Only one person opened fire. He got 100 years. (I agree that he shouldn't have gotten a slap on the wrist for what he did, but I'll happily point out that killers serve less, if at all.)

The rest got 70. None of them had guns.

The guy who got 30 years wasn't even at the protest.

---

There is no universe where this is not completely batshit insane, but it's interesting to see you use the exact same logic[1] the CCP has in its crackdowns and pogroms to justify it.

The reason the sentences were so high, by the way, was because the judge took dozens of minor offenses and added the sentences for each. It's the equivalent of sentencing someone who stole a 12-pack for 12 counts of theft, or someone tagging 'FUCK ICE' for 8 counts[1] of destruction of federal property.

For some reason, the current regime does not hold its footsoldiers and other useful idiots to the same standard.

---

[1] Someone in a protest/movement/group did something bad, brand them all terrorists, and make sure that everyone's going to a 're-education' camp for what will remain of their lives.

[2] One for each letter, and another one for the space.

I think your confusion comes from the fact this wasn't a protest gone awry, it was an organized domestic terrorist attack. It was a small group of armed people in body armor who privately organized a domestic terrorist attack intending to cause damage and hurt/kill federal officers in an ambush. The only reason the officer lived was because Song's gun jammed before he could kill people and get away.

Certainly if this was a jihadist attack, a lifetime sentence would be appropriate. Why should it be different just because they're white?

This guy carried out an organized domestic terrorist attack with help from others, actually killed someone as well as badly injuring another, and got only 41 years. Why the disparity?

The Federal Building where he murdered the security guard is just an administrative building; at least the people in Texas were motivated by the somewhat reasonable belief that they were attacking guards at a concentration camp.

https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndca/pr/steven-carrillo-sentenc...

>a concentration camp

Most people at these facilities can leave at any time, right? Just so long as it isn't back into the United States? They can return to their country of origin, or another country. I'm sure someone will offer a correction if this particular facility was holding people for other crimes in addition to their unauthorized alien status.

I use the phrase concentration camp not to dispute the legality of their detention, but to draw attention to the deplorable conditions thereof. Just because it may be legal to detain does not mean the state has the right to abuse them or hold them in deplorable conditions.

https://www.aclu.org/news/immigrants-rights/detained-immigra...

> it was an organized domestic terrorist attack

A guy deliberately drove his car through a street full of scattering protesters in my neighbourhood a few years ago, and when people tried to pull him out of it, he shot one of them, and then ran off, waving his gun (with a jungle-taped pair of mags inserted into it).

Was he a (disorganized) political terrorist? If these guys got 70 years for being at the protest, what sort of sentencing do you think was warranted for him?

Bringing guns to shoot people you disagree with, then shooting them and injuring them for doing their job is not a harmless demonstration. It's terrorism, and they deserve what they got.

Only one person brought a gun (singular). The rest didn't shoot anyone, nor was there any evidence that they planned to do so. They were convicted for being at a protest where one asshole brought and shot a gun.

He could have had the book thrown at him. As for the rest, if you seriously think that getting 70 years for being at a protest where one person shot a gun is appropriate, you have a lot in common with a Stalin-era Soviet judge.