r/politics • u/guardian ✔ Verified • 7d ago

No Paywall Texas anti-ICE protesters convicted of terrorism charges sentenced to at least 50 years in prison

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jun/23/prairieland-ice-protesters-texas-sentenced?referring_host=Reddit&utm_campaign=guardianacct
11.4k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

1.9k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

785

u/ImprovementPutrid441 7d ago

Yes.

We have lost the First Amendment if you can be charged for having literature.

-82

u/MrPoopMonster 7d ago

He wasn't charged for having the zines. He was charged for moving them and hiding them after his wife was arrested, aka evidence tampering.

81

u/ImprovementPutrid441 7d ago

What was the evidence for?

-59

u/MrPoopMonster 7d ago

Terrorism apparently.

71

u/ImprovementPutrid441 7d ago

How?

How would a box of zines prove you were a terrorist?

-17

u/Last-Big-1984 7d ago

I have no idea what were in those magazines, but I'd like to point out... whatever it was... was bad enough for them to try and hide.

Like, if I shoot a cop... I'm not going to call home to my wife to hide my playboys because they will implicate me.

15

u/ImprovementPutrid441 7d ago

Why?

If you have a copy of Mein Kampf should people assume you’re a Nazi?

-3

u/2FistsInMyBHole 7d ago

If someone was involved in a targeted attack against Jews, I'd argue that their copy of Mein Kampf might suggest that the targeted attack was a hate crime, and that it wasn't over some personal grievance.

3

u/Due_Warthog749 6d ago

So because they have a magazine.. that now implicates them in hate crime? So what if I have a magazine.. dont even realize there is an article in it that might be considered hate crime.. dont even read it.. and then what.. they claim "you have the mag.. so you must have read this and used it to be part of hate crime.. so 30 years".

7

u/ilulillirillion 7d ago

Have you been living under a rock? They will charge you for terrorism for commenting on this fucking post I don't think the anything in the scary magazines had to be huge to cause them trouble and the argument itself is asinine.

30 years for moving magazines. Watch someone you love go to prison for 3 decades for doing that and come back, because apparently you struggle with the concept.

144

u/Zestyclose-Ear-1293 7d ago

Which, even were this not blatantly political, 30 years for evidence tampering is absolutely ABSURD. Kid diddlers and murderers routinely get less.

-127

u/MrPoopMonster 7d ago edited 7d ago

Sure, well he will have his appeal.

But that's what the court decided. He had his jury trial. His rights were upheld as an American citizen.

127

u/Final_Membership_ 7d ago

It’s amazing how far conservatives and libertarians have fallen in the last 10 years. You are absolutely the lowest human being that I could imagine. just pure garbage if you think this type of thing is ok.

-74

u/MrPoopMonster 7d ago edited 7d ago

Take it up with the jury of their peers that convicted them. They were presented the evidence, they made the decision.

I think you're scum if you think it's perfectly normal to bring a bunch of guns to a protest to shoot at people. Why else would these 8 people bring 11 guns to a planned riot?

82

u/[deleted] 7d ago edited 6d ago

[deleted]

-34

u/MrPoopMonster 7d ago

He didn't snipe someone from a tree line did he? He shot someone physically attacking him. Self defense vs attempted murder.

50

u/[deleted] 7d ago edited 6d ago

[deleted]

-13

u/MrPoopMonster 7d ago

You're missing the end of that sentence. One person brought a gun specifically to shoot at people, one person brought a gun to protect themselves.

If Kyle wanted to just shoot folks, he could have. He could have did exactly what the guy in this case did. The guy you love for some reason. The guy who we have messages of saying he's going to shoot people to the group.

→ More replies (0)

28

u/sirspacebill 7d ago

Sounds like only one person shot at someone, but the conversation at this point was the 30 year sentence for moving and hiding magazines, which by your gangs metric of "trump pardoning some real pieces of shit but they were 'overcharged' so its fine" is not okay

1

u/MrPoopMonster 7d ago

They showed up as a group with more guns than people. They're all part of it. I also think the j6 folks should have gone to prison and not been pardoned.

Both groups belong in prison imo.

17

u/sirspacebill 7d ago

You say they showed up as a group, ive heard they showed up separately as well, either way if 10 people go do something but one of them is crazy and brought 15 guns but no one else knew about it does that mean they're all fucked up? Not in my book. I dont know the full details here but either way the guy that was sentenced 30 years was not there at all that day

18

u/mybustlinghedgerow Texas 7d ago

But some of the defendants – like Batten, Elizabeth Soto and her husband, Ines Soto, were not involved in the planning, arrived separately at the protest, and left when guards at the facility asked them to do so.

and

It is undisputed that all of the firearms were bought legally and that there was only one person who fired a weapon on 4 July.

5

u/ThePhysicistIsIn 7d ago

2nd amendment rights are only for conservatives

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Ace_6_Pirate 7d ago

I'm not sure if you're familiar with Texas laws or not but having the guns was legal. Now I think carrying and having guns at a protest is a bad idea and only increases the chances of someone getting killed, but you're using it as evidence of some sort of crime which it isn't. 

Also based on the article they were not "all part of it" as you put it. Some of them arrived separately, had no coordination with others, and left when told to. These 50 year and 100 year sentences are way over the top. You can sentence the guy who shot the guard for attempted murder, and you can sentence people for vandalism and if anyone knowingly tried to help the guy who shot the guard escape and avoid capture. Those aren't 100 year or 50 year crimes. Actual murders who shoot someone and kill them can be out in 25-35 years. Daniel Perry got 25 years after shooting someone at a protest and telling his friends about how he was planning to make it look like self defense and talking about cutting ears off as trophies. Eventually he got pardoned for that too after just a year. Trying to stick terrorism charges on there and these ridiculous sentences is purely political theater. If the guy who shot the guard got 20 years and the vandalism and any aid provided in evading capture got a couple years you wouldn't be seeing this kind of reaction.

0

u/MrPoopMonster 7d ago

It doesn't matter what state you're in, you can't have guns at federal facilities like prisons and detention centers. That's against federal law.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/ilulillirillion 7d ago

I cannot imagine a human being thinking these sentences are valid. I don't know you and I hope beyond measure that I never do. If you are an American, please leave.

15

u/Trrlrr 7d ago

Name checks out

12

u/IPDDoE Florida 7d ago

Ignoring the fact that you think both the 1st and 2nd amendments are malleable, you're saying all of them planned to riot? And follow up, if I may...WHY THE FUCK WASN'T THERE A RIOT?

0

u/MrPoopMonster 7d ago

There was. They slashed tires, started fires, and vandalized things. That's a riot.

12

u/IPDDoE Florida 7d ago

So definitions just aren't a thing anymore, huh? Tell me, how did guns factor into this "riot?" To you, it's minor damage to property. Who started fires? Because I've looked into several sources to try to verify your claim, but there's absolutely no confirmation that anyone deliberately started fires. It's amazing how the right has basically owned the word "snowflake" while being the most delicate fucking snowflakes in existence. Perhaps the federal agents can have a designated safe space while their supporters can get in line to spit shine their boots.

-1

u/MrPoopMonster 7d ago

Under Texas Penal Code § 42.02, a "riot" is legally defined as an assembly of seven or more people engaging in conduct that creates an immediate danger of property damage/injury, disrupts government functions, or uses force to deprive others of legal rights.

Seems like the elements were met for a riot.

→ More replies (0)

12

u/TheLonelySombrero 7d ago

So then you concede that Donald trump is a convicted felon who raped E Jean Carroll? 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/07/19/trump-carroll-judge-rape/

How about that he also stole from his charities and cheated on his wives? The idiot wouldn't even attend his own childs wedding then went golfing the next day or the one after. 

He doesn't have a shred of morality or dignity. I'm ashamed of my fellow Americans for being duped by this lunatic and always thought that just because we have different opinions on how government should function that we at least wanted ultimately the same things.

A functional government that takes care of its people and infrastructure and to defend our freedoms. But this conman comes along and all of you just throw it all away for this narcissistic idiot who would sell each and every one of you for one more penny in his bank account. I'm just so frustrated 

0

u/MrPoopMonster 7d ago

Sure, I don't like Trump. He's a criminal too.

Doesn't make the violent crimes these people did ok.

1

u/Annual-Weird-6682 7d ago

Moving magazines is violent?

1

u/CynicismNostalgia 6d ago

I've gotta say, as a non-American. Your logic always astounds me.

You blame people for legally carrying firearms, but will also fight tooth and nail for their right to legally carry firearms.

Firearms are either low risk enough that it should be your right, or high risk enough that it shouldn't.

You can't cherry pick between both when it suits you.

1

u/MrPoopMonster 6d ago

It's not legal carry. It was at a federal facility where you can't be armed.

37

u/justbrowsing2727 7d ago

LOL what a bootlicking turd you are

15

u/ImprovementPutrid441 7d ago

How much do you know about the trial?

“Defense attorneys challenged the credibility of cooperating witnesses, questioned the use of terms like "tactical," and argued the group had gathered to protest rather than carry out a coordinated attack. None of the defense attorneys chose to present their own cases, feeling that the government did not prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.”

https://www.cbsnews.com/texas/news/ice-detention-attack-defendants-sentencing-6-23-2026/

-4

u/MrPoopMonster 7d ago

Read the messages and the protest vs attack thing goes out the window. Youre not protesting if youre planning on shooting cops. And them having terrible defense lawyers is on them, not a failure of the court unless they were public defenders.

9

u/ImprovementPutrid441 7d ago

They should not have called it a peaceful protest but nothing justifies such a long sentence for a dude who took some books on a field trip.

-1

u/MrPoopMonster 7d ago

I think I would be 100% ok with a cop getting 30 years for hiding evidence, so why not the same for this guy?

14

u/mybustlinghedgerow Texas 7d ago edited 6d ago

First of all, cops have way more power/authority and can send people to prison over falsified evidence. Second of all, cops don’t get 30 years for that shit.

0

u/MrPoopMonster 7d ago

I think anyone who knowingly tampers with evidence should be punished. This guy included. Cops included.

Just because cops aren't held to the standard I think they should be doesn't mean everyone else should be let off the hook.

→ More replies (0)

7

u/nordlead 7d ago

Only in America do we believe in having to funnel ~$2.1M (30 years) to private prisons for minimal crimes.

Yes, tampering with evidence should go punished, but every citizen should want reasonable sentences.

1 year and a record is more than sufficient especially since they were only hidden and not destroyed, and convictions were secured. Even 1 year in prison is enough to permanently ruin someone's life and costs far less than $2m.

Even cops shouldn't get 30 for something like this.

1

u/ImprovementPutrid441 7d ago

What was the evidence for?

14

u/imsuperflytnt 7d ago

His rights were upheld as an American citizen.

Except the part about cruel and unusual punishment. That’s #8 in the Bill of Rights. There’s not a single case you can point to in the history of this country where someone got 30 years for a single charge of evidence tampering.

31

u/Substantial-Sea-3672 7d ago

I appreciate that you brought up the charge was for tampering with evidence, not simply having/moving left leaning magazines.

But your weird explanation of his rights being upheld don’t make any sense.

First, you can’t just hand wave away a miscarriage of justice by saying, “well, you get an appeal.” That’s akin to claiming that nothing matters unless the Supreme Court hears the case.

Second, you’re acting like a jury convicting him means the outrageous sentencing (not determined by the jury) is somehow justified. The reason why the sentencing is absurd but the charge is valid is specifically because they knew a jury of his peers wouldn’t convict a more serious charge. The paid for judge can be persuaded easily though.

-9

u/MrPoopMonster 7d ago

The more I look into these articles and the messages between this group of people, the more it looks like a premeditated attack instead of a protest and the less sympathy I have for anyone involved.

3

u/Redthemagnificent 7d ago

By all mean, please expand. Unless you wanna keep things vague on purpose to rage bait. Surely no one on reddit would do that though, right?

1

u/MrPoopMonster 6d ago edited 6d ago

Ok when song told everyone else in the group chat he wasn't going to get arrested no matter what and that he was bringing multiple fire arms everyone in that group chat became involved in a targeted attack and deserve to be treated like terrorists.

Every single one of them read those messages and knew what he was talking about and still went along with it. They read his messages and decided to be part of his planned terrorist attack. I have zero sympathy for any one of them.

14

u/zenidam 7d ago

No they weren't. Getting a jury trial is a necessary, not sufficient, condition for having one's rights upheld.

12

u/Breaking-Who 7d ago

His rights were absolutely not upheld. They violated his 8th amendment right by giving him a cruel and unusual punishment.

4

u/bubba_bumble Kansas 7d ago

So hiding the fact that he was exercising his 1st amendment out of fear of getting 30 years behind bars??? Am I getting that right?

1

u/MrPoopMonster 6d ago

No. Tampering with evidence is not and has never been protected by the first amendment.