4 ms·

Just to be clear, he was charged with a single firearms offense, and is presumed innocent of that. If other charges appear then they should be discussed. >do y

Just to be clear, he was charged with a single firearms offense, and is presumed innocent of that. If other charges appear then they should be discussed. >do you think that nothing about the pipe bombs, etc., was criminal? Seems like the FBI don't, for now. Just like when someone is reported as having "an encrypted messing app" - fear mongering nonsense.

bdangubic 2y ago
[flagged]
neilv 2y ago
> If other charges appear then they should be discussed. The HN post is on the news story. The news story is not a trial, and is about more than whatever charges are filed against anyone thus far. Other aspects of the story are already in active discussion. I'm trying to get at more substantial discussion than on Twitter, by understanding why someone was speaking the way they were, by asking them. > Seems like the FBI don't, for now. Does it actually seem like that, or does it seem like probably the FBI expects that there will probably be additional charges?
- simoncion 2y ago
  > I'm trying to get at more substantial discussion than on Twitter, by understanding why someone was speaking the way they were, by asking them. You said: > The allegation is that this person made a veritable arsenal of pipe bombs and other explosives, with plausible domestic terrorism intent or inclinations. > The Second Amendment technicality you mention might come up in a legal defense, but I don't understand fixating on that as "the real criminal" here -- on a story of securing a very dangerous-sounding cache of pipe bombs, mishandled explosive material, etc. Your slant there is that this fellow's possession of explosives was illegal... or maybe SHOULD have been. If it was even vaguely-plausibly illegal, the fellow would have been charged. The cops searched his entire place and detonated some of his explosives, so it's not like the cops were unaware of the explosives. As mentioned in this thread [0] (and accompanying subthread), he's just being charged with a tax violation (and is currently out on bail) probably because possession of high explosives is usually entirely legal in the US. Frankly, it should be illegal for police and other similar government agents to engage in character assassination. Statements from government agents like "This fellow was in possession of large-but-entirely-legal quantities of entirely-legal substances and materials. Be very afraid!" should absolutely leave the speaker personally liable for something akin to libel. [0] <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42562969 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42562969>
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
lazide 2y ago
Nah, they’re holding him on the super easy to prove felony while they see if they can nail him on a bunch of other things.
- giantg2 2y ago
  They aren't really holding him. He's out on bail, right?
  - lazide 2y ago
    Despite everything they’ve been saying (this was all in the court filings to try to deny him bail), he did still end up getting released on bond. So it wasn’t enough. or the evidence they provided wasn’t credible.
    - ganoushoreilly 2y ago
      Which should also be a red flag, if this individual was a credible threat they wouldn't have granted bail. I can't even imagine the headlines that some of my neighbors would have "Man with Arsenal and stockpile of thousands of rounds of ammunition" presented in a slant. Meanwhile he had a few buckets of 22lr, and a half dozen rifles. Given the evidence we've seen, the memes, and what would clearly pass as joking, there isn't really any "Here's my plan for x date" type smoking gun.

bdangubic 2y ago

[flagged]

neilv 2y ago

> If other charges appear then they should be discussed. The HN post is on the news story. The news story is not a trial, and is about more than whatever charges are filed against anyone thus far. Other aspects of the story are already in active discussion. I'm trying to get at more substantial discussion than on Twitter, by understanding why someone was speaking the way they were, by asking them. > Seems like the FBI don't, for now. Does it actually seem like that, or does it seem like probably the FBI expects that there will probably be additional charges?

simoncion 2y ago
> I'm trying to get at more substantial discussion than on Twitter, by understanding why someone was speaking the way they were, by asking them. You said: > The allegation is that this person made a veritable arsenal of pipe bombs and other explosives, with plausible domestic terrorism intent or inclinations. > The Second Amendment technicality you mention might come up in a legal defense, but I don't understand fixating on that as "the real criminal" here -- on a story of securing a very dangerous-sounding cache of pipe bombs, mishandled explosive material, etc. Your slant there is that this fellow's possession of explosives was illegal... or maybe SHOULD have been. If it was even vaguely-plausibly illegal, the fellow would have been charged. The cops searched his entire place and detonated some of his explosives, so it's not like the cops were unaware of the explosives. As mentioned in this thread [0] (and accompanying subthread), he's just being charged with a tax violation (and is currently out on bail) probably because possession of high explosives is usually entirely legal in the US. Frankly, it should be illegal for police and other similar government agents to engage in character assassination. Statements from government agents like "This fellow was in possession of large-but-entirely-legal quantities of entirely-legal substances and materials. Be very afraid!" should absolutely leave the speaker personally liable for something akin to libel. [0] <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42562969 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42562969>

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

lazide 2y ago

Nah, they’re holding him on the super easy to prove felony while they see if they can nail him on a bunch of other things.

giantg2 2y ago
They aren't really holding him. He's out on bail, right?
- lazide 2y ago
  Despite everything they’ve been saying (this was all in the court filings to try to deny him bail), he did still end up getting released on bond. So it wasn’t enough. or the evidence they provided wasn’t credible.
  - ganoushoreilly 2y ago
    Which should also be a red flag, if this individual was a credible threat they wouldn't have granted bail. I can't even imagine the headlines that some of my neighbors would have "Man with Arsenal and stockpile of thousands of rounds of ammunition" presented in a slant. Meanwhile he had a few buckets of 22lr, and a half dozen rifles. Given the evidence we've seen, the memes, and what would clearly pass as joking, there isn't really any "Here's my plan for x date" type smoking gun.