Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

American Joe brings down Terrorist Cell

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • American Joe brings down Terrorist Cell

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/ex...cid=spartandhp

    I found this fairly interesting. Thank goodness it was stopped.
    Conservatives in the U.S. won't be happy until Jim Crow returns and "White Heterosexual Only" signs are legalized.

  • #2
    Originally posted by Anthrax View Post
    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/ex...cid=spartandhp

    I found this fairly interesting. Thank goodness it was stopped.
    I found the title interesting and I was wondering why nobody posted anyhting here. So, I clicked the link and started reading...

    WICHITA, Kan. ― Three anti-Muslim domestic terrorists who plotted to blow up a Garden City apartment complex where many Somali Muslim immigrants lived wereconvicted on Wednesday on federal charges that could send them to prison for life. Five weeks into the trial, jurors deliberated for less than a full day before finding Kansas militiamen Patrick Stein, Curtis Allen and Gavin Wright guilty on all charges.

    But it wasn’t just the trio on trial.

    So too was Dan Day, the FBI informant whose hours of recordings ― which featured vile discussions of planned violence against Muslims, who the men called “cockroaches” ― were the centerpiece of the federal government’s case against a group that dubbed themselves “The Crusaders.”
    So, I got the answer....

    At least they were more inventive with the use of disparaging words. "Cockroaches" is a better insult than "thugs" and "miscreants"

    Let me guess... Were some of them racist former LEOs?
    My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

    Comment


    • #3
      I don't know enough about the yahoo's he turned in, but what's in the article says they were some half-drunk dorks talking smack. Is there any physical evidence they had anything close to the means to carry out what they were saying?

      It wouldn't be the first time the FBI (or some other federal law enforcement agency) arrested guys on flimsy evidence knowing full well they were too stupid and poor to be able to do anything except take the plea deal. When I read that article, that's the first thing that came to mind here.

      Dude ratted them out for a hefty payday, the FBI was more than happy to arrest them, and their PD is more interested in getting paid than putting up a reasonable defense, while they're too stupid to recognize they got set up for talking BS about stuff they could never do because they didn't have a clue how to actually do it.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
        I don't know enough about the yahoo's he turned in, but what's in the article says they were some half-drunk dorks talking smack. Is there any physical evidence they had anything close to the means to carry out what they were saying?

        It wouldn't be the first time the FBI (or some other federal law enforcement agency) arrested guys on flimsy evidence knowing full well they were too stupid and poor to be able to do anything except take the plea deal. When I read that article, that's the first thing that came to mind here.

        Dude ratted them out for a hefty payday, the FBI was more than happy to arrest them, and their PD is more interested in getting paid than putting up a reasonable defense, while they're too stupid to recognize they got set up for talking BS about stuff they could never do because they didn't have a clue how to actually do it.
        The conviction by the jury does not count? Or are we going to argue in this thread that we should not accept the conviction as being a fair decision?
        Perhaps it was an FBI conspiracy or the Kansas jurors were queers...?
        My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by pamak View Post
          The conviction by the jury does not count? Or are we going to argue in this thread that we should not accept the conviction as being a fair decision?
          Perhaps it was an FBI conspiracy or the Kansas jurors were queers...?
          Nope. I've read way too many actual case files to know different. The feds have unlimited resources for all intents and come in with all sorts of stuff to make sure they get a conviction. The defense is limited on funds, or has next to none, the public defender the defense gets has no way to refute "expert" testimony, so the accused almost always loses in federal court.

          I'm not saying the jury made a mistake. I'm saying it's more than possible, and even probable, that the defendants were railroaded into a conviction and the jury was played by the prosecution into convicting them.

          Usually, these cases go to a plea deal because the defendants are scared by the time they could get from a jury trial. My bet is they really thought the charges were BS compared to their view of the situation and that they stood a chance with a jury.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
            Nope. I've read way too many actual case files to know different. The feds have unlimited resources for all intents and come in with all sorts of stuff to make sure they get a conviction. The defense is limited on funds, or has next to none, the public defender the defense gets has no way to refute "expert" testimony, so the accused almost always loses in federal court.

            I'm not saying the jury made a mistake. I'm saying it's more than possible, and even probable, that the defendants were railroaded into a conviction and the jury was played by the prosecution into convicting them.

            Usually, these cases go to a plea deal because the defendants are scared by the time they could get from a jury trial. My bet is they really thought the charges were BS compared to their view of the situation and that they stood a chance with a jury.
            If you have to go with a public defender, take a plea or rat someone else out.

            I would like to see a study done of inmates at both Federal and state levels: what percentage had PDs?

            Having a private lawyer is no sure ticket, but it gives a fighting chance.

            The Casey Anthony trial is a poster child for this: defense lawyer on his first murder trial beats a prosecutor with over twenty murder convictions to his credit.

            I spent hours watching that trial.
            Last edited by Arnold J Rimmer; 21 Apr 18, 04:13.
            Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
              Nope. I've read way too many actual case files to know different. The feds have unlimited resources for all intents and come in with all sorts of stuff to make sure they get a conviction. The defense is limited on funds, or has next to none, the public defender the defense gets has no way to refute "expert" testimony, so the accused almost always loses in federal court.

              I'm not saying the jury made a mistake. I'm saying it's more than possible, and even probable, that the defendants were railroaded into a conviction and the jury was played by the prosecution into convicting them.

              Usually, these cases go to a plea deal because the defendants are scared by the time they could get from a jury trial. My bet is they really thought the charges were BS compared to their view of the situation and that they stood a chance with a jury.
              Got it!

              Of course, when the jury acquits Zimmerman or the police shooters who kill suspects, then there is not a lot of suspicion regarding the role of the prosecutors or of the establishment in how it dealt with the case...

              And why would Session's FBI try to incriminate some stupid and poor (according to your expression) rednecks? After all according to what I have learned in this forum, it is the blacks who are stupid and poor... So, if somebody is prone to receive the law enforcement's abuse it is this group. This is why many more blacks are in prison...
              My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by pamak View Post
                Got it!

                Of course, when the jury acquits Zimmerman or the police shooters who kill suspects, then there is not a lot of suspicion regarding the role of the prosecutors or of the establishment in how it dealt with the case...

                And why would Session's FBI try to incriminate some stupid and poor (according t your expression) rednecks? After all according to what I have learned in this forum, it is the blacks who are stupid and poor... S, i somebody is prone to receive the law enforcement's abuse it is this group. This is why many of them are in prison...
                I've read cases where the defendant was unemployed, without means, and somehow was making five digit dope deals to which he rode his bicycle. All the feds had was tapes of phone conversations, that sort of thing.

                Or, the guy talking smack in a dive bar in Vegas who wanted to blow up the casino that had just fired him from his janitor job. That was the ATF.

                There are lots of those to be had. It isn't "Session's FBI" at work here. It's some agent at a field office that's looking to pad his resume.

                When your chief witness is a paid ($30,000+) in this case informant, what do you expect? This isn't about the three guys in this case per se. I don't know enough about their case to be sure, but it sure smells of set up to get an arrest and conviction to me.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                  I've read cases where the defendant was unemployed, without means, and somehow was making five digit dope deals to which he rode his bicycle. All the feds had was tapes of phone conversations, that sort of thing.

                  Or, the guy talking smack in a dive bar in Vegas who wanted to blow up the casino that had just fired him from his janitor job. That was the ATF.

                  There are lots of those to be had. It isn't "Session's FBI" at work here. It's some agent at a field office that's looking to pad his resume.

                  When your chief witness is a paid ($30,000+) in this case informant, what do you expect? This isn't about the three guys in this case per se. I don't know enough about their case to be sure, but it sure smells of set up to get an arrest and conviction to me.


                  I doubt you even know where to find ALL the relevant paperwork for any particular case. On top of this, you give some descriptions which can very well apply to the many cases when the police has cornered a poor and stupid (according to your words) black guy. You just made the perfect BLM argument for the institutional racism within the US and the Law Enforcement Community. And by the way, based on my personal experience, I can easily see how very few real racist pigs within the police force can take advantage of the silent majority to push their agenda without much resistance. on poor black "thugs" with or without prior criminal record

                  Still the jury in this case does not have a stake, so if evidence was flimsy they would be reluctant to convict the defenders in order to promote multiculturalism and Somali immigration. Kansas is not California...
                  Last edited by pamak; 21 Apr 18, 04:49.
                  My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                    Nope. I've read way too many actual case files to know different. The feds have unlimited resources for all intents and come in with all sorts of stuff to make sure they get a conviction. The defense is limited on funds, or has next to none, the public defender the defense gets has no way to refute "expert" testimony, so the accused almost always loses in federal court.

                    I'm not saying the jury made a mistake. I'm saying it's more than possible, and even probable, that the defendants were railroaded into a conviction and the jury was played by the prosecution into convicting them.

                    Usually, these cases go to a plea deal because the defendants are scared by the time they could get from a jury trial. My bet is they really thought the charges were BS compared to their view of the situation and that they stood a chance with a jury.
                    Yes, the Feds have resources, but they are crippled by a strangling bureaucratic superstructure and the need to avoid embarrassing just about anybody in the world. Can't offend foreign nations with the "T" word, can't offend the Democrats and can barely hand out parking tickets without screwing it all up irreparably.

                    The ACLU will laugh all the way to the bank after using a First Amendment defense in which anyone can say anything they like in America, including threats to overthrow the government. Remember, the Feds carry the entire weight of burden of proof.
                    Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by pamak View Post
                      I doubt you even know where to find ALL the relevant paperwork for any particular case. On top of this, you give some descriptions which can very well apply to the many cases when the police has cornered a poor and stupid (according to your words) black guy. You just made the perfect BLM argument for the institutional racism within the US and the Law Enforcement Community. And by the way, based on my personal experience, I can easily see how very few real racist pigs within the police force can take advantage of the silent majority to push their agenda without much resistance. on poor black "thugs" with or without prior criminal record

                      Still the jury in this case does not have a stake, so if evidence was flimsy they would be reluctant to convict the defenders in order to promote multiculturalism and Somali immigration. Kansas is not California...
                      Past employment allowed me access to thousands of case files over the years. Reading the minute entries for their trial and the PSI (Pre-Sentencing Investigation) was often quite interesting not to mention sometimes hilarious.

                      From what I saw, race was rarely the motivator. It was conviction rates, padding one's resume for promotion, and finding patsies that could easily be convicted that often drove federal agents to pursue someone. That way they could justify their own job and get promoted to make more money.
                      These were people who knew the system and how to manipulate it. It could also be politically motivated from above. That is, the new political heads of an agency start pushing a policy to nail militia groups (Clinton did this), or drug dealers (like on crack dealers), or civil rights violations (Holder DoJ), or whatever, and that trickles down to the field agents who then start looking for people to persecute for that particular crime de jour.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                        Past employment allowed me access to thousands of case files over the years. Reading the minute entries for their trial and the PSI (Pre-Sentencing Investigation) was often quite interesting not to mention sometimes hilarious.

                        From what I saw, race was rarely the motivator. It was conviction rates, padding one's resume for promotion, and finding patsies that could easily be convicted that often drove federal agents to pursue someone. That way they could justify their own job and get promoted to make more money.
                        These were people who knew the system and how to manipulate it. It could also be politically motivated from above. That is, the new political heads of an agency start pushing a policy to nail militia groups (Clinton did this), or drug dealers (like on crack dealers), or civil rights violations (Holder DoJ), or whatever, and that trickles down to the field agents who then start looking for people to persecute for that particular crime de jour.
                        So you figured that based on the minutes you read? Really? And I thought your background was related to maintenance and statistics. Did you also work as a lawyer or judge or legal stenographer?

                        Of course successful prosecutors will use their success rates in their resume, but I am surprised that you are suspicious of their methods only when you deal with white militia men convicted for attempted to demolish a building complex with Somali Muslim immigrants but not when blacks go to prison for drugs. In addition, as I said, in this case you also need to explain how the flimsy evidence convinced the jury. And you know that defense lawyers have a lot of leeway in selecting this jury. Did they let immigration activist get all the positions?

                        PS Can you refresh my memory regarding if it was you who said in this forum something to the effect that we should not have the first amendment to protect the Muslim Americans?
                        Last edited by pamak; 21 Apr 18, 13:46.
                        My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                        Comment


                        • #13

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I have no problem to accept a non-expert's claim as long as he provides his sources. Using your claim that you have some type of personal experience does not count because... guess what?

                            You were not and are not expert.
                            Plus, I d not trust your reading comprehension skills to read between the lines...

                            And you did not answer my question if it was you who said that the first amendment should not protect the Muslim Americans. With all this bigotry around, I have lost count of who said what...
                            My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by pamak View Post
                              I have no problem to accept a non-expert's claim as long as he provides his sources. Using your claim that you have some type of personal experience does not count because... guess what?

                              You were not and are not expert.
                              Plus, I d not trust your reading comprehension skills to read between the lines...

                              And you did not answer my question if it was you who said that the first amendment should not protect the Muslim Americans. With all this bigotry around, I have lost count of who said what...
                              I was a VT teacher at a federal prison for almost two decades. I also held other technical positions at the same. Since their practice is "everyone is a guard first" (sort of like Marines all being infantry) I sometimes had to do that too. I had access to NCIC, on-line inmate data files, as well as their "jacket" kept in their housing unit.

                              Sometimes after they were naughty like a riot or whatever, I had days on end to read their files, and did. I also read the ones on my students regularly just to know what kind of crazy and dangerous they might be.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X