> According to the indictment, Mavalwalla and his co-defendants “physically blocked the drive-way of the federal facility and/or physically pushed against officers despite orders to disperse and efforts to remove them from the property”.
And it was recorded and posted to Instagram:
> A one-minute video posted on Instagram shows the army veteran briefly jostle with an officer whose face is covered by a ski mask and sunglasses. Mavalwalla then locks arms with other demonstrators to block the gate.
Sidestepping the political hot topic, if you use Facebook to coordinate with others to block federal officers from doing their job and then someone from your group records it and posts it to Instagram, your lawyer is going to have a hard time finding a way out of charges like this.
> Mavalwalla was one of hundreds of people to respond to a 11 June social media post from the former president of the Spokane city council that encouraged protesters to block an Ice transport they believed would carry two Venezuelan immigrants who were in the country legally, petitioning for asylum when they were detained.
> “I am going to sit in front of the bus,” Ben Stuckart, the former city council president, wrote. “Feel free to join me.”
With this "problem" for the prosecutors quoted:
> In this case, prosecutors would just have to prove that defendants agreed in concert to impede or injure an officer.
So I would caution against reading a short description of the law and thinking it's an open-and-shut case against the protesters.
> In response to the imprisonment of two Harney County ranchers, who were prosecuted for arson, Ammon and Ryan led a group of activists in an occupation of the Malheur national wildlife refuge, an obscure sanctuary for birds.
> Ammon declared that he and other protesters, some who openly carried firearms and took over government buildings and equipment, would stay until the ranchers were freed and the refuge land was given to locals to control.
IANAL, but it appears to be criminal: 18 U.S.C. 111
This does not appear to be covered under "peaceful protest": https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/protesters-rights
In this mode I’m asking myself, What’s being reported here. Is it same as previous stories or different?
This story features a citizen, participating in a protest. That’s not unusual. What is unusual is a federal arrest 30 days after the event.
I’m not saying this as fact of arrests (could be happening a lot for all I know), but only in terms of what is reported. And when you watch the videos of someone who gets in the face of law enforcement (I can’t see the video on the gift link, so I’m going by descriptions) invariably they are pulled offline and taken down by 4-6 police. Police are taking any physical interaction as assault and arresting people on the spot. (Maybe the police were overwhelmed or afraid this veteran would hurt them compared to the women I see shoved and dragged in IG videos).
Also, why 30 days later? The person who would have had the responsibility to arrest and charge resigned, and their replacement is reportedly unqualified?
As a citizen who has the right to protest (1st amendment), I’m not thinking that the government is taking names. Now I am, which is possibly the point.
AND! The president is calling for the end of No-Cash Bail. Do you see the chilling effect potential?
Not to mention the hypocrisy/asymmetry of January 6th as an event of obvious violent obstruction of federal procedure (every accusation is a confession). This arrest is notable in comparison to other reported arrests.
Imo what we're seeing in the US now is the visible "blooming" of things which have been growing and metastasizing since the 80's.
I'd be very surprised if the punishments for impeding or injuring are equal, despite the two crimes being described in the same statute. Afaik sentencing guidelines take into account more than just the charge itself.
“the government may impose reasonable restrictions on the time, place, or manner of protected speech, provided the restrictions ‘are justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech, that they are narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest, and that they leave open ample alternative channels for communication of the information.’”
People complain about this all the time (“free speech zones”) but it’s been the law for decades.
See also https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/protesters-rights .
There is nuance and balance to be had in law, your rights end where others begin.
People in the US do not have due process rights. I can confidently say this, because if anyone doesn't have due process rights, then no one has due process rights.
By your logic, no one has due process rights in this country.
(Not literally no one, but few enough people that they effectively don't matter.)
There hasn't actually been a complete lack of such pushback from traditional conservatives; the surviving icons of traditional conservatism have often been vocal anti-Trumpers.
What it turns out is that, while some of the former luminaries are still alive and active, there are, as far as political impact goes, no traditional conservatives left.
I am not longer baffled.
