Members of Christian Militia Arrested

It could just be what crimes they were charged with. Rather than charge them with something specific related to their idea to shoot state policemen--such as conspiracy to commit murder--the DA charged them with conspiring to commit sedition against the U.S. and conspiring to use weapons of mass destruction.

Part of me says that this is police society, but another part of me compares this to Joe Padilla's case, and considers Hutarees' outcome far and beyond fortunate, in comparison. Let's call it a progress!

(especially considering that while Padilla was simply a dumbass, these guys are armed, funded, hatred-filled dumbasses).

First they came for the armed, funded, hatred-filled dumbasses...

Jayhawker wrote:

First they came for the armed, funded, hatred-filled dumbasses...

LOL

With two kids in school this makes me think about how seriously districts and the authorities take threats these days. If kids make a statement on Facebook about shooting up there school or blowing some sh*t up it's no longer treated the same way that it was even 10 years ago.

In my opinion, it's the tipping point that's the intangible here. What's the line between saying you're going to do crazy sh*t and actually trying to do crazy sh*t. That's the incalcuable variable. If we arrest for thoughts/statements we are a "police state", if we wait for these loons to act then aren't we partially responsible for whatever horrors the commit.

Personally, I'd prefer a those issuing threats be prematurely arrested prior to a cafeteria full of dead kids.

Bear wrote:
Jayhawker wrote:

First they came for the armed, funded, hatred-filled dumbasses...

LOL

With two kids in school this makes me think about how seriously districts and the authorities take threats these days. If kids make a statement on Facebook about shooting up there school or blowing some sh*t up it's no longer treated the same way that it was even 10 years ago.

In my opinion, it's the tipping point that's the intangible here. What's the line between saying you're going to do crazy sh*t and actually trying to do crazy sh*t. That's the incalcuable variable. If we arrest for thoughts/statements we are a "police state", if we wait for these loons to act then aren't we partially responsible for whatever horrors the commit.

Personally, I'd prefer a those issuing threats be prematurely arrested prior to a cafeteria full of dead kids.

That is a false dichotomy. We can prosecute people for conspiracy to commit crimes, which implies actual effort being made to plan and coordinate something. Lots of loose talk about potential crimes happens all the time, especially on the interwebs, which leads to absolutely nothing criminal happening. Until something actually moves forward beyond, "I wish happened," it is thought-crime.

First they came for the armed, funded, hatred-filled dumbasses...

YES. This is exactly how it will happen. Remember, just about everything you know about these guys, you know because the government made loud assertions about them. Of course the government wants to make them look as bad as possible, because convictions for terror plots, even when no terror plot existed, is how the FBI guys get raises and promotions.

What do you actually know about these guys, absent government claims that failed in a court of law? Not all that much.

Abuses of power are usually aimed, first, at those with unpopular opinions. Remember what H.L. Mencken said:

The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.
Kraint wrote:
Bear wrote:
Jayhawker wrote:

First they came for the armed, funded, hatred-filled dumbasses...

LOL

With two kids in school this makes me think about how seriously districts and the authorities take threats these days. If kids make a statement on Facebook about shooting up there school or blowing some sh*t up it's no longer treated the same way that it was even 10 years ago.

In my opinion, it's the tipping point that's the intangible here. What's the line between saying you're going to do crazy sh*t and actually trying to do crazy sh*t. That's the incalcuable variable. If we arrest for thoughts/statements we are a "police state", if we wait for these loons to act then aren't we partially responsible for whatever horrors the commit.

Personally, I'd prefer a those issuing threats be prematurely arrested prior to a cafeteria full of dead kids.

That is a false dichotomy. We can prosecute people for conspiracy to commit crimes, which implies actual effort being made to plan and coordinate something. Lots of loose talk about potential crimes happens all the time, especially on the interwebs, which leads to absolutely nothing criminal happening. Until something actually moves forward beyond, "I wish happened," it is thought-crime.

Last I checked, there was a fairly solid legal definition for conspiracy in criminal form. Seems like it'd fit, without straying into either territory.

Kannon wrote:
Kraint wrote:

That is a false dichotomy. We can prosecute people for conspiracy to commit crimes, which implies actual effort being made to plan and coordinate something. Lots of loose talk about potential crimes happens all the time, especially on the interwebs, which leads to absolutely nothing criminal happening. Until something actually moves forward beyond, "I wish happened," it is thought-crime.

Last I checked, there was a fairly solid legal definition for conspiracy in criminal form. Seems like it'd fit, without straying into either territory.

Could you specify the "it" you mean? A Facebook post or BSing over beer doesn't meet that definition. I've not read the evidence against these guys, but the lack of convictions seems to show that whatever happened didn't rise to the level outlined in the laws. That's why I'm saying that limiting the choices to, 'Arrest everyone who says or types something about bombs' and, 'We can't touch them until the morgues are full,' is not valid. Maybe I was unclear in my previous post.

Every criminal lives in a police state. When they start kicking in the doors of people without automatic weapons and and a belly full of righteous hate, then I will start to worry.

All you know, heavyfeul, is that the government says they had automatic weapons and a belly full of righteous hate. The court says they were full of sh*t.

Apparently the only remaining charges are weapons-related, in that they owned something they're not supposed to -- and if there's any set of laws that's messed up and disconnected from reality, it's the ones about firearms ownership. The guiding principle there seems to be 'if it looks scary enough, it's illegal'.

Malor wrote:

Apparently the only remaining charges are weapons-related, in that they owned something they're not supposed to -- and if there's any set of laws that's messed up and disconnected from reality, it's the ones about firearms ownership. The guiding principle there seems to be 'if it looks scary enough, it's illegal'.

That's irrelevant though because those are still documented laws so if they actually broke them then it really isn't worth discussing. I generally agree with the rest of your point though.

Your're right...they busted a good old fashioned Midwest sewing circle.

Well, right the government says. The pics Jay posted a page back or so show. Remember, people, Show, Don't Tell.

How safe would any of you feel if threatened (allegedly) by an apocalyptic Christian militia that preaches violence? Guilty or innocent it seems like a reasonable group to be the focus of law enforcement in my view. Call me crazy.

Yes, because clearly, wearing camo and carrying a rifle deserves jail time.

Malor wrote:

Yes, because clearly, wearing camo and carrying a rifle deserves jail time.

In some areas of the world it will get you shot, never mind jail time. It is a good thing we do not live in a war zone and have due process.

I'm pretty sure it's not a crime, necessarily, but it does make your assertion that we only have the government's word that they had automatic weapons a little problematic.

They got investigated, the case was lacking, they were set free. For now, the system worked.

And, if they are intent on committing crimes, they will be better prepared in terms of operational security and more focused on specific targets(like the prosecuting attorneys and arresting officers). Hooray!

Rattle your saber and cry war and eventually the government will oblige.

Kraint wrote:

Could you specify the "it" you mean? A Facebook post or BSing over beer doesn't meet that definition. I've not read the evidence against these guys, but the lack of convictions seems to show that whatever happened didn't rise to the level outlined in the laws. That's why I'm saying that limiting the choices to, 'Arrest everyone who says or types something about bombs' and, 'We can't touch them until the morgues are full,' is not valid. Maybe I was unclear in my previous post.

If they can't prove it in a court of law (Such as in this case), then they shouldn't be arrested? That's sort of the core of the American justice system. Screwing with that in any meaningful way is emphatically a TERRIBLE idea. "Oh, we just didn't prove it hard enough, and they're not really innocent!" Then, uh, you f*cked up, and don't get a redo?

Really, if you've got people raving, can prove they've got illegal weapons (If you can't, quit saying it.), and can't find any serious operational plans for them doing something with it... Then maybe they're not seriously planning on anything, they're just being douchenozzles.

If you can prove the weapons, hey, illegal weapons charges.

Malor and I do not see eye-to-eye on many things, but I don't take issue with his core concept here. We have the laws governing what legally constitutes someone conspiring to commit a crime. We should probably follow those.

Because our choices really _do_ boil down to those choices... to a point. Professional-types with solid operational security and airtight planning? Yeah... you're probably not going to be able to prove that. Not without collateral damage that's worse. (I think I joke about cleansing the world with fire once a day or so, recently, with the hilarious displays of idiocy from the GOP and the Treyvon Marton case. Generally speaking, innocent people get screwed a lot more than guilty parties.)

Besides, as we (should have, leastwise) learned from our adventures in the middle east... fighting an idea with bullets is remarkably inefficient. You know what arresting someone who is just pissed off but didn't really plan on following through is going to do? Make them follow through next time.

Now, if you wanted to come up with a middle ground between "ARREST!" and "Nothing!" to handle people that are remarkably tweaked off, that'd be cool. But with our current police options, not much to do about it.

I'd not be opposed to a pretty clear overhaul of our enormous and byzantine structure of laws, remove the stupid ones, and update the conspiracy laws for the 21st century, go for it. I'd be pretty vehemently against lowering the bar for proof, but it could use some cleaning up, especially re: electronic communications. It's asinine police still steal whole servers instead of just taking relevant data.

Am I missing something? Are we really pretending that this was a casual conversation over beers to help makes us feel better about raging at the machine?

So we are all happy that George Zimmerman was not arrested, right? Because in that case, the police and prosecutor didn't think they had enough evidence based on dumb interpretation of the law. Apparently, if there is a chance he might be innocent, he should not be arrested. Heaven forbid we ruin his life for something we can't prove.

Jayhawker wrote:

Am I missing something? Are we really pretending that this was a casual conversation over beers to help makes us feel better about raging at the machine?

So we are all happy that George Zimmerman was not arrested, right? Because in that case, the police and prosecutor didn't think they had enough evidence based on dumb interpretation of the law. Apparently, if there is a chance he might be innocent, he should not be arrested. Heaven forbid we ruin his life for something we can't prove.

Apples are not Oranges, though they're both fruit.

Conspiracy charges are "They're planning to do something", which is foggy enough to want to be on the safe side.

Murder is "He did something.", further complicated in the Zimmerman fiasco with the police _actively_ f*cking the case.

So, we have authorities trying to make a case and failing with something muddy, as opposed to authorities trying to make something go away, about something clear cut.

Also, uh, yeah. The standard of evidence is "Beyond reasonable doubt". If there was reasonable doubt from a proper investigation into the Zimmerman flustercluck that he was justified in using lethal force... we'd all be a lot less pissed. As of right now, however, all signs point to manslaughter at the _very_ least.

"Beyond a reasonable doubt"
That's why, in theory, the cops and the judges are separate parts of the system.

The cops/district attorneys obviously thought that they had enough evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.
The judge disagreed.

I see no problem here.

Am I missing something? Are we really pretending that this was a casual conversation over beers to help makes us feel better about raging at the machine?

So we are all happy that George Zimmerman was not arrested, right? Because in that case, the police and prosecutor didn't think they had enough evidence based on dumb interpretation of the law. Apparently, if there is a chance he might be innocent, he should not be arrested. Heaven forbid we ruin his life for something we can't prove.

So you're actually saying, out loud as it were, that a dead kid lying on the sidewalk is comparable to bunch of guys boasting around a campfire?

One thing we know is that many of these supposed 'terror' cases are planned and orchestrated by the informants themselves. How do you even know that this wasn't all driven by the informant, pushing a bunch of numbskulls with weapons into saying something incriminating?

It's pretty clear that that court more or less threw the government out on its ear. Why doesn't this enter into your mental calculus at all?

I'll tell you why. You've decided they're already guilty.

The court, the jury and judge in charge of actually examining the evidence at length, disagree.

Malor wrote:

I'll tell you why. You've decided they're already guilty.

You mean sorta like we have all decided that GZ is guilty as well.

mudbunny wrote:
Malor wrote:

I'll tell you why. You've decided they're already guilty.

You mean sorta like we have all decided that GZ is guilty as well.

At the very least he's guilty of being a neighborhood watch that carried a handgun around and shot and killed a kid. That much is already established.

I agree with those above who say that comparison is completely off.

Malor wrote:

So you're actually saying, out loud as it were, that a dead kid lying on the sidewalk is comparable to bunch of guys boasting around a campfire?

So I see you are still just making up scenarios to make yourself feel better.

FWIW, I don't think they are guilty of the crime. I think the system pretty much showed that. But I also think there was plenty of evidence to get the case to court and have a judge decide.

OG_slinger wrote:

It could just be what crimes they were charged with. Rather than charge them with something specific related to their idea to shoot state policemen--such as conspiracy to commit murder--the DA charged them with conspiring to commit sedition against the U.S. and conspiring to use weapons of mass destruction.

I think this is where the government messed things up. Had they waited a bit longer for the group to make more concrete plans for the April recon mission, they would have had a very good case for conspiracy to commit murder. Instead they rounded them up before they'd done anything more than talk about it. The leader put a notice on their website for members to contact him asap about a training exercise (the one where they talked about killing anyone they came across that didn't submit to them). Had they waited for the members to actually meet up and plan the exercise, I don't doubt that they'd have been able to record enough evidence to get a conviction for conspiracy to commit murder. I do doubt that they'd have been able to get the sedition charge, and definitely not the WMD charge. From what I've been able to find, they only ever talked about using IEDs.

But instead the Feds jumped the gun and didn't have enough evidence to prove anything except a few weapon charges. To paraphrase Malor's quote, the law was on the side of the scoundrels. What's worse is that it took 2 years to settle that talking about what you'd like to do ≠ actually planning to do it.

From what I've been able to find out, I might have taken the risk had I been that cop in the heat of the moment.

It's not like they were building a laser in orbit or something. It doesn't take a lot of planning to do what they were talking about in that boast. A few guns and a properly timed 911 call is it. Some drunken boasting and a cellphone and they would have been good to go.

That's why we have the courts, to look at what was seen and heard and try to make a dispassionate decision. It sucks, but the alternatives both ways suck more.

Stengah wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:

It could just be what crimes they were charged with. Rather than charge them with something specific related to their idea to shoot state policemen--such as conspiracy to commit murder--the DA charged them with conspiring to commit sedition against the U.S. and conspiring to use weapons of mass destruction.

I think this is where the government messed things up. Had they waited a bit longer for the group to make more concrete plans for the April recon mission, they would have had a very good case for conspiracy to commit murder. Instead they rounded them up before they'd done anything more than talk about it. The leader put a notice on their website for members to contact him asap about a training exercise (the one where they talked about killing anyone they came across that didn't submit to them). Had they waited for the members to actually meet up and plan the exercise, I don't doubt that they'd have been able to record enough evidence to get a conviction for conspiracy to commit murder. I do doubt that they'd have been able to get the sedition charge, and definitely not the WMD charge. From what I've been able to find, they only ever talked about using IEDs.

But instead the Feds jumped the gun and didn't have enough evidence to prove anything except a few weapon charges. To paraphrase Malor's quote, the law was on the side of the scoundrels. What's worse is that it took 2 years to settle that talking about what you'd like to do ≠ actually planning to do it.

That is my exact point. I don't get why waiting long enough to gather evidence of wrongdoing, as defined by law, is such a controversial point. They jumped the gun, didn't wait for anything actually illegal, and now these guys are free and know the Feds are watching.