A Neo Nazi just got red flagged in WA state. This bothers me.

[Borderland]

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/19/us/kaleb-james-cole-guns-seized/index.html

His legal weapons were confiscated without due process. He wasn't charged with any crime. He was a CPL (concealed pistol license) holder. That means he was vetted by local LE. It takes about 6 weeks to get a CPL in WA.

I don't like Neo Nazi's, skinheads, white supremacists or even 1%ers, but this is nothing more than a person's property being confiscated because of his affiliation with an organization.

Note that the SPD filed the order.

Probably some people here on this forum with more semi-auto weapons than this guy.

Looks pretty bad from my perspective.

[BehindBlueI's]

His legal weapons were confiscated without due process.

Information was presented to a judge by local and federal law enforcement. The judge agreed that a temporary order was warranted. That lasts 14 days or until the court hearing. How is that not due process?



this is nothing more than a person's property being confiscated because of his affiliation with an organization

Is it? Or is it actively training for, and calling for, a "race war", recruiting others for a "race war", etc?

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6498181-19-2-25260-0-sub1-132497-Encrypted.html is the actual petition. There's a bit more meat on the bone than "is affiliated with an organization".

[Nephrology]

It sounds to me this has more to do with the fact that the Atomwaffen Division (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomwaffen_Division) is a domestic terrorist network than his distasteful beliefs. No outrage from me over this one.

[Jay Cunningham]

"Our regional firearms enforcement unit likely prevented a massacre by someone committed to advancing a race war. Washington state residents should sleep a little easier knowing they have a team empowered to enforce firearm surrender court orders from those considered to be an extreme risk to public safety," Dan Nolte of the Seattle City Attorney's Office told CNN.

[Medusa]

It sounds to me this has more to do with the fact that the Atomwaffen Division (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomwaffen_Division) is a domestic terrorist network than his distasteful beliefs. No outrage from me over this one.

I think he’s still entitled to due process, but I agree the atomwaffen connection was the key here.

[Borderland]

I guess he has an attorney and a court date.

I'll go with the judges decision on this one. I don't know all the facts.

[BehindBlueI's]

I'll go with the judges decision on this one. I don't know all the facts.

You can read the actual petition submitted to the court at the link I posted. It's fairly lengthy, but you can skip a lot of the attached articles and just read the summary if you want a Reader's Digest version. At it's most basic, the allegation is he trained for, recruited for, equipped for, and made statements indicating he wanted to personally kill for a "race war" as a means of "accelerating" social change.

[Totem Polar]

"Our regional firearms enforcement unit likely prevented a massacre by someone committed to advancing a race war. Washington state residents should sleep a little easier knowing they have a team empowered to enforce firearm surrender court orders from those considered to be an extreme risk to public safety," Dan Nolte of the Seattle City Attorney's Office told CNN.

That quote jumped out at me, too.


Cue up that guy sweating over the button choice meme again: there is not much that I have come to dislike more than PacNW neo-nazi skinhead groups, but I’m not exactly going to be "sleeping easier knowing they have a team empowered to enforce firearm surrender court orders." Where one sits on that is clearly dependent upon how much one respects the particular court, and process.


https://i.imgflip.com/3drtbl.jpg (https://imgflip.com/i/3drtbl)via Imgflip Meme Generator (https://imgflip.com/memegenerator)



ETA: We’ve also gotta take the long view on this. Of course, the first highly-publicized confiscation would be enacted on an extremely distasteful motherfucker. I mean, who’s gonna argue in defense of an avowed racist nazi? The optics on this test look better than Scarjo in her avengers costume. Next will be a few more "alt-right" test cases, then maybe down the road a watershed event taking guns from a muslim fundamentalist; if that passes muster, then christian religious right folks, then right wing intellectuals, then left-wing libertarians, then farmers, then any college intellectuals with tenure that remain...

[45dotACP]

Yeah he sounds like a real choir boy... definitely the guy I'd trust to be armed in a synagogue.

Sent from my moto g(6) using Tapatalk

[blues]

That quote jumped out at me, too.


Cue up that guy sweating over the button choice meme again: there is not much that I have come to dislike more than PacNW neo-nazi skinhead groups, but I’m not exactly going to be "sleeping easier knowing they have a team empowered to enforce firearm surrender court orders." Where one sits on that is clearly dependent upon how much one respects the particular court, and process.


https://i.imgflip.com/3drtbl.jpg (https://imgflip.com/i/3drtbl)via Imgflip Meme Generator (https://imgflip.com/memegenerator)

That looks like a two finger solution...

[TGS]

You can read the actual petition submitted to the court at the link I posted. It's fairly lengthy, but you can skip a lot of the attached articles and just read the summary if you want a Reader's Digest version. At it's most basic, the allegation is he trained for, recruited for, equipped for, and made statements indicating he wanted to personally kill for a "race war" as a means of "accelerating" social change.

Which, as I understand it would constitute more than simply "pre-crime" or the "thought police" trampling rights. Which is why I'm curious that he hasn't been criminally charged (or did I miss that?).

[BehindBlueI's]

Which, as I understand it would constitute more than simply "pre-crime" or the "thought police" trampling rights. Which is why I'm curious that he hasn't been criminally charged (or did I miss that?).

I don't know. Here "conspiracy to commit..." is a an extremely hard sell to the prosecutors. By the law, two or more people who've engaged in substantial actions toward the commission of "X crime" is guilty of conspiracy to commit X crime and faces the same penalties as a successful attempt. I've had a case with a getaway driver, a lookout, and a robber with a note in his pocket were apprehended prior to an announcement of a robbery. No "conspiracy to commit" was filed, although I did get them on other completed robberies. The argument is how do you prove to a jury the lookout and getaway driver knew what the robber was doing and had discussed their roles prior. I'm not sure I buy that argument, but apparently enough juries have that our prosecutors won't file without letters, confessions, etc.

It sounds like they interviewed him but no charges are filed yet. If they are forthcoming or not is anyone's guess. It's possible it's still being investigated and they figured the threat was imminent enough to both let him know he's being watched and to remove his access to firearms but not enough to start the 72-hour clock by arresting him. Assuming that the process is the same there as here, of course.

[BehindBlueI's]

Next will be a few more "alt-right" test cases, then maybe down the road a watershed event taking guns from a muslim fundamentalist; if that passes muster, then christian religious right folks, then right wing intellectuals, then left-wing libertarians, then farmers, then any college intellectuals with tenure that remain...

Did you read the petition?

[HCM]

It sounds to me this has more to do with the fact that the Atomwaffen Division (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomwaffen_Division) is a domestic terrorist network than his distasteful beliefs. No outrage from me over this one.



If you actually want to know about Atomwaffen ProPublica is the best open source information. One of their articles is cited in the request for the red flag order but there are others reporting an Atomwaffen is also accurate.

Along those lines, consider anything from the Southern poverty Law Center unreliable bullshit.

Atomwaffen are bad peoples but in legal terms there is no such thing as a domestic terrorist organization or a domestic terrorist network.

There is no legal mechanism in the United States that would allow a domestic group to be designated a domestic terrorist organization in the manner that international terrorist organizations are designated. Designating a domestic group in this matter would create significant constitutional issues involving free speech and free association.

They are best described as racially motivated violent extremists. It is not illegal to be a white supremacist. It is illegal to use force violence, or the threat of force or violence impose those beliefs on others. The criminal use or threat of violence provides the predication to distinguish between first amendment protected belief and extremism.

The problem is there is not not enough predication in what was presented in the red flag request for criminal charges. Generalized threats against a group or race are not specific enough for criminal prosecution at the state or federal level and there is nothing in what was presented indicating a threat is imminent.

Even if you support red flags laws, in this case the requirements for an imminent or specific threat, or mental disease or defect are not present in this case. Unless Seattle is going to start committing political dissidents in mental hospitals like the old Soviet Untion.

The violent actions by other members in other places provides predication to investigate the local chapter of Atomwaffen and this subject as their leader but the facts here do not provide suffice predication for seizure of this subject’s property.

No matter how distasteful or potentially dangerous Atomwaffen is using a red flag order to disarm someone due to their political beliefs or lawful association is a civil rights violation, whether it is Atomwaffen, ANTIFA, the Huey P Newton Gun Club etc.

[Drang]

Did you read the petition?

So, I'm working OT this afternoon because of an antifa "demonstration".

When is the pre-crime unit going after radical leftists with a history of starting riots and fire-bombing buildings full or people?

[BehindBlueI's]

So, I'm working OT this afternoon because of an antifa "demonstration".

When is the pre-crime unit going after radical leftists with a history of starting riots and fire-bombing buildings full or people?

Did you read the petition?

[gringop]

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

Martin Niemöller


I read the petition, I don't think that I would like the guy if I met him personally but I didn't see any thing illegal that the guy had done. I did see a lot of irrelevant stuff like the fact he is banned from Canada because of his membership in the Neo Nazi group and some references to decals for the organization being put on traffic signs and buildings by "Unknown suspect"

This is not a situation where someone close to the guy complained that he was becoming increasingly irrational or saw signs that made them think he would become violent. This was a cop that had no specific information (as far as the petition shows) other than the affiliation to the neo nazi group, that the guy was dangerous or becoming so.

I can see a time when we may all be the subject of similar petitions using connections to the competition and training classes that we have participated in to do the same to us.

Then they came for the neo nazis, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a neo nazi.

Gringop

[blues]

So, I'm working OT this afternoon because of an antifa "demonstration".

When is the pre-crime unit going after radical leftists with a history of starting riots and fire-bombing buildings full or people?

And calling for a certain class of individuals to be murdered and fried like bacon...

[HCM]

Did you read the petition?

I did. It is reasonable suspicion at best.

Legally there is no such thing as a “domestic terrorist organization” and it is not illegal to be a member of a racist or hateful political organization.

While it is illegal to engage in criminal activity in furtherance of such an organizations beliefs, there is nothing in the petition about specific or imminent threat. If there was they would have arrested him for conspiracy or threat charges.

Even if you accept the general premise of red flag laws like the one you have in IN, you need to have a specific, or imminent threat of violence or evidence of mental illness or incompetence.

This whole thing is guilt by association due to political beliefs.

Yes, Atomwaffen are very bad people, but I could write the same petition to seize the. guns of the leader of the Pudget Sound Chapter of the John Brown Gun Club based on their rhetoric, training events and one of their members attacking the ICE Detention center in Tacoma and shooting at Tacoma PD and is would be just as wrong and just as unconstitutional.

No matter how distasteful the respondent may be, this case is everything wrong with red flag laws wrapped up with a bow on it.

[HCM]

So, I'm working OT this afternoon because of an antifa "demonstration".

When is the pre-crime unit going after radical leftists with a history of starting riots and fire-bombing buildings full or people?

Shooting up, then, Fire bombing buildings full of people, then shooting at responding police officers. I mean we want all the facts correct. Oh, that reminds me, knowingly building 80% lower ARs for prohibited persons.

It does highlight the fact that “arresting someone’s guns” is mostly a gesture when they can just go out and buy a gallon or two of gas if they have bad intentions.

[HCM]

I read the petition, I don't think that I would like the guy if I met him personally but I didn't see any thing illegal that the guy had done. I did see a lot of irrelevant stuff like the fact he is banned from Canada because of his membership in the Neo Nazi group and some references to decals for the organization being put on traffic signs and buildings by "Unknown suspect"

This is not a situation where someone close to the guy complained that he was becoming increasingly irrational or saw signs that made them think he would become violent. This was a cop that had no specific information (as far as the petition shows) other than the affiliation to the neo nazi group, that the guy was dangerous or becoming so.

I can see a time when we may all be the subject of similar petitions using connections to the competition and training classes that we have participated in to do the same to us.

Then they came for the neo nazis, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a neo nazi.

Gringop

“Second Amendment extremist training camp” in newspeak.

[BehindBlueI's]

I did. It is reasonable suspicion at best.

Legally there is no such thing as a “domestic terrorist organization” and it is not illegal to be a member of a racist or hateful political organization.

While it is illegal to engage in criminal activity in furtherance of such an organizations beliefs, there is nothing in the petition about specific or imminent threat. If there was they would have arrested him for conspiracy or threat charges.

Even if you accept the general premise of red flag laws like the one you have in IN, you need to have a specific, or imminent threat of violence or evidence of mental illness or incompetence.

This whole thing is guilt by association due to political beliefs.

Yes, Atomwaffen are very bad people, but I could write the same petition to seize the. guns of the leader of the Pudget Sound Chapter of the John Brown Gun Club based on their rhetoric, training events and one of their members attacking the ICE Detention center in Tacoma and shooting at Tacoma PD and is would be just as wrong and just as unconstitutional.

It's not illegal to belong to an extremist group. That doesn't mean you have to ignore that information when combined with other factors. Think of a DUI investigation. It's not illegal to swerve in your lane, nor is it illegal to be unable to keep a consistent speed, nor is it illegal to be slow to recognize a light has turned green. Yet a reasonably prudent officer would take those indications as reasonable suspicion of DUI, which is illegal. If the investigation determined there was PC for a DUI arrest, all of those perfectly legal factors are going to be included in the PC for the obvious reasons.

It's quite possible the gov't won't be able to prove their case at the upcoming court hearing. That's why there *is* due process for these things. However as I'm sure you know (but others not involved in "the system" might not) the establishment of reasonable suspicion or probable cause isn't the entirety of the case. We're legally and ethically bound to present exculpatory information but not all information showing guilt. A 3" case file gets distilled down to a few pages for a PC affidavit. We'll simply have to wait and see.

However I disagree, based just on what's present, that this is solely due to association and political beliefs. I can believe in martyrdom via suicide bombing and be legally fine. I can't start gathering materials, telling people what an awesome idea it is to kill civilians as a suicide bomber, recruit others to do the same, and make some test runs. Reasonable people can differ on exactly where the line for "conspiracy to commit..." is, but I think we'll all agree that there is a line somewhere between mere belief and the bomb going off. Without recognizing there is a line, we'd have to wait for the bomb to explode before doing anything about it. As such, I think we can disagree on if he crossed the line or not but it's disingenuous to argue his membership/association is the sole reason for this petition.

[Totem Polar]

Did you read the petition?

Yes. I noted that even Seattle LE admits to the 500k backlog for WA state DOL registration paper on legally purchased guns, but I totally digress.

How about this, 7 years in a possible future?

"Xxxx is a known participant in multiple forums dedicated to violence with weapons, and training/practice with these weapons to better effect violence. Xxxx has *tens of thousands of posts, including as a member of a splinter cell forum dedicated to effective interpersonal violence with firearms and knives that advocates, repeatedly, among other things "taint stabbing". Photos recovered from xxxx’s social media prove that he has flown across the country to train in remote locations with top proponents of "taint stabbing," and records of xxxx’s Amazon purchases going back two decades indicate regular purchases of books and material goods related to up close interpersonal violence, including specialized knives designed specifically for the type of violence advocated by the groups that xxxx is a long-standing member of. Xxxx’s Amazon records also show numerous purchases of unregistered "LCAMs" along with books advocating the overthrow of state-accredited educational institutional leadership by informal bands of transient laborers. Social media posts by xxxx regularly claim that both major national political parties are corrupted. Xxxx regularly creates archaic music rituals dedicated to long-dead white european historical figures, including avowed and documented white supremacists. Clearly xxxxrepresents a danger to the public, and we petition to have his firearms removed under ERPO."


Look, I’m not saying that this guy isn’t a complete shitbag. If *anyone* deserves to have his guns yanked, pre-crime, it’s this guy. In fact, that is *exactly* what I’m saying. The question going forward in the future is: does *anyone* not deserve it? And if so, who, how and why?

[Zincwarrior]

That quote jumped out at me, too.


Cue up that guy sweating over the button choice meme again: there is not much that I have come to dislike more than PacNW neo-nazi skinhead groups, but I’m not exactly going to be "sleeping easier knowing they have a team empowered to enforce firearm surrender court orders." Where one sits on that is clearly dependent upon how much one respects the particular court, and process.


https://i.imgflip.com/3drtbl.jpg (https://imgflip.com/i/3drtbl)via Imgflip Meme Generator (https://imgflip.com/memegenerator)



ETA: We’ve also gotta take the long view on this. Of course, the first highly-publicized confiscation would be enacted on an extremely distasteful motherfucker. I mean, who’s gonna argue in defense of an avowed racist nazi? The optics on this test look better than Scarjo in her avengers costume. Next will be a few more "alt-right" test cases, then maybe down the road a watershed event taking guns from a muslim fundamentalist; if that passes muster, then christian religious right folks, then right wing intellectuals, then left-wing libertarians, then farmers, then any college intellectuals with tenure that remain...
What is a permanent seizure based on? What is the standard and what is the test?

[HCM]

And calling for a certain class of individuals to be murdered and fried like bacon...

And yet, that is not a specific enough threat for criminal prosecution in the United States.

If it’s not enough to make an arrest which is basically the seizure of a person under the fourth amendment why should it be enough to seize someone’s property under the fourth amendment?

[BehindBlueI's]

Yes. I noted that even Seattle LE admits to the 500k backlog for WA state DOL registration paper on legally purchased guns, but I totally digress.

How about this, 7 years in a possible future?

"Xxxx is a known participant in multiple forums dedicated to violence with weapons, and training/practice with these weapons to better effect violence. Xxxx has *tens of thousands of posts, including as a member of a splinter cell forum dedicated to effective interpersonal violence with firearms and knives that advocates, repeatedly, among other things "taint stabbing". Photos recovered from xxxx’s social media prove that he has flown across the country to train in remote locations with top proponents of "taint stabbing," and records of xxxx’s Amazon purchases going back two decades indicate regular purchases of books and material goods related to up close interpersonal violence, including specialized knives designed specifically for the type of violence advocated by the groups that xxxx is a long-standing member of. Xxxx’s Amazon records also show numerous purchases of unregistered "LCAMs" along with books advocating the overthrow of state-accredited educational institutional leadership by informal bands of transient laborers. Social media posts by xxxx regularly claim that both major national political parties are corrupted. Xxxx regularly creates archaic music rituals dedicated to long-dead white european historical figures, including avowed and documented white supremacists. Clearly xxxxrepresents a danger to the public, and we petition to have his firearms removed under ERPO."


Look, I’m not saying that this guy isn’t a complete shitbag. If *anyone* deserves to have his guns yanked, pre-crime, it’s this guy. In fact, that is *exactly* what I’m saying. The question going forward in the future is: does *anyone* not deserve it? And if so, who, how and why?

We were probably typing at about the same time. I'd just ask you to read the response above yours.

I don't buy into slippery slope arguments and won't argue for or against a hypothetical future in lieu of what's actually happening.

[HCM]

It's not illegal to belong to an extremist group. That doesn't mean you have to ignore that information when combined with other factors. Think of a DUI investigation. It's not illegal to swerve in your lane, nor is it illegal to be unable to keep a consistent speed, nor is it illegal to be slow to recognize a light has turned green. Yet a reasonably prudent officer would take those indications as reasonable suspicion of DUI, which is illegal. If the investigation determined there was PC for a DUI arrest, all of those perfectly legal factors are going to be included in the PC for the obvious reasons.

It's quite possible the gov't won't be able to prove their case at the upcoming court hearing. That's why there *is* due process for these things. However as I'm sure you know (but others not involved in "the system" might not) the establishment of reasonable suspicion or probable cause isn't the entirety of the case. We're legally and ethically bound to present exculpatory information but not all information showing guilt. A 3" case file gets distilled down to a few pages for a PC affidavit. We'll simply have to wait and see.

However I disagree, based just on what's present, that this is solely due to association and political beliefs. I can believe in martyrdom via suicide bombing and be legally fine. I can't start gathering materials, telling people what an awesome idea it is to kill civilians as a suicide bomber, recruit others to do the same, and make some test runs. Reasonable people can differ on exactly where the line for "conspiracy to commit..." is, but I think we'll all agree that there is a line somewhere between mere belief and the bomb going off. Without recognizing there is a line, we'd have to wait for the bomb to explode before doing anything about it. As such, I think we can disagree on if he crossed the line or not but it's disingenuous to argue his membership/association is the sole reason for this petition.

Barring specific information about acts in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy there is nothing illegal about going to a “hate camp” just like there is nothing illegal about going to a Klan rally, or going to one of the Huey P Newton gun club’s monthly firearms and tactics trainings where they practice killing cops during traffic stops.

There is a certain appeal to getting a red flag order to seize the guns of the people who trained Micah Johnson, The Dallas police shooter but the constitution applies to everyone like it or not.

You have made some strong arguments in favor of Indiana’s red flag laws as they have been applied previously in Indiana. However none of those conditions are present in the Seattle case.

[HCM]

I noticed in the photos accompanying the news article that they also seized a couple of 80% lowers that are unfinished.

Is an Unfinished 80% lower a firearm under Washington state law? I know it is not under federal law. As such seizing those 80% lowers may have exceeded the authority in the court order.

[BehindBlueI's]

What is a permanent seizure based on? What is the standard and what is the test?

Petition to get a hearing: Reasonable belief (reasonable fear in their state's language)

Hearing must be held within 14 days.

Preponderance of the evidence (civil trial burden of proof) at the hearing allows for a 1 year term. The factors to be considered are listed: https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=7.94.040

Every year, the respondent can petition for the removal of the ERPO. Preponderance of the evidence remains the burden, but it is shifted to the respondent (basically they must show something has changed and they are no longer a threat)

I don't think there is a provision for "permanent" seizure in WA unless the respondent never challenges it, but I could be wrong.

[BehindBlueI's]

Barring specific information about acts in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy there is nothing illegal about going to a “hate camp” just like there is nothing illegal about going to a Klan rally, or going to one of the Huey P Newton gun club’s monthly firearms and tactics trainings where they practice killing cops during traffic stops.

There is a certain appeal to getting a red flag order to seize the guns of the people who trained Micah Johnson, The Dallas police shooter but the constitution applies to everyone like it or not.

You have made some strong arguments in favor of Indiana’s red flag laws as they have been applied previously in Indiana. However none of those conditions are present in the Seattle case.

You may very well be correct and the state may lose at the hearing. There is certainly a gap between reasonable fear and preponderance of the evidence, so granting of a hearing doesn't equate to winning a hearing.

I do not think anything listed would be sufficient to trigger the Laird Law in Indiana, FWIW.

And, to add, I'm not arguing that this guy is going to win or lose. I'm just arguing that this isn't an example of "no due process" and is not an example of "wrong association only". The state may lose, which in and of itself shows there is due process. One can argue how fair and impartial the judge/court will be, but one can always argue that about any court or criminal justice system and why we have such a deeply layered court system.

[Borderland]

Because this is happening in my neck of the woods, it has me concerned. Militia types are fairly common in rural areas much like the one where I live. I know a guy who purchased a large tract of land and uses the old quarry there as a firing range. He doesn't use it for just his personal use. Lots of people use it but you have to have an invitation. I talked to the guy once and came away feeling that I had just been interviewed.

Militia types have anti-government views. Are they not being investigated by LE? I think they are and could become subject to these red flag laws. I suspect that a friend of mine belongs to the militia that is surely here. I don't think he's a social media type but I would seriously hate to see the weapons that he owns confiscated by the WA ERPO law because some LEO thought he may be a threat. I might add that I know this individuals background and wouldn't consider him a threat in any way.

[0ddl0t]

Information was presented to a judge by local and federal law enforcement. The judge agreed that a temporary order was warranted. That lasts 14 days or until the court hearing. How is that not due process?

According to CNN, his order is in effect for 1 year.



Is it? Or is it actively training for, and calling for, a "race war", recruiting others for a "race war", etc?

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6498181-19-2-25260-0-sub1-132497-Encrypted.html is the actual petition. There's a bit more meat on the bone than "is affiliated with an organization".

The petition had zero evidence that Cole - the individual subject to the red flag order - had ever threatened violence. This was an indictment against his white pride group, not him as an individual.

43800

As unsympathetic as Cole is, this is very chilling....

[blues]

I suggest we move P-F entirely to "pay only" and under the same protection from search engines as the Coterie Club.

How long will it be before we are branded a threat to society?


Round up the usual suspects!

[Poconnor]

My local District Attorney’s alway said if there was enough probable cause for an arrest in a PFA case make the arrest. Are these red flag laws civil like a PFA? My experience with the civil PFAs has been a large percentage are a total fabrication; they are just a tactic in a divorce, child custody and support cases. I fear the red flag laws will be abused the same way. I was taught in judge school “you don’t have to right; you just have to decide. They can appeal it” there is no downside for an elected judge to not grant the petition. If it’s total bullshit the defendant will get his guns back after the hearing. If he comes in and is acting crazy he loses his guns. I was never comfortable with enforcing the civil PFAs. I always thought they should have put them in the crimes code. Probable cause is probable cause. Just remember how many people are afraid of police officers ( they are so violent and racist-) that is sarcasm but any police officer that went through a bad divorce knows those claims come up. Same as “he’s a veteran” “he’s a gun owner” “ he is an NRA member” I don’t believe in “pre crime” If you think he is that much a threat dig into him. Investigate him. Probably the best way is a LAPD SIS type squad but I don’t know anyplace that has the budget to do that

[Borderland]

I suggest we move P-F entirely to "pay only" and under the same protection from search engines as the Coterie Club.

How long will it be before we are branded a threat to society?

All of this is already on a server in the Ukraine someplace. They just have to find it. ;)

[blues]

All of this is already on a server in the Ukraine someplace. They just have to find it. ;)

I hear there's a Hunter already on the case.

[HCM]

Because this is happening in my neck of the woods, it has me concerned. Militia types are fairly common in rural areas much like the one where I live. I know a guy who purchased a large tract of land and uses the old quarry there as a firing range. He doesn't use it for just his personal use. Lots of people use it but you have to have an invitation. I talked to the guy once and came away feeling that I had just been interviewed.

Militia types have anti-government views. Are they not being investigated by LE? I think they are and could become subject to these red flag laws. I suspect that a friend of mine belongs to the militia that is surely here. I don't think he's a social media type but I would seriously hate to see the weapons that he owns confiscated by the WA ERPO law because some LEO thought he may be a threat. I might add that I know this individuals background and wouldn't consider him a threat in any way.

From post 14:


There is no legal mechanism in the United States that would allow a domestic group to be designated a domestic terrorist organization in the manner that international terrorist organizations are designated. Designating a domestic group in this matter would create significant constitutional issues involving free speech and free association.

They are best described as racially motivated violent extremists. It is not illegal to be a white supremacist. It is illegal to use force violence, or the threat of force or violence impose those beliefs on others. The criminal use or threat of violence provides the predication to distinguish between first amendment protected belief and extremism.

As with racially motivated groups, it is not illegal to be a member of a militia. The issue arises when people in the militia want to engage in criminal activity. Some examples would be use or threat of force in furtherance of their ideology, making or acquiring weapons or explosives unlawfully, knowingly providing weapons to prohibited persons, or engaging and other criminal activity like drug, Weapons, or sex trafficking to raise money for the cause. It could also Conspiracy to commit criminal acts. Conspiracy generally requires agreement between two or more parties and at least one overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.

The overt act does not itself have to be a crime. For example two individuals agree to bomb a government building. Anything they do towards making that goal happen to include fundraising buying materials like fertilizer, diesel fuel, renting a Ryder truck etc. while not illegal by themselves would be over at acts in furtherance of the conspiracy

[Borderland]

I hear there's a Hunter already on the case.

I think he went to ground. Where is Hunter, by the way?

I was wondering if a person can get their pension checks delivered to them in prison. What would a person spend the money on in prison? A new car is probably out of the question.

[WobblyPossum]

I read the petition for the ERPO and the accompanying CBP report. I didn’t read the articles about Atomwaffen. Nothing presented by law enforcement in that petition leads me to believe that the government met its burden to seize his weapons. It’s not illegal to have racist beliefs or to spread those beliefs to others. It’s not illegal to recruit people to join a hate group or to provide them with combatives and firearms/tactics training (barring certain regulations specifically pertaining to non citizens/permanent residents). Nothing in the document showed that Cole made any specific threats of violence or engaged in any criminal activity. The section related to prior LE contact even included two incidents when an “unknown suspect” placed Atomwaffen stickers on street signs. The vast majority of the document is a collection of open source articles about how Atomwaffen is a hate group and some of its members have committed crimes. None of these articles dealt with Cole making any specific threats or engaging in violent actions against others.

I find Cole’s beliefs to be despicable and I’m sure that, as a person, Cole is a complete douchebag. As far as I can tell, he’s not a criminal and isn’t specifically encouraging anyone else to commit crimes. Admittedly, I don’t know Washington’s red flag law statutory requirements but it seems that this order is based entirely upon Cole’s membership in a hate group and his beliefs. I don’t see this standing up in court.
HCM has explained my concerns very well so I’ll just stop here.

[HCM]

I was wondering if a person can get their pension checks delivered to them in prison. What would a person spend the money on in prison? A new car is probably out of the question.

Top Ramen, foil packs of tuna fish, candy, other commissary items that can be traded for access to an illegal smuggled smart phone.

43802

[0ddl0t]

Fox is reporting that the FBI initiated the request.


As with racially motivated groups, it is not illegal to be a member of a militia. The issue arises when people in the militia want to engage in criminal activity. Some examples would be use or threat of force in furtherance of their ideology

There were at least 2 Democratic presidential contenders who threatened the use of force to confiscate lawfully owned firearms. Does that make every member of the Democratic party violent? Or is every member of the Republican party predisposed to violence because the leader of the party wanted to shoot immigrants?

[KellyinAvon]

You may very well be correct and the state may lose at the hearing. There is certainly a gap between reasonable fear and preponderance of the evidence, so granting of a hearing doesn't equate to winning a hearing.

I do not think anything listed would be sufficient to trigger the Laird Law in Indiana, FWIW.

And, to add, I'm not arguing that this guy is going to win or lose. I'm just arguing that this isn't an example of "no due process" and is not an example of "wrong association only". The state may lose, which in and of itself shows there is due process. One can argue how fair and impartial the judge/court will be, but one can always argue that about any court or criminal justice system and why we have such a deeply layered court system.

Looking at what is going on in other States I think Indiana's Laird Law (particularly with the changes made this year) provides significant protection. Some things I've seen in other States (like the guy in Florida with three very common names) who lost his handgun permit because someone with the same common name had a restraining order. This wasn't red flag laws, this was incompetence.

The 84 year old crossing guard in Massachusetts? That is insanity.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

The candidates wanted to make the guns illegal and then the use of force would be justified if other measures did not bring the guns in. It is obviously wrong to ban them but Scalia thought machine gun bans were legit as OrangeManBad did for bump stocks - those bans have the force of the state behind them. Now we should not seize the guns of all party members but the ones from someone who makes specific threats and has plans to carry them out.

[Zincwarrior]

Petition to get a hearing: Reasonable belief (reasonable fear in their state's language)

Hearing must be held within 14 days.

Preponderance of the evidence (civil trial burden of proof) at the hearing allows for a 1 year term. The factors to be considered are listed: https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=7.94.040

Every year, the respondent can petition for the removal of the ERPO. Preponderance of the evidence remains the burden, but it is shifted to the respondent (basically they must show something has changed and they are no longer a threat)

I don't think there is a provision for "permanent" seizure in WA unless the respondent never challenges it, but I could be wrong.

Thank you for the summary good sir.

[BehindBlueI's]

According to CNN, his order is in effect for 1 year.


*insert airport joke here*

CNN isn't exactly infallible. Look at the petition and you'll see the request is for 14 days. Look at the state law and you'll see the court can't issue a year until the initial trial.

*edit* initial hearing may be the more appropriate term than initial trial.

[Totem Polar]

We were probably typing at about the same time. I'd just ask you to read the response above yours.

I don't buy into slippery slope arguments and won't argue for or against a hypothetical future in lieu of what's actually happening.

Read and noted. As to slippery slope and lack of concern for the future, I would respond: that is more short-sighted than I have come to expect from you.

That said, after *many* years of reading and posting here, I suppose it’s high time we finally found something that I don’t agree on 100 percent with you. And it’s not even this luftwaffen/militia/shitbag/whatever dude, just the precedent going forward. Hell, I’ve even converted to the LCR from the J-frame...
;) ;)






The petition had zero evidence that Cole - the individual subject to the red flag order - had ever threatened violence. This was an indictment against his white pride group, not him as an individual.

Or, an indictment against any gun owners deemed unsavory in the whole. Stranger things have been happening on the wet side of the state of late.




As unsympathetic as Cole is, this is very chilling....

I’m reaching for a wool hoodie, for sure.



I suggest we move P-F entirely to "pay only" and under the same protection from search engines as the Coterie Club.

How long will it be before we are branded a threat to society?

Depends which state. In WA, I give it roughly 7 years.
:)

[Old Man Winter]

I suggest we move P-F entirely to "pay only" and under the same protection from search engines as the Coterie Club.

How long will it be before we are branded a threat to society?

Freedom haters would just pay the money and take us down from within. The super ethical company we know as Google crawls just about everything on the interwebz even if a site tells it to keep out.

To answer your question, we already have.

[0ddl0t]

*insert airport joke here*

CNN isn't exactly infallible. Look at the petition and you'll see the request is for 14 days. Look at the state law and you'll see the court can't issue a year until the initial trial.

*edit* initial hearing may be the more appropriate term than initial trial.

All the outlets are saying 1 year, which either means his hearing has already occurred or they're wrong. That petition was dated in September so the initial 14 days could have passed...

[BehindBlueI's]

Read and noted. As to slippery slope and lack of concern for the future, I would respond: that is more short-sighted than I have come to expect from you.

I find it's both confusing and counterproductive to simultaneously discuss hypotheticals side-by-side with a real event. I'm not willing to engage in "slippery slope" because you can ALWAYS find something to object once it's on the table. Speed limits? What stops them from making the speed limit 3 mph and we can't travel any more??? I also find people begin objecting to what they *think* is happening vs what is actually happening as the "what if" inevitably gets conflated with "what is".

That's not the same as lack of concern for the future. That's just keeping an argument logical, on topic, and easy to follow.

[Totem Polar]

I hear there's a Hunter already on the case.

For sure. Watching, waiting, and biden his time.

;)


I also find people begin objecting to what they *think* is happening vs what is actually happening as the "what if" inevitably gets conflated with "what is".

Fair enough. I suppose we will have to be patient, and let hindsight eventually show us what is actually happening. I sure hope it’s not some churlish asshole being deprived of guns for a year based on association and conjecture.

[/shrug]

[Borderland]

Fox is reporting that the FBI initiated the request.



There were at least 2 Democratic presidential contenders who threatened the use of force to confiscate lawfully owned firearms. Does that make every member of the Democratic party violent? Or is every member of the Republican party predisposed to violence because the leader of the party wanted to shoot immigrants?

Well now, that's a very good point.

[HCM]

Fox is reporting that the FBI initiated the request.



There were at least 2 Democratic presidential contenders who threatened the use of force to confiscate lawfully owned firearms. Does that make every member of the Democratic party violent? Or is every member of the Republican party predisposed to violence because the leader of the party wanted to shoot immigrants?

As Glenn Meyer noted you were being intentionally obtuse .

[fixer]

Information was presented to a judge by local and federal law enforcement. The judge agreed that a temporary order was warranted. That lasts 14 days or until the court hearing. How is that not due process?

What crime was committed?

[BehindBlueI's]

What crime was committed?

There's no allegation of a crime.

Anticipating the next question, note criminal law isn't the only branch of law or the court system. For example, it is not illegal to be mentally ill and suicidal. There is no allegation of a crime required for a mental writ to be issued by a court for someone who is mentally ill and suicidal. A mental writ allows you to be legally detained against your will for mental health reasons. Despite there being no crime alleged, there a legal framework and due process.

[fixer]

There's no allegation of a crime.

Anticipating the next question, note criminal law isn't the only branch of law or the court system. For example, it is not illegal to be mentally ill and suicidal. There is no allegation of a crime required for a mental writ to be issued by a court for someone who is mentally ill and suicidal. A mental writ allows you to be legally detained against your will for mental health reasons. Despite there being no crime alleged, there a legal framework and due process.

Understood.

You've presented some thought provoking advocation for red flag laws here and elsewhere and I respect that and your effort.

However with this current event and your example above, my fear is that such due process will be strained to the point where a given political viewpoint will be essentially equated to a mental illness.

[Cypher]

How long will it be before we are branded a threat to society?

Now.



I can't present any evidence to substantiate what I'm about to say because it hasn't happened yet but my concern is that even if the state can't prove their case I still think this guy isn't going to get his guns back.


ETA: I also think that if you're going to remove someone's civil liberties the bar needs to be higher than preponderance of the evidence.

[GardoneVT]

Now.



I can't present any evidence to substantiate what I'm about to say because it hasn't happened yet but my concern is that even if the state can't prove their case I still think this guy isn't going to get his guns back.


ETA: I also think that if you're going to remove someone's civil liberties the bar needs to be higher than preponderance of the evidence.


Understood.

You've presented some thought provoking advocation for red flag laws here and elsewhere and I respect that and your effort.

However with this current event and your example above, my fear is that such due process will be strained to the point where a given political viewpoint will be essentially equated to a mental illness.

The state of society and technology far outpaces the state of the law. Big data, algorithmic pattern modeling and behavioral predictive systems are a competitive necessity in the private sector. It is only a matter of time before such techniques are applied to law enforcement.

I mention this because we are rapidly approaching the point where our practical ability to identify a threat to public safety may outstrip the speed of the legal system. The media doesn’t publicize the cases of mass shootings and murders prevented by an LE action based on a “red flag” law or similar statute- but they’re out there. Naturally we only hear about the failures or the folks who slip between the cracks.

Pretty soon the notion of “Dept. Of Precrime” won’t be a sci fi joke. With that comes an awful question- will due process need to evolve as well? Can it even be preserved? If a neighbor, social media post or AI trained model determines an individual is an exigent threat to society with 99% confidence in the next 12 hours- do you ignore this data on principle?

[LSP552]

Petition to get a hearing: Reasonable belief (reasonable fear in their state's language)

Hearing must be held within 14 days.

Preponderance of the evidence (civil trial burden of proof) at the hearing allows for a 1 year term. The factors to be considered are listed: https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=7.94.040

Every year, the respondent can petition for the removal of the ERPO. Preponderance of the evidence remains the burden, but it is shifted to the respondent (basically they must show something has changed and they are no longer a threat)


I have a major issue with preponderance of the evidence being the standard to deprive someone of a Constitutional Right. Basically 51% causes me to loose the ability to posses a firearm. There is, as you know, a world of difference between civil and criminal burden of proof. I’m sure as hell not OK with a civil standard being applied to deprive a Constitutional Right.

In reality, the annual chance to remove the order is essentially having to prove a negative.

[Oukaapie]

Me no likey Nazi types. Me and my people have had a nasty history with them. If said hate filled shit bag has no guns I’m happy. I don’t like Antifa either but they are a side show without the numbers or motivation that the Nazis have. I’m unaware of Antifa shooting up synagogues, mosques, Hindu temples, blowing up buildings and nursery schools.

Effective red flag laws with due process are not the bullshit we all fear. It’s saved lives and will continue to do so. Screaming constitutional rights from the hills is all well and good but we need a way to stop threats earlier.

[BehindBlueI's]

Understood.

You've presented some thought provoking advocation for red flag laws here and elsewhere and I respect that and your effort.

However with this current event and your example above, my fear is that such due process will be strained to the point where a given political viewpoint will be essentially equated to a mental illness.

Even if that were true, that's only one prong of the various laws. You also have to be a threat, and at least in my state an imminent threat. I can be a flat earther who sings with the ghosts of dead Beatles each night and that's not grounds for a mental writ, etc.


I have a major issue with preponderance of the evidence being the standard to deprive someone of a Constitutional Right. Basically 51% causes me to loose the ability to posses a firearm. There is, as you know, a world of difference between civil and criminal burden of proof. I’m sure as hell not OK with a civil standard being applied to deprive a Constitutional Right.

In reality, the annual chance to remove the order is essentially having to prove a negative.

I largely agree with the first part. While reasonable minds can differ, I would prefer "clear and convincing evidence" to be the standard for longer term removal. I'm ok with the standard for a very short term removal, as probable cause is the standard for arrest. I can't see a higher standard of proof required to take property from someone short term than to remove their liberty short term.

I don't agree with the second part, though. You aren't proving a negative. You're proving change. Hearing 1 finds against you because you're hearing voices telling you to kill the mailman and you've expressed that you intend to do so and then commit suicide. Hearing 2 you provide evidence you've undergone treatment and your doctor shows that medicine has been effective at stopping the voices in your head. That removes the major pillar that Hearing 1 used to find against you. That's not the same as proving a negative, ie Bigfoot doesn't exist.

[HCM]

Me no likey Nazi types. Me and my people have had a nasty history with them. If said hate filled shit bag has no guns I’m happy. I don’t like Antifa either but they are a side show without the numbers or motivation that the Nazis have. I’m unaware of Antifa shooting up synagogues, mosques, Hindu temples, blowing up buildings and nursery schools.

Effective red flag laws with due process are not the bullshit we all fear. It’s saved lives and will continue to do so. Screaming constitutional rights from the hills is all well and good but we need a way to stop threats earlier.

This is the most ignorant, selfish and short sighted thing I’ve read all day.

Reactionary nonsense like this is exactly why we have a constitution.

On another note, if you don’t think allowing such a precedent to stand will not result in “you and your people” being disarmed via the same mechanism sooner or later you are delusional.

[0ddl0t]

Interesting that the alleged threats did not even use firearms. It seems they were fantasizing on video game chats about attacking the power grid & water system.


There's no allegation of a crime.

Anticipating the next question, note criminal law isn't the only branch of law or the court system. For example, it is not illegal to be mentally ill and suicidal. There is no allegation of a crime required for a mental writ to be issued by a court for someone who is mentally ill and suicidal. A mental writ allows you to be legally detained against your will for mental health reasons. Despite there being no crime alleged, there a legal framework and due process.

Mental health holds have a lot more due process than red flag laws. In California you technically get a public defender during the first 72 hours (though they usually do nothing since the hold is over before they can do anything). None of the red flag laws I've seen include the right to an attorney.

And involuntary holds usually step up from 72 hours to a few weeks, then to a few months etc. It doesn't just jump from 2-3 weeks to 1 year. And then there is the whole fact that involuntary holds are supposed to be offering treatment to a patient. Red flag laws are just confiscatory...


The media doesn’t publicize the cases of mass shootings and murders prevented by an LE action based on a “red flag” law or similar statute- but they’re out there.

They do here: https://www.sfchronicle.com/news/article/UC-study-California-s-red-flag-law-may-14362106.php They even claim a 100% success rate because none of the 21 people committed a firearm offense and suggest that they prevented multiple mass shootings.

California has averaged nearly 3 mass shooting every 2 years since 2010 and it had 5 in the 2 years it has had its red flag law. Small sample size, but it is unlikely it prevented 21 and may not have prevented any.

[Joe in PNG]

This is the most ignorant, selfish and short sighted thing I’ve read all day.

Reactionary nonsense like this is exactly why we have a constitution.

On another note, if you don’t think allowing such a precedent to stand will not result in “you and your people” being disarmed via the same mechanism sooner or later you are delusional.

To quote "A Man For All Seasons":

Roper: So now you’d give the Devil benefit of law?
More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
Roper: I’d cut down every law in England to do that!
More: Oh? And, when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you – where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country’s planted thick with laws from coast to coast – man’s laws, not God’s – and, if you cut them down – and you’re just the man to do it – d’you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake.

[sickeness]

Me no likey Nazi types. Me and my people have had a nasty history with them. If said hate filled shit bag has no guns I’m happy. I don’t like Antifa either but they are a side show without the numbers or motivation that the Nazis have. I’m unaware of Antifa shooting up synagogues, mosques, Hindu temples, blowing up buildings and nursery schools.

Effective red flag laws with due process are not the bullshit we all fear. It’s saved lives and will continue to do so. Screaming constitutional rights from the hills is all well and good but we need a way to stop threats earlier.

Nazis have the numbers? That's news to me. Maybe if you consider all of the pretend Nazis that the SPLC has invented over the years. Most "nazis" are teenage edgelords LARPing online and playing dressup as evidenced by this loser here we are discussing. All of the events you have described were committed by disturbed lone wolves that were not associated with any organization.

Yet, antifa has open facebook groups and weekly meetings and rallies in major cities in the NW on a regular basis, shutting down traffic and attacking civilians while the police are given orders to stand down.

False equivalence much?

[Borderland]

Me no likey Nazi types. Me and my people have had a nasty history with them. If said hate filled shit bag has no guns I’m happy. I don’t like Antifa either but they are a side show without the numbers or motivation that the Nazis have. I’m unaware of Antifa shooting up synagogues, mosques, Hindu temples, blowing up buildings and nursery schools.

Effective red flag laws with due process are not the bullshit we all fear. It’s saved lives and will continue to do so. Screaming constitutional rights from the hills is all well and good but we need a way to stop threats earlier.

A red flag law is nothing more than a preemptive strike by LE. Let's use N Korea as an example. Kim has nukes and he has said in so many words that he will use them on the US. That's so much BS it isn't even worth considering because everyone knows that a launch from N. Korea would be suicide. But let's say we take him seriously though and we just bomb the N Korean launch sites and reactors preemptively because "we need a way to stop threats earlier".

We could use your "it saved lives" excuse also but I doubt it would be well received in China or Russia or anywhere else for that matter.

Do you fear Nazis and therefore want them disarmed? You do realize that's exactly what happened in Germany except the Jews were the ones who were disarmed.

[BehindBlueI's]

Mental health holds have a lot more due process than red flag laws. In California you technically get a public defender during the first 72 hours (though they usually do nothing since the hold is over before they can do anything).

Neither is the case here.

Regardless, yes, there is a difference in how criminal, civil, and administrative law is dealt with. That is not "no due process" simply different processes, generally based on the severity of the potential penalty. Even in criminal cases there are differences. You don't get an attorney or the right to a jury for civil or administrative, generally. In some jurisdictions, the number of jurors varies based on if the case is a misdemeanor, low level felony, or serious felony, etc.

[jc000]

The state of society and technology far outpaces the state of the law. Big data, algorithmic pattern modeling and behavioral predictive systems are a competitive necessity in the private sector. It is only a matter of time before such techniques are applied to law enforcement.

I mention this because we are rapidly approaching the point where our practical ability to identify a threat to public safety may outstrip the speed of the legal system. The media doesn’t publicize the cases of mass shootings and murders prevented by an LE action based on a “red flag” law or similar statute- but they’re out there. Naturally we only hear about the failures or the folks who slip between the cracks.

Pretty soon the notion of “Dept. Of Precrime” won’t be a sci fi joke. With that comes an awful question- will due process need to evolve as well? Can it even be preserved? If a neighbor, social media post or AI trained model determines an individual is an exigent threat to society with 99% confidence in the next 12 hours- do you ignore this data on principle?

It seems like we have the technology in place to just drone strike someone who makes a mean post that hurts people's feelings on social media. Why isn't this happening?

I could see instances where the municipality may not be able to afford drone weapons. In the case of San Francisco, where they have identified the NRA as a "domestic terrorist organization" (no on here is a member, right?) maybe they could just use their SWAT team to make the hits? Sort of like the Bin Laden raid.

What do you think?

[Casual Friday]

I wish this was in Coterie Club, as I have information I'd like to share with my PF friends but not in the public viewing area.

[blues]

I wish this was in Coterie Club, as I have information I'd like to share with my PF friends but not in the public viewing area.

Why not post something there and just let us know when it's up?

(And though it shouldn't be necessary, just add a comment requesting that the info not be cross posted.)

[Casual Friday]

Why not post something there and just let us know when it's up?

(And though it shouldn't be necessary, just add a comment requesting that the info not be cross posted.)

I'm going to.

[Zincwarrior]

A red flag law is nothing more than a preemptive strike by LE. Let's use N Korea as an example. Kim has nukes and he has said in so many words that he will use them on the US. That's so much BS it isn't even worth considering because everyone knows that a launch from N. Korea would be suicide. But let's say we take him seriously though and we just bomb the N Korean launch sites and reactors preemptively because "we need a way to stop threats earlier".

We could use your "it saved lives" excuse also but I doubt it would be well received in China or Russia or anywhere else for that matter.

Do you fear Nazis and therefore want them disarmed? You do realize that's exactly what happened in Germany except the Jews were the ones who were disarmed.

On the other hand one cannot argue we have enough gun laws, that we need to do something about the people and not the guns, and then argue attempts to do that are evilz. If there are are constitutional protections and if the reason for seizure is constitutionally valid, then your argument is an uphill climb.

[Zincwarrior]

It seems like we have the technology in place to just drone strike someone who makes a mean post that hurts people's feelings on social media. Why isn't this happening?

I could see instances where the municipality may not be able to afford drone weapons. In the case of San Francisco, where they have identified the NRA as a "domestic terrorist organization" (no on here is a member, right?) maybe they could just use their SWAT team to make the hits? Sort of like the Bin Laden raid.

What do you think?

Obviously not. Drone strikes are the purview of the US Postal Service. :cool:

[Maple Syrup Actual]

Well, if nothing else, this incident did kick off a really interesting drift through wikipedia for me because I had never heard of Atomwaffen.

Atomwaffen-> Order of Nine Angles-> Nazi occultism-> Hermeticism-> Anglo-Saxon ideas about fate or "wyrd", and finally, the ordering of a new book from Amazon: Black Sun, by Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke.

So, silver lining.

[Casual Friday]

Why not post something there and just let us know when it's up?

(And though it shouldn't be necessary, just add a comment requesting that the info not be cross posted.)


I'm going to.

Thread will have to wait until tomorrow, I'm just getting home and I want to carefully plan what I share even in the secret area.

[HCM]

Well, if nothing else, this incident did kick off a really interesting drift through wikipedia for me because I had never heard of Atomwaffen.

Atomwaffen-> Order of Nine Angles-> Nazi occultism-> Hermeticism-> Anglo-Saxon ideas about fate or "wyrd", and finally, the ordering of a new book from Amazon: Black Sun, by Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke.

So, silver lining.

Don’t forget the homoeroticism and the fascination with jihadis.

Despite this the U.S. constitution applies to all of us or none of us, even Canadians when you stray south of the Poutine curtain.

[Baldanders]

And yet, that is not a specific enough threat for criminal prosecution in the United States.

If it’s not enough to make an arrest which is basically the seizure of a person under the fourth amendment why should it be enough to seize someone’s property under the fourth amendment?

Civil forfeiture has been used for decades now to take the property, permanently, of folks who don't end up charged with any crimes.

We fell over the slippery slope during the drug war.

[OlongJohnson]

Civil forfeiture has been used for decades now to take the property, permanently, of folks who don't end up charged with any crimes.

We fell over the slippery slope during the drug war.

My understanding is that actually goes back to the 1790s or thereabouts. But yeah, it was pretty dormant until 30-some years ago.

[Baldanders]

My understanding is that actually goes back to the 1790s or thereabouts. But yeah, it was pretty dormant until 30-some years ago.

Beats me on the date, but I think it goes way back in British common law. And it is based on the idea that property can be guilty of a crime.

[Baldanders]

Well, if nothing else, this incident did kick off a really interesting drift through wikipedia for me because I had never heard of Atomwaffen.

Atomwaffen-> Order of Nine Angles-> Nazi occultism-> Hermeticism-> Anglo-Saxon ideas about fate or "wyrd", and finally, the ordering of a new book from Amazon: Black Sun, by Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke.

So, silver lining.

Well, now I need to do some research.