|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Nov 2, 2011 21:23:02 GMT -5
Its not hard at all. The fact that there are so few of them proves, to me at least, that most talk about them is just that... talk. Which means that when people make the move from talk to action, such as buying weapons on the black market and arranging to buy more, direct action is needed. I remember right after Obama was elected the FBI investigated a crazy number of threats against the President. I'm sure that there is a method to distinguish between utter crack pots and people who'll take action. One certainly hopes. I've already said that I agree that there is a fine and nuanced line between talking about doing something and actually having the intent to do something. As the story was presented, when I made my initial comment, it certainly seems to me that theseguys were arrested for talking about something, without having necessarily shown intent. |
|
|
|
Post by Kit Walker on Nov 2, 2011 21:29:53 GMT -5
As the story was presented, when I made my initial comment, it certainly seems to me that theseguys were arrested for talking about something, without having necessarily shown intent. Then you didn't RTFA. And before you anything, if a man walks into a bank and says he has a gun, you believe him. If a man is planning terrorist attacks and meeting with an arms dealer, you take his threat of being able to create ricin seriously. |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Nov 2, 2011 21:32:56 GMT -5
As the story was presented, when I made my initial comment, it certainly seems to me that theseguys were arrested for talking about something, without having necessarily shown intent. Then you didn't RTFA. And before you anything, if a man walks into a bank and says he has a gun, you believe him. If a man is planning terrorist attacks and meeting with an arms dealer, you take his threat of being able to create ricin seriously. Uhuh. So... the "judge beats daughter" thread just below this one... should we take all those threats of violence seriously? And yes, I know you're about to cite that they were meeting with an arms dealer again, but as I already mentioned in my post to Smurfette, the fact that the only arms dealer they seem to have managed to contact was an FBI operative... strikes me as fishy. |
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Nov 2, 2011 21:34:16 GMT -5
*Notes that LHM is in favor of libel, slander, and false advertising* All of which are crimes in their own right, for good reason. These are demonstrably false. Talking about wanting to kill someone or damage something isn't, nor should it be, since such talk is only the voicing of personal opinion. Chalk and cheese, again. Both are speech and, according to you, one should be allowed (free speech) and the other shouldn't be allowed (restricted speech). You have now quite clearly demonstrated that you do not completely support unrestricted speech so instead of using the free speech card you need to provide a more substantial argument, bite the bullet and admit you have to oppose laws against slander, or be dishonest. Given your past history, as well as this post and your response to Oriet, you're picking door number 3. |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Nov 2, 2011 21:37:34 GMT -5
All of which are crimes in their own right, for good reason. These are demonstrably false. Talking about wanting to kill someone or damage something isn't, nor should it be, since such talk is only the voicing of personal opinion. Chalk and cheese, again. Both are speech and, according to you, one should be allowed (free speech) and the other shouldn't be allowed (restricted speech). You have now quite clearly demonstrated that you do not completely support unrestricted speech so instead of using the free speech card you need to provide a more substantial argument, bite the bullet and admit you have to oppose laws against slander, or be dishonest. Given your past history, as well as this post and your response to Oriet, you're picking door number 3. Option 4. refuse to engage in silly semantic debates comparing unlike things. |
|
|
|
Post by Kit Walker on Nov 2, 2011 21:42:29 GMT -5
And yes, I know you're about to cite that they were meeting with an arms dealer again, but as I already mentioned in my post to Smurfette, the fact that the only arms dealer they seem to have managed to contact was an FBI operative... strikes me as fishy. Should they have looked in the phone book under black market arms dealer? It is a sting operation. There are rules that govern it. No prosecutor worth a damn would move ahead on a case like this if there was a chance they had been broken. And if they did, it would come out at trial. There is nothing fishy here, except in your own paranoid mind. And if the people the judge thread (which i haven't been reading because people were being straight up disgusting) began pooling their money to hire a hitman to kill the guy and were actually speaking with one, then fuck yes take those threats seriously. |
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Nov 2, 2011 21:42:54 GMT -5
Both are speech and, according to you, one should be allowed (free speech) and the other shouldn't be allowed (restricted speech). You have now quite clearly demonstrated that you do not completely support unrestricted speech so instead of using the free speech card you need to provide a more substantial argument, bite the bullet and admit you have to oppose laws against slander, or be dishonest. Given your past history, as well as this post and your response to Oriet, you're picking door number 3. Option 4. refuse to engage in silly semantic debates comparing unlike things. An absolutely hilarious choice coming from Mr. 'You can't prove 1+1=2' |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Nov 2, 2011 21:52:20 GMT -5
Option 4. refuse to engage in silly semantic debates comparing unlike things. An absolutely hilarious choice coming from Mr. 'You can't prove 1+1=2' You can't. You can, however, decline to discuss the matter with people more interested in "winning" the discussion than actually learning anything. And yes, I know you're about to cite that they were meeting with an arms dealer again, but as I already mentioned in my post to Smurfette, the fact that the only arms dealer they seem to have managed to contact was an FBI operative... strikes me as fishy. Should they have looked in the phone book under black market arms dealer? It is a sting operation. There are rules that govern it. No prosecutor worth a damn would move ahead on a case like this if there was a chance they had been broken. And if they did, it would come out at trial. There is nothing fishy here, except in your own paranoid mind. I don't see what's paranoid about it. As I said, I doubt these guys could have come up with a genuine arms dealer on their own. Thats all. Fair enough. |
|
|
|
Post by DeadpanDoubter on Nov 2, 2011 21:59:26 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by The Lazy One on Nov 2, 2011 22:05:28 GMT -5
A few people hanging out and going "lol we should totally blow something up!" doesn't exactly equal someone actually plotting out a terrorist attack, and amassing the weapons to carry out a terrorist attack. Even those people going "OK, so if we were going to blow up X we'd need Y and Z" doesn't necessarily mean they're actually going to do it. Now, if those people start looking for a way to buy plastic explosives or TNT or something, then yeah, then that might be a problem.
I don't think we should criminalize people running their mouths. A lot of talk is just that- talk. What we should criminalize is people who actually do intend to do something about it.
From what I understand, the old guys here actually went to go get ricin, which is a good indicator that they didn't fall into the group of "just talking about stuff and not planning to do anything about it."
|
|
|
|
Post by Kit Walker on Nov 2, 2011 22:26:26 GMT -5
[I don't see what's paranoid about it. As I said, I doubt these guys could have come up with a genuine arms dealer on their own. Thats all. It is paranoid in that it seems to imply, and forgive me if I infer to much, that the FBI entrapped them. In reality, it is no different than hitmen that turn out to be undercover cops. The women (it always seems to be women in those cases) most likely would not have come up with a genuine* hitman on their own. This doesn't make the intention behind the contact any less real. *My rule of thumb is that if they are performing a highly illegal black market service (arms dealer, hitman, human trafficker, etc), you're not deeply involved or connected to organized crime, and they are meeting with you in person...they're a cop and you're a fucking idiot. |
|
|
|
Post by Napoleon the Clown on Nov 2, 2011 23:05:35 GMT -5
So... that they made an intentional go at hiring an arms dealer is immaterial because the dude wasn't a for realz arm dealer?
Well, there goes drug busts.
And weren't you the one who was complaining about a couple of mods expressing a less than positive opinion of you, saying that we shouldn't do it because then it might mean we wouldn't be fair in rules decisions against you?
|
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Nov 2, 2011 23:22:00 GMT -5
LHM.
Their intent was to gain ricin. Regardless of the fact that the dealer was a cop, the intent was there.
Intent. It's a fun word. Intent.
|
|
|
|
Post by ironbite on Nov 3, 2011 0:34:33 GMT -5
...DAMN IT!
Ironbite-already used Godzilla Facepalming.
|
|
|
|
Post by priestling on Nov 3, 2011 0:46:50 GMT -5
Nothing saying you can't use it twice, Ibby! This is pretty epic fail.
|
|
