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?).Quote:
Originally Posted by 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?).Quote:
Originally Posted by BehindBlueI's
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by TGS
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.
Did you read the petition?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sidheshooter
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nephrology
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.
So, I'm working OT this afternoon because of an antifa "demonstration".Quote:
Originally Posted by BehindBlueI's
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Drang
Quote:
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
And calling for a certain class of individuals to be murdered and fried like bacon...Quote:
Originally Posted by Drang
I did. It is reasonable suspicion at best.Quote:
Originally Posted by BehindBlueI's
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drang
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.