Notes From HPS
BY Herschel Smith
10 years, 1 month ago
Earlier this month, an accused white supremacist in Florida named Marcus Faella was sentenced for two counts of the “crime” of “paramilitary training.” … The “white supremacist” accusation, if true (and there appears to be some question about that, according to witnesses called by the defense) paints Faella as an unsavory, and indeed reprehensible, individual. But it does not–cannot, in a free society–make him a criminal … Prosecutors told jurors that they didn’t have to prove a specific plan, just show the group was doing the training for some sort of civil disorder.
Kurt explores the circular reasoning inherent in the law of training for some sort of civil disorder. You do understand that this presupposes the consequent, don’t you? It’s a formal logical fallacy, meaning that you make a list of things involved in “training for some sort of civil disorder,” and then you prosecute someone for doing something on the list of things you crafted. And let’s be clear. If you aren’t currently training for some sort of civil disorder, you’re an idiot (or at least, highly irresponsible).
Mike Vanderboegh does AGW. I told you that AGW was bad science, didn’t I?
Vanderboegh notes Rand Paul’s continued surrender to the forces of political totalitarianism. I don’t like Rand Paul because, just like his father, he is in favor of open borders. I will never spend one penny of gas money driving to the polls to vote for an open borders lunatic. I don’t care what else he believes.
Finally, Vanderboegh takes on gun-prag Sebastian. I don’t get along with Sebastian ever since he commented on one of my posts (I didn’t find out until several days later) without even giving me the courtesy of linking and sending traffic my way. Bad, bad form, that is. And I didn’t forward my post. He just singled me out for criticism.
|
|
On November 21, 2014 at 10:25 am, Bobbye said:
Marcus Faella was convicted because he was arrested and prosecuted. The jury found that sufficient reason to convict. Principles of law do not matter to juries any more. American public is trained to follow the lead of the police and prosecutor in that the line of reasoning is:1) is there a law? 2) did the defendant break the law?3) If the answer is yes, find the defendant guilty. Whatever the government wants to make into a crime, a jury will almost always support with a guilty verdict.
On November 22, 2014 at 8:06 pm, Matheus Grunt said:
But an unjust law is not a law at all & therefore, any convictions rendered from the unjust actions & unjust statutes enforced & prosecuted erroneously by the state are moot & unconstitutional, not to mention amoral. The fact that juries don’t get this is irrelevant, it is what it is.