|
Telsa Cola posted:Also jesus christ at the posters suggesting she was just there to support her husband. Thats a pretty good combo of sexism and outright stupidity. I mean, she is pretty stupid though, at least as stupid as everyone else involved in this fiasco.
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 19:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 06:51 |
|
|
Patrick Spens posted:No. Do you think most criminals "recognize the legitimacy of the court?" Because they don't. She doesn't need to recognize the court to recognize that the government can gently caress her up if she screws up. Yes. Most criminals are not explicitly attempting to overthrow the Federal government. Most criminals, even the most hardened, behave in court. SovCits do not.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 19:16
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:Sure, which is why I attacked your specific point at the end there, because you were still unfairly overstating his position to make your point. Nah you're right I'm being kind of hyperbolic to counter the same types of argument and that's silly. The entire FBI phrase was goofy too. I'm running around doing errands and basically posting when I'm in parking lots so I'm typing conversationally, where that phrase doesn't come off quite as bad cause it's not plastered on a screen forever. But honestly in D&D and across the rest of SA it's kind of impossible to respond with a flat even tone to someone who just wants to be snarky and win points in an argument And I can't find the specific article I'd read it in but the FBI was fighting against Sandy being granted bail, I'm sure that would be relatively easy to find somewhere since it wasn't the only one i'd seen that mentioned it
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 19:32
|
|
|
Aesop Poprock posted:And I can't find the specific article I'd read it in but the FBI was fighting against Sandy being granted bail, I'm sure that would be relatively easy to find somewhere since it wasn't the only one i'd seen that mentioned it There are a lot of articles about bail with regard to ammon, ryan, and co. while the last four were still there, and I think Shawna wasn't allowed to go free while the standoff was still happening... Can't seem to find any fbi comment on Sandy though, maybe someone else will be able to dig it up.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 19:44
|
|
|
many johnnys posted:There are a lot of articles about bail with regard to ammon, ryan, and co. while the last four were still there, and I think Shawna wasn't allowed to go free while the standoff was still happening... Can't seem to find any fbi comment on Sandy though, maybe someone else will be able to dig it up. I can't either which is driving me crazy. I'm hoping I'm not mistaking her for when Shawna was granted bail but I'm pretty certain it was Sandy
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 19:46
|
|
|
Aesop Poprock posted:I'm saying gang members don't usually have a stated goal of overthrowing the federal government that's their main driving force, willfully dense dude who snipes from the sidelines So is that a yes? cause it sounds like a yes. It really really sounds like "yes but at some level I've realized how bad that sounds so I'm going to avoid directly answering and sling insults instead" Also when did this become an organized group? So a member of an (actual) organization conducting a criminal enterprise with a stated policy and history of violence toward witnesses is charged with robbing a liquor store should get bail, a hanger on of a group of non-affiliated individuals of various political beliefs and levels of mental illness with absolutely no criminal history should be denied bail... because of their political beliefs and the criminal history of other people? Talmonis posted:Wouldn't it make sense to deny bail to SovCits, on the knowledge that they don't recognize the legitimacy of the court itself, and will likely attempt to flee at the first opportunity? No, it doesn't make perfect sense to base people's due process rights on their political beliefs and/or a history of criminal or non compliant behavior of other people who've shared those beliefs, it's loving horrifying and goes against everything our legal system is supposed to stand for.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 19:48
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:
That's neither here nor there when the question is "does it make sense". Yes. It's logical to think that members of a fringe militia would act like....members of a fringe militia. It doesn't mean that it's then right to deny them due process. Our legal sytem is "blind" in that respect, and though it's sometimes infuriating, it is better to err on the side of caution. That said, no. gently caress those people, many of them would hole up with guns and try to get other crazies to defend them from showing up for court.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 19:52
|
|
|
Perfectly Safe posted:Don't think this has been posted yet - After the Oregon occupation, one of the people arrested argues he was there as a journalist. Nothing we haven't heard before, but I'm kinda surprised that even Macnab is in there saying that Pete's essentially a journalist. Nevada Indictment posted:SANTILLI was a leader and organizer of the conspiracy who, among other things: recruited Followers using the internet and other facilities in interstate commerce; led an assault on federal officers; threatened federal law enforcement officers; and participated in the extortion of federal law enforcement officers.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 19:57
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:That's neither here nor there when the question is "does it make sense". Yes. It's logical to think that members of a fringe militia would act like....members of a fringe militia. It doesn't mean that it's then right to deny them due process. Our legal sytem is "blind" in that respect, and though it's sometimes infuriating, it is better to err on the side of caution. No, it doesn't make sense for the legal system to do things that are loving horrifying and go against everything they're supposed to stand for, that's the whole point of due process. You don't base one person's due process rights off of how other people with the same politics have acted.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 20:08
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:No, it doesn't make sense for the legal system to do things that are loving horrifying and go against everything they're supposed to stand for, that's the whole point of due process. You don't base one person's due process rights off of how other people with the same politics have acted. "You take away one domestic terrorist's right to bail and suddenly we're giving 20 years to shoplifters!"
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 20:12
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:"You take away one domestic terrorist's right to bail and suddenly we're giving 20 years to shoplifters!" Yes, that is a thing that can happen, depending on how the rationale/precedent is structured.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 20:17
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:So is that a yes? cause it sounds like a yes. It really really sounds like "yes but at some level I've realized how bad that sounds so I'm going to avoid directly answering and sling insults instead" So you're saying all the Malheur occupiers should be allowed bail. Look, I can put words in people's mouths and completely ignore any point that's made too
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 20:17
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:No, it doesn't make sense for the legal system to do things that are loving horrifying and go against everything they're supposed to stand for, that's the whole point of due process. You don't base one person's due process rights off of how other people with the same politics have acted. Uh, you do when they have directly done the same exact thing as those people?? While stating that they're doing exactly that, on camera? jfc you're acting like Sandy was just minding her own business and the mean old federal government arrested her for nothing back in her home state or something
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 20:18
|
|
|
Aesop Poprock posted:So you're saying all the Malheur occupiers should be allowed bail. Look, I can put words in people's mouths and completely ignore any point that's made too No, there were reasons other then their political beliefs to deny them bail, I haven't put words in your mouth once you're just sputtering around like an upset child who has no understanding of what the adults are talking about. chitoryu12 posted:"You take away one domestic terrorist's right to bail and suddenly we're giving 20 years to shoplifters!" Keep repeating that strawman edit: Aesop Poprock posted:Uh, you do when they have directly done the same exact thing as those people?? While stating that they're doing exactly that, on camera? jfc you're acting like Sandy was just minding her own business and the mean old federal government arrested her for nothing back in her home state or something No you loving don't, that's the entire loving point.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 20:27
|
|
|
It's like the point you're desperately trying to prove is that we want all people with sovcit ideas rounded up and denied bail, when nobody at all is saying that. You're fighting against an imaginary idea and I'm not sure if it's on purpose or if you're just totally confused. Sandy Anderson supplied and directly took place in this occupation while stating her beliefs in doing so. She didn't get arrested just for having a position on something
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 20:29
|
|
|
Aesop Poprock posted:It's like the point you're desperately trying to prove is that we want all people with sovcit ideas rounded up and denied bail, when nobody at all is saying that. You're fighting against an imaginary idea and I'm not sure if it's on purpose or if you're just totally confused. Sandy Anderson supplied and directly took place in this occupation while stating her beliefs in doing so. She didn't get arrested just for having a position on something Can you not even keep pretrail detention and being arrested for a crime separate? You're conflating two things that have largely nothing to do with each other.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 20:31
|
|
|
Aesop Poprock posted:I can't either which is driving me crazy. I'm hoping I'm not mistaking her for when Shawna was granted bail but I'm pretty certain it was Sandy I'm not saying there wasn't a thing with Sandy, too, but there was an issue where Shawna was released when she wasn't supposed to be and immediately began posting call to arms stuff on Facebook.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 20:34
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Can you not even keep pretrail detention and being arrested for a crime separate? You're conflating two things that have largely nothing to do with each other.  (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 20:36
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:I'm not saying there wasn't a thing with Sandy, too, but there was an issue where Shawna was released when she wasn't supposed to be and immediately began posting call to arms stuff on Facebook. Yeah, another distinction is that Shawna was released when she wasn't supposed to, while the occupation was still ongoing. She definitely should have had to stay in detention until at least then until the FBI had finished defusing the thing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 20:40
|
|
|
Aesop Poprock posted:It's like the point you're desperately trying to prove is that we want all people with sovcit ideas rounded up and denied bail, when nobody at all is saying that. You're fighting against an imaginary idea and I'm not sure if it's on purpose or if you're just totally confused. Sandy Anderson supplied and directly took place in this occupation while stating her beliefs in doing so. She didn't get arrested just for having a position on something 18 U.S. Code § 3142 - Release or detention of a defendant pending trial - pretty clearly states that any defendant has the right to be released on bail, unless (a) there is a reasonable expectation that the released person will not appear in court or present a danger to the community. If there is a reason to believe that this is the case, the judge has to release the person under special conditions, this is where anything from ankle bracelets to simply raising the bail amount comes in. (b) if it has been determined that no combination of special conditions is enough to make sure that the defendant will appear in court and not pose a danger to the community, the person can be placed in detention. (c) it can automatically be presumed that the defendant is a danger to the community if the crime they're accused of appears in a list of specific crimes, such as sex trafficking or terrorism transcending national boundaries. (Note: this doesn't apply here.) So under what provision of the law are you arguing for pre-trial detention here?
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 21:09
|
|
|
botany posted:18 U.S. Code § 3142 - Release or detention of a defendant pending trial - pretty clearly states that any defendant has the right to be released on bail, unless Uh it's nice of you to specifically state that c. doesn't apply at all, but why not? Here's what part of "terrorism transcending national boundaries" pertains to: quote:
Sounds pretty much right on target, huh?
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 21:17
|
|
|
Aesop Poprock posted:Sounds pretty much right on target, huh? What structure, conveyance, or other real/personal property did she actually or conspire to destroy or damage?
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 21:20
|
|
|
I would guess that though you may argue that it is terrorism it may not apply if it's not a part of the offical charge.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 21:21
|
|
|
Aesop Poprock posted:Uh it's nice of you to specifically state that c. doesn't apply at all, but why not? Here's what part of "terrorism transcending national boundaries" pertains to: No, actually non of that sounds "right on target", seeing as occupying is not the same as destroying, and "terrorism transcending national boundaries" actually has to transcend national boundaries.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 21:22
|
|
|
Kazak_Hstan posted:Yeah, okay guy, 41 day armed occupations of federal facilities and week-long armed standoffs are totally normal, run of the mill crimes. They're common enough that one of the Malheur occupiers was literally violating his probation condition of "stop participating in armed occupations of federal land you numbnuts". They just usually get zero coverage in the national news. Aesop Poprock posted:Regardless of his intent, he's comparing Sandy to either apolitical gang members or unarmed left wing protesters who aren't directly threatening to shoot the feds/police. It's dumb as gently caress confusing false equivalency and there's no real point behind it aside from some weird slippery slope argument that keeping her from getting bail will somehow make it harder for actual people who deserve it from getting it. The entire FBI thinks her being granted bail is ridiculous and the judge was wrong, it's not like I'm just pulling poo poo out of my rear end here First of all, whether a group is "political" or not should be irrelevant, and to say that political crimes should be treated worse is basically dancing on the edge of fascism. Second of all, are you prepared to back up your claim that the entire FBI all think that she doesn't deserve bail? Talmonis posted:Wouldn't it make sense to deny bail to SovCits, on the knowledge that they don't recognize the legitimacy of the court itself, and will likely attempt to flee at the first opportunity? Nope. Not all of them completely deny the legitimacy of court proceeding, and many more will suddenly find a belief in the system when they're firmly in its clutches - for instance, Ammon, who suddenly started telling the occupiers to give in after he was arrested, and hired a lawyer to represent him in the courts he supposedly doesn't believe in. More to the point, though, bail decisions need to be on a case-by-case basis. "You hold these political positions, therefore you're not getting bail" is a bad precedent to set, even if those political positions involve not believing in government's legitimacy. Besides, people don't have to believe in the legitimacy of the court - they just have to show up and not make too much of a scene about it. Even if someone professes anti-govermnent beliefs and affiliates with an anti-government movement, the individual facts and factors affecting each person need to be looked at. For example, even though David Fry participated in the occupation and had links to those groups, I wouldn't call him a flight risk after he was talked down (though he's definitely a suicide risk). In Sandy's case, the judge felt that regardless of her stated political views, she still would be likely to return for her court dates - probably because her husband is still in custody and he judged her unlikely to abandon him. chitoryu12 posted:"You take away one domestic terrorist's right to bail and suddenly we're giving 20 years to shoplifters!" Replace "shoplifters" with "environmentalists" or "communists" or "civil rights activists" or "Muslims" and you'll have a statement that actively reflects reality. Presuming that someone is a flight risk based on their political beliefs alone is a huge deal.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 21:22
|
|
|
RiotGearEpsilon posted:What structure, conveyance, or other real/personal property did she actually or conspire to destroy or damage? They wrecked the hell out of the refuge. Regardless, it was probably referring to acts of destruction that result in immediate lose of life or injuries. The part about failure to show up to court or possibility of committing another crime (although I'd lean much further towards the first than the second) part is more than enough, and what we've been discussing for this entire conversation so I'm not sure why I'd have to clarify that again after posting about it for days
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 21:23
|
|
|
botany posted:18 U.S. Code § 3142 - Release or detention of a defendant pending trial - pretty clearly states that any defendant has the right to be released on bail, unless botany posted:the bet is indeed "does she do something that shows she should not have been granted bail", but clamoring for armed support doesn't count. i don't give a poo poo how many facebook posts she makes, you don't deny somebody bail because they have a tendency to post annoying status updates. Really seems to me that this thing you previously said doesn't count could indeed threaten communities near the trial, much like Burns was threatened by these peoples' militia allies skulking around during the occupation. Like it's real loving stupid to argue that it's completely unlikely that she'll go on to incite others via the internet, given how she's acted during the occupation I think it's totally justified to suggest that it may be possible for her to incite others and that this should probably preclude her from being granted bail
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 21:23
|
|
|
Goodpancakes posted:I would guess that though you may argue that it is terrorism it may not apply if it's not a part of the offical charge. That would still be domestic terrorism, which isn't mentioned in the bail statutes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 21:24
|
|
|
botany posted:No, actually non of that sounds "right on target", seeing as occupying is not the same as destroying, and "terrorism transcending national boundaries" actually has to transcend national boundaries. You don't know what you're talking about bud. Here https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2332b
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 21:24
|
|
|
Not dealing with the rest of it, but sov cits (which sandy probably isn't anyhow) almost always come to court. I thin part of it is because they recognize they made an agreement with the court in exchange for release (those that refuse don't get released) and partially they think their mumbo jumbo with get them out of it plus a few million dollars.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 21:25
|
|
|
RiotGearEpsilon posted:What structure, conveyance, or other real/personal property did she actually or conspire to destroy or damage? Do you not remember ripping up the ground with a front-end loader on top of trashing the buildings?
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 21:25
|
|
|
During the first morning after Finicum was shot and the remaining occupiers were leaving/talking about where the Navy SEALs should go, Sandy on the live feed said multiple times that she would reload magazines as the others shot at the FBI and multiple times asked which bullets worked in her gun. She's not innocent of anything.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 21:25
|
|
|
botany posted:No, actually non of that sounds "right on target", seeing as occupying is not the same as destroying, and "terrorism transcending national boundaries" actually has to transcend national boundaries. The threats to the lives of any law enforcement who attempted to arrest them should be viewed as posing a danger to the community under b.).
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 21:26
|
|
|
Aesop Poprock posted:They wrecked the hell out of the refuge. Regardless, it was probably referring to acts of destruction that result in immediate lose of life or injuries. The part about failure to show up to court or possibility of committing another crime (although I'd lean much further towards the first than the second) part is more than enough, and what we've been discussing for this entire conversation so I'm not sure why I'd have to clarify that again after posting about it for days That's exactly why I posted the law excerpt - if you want to put her in pre-trial detention, you have to argue that no possible combination of ankle bracelets, DNA swabs, mandatory check-ins with bail agents or even supervised housing will be enough to remove the reasonable suspicion that she will not appear. That is what you have to argue, simply saying "she probably doesn't want to" is not enough. That is what I want to hear from you.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 21:27
|
|
|
Aesop Poprock posted:You don't know what you're talking about bud. Here Be specific. Here, I'll start: quote:(g)Definitions.—As used in this section—
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 21:28
|
|
|
Aesop Poprock posted:Uh it's nice of you to specifically state that c. doesn't apply at all, but why not? Here's what part of "terrorism transcending national boundaries" pertains to: Because it only applies to crimes that the accused is actually being charged with, and she's not being charged with that crime. I'm sure this will spark some inane pages-long argument about how they're clearly getting off light because of that and if they were black they totally would been charged with super ultra terrorism and executed on the spot, though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 21:32
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:The threats to the lives of any law enforcement who attempted to arrest them should be viewed as posing a danger to the community under b.). Those threats occurred before the arrest, you have to show she'll be a danger afterwards. Again, the question is not what she did but what she is likely to do. If you think that she is absolutely likely to start shooting up a police station or mail pipe bombs to Quantico, that's fine, that's a reason to deny her bail. I don't think that's likely however.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 21:33
|
|
|
botany posted:Be specific. Here, I'll start: I interpreted that was meaning it includes both origins of an act of terrorism, not just international. Hence the transcending part. Could be wrong quote:18 U.S.C. 2332b(g). Acts of terrorism transcending national But that seems to fit exactly what they were doing
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 21:34
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Because it only applies to crimes that the accused is actually being charged with, and she's not being charged with that crime. I'm sure this will spark some inane pages-long argument about how they're clearly getting off light because of that and if they were black they totally would been charged with super ultra terrorism and executed on the spot, though. Not really, they're not being charged with it so I said it doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things when A. And B. Already cover it. I'm just saying it looks like it could've been applied to them from what I'm seeing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 21:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 06:51 |
|
|
Aesop Poprock posted:I interpreted that was meaning it includes both origins of an act of terrorism, not just international. Hence the transcending part. Could be wrong You're wrong, domestic terrorism is a different part of the statute, and the bail text refers explicitly to terrorism transcending national boundaries.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 21:35
|
|