Pudge
Member
That's an interesting perspective. Does posessing the means, and having a motive attributed to you, make you guilty of a crime you never committed?
Coast Guard lieutenant, dubbed 'domestic terrorist,' had hit list of media bigs and Dem lawmakers
- Thread starter Aim1
- Start date
- Status
That's an interesting perspective. Does posessing the means, and having a motive attributed to you, make you guilty of a crime you never committed?
Fortunately no, in a free country, and that is one thing that should be precious to everyone, innocent until proven guilty, and you have to actually commit a crime to be convicted. Our founding fathers understood the importance of freedom, the right to not be charged without cause and even more, not jailed without cause.
I am as anti criminal as anyone, and idiots like the fellow in question need to be found out and thwarted, but we have to be careful how it is done and I sure wish the media would be equal opportunity name callers.
The Liberal
member
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2018
- Messages
- 79
Is someone detected and stopped before they pull a trigger still an attempted murderer?
The only pro gun thing I’ll say here is that gun control would not have stopped this at all.
rbernie
Contributing Member
No. Attempted murder requires an overt effort to actually, you know, kill somebody. Simply having the tools and the desire isn't enough (any more than walking down the street with lust in your heart and a swingin' cod makes you guilty of attempted rape).
https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.c.../crime-penalties/charged-attempted-murder.htm
Last edited:
George P
member
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2018
- Messages
- 7,772
While one day we may be at the point like the Minority Report movie, we are not there yet.
Tommygunn
Member
Generally, just having some plan itself isn't enough.
If Walkalong, you, the Liberal (
) and I got together and planned out a bank robbery, and the police were listening in (because they're suspicious of The Liberal ) they wouldn't come busting in right then. They'd have no cause. BUT, once one of us (probably The Liberal ) took a step in furtherance of carrying out the dastardly plot, then they'd pounce.In the case of the person referenced in this thread, he was a criminal with a gun and tramadol, and that was sufficient. Yes he had some evil plans and stopping him was a good thing.
How much can be introduced in court .... and what can he be charged with? Questions like that will be decided by a judge. The police may have prefered to allow him to continue in his plot through some overt action, but decided it was too dangerous, and cuffed him for what they could definatively prove. We shall see, I guess.
Jeb Stuart
member
When the News of this guy broke out, I was listening to a bunch of Liberals discussing it at work. The way they described his arsenal that he was going to use to go on a major terrorist attacked made me think he had a warehouse of weapons. Grenades, claymores, anti tank weapons etc. When I came home, I saw the pics of a few 22,cals, maybe a hunting shotgun and perhaps a few hunting/ target rifles and not really that much ammo for a shooting enthusiast made me wonder what else is a lie.
And by CNN standards and typical liberal Idiocy, most of us that enjoy the sport are classified as Terrorist.
CNN as a example of Liberal propaganda is so full of sensationalism and out right lies that it is hard to believe a sane person actually watches them. Are they really this stupid? Or do they just like to hear anything that sounds good to there ears even when knowing it is a lie?
And by CNN standards and typical liberal Idiocy, most of us that enjoy the sport are classified as Terrorist.
CNN as a example of Liberal propaganda is so full of sensationalism and out right lies that it is hard to believe a sane person actually watches them. Are they really this stupid? Or do they just like to hear anything that sounds good to there ears even when knowing it is a lie?
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
I had to Google for Tramidol. So: Was his use recreational? Does that drug possibly induce a mindset for "hit lists"? (Which came first, the chicken or the egg? 
)
As far as the politics of mass shooters, sorry; no MAGA caps. Columbine: Liberal. VaTech: Registered Democrat. US Rep Giffords: Obama supporter. (From Facebook posts on these.) Republican ball game shooting? Go ahead: Guess. Orlando: Islamic. WashDC: Islamic. There are more, of both, but these will suffice. One white racist church shooting.
)As far as the politics of mass shooters, sorry; no MAGA caps. Columbine: Liberal. VaTech: Registered Democrat. US Rep Giffords: Obama supporter. (From Facebook posts on these.) Republican ball game shooting? Go ahead: Guess. Orlando: Islamic. WashDC: Islamic. There are more, of both, but these will suffice. One white racist church shooting.
Last edited:
The Liberal
member
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2018
- Messages
- 79
I had to Google for Tramidol. So: Was his use recreational? Does that drug possibly induce a mindset for "hit lists"? (Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
As far as the politics of mass shooters, sorry; no MAGA caps. Columbine: Liberal. VaTech: Registered Democrat. US Rep Giffords: Obama supporter. (From Facebook posts on these.) Republican ball game shooting? Go ahead: Guess. Orlando: Islamic. WashDC: Islamic. There are more, of both, but these will suffice. One white racist church shooting.
And a synagogue in Pittsburg. And Vegas. And Oregon. And Oslo. And a host of other events you conveniently ignored.
But sure, only liberals and Muslims take advantage of weak gun laws to access assault weapons and massacre people.
Vegas was a lunatic shooting random people, no group was targeted.
Our gun laws are not weak, we have thousands of them that, if obeyed, and better yet, were prosecuted, would work quite well. And except for the occasional nut job, they do work well.
Only the antis talk like we do not have fairly strict gun laws, and only gun owners are the ones who keep pointing out they do not hamper criminals. Prosecute the gun laws we have.
Does that make every woman a prostitute? They have the means and surely some impure thoughts at one time or another.
This article is long on emotion and short on facts. Like a lot of these post. Has anyone found the actual charges?
Appears to be the usual anti hit peice. Picture with some guns and a big banner “Domestic Terrorist” across it. Trying to influence the public to picture all gun owners as “Domestic Terrorist”? Death by a thousand cuts strategy?
Thing that worries me the most is THR Sockpuppets.
alsaqr
Member
Yeah, let's just blame the media. In this case the media simply reported on the comments made by the prosecutor. The federal prosecutor called the guy a terrorist:
"There is an intent to murder innocent civilians," U.S. Attorney Jennifer Sykes told Judge Charles Day.
"Hasson is described by federal prosecutors as a "domestic terrorist" and self-described white supremacist who had a list of potential targets including House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi and MSNBC television host Joe Scarborough."
https://www.voanews.com/a/us-coast-...ror-plot-could-face-more-charges/4798838.html
George P
member
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2018
- Messages
- 7,772
They really ARE that stupid.
I will thank you, with a broad stroke that may not fit this instance, but it still doesn't change a pattern of how the media and the antis handle those sort of things, all you have to do is pay attention over time to see and understand their anti gun slant. From sitcoms to the news at 5.
Pudge
Member
We are a nation whose government has declared war on terrorism. In conducting this war, our government, without trial, has killed US citizens it decided were terrorists. In such a climate I think it is dangerous to charge someone with being a terrorist, especially while being convinced of their guilt prior to the commission of the crime.
The Liberal
member
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2018
- Messages
- 79
Anything to deflect attention from the actual problem...
GunnyUSMC
Member
I think that you truly believe that more gun laws would make us safer from those that wish to do us harm and that by giving up some of our rights, when it comes to guns, is a good thing.
Here's a short story but true. Victim is out on his front porch when someone comes up and shoots him several times. He states that he did not know the person that shot him and has no idea why someone would have wanted to shoot him.
While in the hospital the victim is able to pick the shooter from a photo line up.
Criminal history of the shooter:
Criminal history includes: Simple Battery, Domestic Abuse Battery, Poss. of a Firearm with an Obliterated serial number, Armed Robbery, Aggravated Kidnapping, Home Invasion, Poss. of a stolen Firearm and Poss. of a Firearm by a convicted Felon.
Now the victim is no angel either.
Victim's criminal history:
Criminal history includes: Burglary of an Inhabited Dwelling, Taking contraband to Institutions prohibited, Inciting to Riot, Indecent Behavior with Juveniles, Aggravated Assault, Disturbing the Peace, Poss. of a Firearm by a Convicted Felon, Simple Burglary, Theft of a Firearm and Contributing to Delinquency of Juveniles.
The problem is not that we don't have enough gun laws on the books.The problem is that we have to many liberal judges that let criminals walk the streets.
alsaqr
Member
Yep, the US killed international terrorist and US citizen Anwar al Awlaki in Yemen. The scumbag encouraged terrorist acts in the US and conducted terrorist acts against the US from overseas.
Anwar al Awlaki got what he deserved.
Anwar al Awlaki got what he deserved.
Pudge
Member
The actual problem?
I am aware of who he was, and that we killed him and his son, because of his activities (which included conversations with the Ft. Hood shooter). Do not confuse an expression of concern for the process employed with a defense of the man. Nor is this the focus of this thread, you are welcome to send me a message if you want to discuss this further.
alsaqr
Member
A federal grand jury indicted the Coast Guard officer:
"A federal grand jury in Maryland indicted Christopher Paul Hasson, 49, on charges of illegal possession of firearm silencers; possession of firearms by a drug addict and unlawful user; and possession of a controlled substance. Hasson has been detained since federal agents arrested him on related charges on Feb. 15."
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/co...-indicted/ar-BBUb0X5?li=BBnb7Kz&OCID=AVRES000
"A federal grand jury in Maryland indicted Christopher Paul Hasson, 49, on charges of illegal possession of firearm silencers; possession of firearms by a drug addict and unlawful user; and possession of a controlled substance. Hasson has been detained since federal agents arrested him on related charges on Feb. 15."
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/co...-indicted/ar-BBUb0X5?li=BBnb7Kz&OCID=AVRES000
We won't have to worry about him for a long while.
I posted this in the other thread, but this is an example of the slant in the media when it comes to guns.
One online "news" source used this line today.
"House To Vote On Major Gun Control Measures For First Time In Decades."
Decades is ridiculous, of course they have voted on gun control, and in this decade, and very recently. I guess these reporters have forgotten about how the antis tried to ban all "assault weapons" again before Obama left office, just to name a big one, not to mention all the little stuff. And went all in on it.
But it makes it sound to the average Joe who doesn't follow the fight as if is long overdue, after all, they haven't done anything, or even voted on it, in "decades", right? Bullcrap.
These are the kind of voters we need to reach though, no doubt about it, them and the middle of the road politicians they support who may not vote for gun control next time if fewer of their constituents want it.
I posted this in the other thread, but this is an example of the slant in the media when it comes to guns.
One online "news" source used this line today.
"House To Vote On Major Gun Control Measures For First Time In Decades."
Decades is ridiculous, of course they have voted on gun control, and in this decade, and very recently. I guess these reporters have forgotten about how the antis tried to ban all "assault weapons" again before Obama left office, just to name a big one, not to mention all the little stuff. And went all in on it.
But it makes it sound to the average Joe who doesn't follow the fight as if is long overdue, after all, they haven't done anything, or even voted on it, in "decades", right? Bullcrap.
These are the kind of voters we need to reach though, no doubt about it, them and the middle of the road politicians they support who may not vote for gun control next time if fewer of their constituents want it.
I can't think of a House vote on a gun control measure since the 1990's. The GOP controlled the House from 1995 - 2006, The DEMs from 2007-2010, and then the GOP again from 2011 until this year. I can't think of a single House vote for gun control when the GOP controlled the House. I also can't think of one from 2007 - 2010 when the DEMs controlled the House. The gun controls bills during the Obama years were in the Senate and never got any traction in the House.
(When I say a "vote" I'm talking about a bill that made it out of committee and was voted on by the entire House. Bills get introduced every year but they don't go anywhere unless the House leadership says they can.)
EDIT: I believe you are referring to HR 4269 - Assault Weapons Ban of 2015. That bill was introduce and then killed in committee. It never reached a vote.
Last edited:
George P
member
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2018
- Messages
- 7,772
Consider the sources. If he had been black or Islamic, the label of terrorist would not have been applied.
What about all of those gang shootings in Chicago - every weekend dozens or more get shot; is that not acts of domestic terrorism - or does only apply to white guys looking at liberal elites?
- Status
