218

Prairieland ‘Antifa’ Activists Sentenced to Decades in Prison on ‘Terrorism’ Charges (talkingpointsmemo.com)

submitted 1 day ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/politics@lemmy.world

19 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 19 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] khannie@lemmy.world 18 points 1 day ago

I'm not sure I fully understand this.... Like apart from the punter who shot the cop, the others are getting an average of 50 years each for vandalism. Is that correct?

My mind genuinely cannot comprehend that. Like you don't get that for murder in most places.

[-] quick_snail@feddit.nl 10 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Also the guy who shot the cop did it in defense.

The cop escalated by raising a loaded firearm first.

[-] Zedstrian@sopuli.xyz 93 points 1 day ago

Benjamin Song was sentenced to 100 years in prison and Maricela Rueda to 70. Savanna Batten, Elizabeth Soto, Meaghan Morris, Autumn Hill, and Zachary Evetts each received sentences of 50 years. Daniel Sanchez Estrada, who was not at the demonstration, was sentenced to 30 years on charges relating to concealing documents in the investigation.

A disgusting abuse of power.

[-] mrmisses@lemmy.world 59 points 1 day ago

Fascism by pedos

[-] Wataba@sh.itjust.works 16 points 1 day ago

If theyre going to flat out fucking lie and disappear people like this, there is literallu nothing to lose by hitting back hard.

[-] la508@lemmy.world 82 points 1 day ago

Savanna Batten and Elizabeth Soto, two area activists, were not alleged to have belonged to discussion groups where the demonstration was planned. In Batten’s case, prosecutors relied on her black garb as a means to tie her to the conspiracy; in Soto’s, prosecutors argued that her black clothing and her operation of a small printing press that produced anarchist “zines” tied her to the conspiracy. Both received sentences of 50 years on Tuesday.

Fascism.

[-] Steve@startrek.website 19 points 1 day ago

What do you expect from a shithole country

[-] whotookkarl@lemmy.dbzer0.com 13 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Trump is a pedophile and Texas gov Abbott pardons jury convicted murderers, no charges for the ICE agents who gunned down citizens in broad daylight, and collective punishment is a crime against humanity under systems of justice.

[-] limonfiesta@lemmy.world 55 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Sounds like they would have either been significantly better off, or at minimum no worse off, had they followed through and executed every fascist on site, leave no fascist witnesses.

Take notes. Learn. Do better.

[-] Eldritch@piefed.world 17 points 1 day ago

If you resist an officer of the state in any benign way. They will charge you with assault etc. If you find yourself firing on them, there is no forgiveness. Or no harm no foul. Even if you don't hit anyone, the state will still bury you one way or another. So yeah, once you start it. You better make it worth it.

[-] Fandangalo@lemmy.world 37 points 1 day ago

Buried in this:

During jury selection that morning, local press reports said, around three-quarters of prospective jurors expressed opposition to President Trump and ICE.

This is a case in Texas. While grave injustice is being done in terms of the state’s actions, this is a good signal for “average American” and their reaction to these policies.

[-] gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world 17 points 1 day ago

Yeah, also maybe explains a bit about the guilty verdicts in the first place - I bet every single one of those prospective jurors got rejected and the prosecution didn't have to spend any of their challenges to do it because being opposed to ICE meant they were "biased"

[-] BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world 13 points 1 day ago

Yup. And every juror that was sat either was a lying MAGAt or was just as naïve as one and therefore thought they actually were sentencing terrorists.

[-] quick_snail@feddit.nl 2 points 1 day ago

Both the defence and prosecution can reject jurors. So defence could reject anyone who supports ICE

[-] impairedimperator@lemmy.zip 3 points 1 day ago

Normally you only get a certain number of rejections to prevent dragging out the process. So if being "against Ice" is structural bias, while being "pro ice" counts against your three or whatever rejections...the jury will be pro ice.

[-] quick_snail@feddit.nl 2 points 1 day ago

I've been on a jury. There was no limit to the number of rejections. It took them days to pick a jury.

[-] gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

Huh, every single state court system does things differently so maybe there was no limit in your case, but there is definitely a limit in federal trials, see Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 24, part (b) here - https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_24 (arc)

[-] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 13 points 1 day ago

That's U.S. District Judge Mark Pittman for the Northern District of Texas in DfW making this decision on the record.

[-] BigMacHole@thelemmy.club 21 points 1 day ago

If ONLY they had MURDERED ICE Agents or RAPED Children THEN they would have had a MUCH Lighter Sentence!

this post was submitted on 23 Jun 2026

218 points (100.0% liked)

politics

30176 readers

2314 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News