Support for Paul

Share your views on the policies, philosophies, and spirit of Burning Man.

Postby Jordan 10-E » Tue Sep 18, 2007 1:09 pm

Unfortunately for Paul there is no misdemeanor classification under arson laws. Arson is viewed as a very serious crime. It's not like smoking weed or jaywalking. He is definately not the first person in the history of man to try and make a statement with fire. Arson laws have been around forever and are pretty clear cut, except in details of degree (all still being felonies). In the past arson was punishable by death.

As for fines or talk of class action lawsuits or paying money to burners without borders, they all sound like good ideas but if that were his only punishment you might as well not punish him at all. He doesn't even have enough money for his own bail or defense, where in the world is he going to come up with all the money to meet these other suggestions?
10E
User avatar
Jordan 10-E
 
Posts: 281
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2003 10:26 am
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Burning Since: 2002

Postby Jordan 10-E » Tue Sep 18, 2007 1:20 pm

diane o'thirst wrote:Fact: The arsonist and his buddies made sure and doubly sure that nobody was around in case things took a turn for the worse and minimized the chance of anyone getting hurt. This is probably due more towards pragmatism than any real compassion: the arsonist was a lawyer so he <i>KNEW</i> exactly how screwed up the river he'd be if someone got hurt or killed during his little escapade.


While I agree with much of what you said (and so succinctly too) this point about taking measures to make sure no one was under there are only the words of the accused himself, which are extremely doubtful. All indications from the words of others that were there is that this was not the case at all. And who are "they", no one has reported being prompted by anybody of what was going to occur. What did they say, "Hey my buddy is about to burn the Man down so you better stop your meditating and conversations and leave." Did they give them five minutes to compute what they were being told to do? If someone suddenly told me to move before there was an actual fire I probably would not immediately comply. Even if one person didn't comply that would one person too many to be around. I would imagine anybody that was really informed of what was about to happen would have tried to stop it or informed a ranger. So basically there is no evidence such measures were taken. Even if you give him the benefit of the doubt the law would not make such distinctions. I think the only reason no one stayed under there is because they took actions on their own once they realized there were flames overhead.
10E
User avatar
Jordan 10-E
 
Posts: 281
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2003 10:26 am
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Burning Since: 2002

Postby spectabillis » Tue Sep 18, 2007 4:32 pm

All indications from the words of others that were there is that this was not the case at all.

what others?
I will be happy to put it in context for you quite soon.

is that it?
spectabillis
 
Posts: 3530
Joined: Tue Mar 30, 2004 12:07 am
Location: parallel cortex sensory stream interface

Postby diane o'thirst » Tue Sep 18, 2007 9:34 pm

Jordan 10-E wrote:While I agree with much of what you said (and so succinctly too) this point about taking measures to make sure no one was under there are only the words of the accused himself, which are extremely doubtful. All indications from the words of others that were there is that this was not the case at all. And who are "they", no one has reported being prompted by anybody of what was going to occur. What did they say, "Hey my buddy is about to burn the Man down so you better stop your meditating and conversations and leave." Did they give them five minutes to compute what they were being told to do? If someone suddenly told me to move before there was an actual fire I probably would not immediately comply.


Good point.

I kept thinking, if I hadn't gotten a detached retina and had to abandon preparations a month before the Burn, I'd likely have been on site. Sure, I would have hit the Eclipse party at the trash fence but knowing me, the crowd would have gotten to me and I'd have split. What are the likeliest places I would have gone in that case? The Man, and/or the Temple. I would certainly have stopped off at the Man in any case.

He's just lucky I didn't/wasn't because I'd have been in character with Nothing-to-Prove, feeling like a werewolf with the full moon rising, and PDArse-onist being a sociopathic dillhole to me and waving a propane torch...
What is the sound of wooden sword upside the neck?

Image

Edit: Yeah, I can just imagine their reactions if they were told the Man was about to be arsonized. "Whoa, kewl, rock on d00d! Anarchy, woo! Stick it to 'em. Sure I'll leave, don't let the pigs catch ya!"
ImageImageImage
User avatar
diane o'thirst
 
Posts: 2095
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2003 5:04 pm
Location: Eugene, OR

Postby spectabillis » Wed Sep 19, 2007 2:55 am

so jordan 10-E, i asked to post something directly relevant, like an example of someone who's life was at serious risk while taking into account the environment. gave you a couple of days so i can only guess your latest couple of posts here is the response. is it?

i hope not, thats disappointing since i dont see anything resembling what you agreed to.

Jordan 10-E wrote:Are you certain of that? Think you should be careful what you wish for since it really is quite clear that you don't know the law very well and you definately don't have a very good idea of how it works in the real world. I will be happy to put it in context for you quite soon. We can do this like they would in a court of law, based on the law as it is written. Hate to tell you but you will lose so I am not too worried about "proving beyond a reasonable doubt". Oh and by the way if you are ever caught up in the judicial system I would advise you to let your lawyer do all the talking.
spectabillis
 
Posts: 3530
Joined: Tue Mar 30, 2004 12:07 am
Location: parallel cortex sensory stream interface

Postby Digital-Dragonfly » Wed Sep 19, 2007 5:58 am

diane o'thirst wrote:Fact: The arsonist and his buddies made sure and doubly sure that nobody was around in case things took a turn for the worse and minimized the chance of anyone getting hurt....


Actually... only a claim made by "the arsonist" himself, after the fact. No one who was warned (as asserted) before act has come forward. I think the idea of the warning was created while in jail, after realizing the charges included "reckless endangerment"
"and your pleasure will likely exceed your misery.".... Ugly Dougly
User avatar
Digital-Dragonfly
 
Posts: 79
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2007 7:46 pm
Location: right above the very center of the earth

Postby Bob » Wed Sep 19, 2007 7:31 am

Spec, the perp set a habitable building on fire that was occupied at the time, with the obvious intent of burning it to the ground, else he would have brought at least a water pistol or a full bladder to put it out. What more do you need to know?
Amazing desert structures & stuff: http://sites.google.com/site/potatotrap/

"Let us say I suggest you may be human." -- Reverend Mother Gaius Helen Mohiam
User avatar
Bob
 
Posts: 6762
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 10:00 am
Location: San Francisco
Burning Since: 1986
Camp Name: Royaneh

Postby Jordan 10-E » Wed Sep 19, 2007 12:54 pm

spectabillis wrote:so jordan 10-E, i asked to post something directly relevant, like an example of someone who's life was at serious risk while taking into account the environment. gave you a couple of days so i can only guess your latest couple of posts here is the response. is it?

i hope not, thats disappointing since i dont see anything resembling what you agreed to.

Jordan 10-E wrote:Are you certain of that? Think you should be careful what you wish for since it really is quite clear that you don't know the law very well and you definately don't have a very good idea of how it works in the real world. I will be happy to put it in context for you quite soon. We can do this like they would in a court of law, based on the law as it is written. Hate to tell you but you will lose so I am not too worried about "proving beyond a reasonable doubt". Oh and by the way if you are ever caught up in the judicial system I would advise you to let your lawyer do all the talking.


Because some of us have lives and can't post all time I haven't gotten to write it up yet. No, my last posts were not what I was talking about. No, I was not talking about the specific example of "serious risk" you are referring too, even though it was inherently there. What I was talking about is how the law looks at such things and their potential for harm as defined by arson laws (which absolutely take into consideration the What Ifs). If someone had gotten hurt it would have been additional charges specific to that harm, as it is we are mainly talking about arson and its classification and the levels of liability involved.

As soon as I have time to type it up or am able to find a copy of my references online I will lay it out. Until then keep pretending that no one was at risk or that even if no one was the act was somehow ok.
10E
User avatar
Jordan 10-E
 
Posts: 281
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2003 10:26 am
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Burning Since: 2002

Postby spectabillis » Wed Sep 19, 2007 3:33 pm

great, and i look foreward to you being clear and concise with directly relevant examples.
spectabillis
 
Posts: 3530
Joined: Tue Mar 30, 2004 12:07 am
Location: parallel cortex sensory stream interface

Paul's offence was not the message, it was the medium

Postby andy » Wed Sep 19, 2007 4:10 pm

I don't see this primarily as a discussion of safety - it's a matter of harming other folks' stuff to get your message across.

I can paint "Republicans suck" or "Democrats suck" on my car - that's freedom of speech.

I can't paint it on yours - that's vandalism.

Paul knew that thousands of people had committed time and money to attend, in part to see the burning of the Man. Most of those had not even arrived yet, but were financially committed to do so. He thought nothing of hurting their experience just to get his own message across.

While many volunteers rushed in to save these peoples' experience, that's probably not what those volunteers really wanted to spend their week doing.

It addition to any possible jail time, it would not at all be unreasonable to hold him liable for the costs incurred, including all of the volunteer time. These folks volunteered their time to put on a show for the good of the attendees, not to undo the damage from one man's political statement.
andy
 
Posts: 68
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2007 3:55 pm

Re: Paul's offence was not the message, it was the medium

Postby spectabillis » Wed Sep 19, 2007 4:23 pm

andy wrote:I don't see this primarily as a discussion of safety...

thats the current thing i am focusing on since many are attempting to apply it, and it doesnt stick no matter how much rhetorical glue they use.
spectabillis
 
Posts: 3530
Joined: Tue Mar 30, 2004 12:07 am
Location: parallel cortex sensory stream interface

Re: Paul's offence was not the message, it was the medium

Postby Jordan 10-E » Wed Sep 19, 2007 7:03 pm

spectabillis wrote:
andy wrote:I don't see this primarily as a discussion of safety...

thats the current thing i am focusing on since many are attempting to apply it, and it doesnt stick no matter how much rhetorical glue they use.


Dude sounds like you are waiting for me to come up with specific people that were potentially harmed. You're holding onto that because that is all you have to work with. That is not what I will be doing. I will be illuminating you on some of the points of law, which don't need those specific examples. All that matters is that people were around. That's it. Nothing more. Also let's say no one was around, it will still be arson no matter which way you slice it.

You think I don't know what you are already going to say? I am steps ahead of you, just haven't typed it up.

Oh and let's turn this a little, you are asking me to come up with specific examples, why don't you? Tell what really did transpire, you don't know. Just because someone didn't get hurt doesn't mean they almost didn't. All I know is the potential was there and the law absolutely takes that into consideration. It doesn't matter that no one ACTUALLY was hurt.
10E
User avatar
Jordan 10-E
 
Posts: 281
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2003 10:26 am
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Burning Since: 2002

Re: Paul's offence was not the message, it was the medium

Postby spectabillis » Wed Sep 19, 2007 7:39 pm

Jordan 10-E wrote:Dude sounds like you are waiting for me to come up with specific people that were potentially harmed. You're holding onto that because that is all you have to work with. That is not what I will be doing.

i would think this is evident, but if people were not put in serious harms way then there isnt a crime.

you are asking me to come up with specific examples, why don't you?

because you have the burdon of proof.
spectabillis
 
Posts: 3530
Joined: Tue Mar 30, 2004 12:07 am
Location: parallel cortex sensory stream interface

Re: Paul's offence was not the message, it was the medium

Postby Jordan 10-E » Wed Sep 19, 2007 7:44 pm

spectabillis wrote:i would think this is evident, but if people were not put in serious harms way then there isnt a crime.


See that is where your ignorance of the law shows through. That is absolutely not correct.
10E
User avatar
Jordan 10-E
 
Posts: 281
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2003 10:26 am
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Burning Since: 2002

Postby spectabillis » Wed Sep 19, 2007 7:54 pm

then i look foreward to you being clear and concise with directly relevant examples to back it up.

despite whatever you read the law to be, a judge still has to apply it in a fair and even application while taking whatever relevant evidence is submitted by either the prosecution or the defense lawyers. so if you are having difficulty then search for directly relevant precedents to help.
spectabillis
 
Posts: 3530
Joined: Tue Mar 30, 2004 12:07 am
Location: parallel cortex sensory stream interface

Postby Jordan 10-E » Wed Sep 19, 2007 8:59 pm

I have no difficulty at all. I know what the law says, you don't.

You are right the judge ultimately determines the rules the jury is to follow, but they will follow previous cases and the generally accepted understanding of the law as determined by precedence. Unless the letter of the law itself is being challenged, which it isn't. Paul Addis's lawyer is not going to try and change the defintion of arson. So if you wanna talk about precedence then you would realize your convoluted concept of arson doesn't follow any precedence that I know of. The laws as they related to arson have developed over thousands of years, that's precedence. What you are arguing only affects degree of the crime not whether a crime was actually committed, in this case arson. Don't use big words unless you know what they mean.

Is that clear and concise enough for you? Talk about being vague, you have never been able to pin down anything to a clear and concise argument. I am not even sure you really know what is relevant and what isn't.
10E
User avatar
Jordan 10-E
 
Posts: 281
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2003 10:26 am
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Burning Since: 2002

Postby diane o'thirst » Wed Sep 19, 2007 9:21 pm

Digital-Dragonfly wrote:Actually... only a claim made by "the arsonist" himself, after the fact. No one who was warned (as asserted) before act has come forward. I think the idea of the warning was created while in jail, after realizing the charges included "reckless endangerment"


Well...as fate would have it...

I went down to Diablo's this evening for their Talk Like A Pirate Day party. One of the waitresses went to the Burn and was talking about her week on the Playa.

She started talking about the arson. She said she was under the pavilion when it happened. I asked her, "Did anyone warn you before the fire?" She said, "Never! Nobody ever told us this was going to happen!" She said the netting and some art under it was also damaged, and she talked with some Rangers the next day, and corroborated the story that the arsonist bragged about it in camp and it was his campmates that turned him in. She also said that his campmates were the <i>only</i> people he warned.

She was seriously pissed about it, too.

So we have corroboration from an independent source who was witness to the actual event. Let the record show I withdraw whatever slack I was cutting him for allegedly waring people to clear out before he lit the Man on fire.

H'ist the blaggard from the yardarm, sez I!
ImageImageImage
User avatar
diane o'thirst
 
Posts: 2095
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2003 5:04 pm
Location: Eugene, OR

Postby spectabillis » Wed Sep 19, 2007 9:49 pm

Jordan 10-E wrote:...but they will follow previous cases and the generally accepted understanding of the law as determined by precedence. ...

yep, pretty much what i said.
spectabillis
 
Posts: 3530
Joined: Tue Mar 30, 2004 12:07 am
Location: parallel cortex sensory stream interface

Postby Jordan 10-E » Wed Sep 19, 2007 10:16 pm

spectabillis wrote:
Jordan 10-E wrote:...but they will follow previous cases and the generally accepted understanding of the law as determined by precedence. ...

yep, pretty much what i said.


Pretty much what you said, but you either don't know what it means or are attempting to base your arguments on a precedence that doesn't exist. Just because you used the word doesn't mean you used it correctly.
10E
User avatar
Jordan 10-E
 
Posts: 281
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2003 10:26 am
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Burning Since: 2002

The Law

Postby Jordan 10-E » Wed Sep 19, 2007 10:59 pm

Here we go...

I have finally been able to type up the following legal definitions as found in the Black's Law Dictionary. For those of you unfamiliar with said dictionary, it is THE standard legal dictionary used in defining the law. Every lawyer has a copy of it with him at all times and it is almost universally cited in every legal brief submitted to the court by a prosecution or defense. When building the various points in a case, as submitted in a brief, it is usually the very first cite used to establish precedence. Black's Law bases it's definitions on actual court cases that are recognized as the latest cases to clarify a certain subject in question. Since there are often some variations on the definitions provided, depending on what state or jurisdiction (not generally taking away any of the definition, but rather adding to it), it is common to follow up the Black's Law definition by citing a few relevant cases to "seal the deal", if you will. I will spare you all any additional cites. You can read the specific Nevada or Federal codes for yourself.

The subjects I have chosen are Arson, Malice or Malicious, Mischief, and Reckless Endangerment since it is these terms that are the ones most directly related to our discussion. I am sorry if it is long but if you will take the time to read them much can be made clear. You all can define it the way you want, but a judge will use the specific words written in the law. Law is words. Definitions are inseparable from the application of the law.

I have not altered, omitted, or changed the wording in any way.

I am not advocating any particular punishment, that is a whole other discussion. I am merely helping illuminate some of you with fuzzy ideas about the law so that you don’t sound uninformed when you pontificate upon the acts in question.

So quoting Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, 1990:

Arson. At common law, the malicious burning of the house of another. This definition, however, has been broadened by state statutes and criminal codes. For example, the Model Penal Code, 220.1(1), provides that a person is guilty of arson, felony in the second degree, if he starts a fire or causes an explosion with the purpose of: (a) destroying a building or occupied structure of another; or (b) destroying or damaging any property, whether his own or another's, to collect insurance for such loss. Other statutes include the destruction of property by other means; e.g., explosion.

In several states, this crime is divided into arson in the first, second, and third degrees, the first degree including the burning of an inhabited dwelling-house in the nighttime; the second degree, the burning (at night) of a building other than a dwelling-house, but so situated with reference to a dwelling-house as to endanger it; the third degree, the burning of any building or structure not the subject of arson in the first or second degree, or the burning of property, his own or another's with intent to defraud or prejudice an insurer thereof. See Aggravated arson, below,

Aggravated arson. The burning or blowing up of property when the actor foresees or anticipates the presence of persons at the site, or in such close proximity thereto, so that their lives might be endangered by the act. State v. Bonfanti, 254 La. 877, 227 So.2d 916, 918


Malice. The intentional doing of a wrongful act without just cause or excuse, with an intent to inflict an injury or under circumstances that the law will imply an evil intent. A condition of mind which prompts a person to do a wrongful act willfully, that is, on purpose, to the injury of another, or to do intentionally a wrongful act toward another without justification or excuse. A conscious violation of the law (or the prompting of the mind to commit it) which operates to the prejudice of another person. A condition of the mind showing a heart regardless of social duty and fatally bent on mischief. Cockrell v. State, 135 TEx.Cr.R. 218, 117 S.W.2d 1105, 1109, 1110. Malice in law is not necessarily personal hate or ill will, but it is that state of mind which is reckless of law and of the legal rights of the citizen.

Constructive malice. Implied malice; malice inferred from acts; malice imputed by law; malice which is not shown by direct proof of an intention to do injury (express malice), but which is inferentially established by the necessarily injurious results of the acts shown to have been committed. See also Implied malice, below,

Implied malice. Malice inferred by legal reasoning and necessary deduction from the res geste or the conduct of the party. Malice inferred from any deliberate cruel act committed by one person against another, however sudden. What is called "general malice" is often thus inferred. Sparf v. U.S. 51, 15 S.Ct. 273, 39 L.Ed 343 See also Constructive malice, above; and Malice in law.

Malice aforethought. A predetermination to commit an act without legal justification or excuse. Harrison v. Commonwealth, 279 Ky. 510, 131 S.W.2d 454, 455. A malicious design to injure. State v. Thomas, 157 Kan. 526, 142 P.2d 692, 693. The intentional doing of an unlawful act which was determined upon before it was executed. State v. Lane, Mo., 371 S.W 2d 261, 263. An intent, at the time of a killing, willfull to take the life of a human being, or an intent willfully to act in callous and wanton disregard of the consequences to human life; but "malice aforethought" does not necessarily imply any ill will, spite or hatred towards the individual killed. Also see Premeditation.

Malice in law. The intentional doing of an act without just cause or excuse. Lyons v. St. Joseph Belt Ry. Co. 232 Mo.App. 575, 84 S.W.2d 933, 944. Implied, inferred, or legal malice. As distinguished from Malice in fact, it is presumed from tortious acts, deliberately done without just cause, excuse, or justification, which are reasonably calculated to injure another or others.

Maliciously. Imports a wish to vex, annoy, or injure another, or an intent to do a wrongful act, and may consist in direct intention to injure, or in reckless disregard of another's rights. See also Malice; Malicious.

Malicious mischief. Willful destruction of personal property of another, from actual ill will or resentment towards its owner or possessor. Though only a trespass at the common law, it is now a crime in most states.

Mischief. In legislative parlance, the word is sometimes used to signify the evil or danger which a statute is intended to cure or avoid.

In the phrase "malicious mischief," (q.v.) it imports a wanton or reckless injury to persons or property.

A person is guilty of criminal mischief if he: (a) damages tangible property of another purposely, recklessly, or by negligence in the employment of fire, explosives, or other dangerous means, or (b) purposely or recklessly causes another to suffer pecuniary loss by deception or threat. Model Penal Code, 220.3.

Reckless endangerment. A statutory offense committed by creating a substantial risk of death or serious injury to another. State v. O'Neal, 23 Wash.App. 899, 800 P.2d 570


So what does all this mean? It means it does not matter if anyone was actually physically hurt or not, but that the potential was there. If someone were hurt it would have added additional charges against Mr. Addis, including murder or manslaughter. The act in question was arson, likely in the third degree. The act also was reckless endangerment. It was done with malice as defined by the law, not by Webster’s or by Joe Blow. Property was wantonly destroyed in a situation where there was additional possibility that people would be hurt.

This angry “prankâ€
10E
User avatar
Jordan 10-E
 
Posts: 281
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2003 10:26 am
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Burning Since: 2002

Postby ZaphodBurner » Wed Sep 19, 2007 11:16 pm

Hey, guys.

There are laws against both arson and discharge of firearms, so if one isn't a safety problem because nobody gets hurt, what about the other? What if instead of burning the man, he had opened fire on it? Or what if I smuggled in a semiautomatic rifle, got really drunk, ate some pills, made sure nobody was in the way and started blasting the fuck out of somebody else's art?

Would that have been cool in the context of the argument that it wasn't a safety issue because nobody was hurt? That's how HUNTER FUCKIN THOMPSON would do it, right? He didn't set fires, he used machine guns. What was Addis thinking?

(How COOL would it be if some drugged out tweaker made a pipe bomb or an RPG and blew the head clean off the man one night? "Lookit, y'all!" Can we do that? I mean, as long as we say we checked the area when the drugs wear off? I think everybody should do that. That would be rad as long as it was radically inclusive. 47,000 drunks in a circle firing guns at the man. What could possibly go wrong?)

Thanks.

-zb
"The Red Baron is smart.. He never spends the whole night dancing and drinking root beer.. "-The WWI Flying Ace
User avatar
ZaphodBurner
 
Posts: 1330
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2005 3:05 pm
Location: Portland, OR
Burning Since: 2004
Camp Name: The Green Hour 2012 - 9:00 & D

Postby apokiliptika » Thu Sep 20, 2007 1:31 am

Message Placemarker.
User avatar
apokiliptika
 
Posts: 32
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2007 11:10 pm

Postby spectabillis » Thu Sep 20, 2007 1:33 am

great, and thanks for posting it up while i try to hunt down the specific charges that have been filed. despite all the various posts and links to articles i cant find that info.
spectabillis
 
Posts: 3530
Joined: Tue Mar 30, 2004 12:07 am
Location: parallel cortex sensory stream interface

Postby Toolmaker » Thu Sep 20, 2007 2:18 am

ZaphodBurner wrote:That's how HUNTER FUCKIN THOMPSON would do it, right? He didn't set fires, he used machine guns. What was Addis thinking?


I know..
he shoulda fuckin known better..
after all he friggin dressed up and acted like Hunter for chrissakes..

It would be an entirely different set of circumstances and charges if he used a machine gun.


PS Just beacuse I think Uberman should have a flamethrower effect pointing to the man I don't think it should go as far as burning him.

A flame that long would be fucking cool though..
This account has been closed as demanded by Wedeliver.
Toolmaker
 
Posts: 2512
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 12:44 pm

Postby [CDS] topher » Thu Sep 20, 2007 3:37 am

[quote="ZaphodBurner"]Hey, guys.

There are laws against both arson and discharge of firearms, so if one isn't a safety problem because nobody gets hurt, what about the other? What if instead of burning the man, he had opened fire on it? Or what if I smuggled in a semiautomatic rifle, got really drunk, ate some pills, made sure nobody was in the way and started blasting the fuck out of somebody else's art?

Would that have been cool in the context of the argument that it wasn't a safety issue because nobody was hurt? That's how HUNTER FUCKIN THOMPSON would do it, right? He didn't set fires, he used machine guns. What was Addis thinking?

(How COOL would it be if some drugged out tweaker made a pipe bomb or an RPG and blew the head clean off the man one night? "Lookit, y'all!" Can we do that? I mean, as long as we say we checked the area when the drugs wear off? I think everybody should do that. That would be rad as long as it was radically inclusive. 47,000 drunks in a circle firing guns at the man. What could possibly go wrong?)

Thanks.

-zb[/quote]

While it might be fun to get high on drugs and shoot machine guns and blow shit up - trust me, I don't find that offensive, so long as people are safe - the facts are that a) machine guns are illegal, b) ALL firearms are prohibited from the event by both BMOrg and BLM, pipe bombs are also illegal, it seems that anyone involved would, should, and could be processed through the criminal justice system.

If we decide we don't like that, then we can work to change the system - but not violate rules that we have an assumptive agreement with by our very presence at this specific event and the restrictions placed on behavior at it.

Believe it or not, for all of my arguing against sympathy or leniency for jackass (err...addis), I am also a rather extreme 2nd ammendment supporter, to the point where (in the same way I think that abortion should be "legal, safe, and rare") I sometimes think that individuals SHOULD be able to own rocket launchers, tanks, machine guns (but being licensed to own them should be "hard, dependent on regular psychological verifications, and licensed"). Of course that assumes that government aagencies (i.e., BATF) were sane instead of paranoiac.
---
] Camp Cul-de-Sac
] Building Community Since 1997
[CDS] topher
 
Posts: 55
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2006 8:50 am
Location: Boulder, Colorado

Postby mdmf007 » Thu Sep 20, 2007 8:17 am

I was reading this post with interest until it started to degenerate into a quagmire.

These last 5 posts are starting to make it sound like Pauls actions were done safely and with forethought for consequences. Fortunately he did not hurt anyone - unfortunately for him he set a piece of art on fire, eveb though it was going to burn 120 hours later as is.

Difference is that 120 hours later there would be 50 firefighters at the base, a safety perimeter staffed by hundreds and fire suppression / EMS personnel geared and ready to pounce if necessary.

Paul is going to go to jail for this and the best he can hope for is the prosecutor pleas him down to willful destruction / reckless endangerment. Paul does not want an arson charge on his record.

The analogy of the machine gun fire, while being entertaining and sounds like fun has a fault in it in the fact that machine gun fire is indiscriminent, gives no warning, and can strike from a stray bullet a mile away. Fire is a bright force that crawls compared to a bullet - deadly indeed but definately nore avoidable than a bullett.

Machine guns arent illegal either. You just have to have the requisite paperwork to own.

IMHO Paul is being overcharged, but did wrong a number of people and will rue the day that he set fire to the man.

later
User avatar
mdmf007
Moderator
 
Posts: 4772
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:32 pm
Location: my computer
Burning Since: 1999
Camp Name: ESD

Postby Teo del Fuego » Thu Sep 20, 2007 9:49 am

Im not terribly sad Addasshat torched the Man. Let me reminisce about the days of old that I never witnessed first-hand. HOWEVER, it was wrong and sets a bad precedent. What he should have done was to somehow, sneak a big ole dollar sign into the face of the man. Probably coulodnt do it alone...but hanging bsalls on the Man or putting a smiley on it is, by far, the type of civil disobedience that is tolerable.

Man, we have a shitload of lawyers on this list dont we?
User avatar
Teo del Fuego
 
Posts: 1388
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 11:31 am
Location: Denver
Burning Since: 2005
Camp Name: Whiskey & Dust

Postby [CDS] topher » Thu Sep 20, 2007 11:08 am

mdmf007 wrote:Machine guns arent illegal either. You just have to have the requisite paperwork to own.


Granted. I only used the example as a reference point because in the earlier, more chatotic days of BM (prior to my arrival in '97), there were such things as "drive by shooting ranges", and in off-event sites I enjoyed shooting with some of the local and DPW folks several years back during a late spring/early summer MOOP/burn scar cleanup.

Off topic:
For reference, I'm pasting some text below, just for those who are curious (and no, this isn't from a legal text; rather, I'm making liberal use of the net's freedoms (real or perceived) and pasting it directly from a Wikipedia page that deals with civilian ownership of machine guns):

Because of the perceived popularity of submachine guns such as the Thompson with gangsters in the 1920s and 1930s, the United States Congress passed the National Firearms Act in 1934. Among its provisions, all owners of any fully-automatic firearm were required to register them with the predecessor agency of the modern Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). The law also placed severe restrictions on the possession, transfer and transport of the weapons.

All prospective buyers had to register with the government and pay the $200/item transfer tax. Registration required the prospective buyer to declare a reasonable need for owning the weapon, to supply a citizenship certification, photographs and fingerprints. In addition, a certification from state or local law enforcement or court officers the buyer is not under investigation for a crime and possession of the weapon will not violate state or local law is required. Once the paperwork is submitted to the ATF, the FBI performs a thorough background check. Only after the purchase had been cleared (a process normally taking at least four months), may the new owner take possession of the weapon.

Owners are forbidden to move the gun out of their state of residence without obtaining prior permission from the ATF. The owner is required to keep the weapon within their exclusive control and may not loan it without their immediate supervision to anyone. Thompsons, as well as all other kinds of fully automatic weapons, are under a legal ban in at least nine states and the District of Columbia.

There are several U.S. made semi-automatic variants. These are less regulated at the federal level but are still banned in several states because of their resemblance to the fully-automatic version.

Notwithstanding the legality of ownership, hundreds, if not thousands, of these and other weapons of World War II are in the possession of veterans as "bring back" items. With the number of veterans decreasing rapidly, these weapons fall into the possession of the families as illegal weapons, usually unbeknownst to them. Current law does not allow any of these weapons to be registered. Congress is considering an amnesty law which would permit "bring backs" to be registered and thus save these historic and valuable arms.
---
] Camp Cul-de-Sac
] Building Community Since 1997
[CDS] topher
 
Posts: 55
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2006 8:50 am
Location: Boulder, Colorado

Postby Bob » Thu Sep 20, 2007 8:45 pm

Exodus 22:6

If fire break out, and catch in thorns, so that the stacks of corn, or the standing corn, or the field, be consumed therewith; he that kindled the fire shall surely make restitution.


Psalm 74:7,8

They have cast fire into thy sanctuary, they have defiled by casting down the dwelling place of thy name to the ground. They said in their hearts, Let us destroy them together: they have burned up all the synagogues of God in the land.
Amazing desert structures & stuff: http://sites.google.com/site/potatotrap/

"Let us say I suggest you may be human." -- Reverend Mother Gaius Helen Mohiam
User avatar
Bob
 
Posts: 6762
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 10:00 am
Location: San Francisco
Burning Since: 1986
Camp Name: Royaneh

Postby [CDS] topher » Thu Sep 20, 2007 9:07 pm

[CDS] topher wrote:
ZaphodBurner wrote:Would that have been cool in the context of the argument that it wasn't a safety issue because nobody was hurt? That's how HUNTER FUCKIN THOMPSON would do it, right? He didn't set fires, he used machine guns. What was Addis thinking?


While Hunter might hve done so, he would also had a reasoned response to "why?" --- and if Addis/asshat really had anything more than self aggrandizment on his agenda, he'd have have thought this though and made a STATEMENT to the "why?" question (which I acknkowledge might well be valid) as PART of his 'performance', rather than lamely-attempted anonymity and nothing but endangerment and destruction-without-purpose.
---
] Camp Cul-de-Sac
] Building Community Since 1997
[CDS] topher
 
Posts: 55
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2006 8:50 am
Location: Boulder, Colorado

PreviousNext

Return to Politics & Philosophy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: BBadger and 1 guest