netsharc 5 days ago

Jaywalking, misappropriating funds during a renovation? Whatever the police state wants...

mothballed 5 days ago

I heard a totally unsubstantiated rumor that the participants were sending (ICE agent) plate numbers to people with NCIC access to run the plates. If that's the case it would be a pretty easy felony charge for all involved.

I have no reason to believe that's true, just what word on the street was they might be charged with.

  • sjsdaiuasgdia 5 days ago

    If you have no reason to believe it's true, and understand the rumor to be unsubstantiated, why bother to spread it?

    • mothballed 5 days ago

      Because the question was what they might be charged with, not what they did.

      Did you expect the government to charge people in good faith? It doesn't matter it if it's true or not, even putting them in the slammer for a long time while awaiting trial and forcing them to hire expensive attorneys is a win.

      • sjsdaiuasgdia 5 days ago

        No, I don't expect the Trump administration to operate in good faith.

        The post you replied to didn't ask what they might be charged with. It asked what they "plan" to charge.

        And you replied with internet rumor nonsense. It's actually fine to say "I don't know" or simply not reply at all when someone asks a question to which you do not have an answer.

mycodendral 5 days ago

18 U.S.C. § 372 — Conspiracy to impede or injure officer

If two or more persons in any State, Territory, Possession, or District conspire to prevent, by force, intimidation, or threat, any person from accepting or holding any office, trust, or place of confidence under the United States, or from discharging any duties thereof, or to induce by like means any officer of the United States to leave the place where his duties as an officer are required to be performed, or to injure him in his person or property on account of his lawful discharge of the duties of his office, or while engaged in the lawful discharge thereof, or to injure his property so as to molest, interrupt, hinder, or impede him in the discharge of his official duties, each of such persons shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six years, or both.

Federal felony

  • nkohari 5 days ago

    > by force, intimidation, or threat

    You seem to be glossing over the key piece of that statute. Peaceful protest is protected by the first amendment (free speech, right to assembly).

    • knubie 5 days ago

      Intimidation, or threat at the very least seems applicable here if you have any idea of what's going on in Minnesota and what these Signal chats are being used for.

    • mycodendral 4 days ago

      This statute defines the conditions where free speech transitions to criminal activity.

      You can interpret it however you like.

    • refurb 5 days ago

      Blocking law enforcement's vehicles and their person (I saw several protestors put hands on officers), when they are conducting arrests, certainly seems to fit the bill.

    • sb057 5 days ago

      If you threaten to kill somebody then follow them around for days at a time, is that intimidation?

    • zahlman 5 days ago

      [flagged]

      • VBprogrammer 4 days ago

        I've seen pictures of someone with a damaged finger. Given the wild differences between video evidence and what the top levels of the administration claim happen, I think a healthy degree of scepticism is warrented.

        Could easily have been hurt by their own flashbang devices or caught it in a car door.

        • zahlman 4 days ago

          > I've seen pictures of someone with a damaged finger.

          The finger was completely removed and pictured separately.

          > Could easily have been hurt by their own flashbang devices or caught it in a car door.

          I can't fathom either of these explaining what I saw.

      • nkohari 5 days ago

        I haven't seen the supposed Signal logs, but I'm confident that there wasn't a conspiracy to bite someone's finger.

        • zahlman 4 days ago

          The point is to establish that the protest has not been entirely peaceful, which raises the possibility of conspiracy covering non-protected actions. The subthread is about what they plan to charge people with, not about exactly what actually happened and whether it meets legal standards. That's what investigations and trials are for.

  • [removed] 5 days ago
    [deleted]
advisedwang 5 days ago

The article subhead implies obstruction of justice.

  • [removed] 5 days ago
    [deleted]
[removed] 5 days ago
[deleted]
lenerdenator 5 days ago

Or, at the very least, what they want to try to convince a grand jury to indict people on.

That's another angle that needs to be discussed more often with respect to Trump's DoJ: if you're impaneled on a grand jury for charges coming out of these investigations, you don't have to give them a bill.

missingcolours 5 days ago

Presumably Seditious Conspiracy, like many people involved in J6. Conspiracy to use force to prevent or delay enforcement of laws.

adrr 5 days ago

Terrorism seems to be their default claim if you're against the Trump admin.

2OEH8eoCRo0 5 days ago

I hope they're just looking for foreign influence I'm not sure what you could charge peaceful protestors with that would survive in court.