Fbi Arrests Us Army Veteran for 'conspiracy' Over Protest Against Ice
Posted4 months agoActive4 months ago
theguardian.comOtherstoryHigh profile
heatednegative
Debate
80/100
Fbi ArrestProtest Against IceCivil Liberties
Key topics
Fbi Arrest
Protest Against Ice
Civil Liberties
The FBI arrested a US Army veteran for 'conspiracy' over a protest against ICE, sparking discussion about selective prosecution, civil liberties, and the erosion of democratic norms in the US.
Snapshot generated from the HN discussion
Discussion Activity
Active discussionFirst comment
32m
Peak period
20
0-2h
Avg / period
5
Comment distribution35 data points
Loading chart...
Based on 35 loaded comments
Key moments
- 01Story posted
Sep 2, 2025 at 3:15 PM EDT
4 months ago
Step 01 - 02First comment
Sep 2, 2025 at 3:47 PM EDT
32m after posting
Step 02 - 03Peak activity
20 comments in 0-2h
Hottest window of the conversation
Step 03 - 04Latest activity
Sep 3, 2025 at 11:47 AM EDT
4 months ago
Step 04
Generating AI Summary...
Analyzing up to 500 comments to identify key contributors and discussion patterns
ID: 45107712Type: storyLast synced: 11/20/2025, 4:53:34 PM
Want the full context?
Jump to the original sources
Read the primary article or dive into the live Hacker News thread when you're ready.
> 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.
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
The point of commenting IANAL, is that legal code is complicated. The ACLU is likely giving "best-practices", but that's not legal code. It's guidelines.
This feels pretty first-amendment to me, but I have little doubt that SCOTUS would think that people's first-amendment rights are less important than the Gov't's ability to do what it's doing.
I just also think that SCOTUS is wrong and full of very political actors who are grossly partial towards the current administration.
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.
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 am not longer baffled.
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.
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.
(Not literally no one, but few enough people that they effectively don't matter.)
There is nuance and balance to be had in law, your rights end where others begin.
Isn't this exactly what the MAGA crowd has professed to believe since 1/6/2021?
They were fine storming government buildings with guns in hand during covid. They considered the Bundy brothers and Kyle Rittenhouse to be heroes and patriots.
These rights are absolute and inalienable, granted by God as long as you're "white and right." Otherwise it's time to crack skulls.
“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's a lot of precedent too, I'm sure.
So yeah, there's no real way to know ahead of time if any protest is or is not legal or legally impeded. That's not the case with continental law where it's defined ahead of time.
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.
> 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.
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.
15 more comments available on Hacker News