A flurry of acitivity in the Brown follower trials

[SteveSy]

Ok, but does he say he's trying or aiming to kill them or shoot directly at them? He doesn't even have a target....it seems to me he's just looking to scare them off.

Let's get this straight, he deserves under law to be punished for stating he will act aggressively towards agents. However, Brown is no terrorist....he's an old man with a strongly held belief and when push came to shove he didn't have the balls to back up all his tough talk. He certainly doesn't deserve 25 years for what he did. He'll end up, because he's an anti-government nonconformist, serving more time for a nonviolent crime than if he had molested small children. The truth of the matter is the government severely punishes people who don't conform or are seriously anti-government and act on their opinions, like not paying taxes. People caught engaging in that activity are treated worse than if they molested children.

Are you referring to Osama Bin Laden

Steve, which part of the rule of law do you not understand?

Or is it that you only believe in the inforcement of laws with which you agree? In that case, how do you reconcile your opinion with that of your next-door neighbor?

Go back under your rock.

So why knock any regime or government...they make the laws. Which part of the rule of law do you not understand?

Just because it's a law doesn't instantly legitimize its use. It used to be law that you could own slaves and it was illegal for them to run away from their owners, did that make it right to own slaves?

[Demosthenes]

Collecting bombs is illegal, Stevie.

Yep, and he should be punished for having illegal weapons. They are treating this much worse than if he just had illegal weapons.

Who is? Brown hasn't even been indicted yet.

You might want to actually read the indictment for the Fab Four, Stevie. Buying weapons and explosives for known fugitives and threatening to kill Marshals is not exactly child's play.

Reno was even kind enough to outline his intentions on his MySpace page.

[SteveSy]

Collecting bombs is illegal, Stevie.

Yep, and he should be punished for having illegal weapons. They are treating this much worse than if he just had illegal weapons.

Who is? Brown hasn't even been indicted yet.

You might want to actually read the indictment for the Fab Four, Stevie. Buying weapons and explosives for known fugitives and threatening to kill Marshals is not exactly child's play.

Reno was even kind enough to outline his intentions on his MySpace page.

And of course out of all of this big talk not a single agent was harmed....It looks to me like it was all talk and no action.

If any of those people really intended to kill federal agents a few would be dead or wounded. If a couple of teenagers can accomplish killing people after they said they were going to do it, certainly 20 or 30 adults could have hurt someone if they wanted to.

[Cobalt Shiva]

Ok, but does he say he's trying or aiming to kill them or shoot directly at them? He doesn't even have a target....it seems to me he's just looking to scare them off.

Stevie, me boy . . . if one is willing to open fire, one is willing to kill, your particular flavor of sophistry be damned. Anyone willing to open fire completely blind is willing to kill anyone who has the misfortune of being downrange of the muzzle--be it a federal agent one is trying to "scare off" or a nonparticipant who had the misfortune of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. If you really believe what you wrote and I quoted, please, for the love of God, do not own or use a firearm, ever, before you manage to kill somebody with your unique combination of arrogance and stupidity.

[grixit]

Is there such a thing as a friend of the court character witness? If so, Steve would make a good one.

[Famspear]

Collections don't prove anything....other than you have the means to do harm, not that you will.

OK, Steve, but "collections" (and other kinds of conduct) can and and often do prove intent, or willfulness, or recklessness, or criminal negligence, or whatever mental state is required for conviction under a particular statute.

In law, proof -- in the sense used here -- means persuasion.

Many crimes typically consist of various "elements," each of which must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. If the prosecution persuades the jury on each element, the prosecution has, BY DEFINITION, proven its case.

Willfulness and intent are examples of what is called the "mens rea" element.

By contrast, "collecting stuff" could be an example of conduct covered by the "actus reus" element of the statute.

I am going to go out on a limb here and say that in many cases, most criminals do not make a blatant statement to the effect that "I am hereby engaging in this conduct with the resquite level of mens rea required by XXX Code section XXX." In other words, prosecutors often do not have what is known as DIRECT evidence of the defendant's state of mind -- to be more specific, the defendant's mens rea, if any.

Instead, mens rea is proven through something called INDIRECT evidence, also known as "circumstantial" evidence.

A piece of evidence that is DIRECT for one purpose -- such as proving that the defendant engaged in certain physical conduct -- may be INDIRECT (circumstantial) for another purpose. Example: An eyewitness testimony that a defendant pulled a gun out of his coat, aimed it at a victim, and pulled the trigger would be DIRECT evidence of the victim's CONDUCT -- the actus reus, the actual, physical act.

The same testimony could also be circumstantial evidence that the defendant INTENDED to kill the victim. Intent is a mental, or mens rea, element.

The key here, Steve, is that direct evidence of CONDUCT can also be indirect evidence of INTENT. That means that the same piece of evidence can be used to prove -- and can prove -- both the actus reus and the mens rea.

"Collections" can indeed PROVE that the defendant INTENDED to do what the prosecution claims the defendant intended to do. Whether "collections" DO prove intent (or whatever the mens rea element happens to be for the crime) is generally for the jury to find.

[Famspear]

Oh, and just in case you missed it Steve:

When I say:

Collections" can indeed PROVE that the defendant INTENDED to do what the prosecution claims the defendant intended to do. Whether "collections" DO prove intent (or whatever the mens rea element happens to be for the crime) is generally for the jury to find.

-- that is my gentle way of saying that the jury -- and NOT YOU, STEVE, will determine whether the prosecution will have PROVEN, through the use of evidence of "collections" of bombs, etc., whether the defendants INTENDED to do whatever the prosecution claims.

Recalling your comment from months ago:

Oh, and I could really couldn't care less what a [sic] some federal judge says who is appointed by and paid by the very people trying to usurp the constitution. [ . . . ] Do I decide the law for myself, yes I do, it's my right."

-- you were wrong. You do not decide the law for yourself. You decide what you BELIEVE the law is. "What the law is" for YOU is decided by someone ELSE, whether you like it or not.

The same thing applies to findings of fact. A real jury in a real court case -- not you -- will be making the factual determinations in the case of the fab four.

Reality. What a concept.

[Evil Squirrel Overlord]

Let's get this straight, he deserves under law to be punished for stating he will act aggressively towards agents. However, Brown is no terrorist...

"Terroistic threats" + the means to carry them out + building an armed fortress + being a conviceted criminal with delusions of martyrdom is about as close to a terrorist as you can get without the actual act.

he's an old man with a strongly held belief and when push came to shove he didn't have the balls to back up all his tough talk.

He didn't have the balls to admidt defeat and pay his taxes. He didn't have the balls to move to another country. He didn't have the balls to face his original punishment. He was a coward who wanted the world to operate on his terms and hid from reality like a crying child.

He certainly doesn't deserve 25 years for what he did.

I think he does. He would have let others get killed for his sorry ideas.

[Dr. Caligari]

He'll end up, because he's an anti-government nonconformist, serving more time for a nonviolent crime than if he had molested small children. The truth of the matter is the government severely punishes people who don't conform or are seriously anti-government and act on their opinions, like not paying taxes. People caught engaging in that activity are treated worse than if they molested children.

His actual sentence for tax evasion and money laundering was only five years-- and that was after he became a fugitive. Child molestors get much longer sentences than that. If he is indicted again, it will not be for tax evasion or any nonviolent crime-- it will be for posessing illegal explosives and making threats to kill government agents.

[ErsatzAnatchist]

Steve,

You are clearly so much more than an idiot, you are also delusional. What about all those quotes from Ed and Elaine that they would either be leaving as free men or in body bags? Did you read any of the quotes in any of the news stories?

There was a chance that Ed would not resist if the marshals showed up to arrest, but that would be only if he was too busy wetting himself from fear.

[SteveSy]

Let's flip the questions for SteveSy.

How close do you want to live to a house where the owner "collects" bombs, keeps bomb making materials on hand (especially black powder) and other explosive devices and has them hanging about his yard/property like little decorations?

Is 5 yards too close for you SteveSy? 10 yards? 100 yards? 1,000 yards?

The way you write SteveSy, you should be comfortable sharing a wall in a duplex with your local neighborhood bomb collector. Are you? Or is it just lip-flapping?

I think you misunderstand me. I'm not justifying his actions merely pointing out that no one was harmed even though he and his supporters had plenty of opportunity to do so if they were on such a mission.

I don't believe they were on a mission to kill agents, such a claim is absurd to me. Again, I believe it was a instance of big talk no action. You would have to believe agents were never in a position to be fired upon, surprised or exposed at any point and time. If I wanted to kill federal agents at least a few would either be dead or seriously wounded. It's not like they have government issued personal body shields that pops up whenever a shot is detected or a potential encounter takes place..

[Dr. Caligari]

I don't believe they were on a mission to kill agents, such a claim is absurd to me. Again, I believe it was a instance of big talk no action.

All the blather on the pro-Ed & Elaine boards about how they are going to blow up the courthouse and violently free Ed's followers is, IMHO, all big talk and no action. In Ed's case, there were real bombs-- lots of them-- planted on his property. That is a lot more than "big talk."

You would have to believe agents were never in a position to be fired upon, surprised or exposed at any point and time.

When they arrested Ed & Elaine, the agents were in no position to be fired upon or surprised.

[ErsatzAnatchist]

I think you misunderstand me. I'm not justifying his actions merely pointing out that no one was harmed even though he and his supporters had plenty of opportunity to do so if they were on such a mission.

I don't believe they were on a mission to kill agents, such a claim is absurd to me. Again, I believe it was a instance of big talk no action. You would have to believe agents were never in a position to be fired upon, surprised or exposed at any point and time. If I wanted to kill federal agents at least a few would either be dead or seriously wounded. It's not like they have government issued personal body shields that pops up whenever a shot is detected or a potential encounter takes place..

Yes, Ed and Elaine did not leave their property with guns blazing on a mission to kill the feds, but that does not negate the facts that they violated court orders (and their own promises) to surrender, they then armed themselves, they built and planted bombs on their property, and they openly threatened to kill any federal agents who came on their property.

[Agent Observer]

I don't believe they were on a mission to kill agents, such a claim is absurd to me.

Wow.. Just wow. Reality is "absurd to" you as well, apparently. Seriously, Stevesy, if you still have the receipt and original box your computer came in, box it up, take it back to the store, and tell them you are too stupid to own a computer.

The bottom line, Mr. Delusional, is that that we are a nation of laws. They violated the laws and now will face the consequences of their actions. Thankfully for the safety of society, your opinion matters not at all. Obviously in Stevesy land, had we been aware of the 9/11 plot before it happened, law enforcement wouldn’t have been able to arrest them, since they "hadn't done anything." Oh wait.. I'm sure your fevered delusions include grand conspiracy theories where the ebil goobermint flew those planes into the buildings, so I guess it's a moot point.

I'm sure these concepts will be completely lost on you, so I'm not sure why I, or anyone here, even bothers to respond.

[SteveSy]

I don't believe they were on a mission to kill agents, such a claim is absurd to me.

Wow.. Just wow. Reality is "absurd to" you as well, apparently. Seriously, Stevesy, if you still have the receipt and original box your computer came in, box it up, take it back to the store, and tell them you are too stupid to own a computer.

The bottom line, Mr. Delusional, is that that we are a nation of laws. They violated the laws and now will face the consequences of their actions. Thankfully for the safety of society, your opinion matters not at all. Obviously in Stevesy land, had we been aware of the 9/11 plot before it happened, law enforcement wouldn’t have been able to arrest them, since they "hadn't done anything." Oh wait.. I'm sure your fevered delusions include grand conspiracy theories where the ebil goobermint flew those planes into the buildings, so I guess it's a moot point.

I'm sure these concepts will be completely lost on you, so I'm not sure why I, or anyone here, even bothers to respond.

No one said, at least not me, they shouldn't be punished or apprehended for the crimes they committed. I just take issue with people taking liberty with the facts to turn a blowhard in to a threat to the security of the nation, like he's on the level of a international terrorist or something. If anyone is the conspiracy theorist its people like you. You could turn a instance of someone breaking the speed limit in to an effort to escape capture while on a conspiracy plot to undermine national security.

Yes, Ed broke the law. Yes, Ed didn't show up to court and hung out at his home while evading an arrest warrant. Yes, he had people supporting is venture to avoid his trial and subsequent incarceration. Yes, Ed had guns and home made pipe bombs. Was Ed and his supporters on a mission to kill federal agents....give me a break. He just didn't want to get arrested and pretended he was some big bad dude so they wouldn't come get him. If Ed and friends really wanted to kill federal agents some would have been shot or dead. It' doesn't take a navy seal to shoot someone walking down the road, leaving work or getting out of their car. If people like Ed were really that dangerous we would have federal agents dead all over the place and shoot-outs reported daily.

You'll find more of a real threat from your local teenage street gang than you would from people like Ed. Ed deserves to be punished. Is Ed this grand violent criminal some of you try to make him out to be...right. What you need to do is stop being the conspiracy theorist and accept it for what it was. You guys come off just as kooky as some of the TP's are by making every situation as dramatic as possible. "Another plot foiled to mass murder government officials!"

[Agent Observer]

Stevesy

If anyone is the conspiracy theorist its people like you. You could turn a instance of someone breaking the speed limit in to an effort to escape capture while on a conspiracy plot to undermine national security.

Clearly the irony is lost on you, but were that true in the government, everyone who ever uttered silly, fever-dream conspiracies like you, would have been locked up long ago. Since you're still apparently walking the streets and not confined to Guantanamo Bay, this is yet another example of your conspiracy-based (il)logical thought processes failing you.

Congrats. You've perfected failure.

[SteveSy]

Stevesy

If anyone is the conspiracy theorist its people like you. You could turn a instance of someone breaking the speed limit in to an effort to escape capture while on a conspiracy plot to undermine national security.

Clearly the irony is lost on you, but were that true in the government, everyone who ever uttered silly, fever-dream conspiracies like you, would have been locked up long ago. Since you're still apparently walking the streets and not confined to Guantanamo Bay, this is yet another example of your conspiracy-based (il)logical thought processes failing you.

Congrats. You've perfected failure.

You can continue on with your delusions of TP conspiracy grandeur nonsense....Maybe it will be reported someone from the TP movement typed Osama bin Laden in google and you can theorize a plot formulated by TP's to form an alliance to undermine the government!

[Demosthenes]

Guys, Stevie has to find a way to minimize the violence in the Ed Brown standoff in his mind. Otherwise, he'd have to question why he's on the same side as such a violent freak show, and those are questions he doesn't want to think about.

[Dr. Caligari]

Yes, Ed had guns and home made pipe bombs. Was Ed and his supporters on a mission to kill federal agents....give me a break. He just didn't want to get arrested and pretended he was some big bad dude so they wouldn't come get him.

If Ed had said to the Marshalls, "don't try to arrest me, I have pipe bombs," but hadn't really built any bombs, I might agree with you. But why did he go to the trouble, expense, and risk (to himself, his followers, and his neighbors) of building bombs if he wasn't at least considering using them?

[SteveSy]

Guys, Stevie has to find a way to minimize the violence in the Ed Brown standoff in his mind. Otherwise, he'd have to question why he's on the same side as such a violent freak show, and those are questions he doesn't want to think about.

Um what violence are you talking about? As far as I know not even a band-aid was issued to federal agents. Maybe you're theorizing about violence that could have happened as if it did.