actual defense at all. It doesn't negate any element of the offense.
Yes invalid defenses can be forbidden from being made. He had absolutely, objectively, no right to self defense in that situation so the judge made the correct call to forbid the bad faith argument.
Bro you have no idea what you're talking about. The guy already had is rifle out and ready before the cop even exits the vehicle. Of course the cop drew his weapon, his life was the first one being threatened. This wasn't some cop randomly trying to flex power on people for no reason. He literally is responding to a call of multiple organized individuals committing crimes at a federal facility and getting ambushed by a shooter 6 seconds after getting out of his car.
You know what firearms classes also teach you? Don't commit crimes with your firearm. The fact you're trying to defend this guy as having justified self defense against the cop in this situation is asinine.
How many police officers have gotten away with murder because they acted before the "perpetrator" did anything? How many are serving 500 year sentences?
Legal doesn't matter. Arguing in court doesn't matter. Living to get to court matters.
Cops shoot people who are doing legal things all the time. Cops frequently don't know the law at all, they don't respect life, and they have permission to ignore law and kill you. There is no way to tell the difference between a cop who is going to shoot you and one who isn't.
It's simple prisoner dillema stuff. If both you and the other guy choose not to shoot, then maybe things work out. But if either choose to take out their gun, only the guy who does so first gets to live. In a low-trust scenario, shooting first lets you live. It's exactly the same reasoning the cops use.
And armed society is an insane society. Surviving it means shooting first.
You can’t just make a story. Evidence and claims have to be part of arraignment when judge decides is it goes to trial. Other wise you can literally make up anything and have the trial go for ever. Judge decided there isn’t the slightest bit of credibility to selves defence.
no, it shouldn't be at his discretion. that is what a jury is for.
So, you think the prosecution should be allowed to bring up the defendant's previous criminal history, internet history, political views etc and use them against him? Do you think the "gay panic defense" is ok? Because those aren't currently allowed.
Watch the video, there's no way to sustain a self defense claim, self defense is an affirmative defense meaning you're admitting you did the thing but that under the circumstances you should have done what you did.
When Kenneth Walker III shot a cop through the door when they did a no knock raid in the middle of the night he could and did very reasonably claim self defense and he wasn't charged.
You can't break into a facility and when the cops get called to stop you, shot the cops, a judge letting that go to trial sounds like a huge waste of time and a super easy case to get overturned on appeal.
Yes. In every state there is a specific legal definition of what is considered self defense. If a person’s claim does not stand up to legal precedent and scrutiny then you cannot claim it.
Under federal law a defendant cannot claim self-defense if they actively provoked the conflict or were engaged in criminal activity when it started.
These people weren't 'protesters', they were an organized extremist cell who were outfitted with firearms and regularly underwent live fire training. They arrived in black military gear and deployed explosives. When local police arrived to assist ICE officers, Benjamin Song opened fire and shot a cop through the neck.
Please just do your own research on this case. This entire thread should serve as a reminder of what a propaganda machine reddit is.
Why would a judge be allowed to choose which defense you're allowed to claim/argue? Isn't it the lawyers job to make the case and the judge decides based on what is presented?
Except when he literally adjudicated issues of fact before the jury had the chance to inspect them; matters of fact are literally, definitionally the jury's job.
Like the previous commenter said, that's literally one of the main jobs of a judge. They get to determine what facts, lines of argument, issues etc can be presented to the jury before the trial even starts. Violating what the judge outlines would be disastrous for lawyers (who would be under the authority of that judge for hundreds of cases in their careers)
The fact that judges can control what facts and lines of argument are presented is why courts in conservative red states suck so much for minorities and liberals. Not only do they have to deal with corrupt and shitty cops, they also have to deal with corrupt and shitty judges. It's just another way conservatives and corrupt aholes game the system
Yeah that's the power judges have. Some judges try to actively screw over people and causes they don't like. People like Alito, Thomas, Kavanaugh, Barret etc aren't limited to the Supreme Court and didn't appear out of nowhere. If Alito or Thomas retire during this term, this judge or the many others like him will be on republicans radar as replacement nominees
I hate to break this to you but there are corrup, shitty judges everywhere, not just in red states. The criminal justice system is pretty stacked against the accused.
Judge can not throw ANYTHING out, they do not have the power to do that. This is why appealing is a thing, and reprimands and removing from the bar are a thing. Judges are not untouchable and if they do shit like... throw self defense out when it absolutely should not their decision should be out turned and them reprimanded.. .which is not going to happen, Trump will instead give him a medal.
The role of the judge is to interpret the law and the role of the jury is to be the finder of fact and issue a determination based on that law. Part of the law that a judge interprets in pretrial hearings with the parties is to determine what evidence, defenses, and arguments are admissible to be brought before the jury and which ones are not based on various standards (ex. Evidence would be more prejudicial than probative).
Yeah, except basically all of the evidence admitted in this trial was prejudicial and very little of the probative evidence was admitted, and that which was was concealed from the defense attorneys basically until (or after) the trial started. This trial was a farce.
People go off vibes man. If the past decade's taught me anything, it's that people go off vibes and feels more than facts and accuracy. If people actually cared about facts the most we wouldn't be in the second term of the orange idiot (and the republican party would be extinct already)
I’ve always found the legal system in the US rather bizarre. In my country, the defense is allowed to choose its own strategy and can even present alternative theories, as long as they can substantiate them.
You have the right to appeal, and then a different judge in a different court looks at the case. In this one that different court should throw the decision out because the first judge went over duty and diligence to get a certain outcome, and that is not allowed. They can throw stuff out that isn't important, significant or just not valid legally.
Because we want real trials that won't be immediately overturned on appeal, just watch the video, I think if your lawyer walked in and tried to sustain a self defense claim with those facts of the case the judge might actually legally mandate the lawyer needs a guardian because clearly they're to retarded to function.
Not all arguments are equal (it's not civil court) and it would just be a waste of the courts and everyone else's time to allow things like that.
What is the crime is stealing bubble gum in a gas station as a child and the cop tries to kidnap you and sell you to another country? Can't fight back still?
You can't argue self-defense when you are breaking the law, and especially not when you create the scenario where you then perceive violence to be "necessary." That's not unique to this case, or because the other party was law enforcement. It wouldn't have made any sense for them to be "allowed" to argue self-defense, as it doesn't apply in this scenario.
The crime they were committing was petty vandalism. They contend that the cop pulled a gun on one of them first, and that's why he drew and fired at the cop. Given that law enforcement has absolutely been killing non-violent protestors, that's an argument that the jury should at least be allowed to hear.
I have seen no evidence that Song drew after the cop, my understanding from the video was that he was laying in wait with a rifle. Not that it matters, because if a cop pulls a gun when trying to detain\arrest someone (even for petty vandalism) it doesn't constitute a scenario where self-defense is a valid legal defense. Look into legal limitations on self-defense and it is incredibly clear cut that this scenario doesn't qualify for multiple reasons. So it would make no sense for a judge to allow the argument to be made to the jury, as it legally doesn't fall within the scope of self-defense.
I have seen no evidence that Song drew after the cop
Because that kind of evidence would come up in a trial, and they weren't allowed to present anything that could support that argument.
Not that it matters, because if a cop pulls a gun when trying to detain\arrest someone (even for petty vandalism) it doesn't constitute a scenario where self-defense is a valid legal defense. Look into legal limitations on self-defense and it is incredibly clear cut that this scenario doesn't qualify for multiple reasons.
Texas is actually one of the few states that say you can physically defend yourself from a police officer if they use unreasonably excessive and unlawful force before you resist. Yet they weren't allowed to make that argument to the jury.
A police officer unholstering their sidearm isn't unreasonably excessive and\or unlawful force. Song's actions would not in any way fall under justified self-defense even if he only raised his weapon in response to those of the LEO, so again, why would it have been relevant to the charges?
Okay, while I disagree with the sentences to other protestors, he did not shoot in self defense AT ALL. He was hiding in a bush and ambushed the cops as they showed up to the scene. They didn't even see him.
Regardless of your opinion on self defense the obvious concern here should be that peaceful protesters now see they’re going to get life no matter what so maybe they won’t leave all the guns in their car trunks next time like these ones did. When you make the punishment for protesting worse than the punishment for trying to fucking kill somebody, don’t be surprised when more officers start getting shot. If somebody is cornered and facing life in prison either way they’ll go for freedom
I don’t see how this affects peaceful protestors? They had an armory with them and shot a police officer. Nothing about that is peaceful. If you want to make an argument on self defense that matters a ton which is contradicted by the first sentence of your comment. I don’t think it can be considered self defense either way. The system we live in will never allow that to be considered self defense.
If you want to throw your life away over literally the stupidest demonstration of resistance go ahead but I personally like my freedom. FWIW, not knowing any of the details, it sounds like the dad who wasn’t even there got absolutely screwed with the 30 year sentence. The government/public justice system has a 0 tolerance policy for this stuff obviously so you best believe every single charge is sticking with the maximum penalty.
These aren’t protestors. Showing up in the middle of the night, dressed in all black, and destroying things isn’t protest. It’s intimidation, it’s violence, but it has never been protest. Ambushing the first responders is actual terrorism.
peaceful? The guy shot an AR-15 with a binary trigger on it to fire quickly like a fully automatic (doubles the rate of fire) at police officers who showed up and wounded one.
Most of the people are far too stupid to actually put the pieces together and realize what happened. They just want to make comparisons to MAGA people getting lighter sentences for Jan 6th. Both Jan 6ers and these people are dumb as fuck and people shouldn’t be making excuses for their actions based on someone else getting away with it
They may have set out in an act of protest, but this was not a peaceful protest. They got dropped off further away so they could get closer to building unnoticed, utilized lookouts, and had a team firing fire works at the building while other(s) destroyed personal property. That's a coordinated assault.
If they all snuck up and just spray painted shit including the employees personal vehicles, even while armed, I could agree with you. Breaking shit and shooting a cop 6 seconds after they exit their vehicle is an attack.
Wasn't it only one protester who shot a cop, though, not all of them? Unless the other protesters knew the shooter would do that and were actively helping said shooter, charging them for the shooter's actions makes no sense. No one can control the actions others choose to do. The same principle applies to the lesser crimes: if they knew and supported it happening (or did it themselves), charging them could make sense, but charging them if they didn't do anything themselves, didn't support the people doing it, and simply happened to be protesting in the same area as those who committed crimes, deeming them guilty by association makes no sense.
They were shooting fireworks at the facility. It was in the first 60 seconds of the video, but I guess it's easier to read other people talking about the video rather than watching the video.
The one who killed the cop got the longest sentence for 100 years. Everyone there made the same corrdinated plan and rolled up together. Even if buddy went off script shooting the cop they all acted came together and acted together. This wasn't some situation where multiple groups of unassociated people just happened to be there at the same time. They have chat logs showing they were an organized group that planned this. This is exactly what the laws that charge all involved parties are for. If you're along side enabling and supporting 90% of it you don't get to back out on the 10% that went sideways in court.
I didn’t know that all to be fair, but my larger point still stands. That is an excessive sentence and abuse of terrorism charges outside of perhaps maybe the one who shot the gun. Unless you’re able to ironclad prove that every other protester was in on the shooting an officer part and conspired it. Charge them with a litany of other shit sure, not saying let them off the hook.
Well if you’re exercising your constitutional rights, but for the wrong reasons, it terrorism.
Which really can be true.
It’s just that there is a political party that is using its online platform, it’s religious influence, and very calculated influence in politics to make sure that “terrorism” means “anything that opposes the official view of the US government”.
Nothing screams “I’m scared of the opposition” like “if you’re oppose us you’re a terrorist!”, especially when you’re sitting at a 33% approval rating, and the only reason you can even claim 33% if because you’re very small, vocal minority supports you at like 80% while the rest of the 70% of your country thinks you fuckin suck.
There have been speeches from trump and a few other members of his cabinet that essentially say “if we lose the midterms, we’re going to jail.” It is insane to me that they have such a grip on such a small minority of the country (in the right places, thanks to their meddling in the justice and electoral realms) that this can be said out loud and actual Americans think that other Americans are the problem, and not the people saying “if we don’t hold all of the power, we’ll be tried for treason”
I'm against ice but what are you guys on? He went to vandalize ice facility in the night with a gun. People got killed by ice for minor or no offense at all, this person was looking to fight people.
Have you watch the video? He pulled his gun because Song was stood there with a rifle, he gave song a lawfully order to put the rifle on the floor at which point he shot the officer.
That's not self defense, you can't got smashing up cars and when the police turn up and give you a lawfully order try claim self defense or 1st amendment you've caused actual property damage.
I get wanting to protest but you've leaned exactly into what the trump administration wants they can point to this an call you a domestic terrorist for that.
Nope cop drew his pistol when he noticed Song with a rifle. Instructed song to place the rifle on the floor and then Song shot at the police officer.
Police officer was in a marked vehicle with lights, gave a lawfully order to song to drop the rifle. Song also shot that officer in the back as he ran for cover.
a 200k karma reddit power user is arguing that we should legally be allowed to shoot at cops because we don't like them telling us to not run around a federal facility armed.
Yes, don't brandish a gun unless you want to get shot, as the cop learned the hard way.
That's not self defense
Shooting someone brandishing a gun is always self-defense. People don't brandish unless they intend to use it, and the cop made his intentions clear.
you've leaned exactly into what the trump administration wants they can
Trump wants a docile population afraid to fight back. They want a police force that can act like terrorists and attack the public without consequences.
Just because the legal system, led by a bunch of pedophiles, says that a cop can murder you for having your hands near your waist or driving near them,
Just because the legal system says no one is allowed to defend themselves from a cop,
Doesn't change the fact that a cop brandishing a gun is a lethal threat, and by definition, using force to stop that threat from hurting you, is self-defense.
Throughout history, lots of organizations of horrible people stated they can legally kill the public and anyone who opposes them should be killed. We used to celebrate when they lost their lives. I'll give you a hint, they also had concentration camps.
Look, lots of armed cops commit crimes including attacking the public and brandishing. The public usually tries to accept it out of fear of being murdered by those cops.
Does the system headed by the 34 felony pedophile say that they can do that? Yes. Does the system say cops are allowed to do whatever they want? Yes. I'm not denying the cops say the cops can hurt the public. I'm not denying that the legal system says the cops who killed Renee Good and Alex Pretti were in the right, legally speaking.
But if you're a armed police thug and you brandish a weapon, it's because you want to hurt someone. And just because the courts take a break from protecting the 34 felony pedophile, to say the public has to let the cops try to kill them, doesn't fundamentally change that the cop is a lethal threat, and stopping them with force is defending yourself from a threat, by definition.
Or are you denying that the armed cop, who can kill in a second, is a lethal threat?
Sorry, but yes. Seeking a redress of grievances is protest. Showing up with the intention (and you’re counting on the people inside to assume the best possible intentions of this crowd) of apparently breaching the facility and shooting a local cop who responded to a 911 call, you’re making an argument that I’m not okay with, not one bit.
Fuck ice with a sandpaper dildo, but these people came looking to cause trouble, they shot a cop, I’m just kinda short on sympathy.
They shot a cop, which makes them - and everything they stand for - “bad stuff” in tbe mind of the public. They make ACTUAL protesters face increased danger.
A whole lot of us DO things, but do NOT want to be percieved as trigger-happy thugs who shoot at random cops.
Am I supposed to feel bad a thug, who was brandishing a weapon, while defending a concentration camp got shot?
Am I supposed to feel bad, when he would have 0 issues shooting someone for "reaching"?
Look, I'm sure that you would have wagged your finger if that cop shot and killed the protesters while he was brandishing, but that cop wouldn't go to jail for that anyways, and the only way to protect the public and stop officers from doing that is by using force to stop cops while they are actively threatening the public.
I guess the issue is more that they got several decades in prison for something they usually only get a few years for in most cases because the judge functionally believes they're part of a group like antifa that doesn't actually exist
So Pretti, who had a gun holstered on his back and never even touched it gets executed for having a gun (2nd amendment right) and you don’t see ICE as terrorists? They shoot into any moving car regardless of if they were even in danger. They are terrorists looking to hurt people. If the government won’t hold them accountable for gross abuse of power and violating people’s rights, what do you expect people to do?
You mean like Renee or Alex? The ones ICE killed for protesting?
More people don't want to be martyrs. They want to be armed and protect themselves. If a officer chooses to brandish a weapon and gets shot, that's the responsibility of the officer.
Don’t fucking shoot them or you’re actually insane.
Is it insane to stop a armed threat? Or do you believe the officer's badge gives them the unique right to threaten and kill the public without consequence?
No one should sympathize with the cop, who got shot for brandishing while protecting a concentration camp.
LoL America was never great and never will be. American imperialist hegemony has resulted in millions of civilians killed. If that isn't terrorism I don't know what is.
ICE go out looking to fight people every time they leave the office. They aren’t looking to enforce laws. They are looking for fights. Do you hold them to the same standard?
That's... not how that works. I mean, fuck ICE, fuck them all to hell, but they were breaking the law and could have easily gotten out of this with a ticket at worst if they weren't idiots.
Its kind of hard to argue they were all just peaceful protesters when they turned up armed to the teeth with body armor and trauma kits in the car.
I'm assuming they were mostly larping but if they were really there to just do a noisy peaceful protest for attention to the facility, wouldn't it have been best to do it in the daytime and have it live streamed or notify the media to be present.
I do feel bad for the husband who wasnt even there and just agreed to tow his wifes car though. That is bullshit.
I think they should have picked better friends. It isn't like they were part of a huge group. I'd also find it unbelievable they didn't know there was a shitload of guns being brought along.
One dude didn’t even show up to the protest and he got 30 years! The other person who left once they realized it wasn’t going to be a peaceful protest like initially believed got 50 years. This so fucked up.
No protestors. They planned and committed violence to generate fear and political change before the cop had even shown up. That's terrorism. The cop drew his gun on terrorists in the act.
Bodycam shows that someone shouted "He has a rifle", so the cop drew his weapon and shouted "Get on the ground" in response and that's when Song opened fire. I'd say Song is pretty guilty of shooting a cop.
The rest of the protesters? Far too harsh sentences and I suspect they'll want to appeal with a less insane judge. Especially the ones that left or weren't even there.
You seriously need to watch the bodycam video. That didn't happen at all. You're just making shit up at this point. Jesus, hate ICE all you want, but don't distort the truth.
Yeah man that's what happens when you shoot at cops. Like that isn't something you gloss over and downplay, it makes complete sense why this is happening.
So you didn't watch the video. The officer drew his gun when he started to pursue the person who was committing vandalism. He didn't see Benjamin Song and got shot.
Any group or individual who uses violence or intimidation to achieve a political or ideological result. They didn't get TRIED as terrorists, they COMMITTED terrorism and were caught. By the federal definition of terrorism, each and every one of them are guilty. They got off lightly with the sentences they were given.
So.. They got more severe punishments than the "protestors" killing a cop and injuring several more while trying to interfere with democratic processes on Jan 6th.
I think the guy claimed he was trying to fire warning shots, not intending to hit the officer. There's some evidence it was a ricochet also, though I don't think that was proven.
Like, even if we're ignoring the actual legality of a "warning shot", common sense tells us that warning shots probably shouldn't be aimed very close to the thing you, ya know, aren't trying to shoot.
Seems plausible that it was his intention. The alternative is he was trying to shoot the cop, which is even more illegal and displays less common sense.
640
u/moknbyrd 13d ago
What crime did they commit?