17 ms·

If this guy went on a terror rampage and it later emerged that he had spent years stockpiling bombs and obsessing over weapons, there would be a chorus of “why

by jl6 2y ago

If this guy went on a terror rampage and it later emerged that he had spent years stockpiling bombs and obsessing over weapons, there would be a chorus of “why didn’t someone intervene earlier?” and “of course the guy was dangerous”. Hindsight makes it easy, but before the fact it’s difficult to judge where to place the line between non-criminal eccentricity and imminent threat.

black_13 2y ago
[dead]
jmathai 2y ago
From the article, there seemed to be evidence of mental instability and propensity towards violence. I don’t know the line but it seems this would obviously warrant investigation regardless of if this person broke a law. I say that as someone who believes in limited government.
- bloomingeek 2y ago
  Your point, to me, is well taken. I can't imagine being a neighbor of this man when he suddenly snapped and went on a rampage. Some might argue who knows if he would have ever snapped, that's all well and good if you're not living near him. Is it fair of my neighbor to instill fear in his fellow neighbors? What if his stash was kept secret for decades, are all those bombs good for the neighborhood? What if he dies and then his stash is discovered in some kind of explosive event?
  - oceanplexian 2y ago
    There are probably lots of people doing exactly that, who are running meth labs or dealing drugs like Fentanyl with minimal scrutiny from federal law enforcement. However, instead of going after those criminals, the FBI has placed its focus on sending a SWAT team to arrest someone who downloaded the wrong 3D print file or ordered a spicy plastic gun accessory on the Internet. That’s a disingenuous application of the law by people who have an agenda, not an approach that’s actually intended to reduce harm.
    - trehalose 2y ago
      The article implies that the FBI was aware of his large collection of extremely dangerous explosives at the time they arrested him. It doesn't mention a SWAT team, but I'll take your word for that, but do note that there had to be a bomb disposal team because some of the bombs were too sensitive to remove and had to be exploded on-site.
    - thinkcontext 2y ago
      > There are probably lots of people doing exactly that, who are running meth labs or dealing drugs like Fentanyl with minimal scrutiny from federal law enforcement. Why do you think the fbi is giving a pass to drugs? There's ample evidence that they devote a lot of resources to it.
    - bloomingeek 2y ago
      Your reply to my reply has nothing to do with what I said! I suspect yours has a veiled political/2nd amendment agenda. Again, and please read this slowly, to be a decent, caring, good neighbor is not to have them worried about what you're building in your garage. Your reply cares nothing if one of his kids or neighborhood playmates happens upon one of his bombs that could lead to a potential explosion.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
epolanski 2y ago
Meanwhile half the internet and some comments here are "what is he being charged for? He did nothing".
- giantg2 2y ago
  That's to be expected in this community. There are more libertarian views on here due to the DIY and inquisitive nature of the hacker community. In a large way, the intended use or application of dangerous things are considered a more important point on here because many of us know the damage a person can cause with common things that have legitimate purposes (certain computer software). I'm generally on the side of intended use mattering more than mere possession of things. However, it seems there may be evidence in this case of violent intentions and destructive devices intended to kill. The comments about the SBR are mostly based on the mental contortions one must do to say an SBR is somehow more dangerous than a braced pistol (even if one is clearly illegal and the other is legal, the question is why).
  - ethbr1 2y ago
    The issue, from a public safety and law enforcement perspective, is that intent is mostly a post-hoc construction. Whereas possession can be judged before an act occurs. If the US intends to stick to the freedom-first philosophy with regards to possession, then it would behoove everyone to have a more nuanced legal view of intent. E.g. graduated escalating consequences for 'Making threats and remarks of a violent nature' to 'Taking actions that indicate preparation for violent action' etc. Like you, I think if people want to mess around with homemade explosives, and they have enough land to do so, then that's their business. BUT! There should also be a pattern of behavior, evidence, and witnessed statements where we say 'This particular individual has ceded the right to access dangerous things.' So essentially being able to charge and convict someone (with due process) of 'violent intent', with no financial or incarceration penalties, but temporary addition (5 year?) to lists that preclude their being able to access dangerous material (guns, explosives, etc). Of course, the NRA has historically been the biggest lobbyist blocker to anything of that nature, given their paranoia that any legal government consequences will spiral into a panopticon. Unfortunately, that view doesn't solve the fact that there are very troubled individuals out there, and we'd all be able to be afforded greater freedom if we did a better job in managing those particular people's access to lethal things.
oliwarner 2y ago
> there would be a chorus The problem of listening and reacting to public outbursts is that there are enough people on all sides of this that there'll be an outburst whatever happens. The Algorithm makes us a pile of hyper-reactionary babies.
- llamaimperative 2y ago
  Eh, this is true but not really relevant to the claim here. If the FBI had all this information and didn't act on it, then he e.g. went into a tower and murdered dozens of people in the street, there is not going to be a substantial number of people saying "oh well ya know they didn't have a basis to intervene when they were first informed of his 1) probably-illegal firearms, 2) extreme violent views and 3) growing stockpile of explosives."
  - ethbr1 2y ago
    Lots of Americans don't understand legal due process. Especially the ones who watch hyper-partisan news.
  - oliwarner 2y ago
    The comment seemed to be about when it was right to ignore Constitutional Rights, giving two examples of people noisily pushing for that. There will always be people noisily complaining because that's what we amplify these days. I personally don't think there's enough public consultation on rights. For some reason America relies on an increasingly political supreme court to set those boundaries rather than what The People actually want. And all of this is entirely impossible to derive from online conduct because it's just wall-to-wall strife, disagreement and suffering. A system continuously telling us to be angry with other people, rather than how to enjoy these short, little lives we have. Weird if you ask me.
    - llamaimperative 2y ago
      The comment did not say that. The comment said that people would have perceived it as certain evidence of an impending attack and a clear security failure. All of that is absolutely, obviously true.
declan_roberts 2y ago
The problem is that his arsenal is hardly any more dangerous than driving a 6,500 lb truck into a crowd during a celebration. The people who want to harm our country don't seem to have any difficulty doing it.
- ben_w 2y ago
  > The people who want to harm our country don't seem to have any difficulty doing it. We see the examples of successful attempts at harm, most of us don't pay much attention to the failed attempts, which makes it difficult to draw conclusions about how hard it go from "attempted harm" to "actual harm".
- gilleain 2y ago
  Really? >Investigators also found hexamethylene triperoxide diamine, which the agency described as “an explosive material that is so unstable it can be exploded merely as a result of friction or temperature changes.” I mean, I don't even have to look that chemical up to see that it is explosive. Actually looking at it, it's a cage of nitrogens and peroxides. Cricky. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hexamethylene_triperoxide_diamine https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hexamethylene_triperoxide_di... >Cases of detonation caused by the simple act of screwing a lid on a jar containing HMTD have been reported
- Retric 2y ago
  It seems likely you could do far more harm with 150 finished explosive devices than driving a truck through a crowd. There’s many examples of people driving into dense crowds and the death totals are rarely in the double digits. Ex: 5 dead 235 injured https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Magdeburg_car_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Magdeburg_car_attack Though obviously the amount of explosives per device is going to modify the risk profile.
  - AnarchismIsCool 2y ago
    They're pipe bombs so quite low yield. They're typically based on smokeless powder so they're "low explosives" meaning they don't really detonate, they deflagrate at below the speed of sound.
pjc50 2y ago
America sits on a weird knife edge where there's (a) lots of talk about political violence, which is constitutionally protected and (b) lots of stockpiling of weapons, which is constitutionally protected, and (c) lots of routine mass murder incidents, which follow logically from (a) and (b) .. BUT .. apart from Jan 6 and a few milita incidents, nobody ever combines these three into politically targeted violence. The mass murders are always either strangers, workplace, or schoolchildren. Politically motivated, but not targeted at any kind of power structure. It's been a long time since the Unabomber. All the elements are in place for a really serious deterioration of civil safety, but so far the glue is holding.
- mitthrowaway2 2y ago
  Weren't there at least two high profile presidential candidate assassination attempts in 2024?
  - pjc50 2y ago
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryan_Wesley_Routh https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryan_Wesley_Routh https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Matthew_Crooks https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Matthew_Crooks Indeed. But since they're right wing guys attacking Trump, it seems to have faded from the conversation. Also they failed.
- sadboi31 2y ago
  Yeah they do. Check out the 764 cult + project gladio. Lots of assassinations towards left-leaning folks. Atleast two such cases recorded on forensic architecture of murders of hacktivists going unchecked after quiet obviously being staged by intelligence agencies. One in Germany and one at a BLM event. I wont speak more on it here but I can think of atleast 6 people i've known closely who've just gone completely dark online + in their community after anti-govt organization. I assume they're dead.
- ganoushoreilly 2y ago
  n your (a), (b), and (c) list, you imply that (c) — routine mass murders — connects directly to (a) (talk of political violence) and (b) (stockpiling weapons). However, the examples you give, like Jan. 6 or militia incidents, don’t align with your routine mass murders implication. You could imply unrest for sure and I wholly agree that subsets could even be targeted violence, but that's not unique to either of your examples. The elements will always be in place for disturbed individuals, just look at the number of "Cars running over crowds" stories, such as yesterday in New Orleans. The question and premise for a lot of the battles are, do we take away rights or abilities of those that won't do it, on the off chance that someone could? Clear laws, enforced consistently would help a lot here. I would also posit, though not likely a popular opinion, there are people that cannot be a part of a functioning society and we have to collectively agree on that. We need to bring back functioning mental health facilities for long term care and accept that some people will be placed here and not leave.
onlyrealcuzzo 2y ago
Does anyone have a problem if I start stockpiling smallpox and nuclear bombs? Where do we draw the line of ridiculousness?
- rickandmortyy 2y ago
  [dead]
Stevvo 2y ago
"it’s difficult to judge where to place the line between non-criminal eccentricity and imminent threat." Fortunately, this guy commited over 150 crimes. Bail was denied. We can lock him up and throw away the key. It really doesn't matter if he were to be an imminent threat or not.
- devops99 2y ago
  Who is the injured party?
  - Stevvo 2y ago
    The terrorized neighbors who called the cops on him, and the accused himself evidenced by the 3 fingers he blew off in an explosion.
    - devops99 2y ago
      Did Spafford threaten the neighbors directly? In a legal context, and also the real world sans a legal context, words do have meaning and words do matter. I don't see anything in the article that Spafford terrorized anyone. Whether Spafford intended to terrorize anyone in the future is another matter, and a matter of legitimate and serious concern. But we must not confuse this with "terrorized" (past tense) if we are going to discuss the matter in a sane and sober way.

by jl6 2y ago

black_13 2y ago

[dead]

jmathai 2y ago

From the article, there seemed to be evidence of mental instability and propensity towards violence. I don’t know the line but it seems this would obviously warrant investigation regardless of if this person broke a law. I say that as someone who believes in limited government.

bloomingeek 2y ago
Your point, to me, is well taken. I can't imagine being a neighbor of this man when he suddenly snapped and went on a rampage. Some might argue who knows if he would have ever snapped, that's all well and good if you're not living near him. Is it fair of my neighbor to instill fear in his fellow neighbors? What if his stash was kept secret for decades, are all those bombs good for the neighborhood? What if he dies and then his stash is discovered in some kind of explosive event?
- oceanplexian 2y ago
  There are probably lots of people doing exactly that, who are running meth labs or dealing drugs like Fentanyl with minimal scrutiny from federal law enforcement. However, instead of going after those criminals, the FBI has placed its focus on sending a SWAT team to arrest someone who downloaded the wrong 3D print file or ordered a spicy plastic gun accessory on the Internet. That’s a disingenuous application of the law by people who have an agenda, not an approach that’s actually intended to reduce harm.
  - trehalose 2y ago
    The article implies that the FBI was aware of his large collection of extremely dangerous explosives at the time they arrested him. It doesn't mention a SWAT team, but I'll take your word for that, but do note that there had to be a bomb disposal team because some of the bombs were too sensitive to remove and had to be exploded on-site.
  - thinkcontext 2y ago
    > There are probably lots of people doing exactly that, who are running meth labs or dealing drugs like Fentanyl with minimal scrutiny from federal law enforcement. Why do you think the fbi is giving a pass to drugs? There's ample evidence that they devote a lot of resources to it.
  - bloomingeek 2y ago
    Your reply to my reply has nothing to do with what I said! I suspect yours has a veiled political/2nd amendment agenda. Again, and please read this slowly, to be a decent, caring, good neighbor is not to have them worried about what you're building in your garage. Your reply cares nothing if one of his kids or neighborhood playmates happens upon one of his bombs that could lead to a potential explosion.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]

epolanski 2y ago

Meanwhile half the internet and some comments here are "what is he being charged for? He did nothing".

giantg2 2y ago
That's to be expected in this community. There are more libertarian views on here due to the DIY and inquisitive nature of the hacker community. In a large way, the intended use or application of dangerous things are considered a more important point on here because many of us know the damage a person can cause with common things that have legitimate purposes (certain computer software). I'm generally on the side of intended use mattering more than mere possession of things. However, it seems there may be evidence in this case of violent intentions and destructive devices intended to kill. The comments about the SBR are mostly based on the mental contortions one must do to say an SBR is somehow more dangerous than a braced pistol (even if one is clearly illegal and the other is legal, the question is why).
- ethbr1 2y ago
  The issue, from a public safety and law enforcement perspective, is that intent is mostly a post-hoc construction. Whereas possession can be judged before an act occurs. If the US intends to stick to the freedom-first philosophy with regards to possession, then it would behoove everyone to have a more nuanced legal view of intent. E.g. graduated escalating consequences for 'Making threats and remarks of a violent nature' to 'Taking actions that indicate preparation for violent action' etc. Like you, I think if people want to mess around with homemade explosives, and they have enough land to do so, then that's their business. BUT! There should also be a pattern of behavior, evidence, and witnessed statements where we say 'This particular individual has ceded the right to access dangerous things.' So essentially being able to charge and convict someone (with due process) of 'violent intent', with no financial or incarceration penalties, but temporary addition (5 year?) to lists that preclude their being able to access dangerous material (guns, explosives, etc). Of course, the NRA has historically been the biggest lobbyist blocker to anything of that nature, given their paranoia that any legal government consequences will spiral into a panopticon. Unfortunately, that view doesn't solve the fact that there are very troubled individuals out there, and we'd all be able to be afforded greater freedom if we did a better job in managing those particular people's access to lethal things.

oliwarner 2y ago

> there would be a chorus The problem of listening and reacting to public outbursts is that there are enough people on all sides of this that there'll be an outburst whatever happens. The Algorithm makes us a pile of hyper-reactionary babies.

llamaimperative 2y ago
Eh, this is true but not really relevant to the claim here. If the FBI had all this information and didn't act on it, then he e.g. went into a tower and murdered dozens of people in the street, there is not going to be a substantial number of people saying "oh well ya know they didn't have a basis to intervene when they were first informed of his 1) probably-illegal firearms, 2) extreme violent views and 3) growing stockpile of explosives."
- ethbr1 2y ago
  Lots of Americans don't understand legal due process. Especially the ones who watch hyper-partisan news.
- oliwarner 2y ago
  The comment seemed to be about when it was right to ignore Constitutional Rights, giving two examples of people noisily pushing for that. There will always be people noisily complaining because that's what we amplify these days. I personally don't think there's enough public consultation on rights. For some reason America relies on an increasingly political supreme court to set those boundaries rather than what The People actually want. And all of this is entirely impossible to derive from online conduct because it's just wall-to-wall strife, disagreement and suffering. A system continuously telling us to be angry with other people, rather than how to enjoy these short, little lives we have. Weird if you ask me.
  - llamaimperative 2y ago
    The comment did not say that. The comment said that people would have perceived it as certain evidence of an impending attack and a clear security failure. All of that is absolutely, obviously true.

declan_roberts 2y ago

The problem is that his arsenal is hardly any more dangerous than driving a 6,500 lb truck into a crowd during a celebration. The people who want to harm our country don't seem to have any difficulty doing it.

ben_w 2y ago
> The people who want to harm our country don't seem to have any difficulty doing it. We see the examples of successful attempts at harm, most of us don't pay much attention to the failed attempts, which makes it difficult to draw conclusions about how hard it go from "attempted harm" to "actual harm".
gilleain 2y ago
Really? >Investigators also found hexamethylene triperoxide diamine, which the agency described as “an explosive material that is so unstable it can be exploded merely as a result of friction or temperature changes.” I mean, I don't even have to look that chemical up to see that it is explosive. Actually looking at it, it's a cage of nitrogens and peroxides. Cricky. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hexamethylene_triperoxide_diamine https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hexamethylene_triperoxide_di... >Cases of detonation caused by the simple act of screwing a lid on a jar containing HMTD have been reported
Retric 2y ago
It seems likely you could do far more harm with 150 finished explosive devices than driving a truck through a crowd. There’s many examples of people driving into dense crowds and the death totals are rarely in the double digits. Ex: 5 dead 235 injured https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Magdeburg_car_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Magdeburg_car_attack Though obviously the amount of explosives per device is going to modify the risk profile.
- AnarchismIsCool 2y ago
  They're pipe bombs so quite low yield. They're typically based on smokeless powder so they're "low explosives" meaning they don't really detonate, they deflagrate at below the speed of sound.

pjc50 2y ago

America sits on a weird knife edge where there's (a) lots of talk about political violence, which is constitutionally protected and (b) lots of stockpiling of weapons, which is constitutionally protected, and (c) lots of routine mass murder incidents, which follow logically from (a) and (b) .. BUT .. apart from Jan 6 and a few milita incidents, nobody ever combines these three into politically targeted violence. The mass murders are always either strangers, workplace, or schoolchildren. Politically motivated, but not targeted at any kind of power structure. It's been a long time since the Unabomber. All the elements are in place for a really serious deterioration of civil safety, but so far the glue is holding.

mitthrowaway2 2y ago
Weren't there at least two high profile presidential candidate assassination attempts in 2024?
- pjc50 2y ago
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryan_Wesley_Routh https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryan_Wesley_Routh https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Matthew_Crooks https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Matthew_Crooks Indeed. But since they're right wing guys attacking Trump, it seems to have faded from the conversation. Also they failed.
sadboi31 2y ago
Yeah they do. Check out the 764 cult + project gladio. Lots of assassinations towards left-leaning folks. Atleast two such cases recorded on forensic architecture of murders of hacktivists going unchecked after quiet obviously being staged by intelligence agencies. One in Germany and one at a BLM event. I wont speak more on it here but I can think of atleast 6 people i've known closely who've just gone completely dark online + in their community after anti-govt organization. I assume they're dead.
ganoushoreilly 2y ago
n your (a), (b), and (c) list, you imply that (c) — routine mass murders — connects directly to (a) (talk of political violence) and (b) (stockpiling weapons). However, the examples you give, like Jan. 6 or militia incidents, don’t align with your routine mass murders implication. You could imply unrest for sure and I wholly agree that subsets could even be targeted violence, but that's not unique to either of your examples. The elements will always be in place for disturbed individuals, just look at the number of "Cars running over crowds" stories, such as yesterday in New Orleans. The question and premise for a lot of the battles are, do we take away rights or abilities of those that won't do it, on the off chance that someone could? Clear laws, enforced consistently would help a lot here. I would also posit, though not likely a popular opinion, there are people that cannot be a part of a functioning society and we have to collectively agree on that. We need to bring back functioning mental health facilities for long term care and accept that some people will be placed here and not leave.

onlyrealcuzzo 2y ago

Does anyone have a problem if I start stockpiling smallpox and nuclear bombs? Where do we draw the line of ridiculousness?

rickandmortyy 2y ago
[dead]

Stevvo 2y ago

"it’s difficult to judge where to place the line between non-criminal eccentricity and imminent threat." Fortunately, this guy commited over 150 crimes. Bail was denied. We can lock him up and throw away the key. It really doesn't matter if he were to be an imminent threat or not.

devops99 2y ago
Who is the injured party?
- Stevvo 2y ago
  The terrorized neighbors who called the cops on him, and the accused himself evidenced by the 3 fingers he blew off in an explosion.
  - devops99 2y ago
    Did Spafford threaten the neighbors directly? In a legal context, and also the real world sans a legal context, words do have meaning and words do matter. I don't see anything in the article that Spafford terrorized anyone. Whether Spafford intended to terrorize anyone in the future is another matter, and a matter of legitimate and serious concern. But we must not confuse this with "terrorized" (past tense) if we are going to discuss the matter in a sane and sober way.