Hacker News

points by elgertam 1 day ago | 0 comments

Didn't they get 450 years of jail time (spread among nine people IIRC) for attacking a government building with explosives and committing attempted murder?[0] If the start of your pattern of "police state levels of power, corruption and control" is people engaging in organized terrorism, (i.e. using violence for political ends) being convicted of terrorism offenses, then I guess I don't see it. Looks to me like some folks wanted to LARP as revolutionaries but with real bullets & explosives and were surprised the government's tolerance for that was limited.

[0]https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/clyedgnyn4mo

[–] reactordev 1 day ago

Shot in the neck and lived. 420 years. Pretti filming peacefully and shot in the back. 0 years.

[–] elgertam 1 day ago

What's the point of this comment? Both things can be bad.

[–] tavavex 1 day ago

Highlighting the hypocrisy? Even if we assumed both things are equally bad (an opinion I will never understand), it doesn't change the fact of the different treatment whatsoever.

[–] cauch 1 day ago

The way you frame the event is very misleading after reading the article.

I know that idiots will argue that "attacking a government building with explosives and committing attempted murder" is "technically correct", but it is stupidity to not understand that it leaves out important nuances.

[–] scarecrowbob 1 day ago

I mean, everything is an "emergency" if you squint and have no regard for the humans you harm.

I'm not the biggest fan of Orwell but the idea that authoritarians work by asking us to stop using language in normal way has been unfortunately helpful.

[–] uxp100 1 day ago

The “explosives” being Fourth of July fireworks.

[–] WarmWash 1 day ago

I think in another universe where they just stood outside and shouted while holding signs and shooting up fireworks, then peaceably surrendered when when the cops came, they would get slaps on the wrist, maybe.

But instead a few of them had guns, and one of them decided to get into a shoot-off with the police.

You are unequivocally fucked if you have any degree of association with those people doing shit like that on federal property.

(the bodycams and security footage for this event are on youtube)

[–] TaLiTr 1 day ago

> But instead a few of them had guns

One of them had a gun, which the US decided was ok for someone to carry in public.

> You are unequivocally fucked if you have any degree of association with those people

Guilt by association is it?

[–] corps_and_code 1 day ago

Small nitpick, but I believe this all happened on private, not federal, property. The ICE facility they were protesting at was a private company ICE was contracting with, not an actual federal building.

[–] WarmWash 1 day ago

It doesn't look like the judge cared much

[–] tavavex 1 day ago

IIRC, people involved in this case made extremely telling comments about the political alignment of the protestors. They despise them either way, the guns are just used as pretext to elevate it to the next level, especially since the people among them who didn't have guns or do anything violent didn't escape the wrath. They almost certainly would not have gotten slaps on the wrist, those are reserved for 'our good boys'. They would have still gotten their lives ruined, just not in quite the same dramatic fashion with showy century-long sentences, but just the routine 'you're going away for a long time' treatment.

[–] UncleMeat 1 day ago

Not just people involved, but the judge. Kacsmaryk is basically a psycho and his statements during the sentencing are outrageous.

[–] UncleMeat 1 day ago

Exactly one of them had a gun on them.

[–] nomel 1 day ago

Did they discharge the gun? If so, was it towards anyone? If so, who was it towards and what was the intent? Was anyone harmed during that discharge?

[–] UncleMeat 16 hours ago

If you want to claim that the guy who shot the cop should be charged with attempted murder or something, fine. But the entire crew of them (including somebody who wasn't there) were charged with a completely different crime and given outrageous sentences because the judge (Kacsmaryk) hates the left.

[–] elgertam 1 day ago

People are killed and maimed every year from Fourth of July fireworks. You're proving my point that these were LARPing revolutionaries who nevertheless engaged in real violence.

And please don't forget the attempted murder that the leader really did carry out with a firearm.

[–] adamrezich 1 day ago

Gunpowder is gunpowder.

[–] nailer 1 day ago

This is like the "Palestinian children throwing rocks". You can do as much damage with fireworks as you can with a head-sized piece of concrete.

[–] zimbu668 1 day ago

Those aren't "explosives", they are explosives. Google death/maiming by fireworks for examples.

[–] smallmancontrov 1 day ago

No, the fact that people occasionally get hurt by accident with fireworks does not make the violent subtext in "attacking a government building with explosives" a correct description of the situation.

[–] zimbu668 1 day ago

So you admit that fireworks are known to cause death and severe bodily harm. What sort of prison sentence would be appropriate for attacking people with such devices?

[–] tclancy 1 day ago

Water is known to cause death and serious harm.

[–] elgertam 1 day ago

And people who use water intentionally to cause death or serious harm should face harsh legal consequences.

In fact, let's use your argument. People drown accidentally in swimming pools regularly. So then if some "protester" decided to set up one of those portable pools and forcibly hold people down under water in one, wouldn't they be guilty of attempted murder?

Using things that are known to cause death and serious harm in a way that is intended to cause death and serious harm is in fact the thing I'm against.

[–] zimbu668 1 day ago

So if you throw water at me I can throw a lit firework back at you? Same thing?

[–] baobabKoodaa 1 day ago

His point, which you pretend to not understand, is that the bar needs to be higher. Both water and fireworks are fairly innocuous items, even though both can be used to inflict harm and even though fireworks can be more easily weaponized than water.

[–] tclancy 1 day ago

I mean yeah. Maybe I’m a bit older than you but that’s not a wild thing to do.

[–] carlosjobim 1 day ago

That's why drowning somebody or attempting to drown somebody is a crime. Just like using fireworks as a weapon against somebody.

[–] nomel 1 day ago

I'm having trouble believing this comment chain is happening/neccesary. I feel completely disconnected from the thought process of a large portion of society.

[–] tclancy 1 day ago

You can’t drown someone with fireworks.

[–] smallmancontrov 1 day ago

So you admit that you were making a nonsense argument. Thanks for your honesty!

[–] zimbu668 1 day ago

Nope, fireworks are still explosives and they can cause death and severe bodily harm. Where’s the nonsense?

[–] UncleMeat 1 day ago

Suppose I am setting off some fireworks in my street to celebrate the 4th. Do you believe that my neighbors should fear for their lives? This was a noise protest. They weren't shooting roman candles at people.

[–] tantalor 1 day ago

Listen to the NYT Daily episode about this.

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/10/27/podcasts/the-daily/antifa...

tldr, the govt (not the court) decides whether it is terrorism or not, which elevates misdemeanor into decades long felony conviction.

The J6 crowd was not charged with terrorism.

[–] ledbettj 1 day ago

> Looks to me like some folks wanted to LARP as revolutionaries but with real bullets & explosives and were surprised the government's tolerance for that was limited.

Unless of course your guy ends up in power again and offers you pardons and reparations.

[–] dgellow 1 day ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_granted_executi...

[–] so-gala-massey 1 day ago

Tolerance? Jan 6.

[–] rc-research 1 day ago

Attacking a government building with explosives is a stretch. They had fireworks on July 4th to stage a noise protest outside of the detention facility which got out of hand. The issue is that the government's case for 'material support for terror' mostly hinged on them wearing black and all being members of a signal chat [1] and handed down extraordinarily harsh sentences.

The government's case explicitly tried to throw the book at all involved (including 30 years for someone not even at the protest; for moving a box of anti-fascist literature) in line with new executive direction including NSPM-7[1][2].

The BBC article you linked takes many of the procecutor's statements at face value. Looking into this case more may illuminate how wide this survailance and punnishment net will be cast against the administration's political enemies.

[1]https://theintercept.com/2026/06/23/prairieland-texas-ice-pr... [2]https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/09/coun...

[–] UncleMeat 1 day ago

"Explosives" in this case are "ordinary fireworks you can buy at a stand on the side of the road meant to be loud and annoying."