D. Peter Maus wrote:
On 8/16/10 14:08 , SMITH29 wrote:
Keith wrote:
The government tightens it's grip around the throat of those who dare
question their agents actions.

A Brooklyn jury took less than two hours Friday to convict right-wing
loudmouth Harold (Hal) Turner of threatening to kill three Chicago

judges.
xxxx
Sounds like this moron got what he deserves.



Be that as it may, when the government goes after an outspoken critic
with criminal charges, it should give all of us the willies.

And reason to look more closely at what actually took place.

xxxx
What gives me the willies is someone with a microphone advocating
bloodshed concerning gun laws.
NO Second Amendment advocate wants to hear or read this kind of language.

"Let me be the first to say this plainly: these judges deserve to be
killed,"

He was WAYYYY out of bounds and he has to take responsibility for
broadcasting that about principals of the court.

On 8/16/10 15:02 , SMITH29 wrote:
D. Peter Maus wrote:
On 8/16/10 14:08 , SMITH29 wrote:
Keith wrote:
The government tightens it's grip around the throat of those who dare
question their agents actions.

A Brooklyn jury took less than two hours Friday to convict right-wing
loudmouth Harold (Hal) Turner of threatening to kill three Chicago

judges.
xxxx
Sounds like this moron got what he deserves.



Be that as it may, when the government goes after an outspoken critic
with criminal charges, it should give all of us the willies.

And reason to look more closely at what actually took place.

xxxx
What gives me the willies is someone with a microphone advocating
bloodshed concerning gun laws.
NO Second Amendment advocate wants to hear or read this kind of language.

"Let me be the first to say this plainly: these judges deserve to be
killed,"

He was WAYYYY out of bounds and he has to take responsibility for
broadcasting that about principals of the court.


Not disputing that he was way out of bounds. Nor that he did not
represent the Second Amendment in the spirit in which it was intended.

The point is that the government went after him, a loud and
outspoken critic of the government, with criminal charges.

That's a very troubling situation, and close scrutiny is not only
warranted, but required.

Further, the issue of his FBI involvement raises deeply
concerning questions about the very nature of the case, and the
actions of the government in not only this pursuit, but in his
actions that brought this pursuit in the first place.

Make no mistake. I'm no fan of Turner. And have told him directly
a number of times.

But I get shivers when I read about this pillory, the very loud
and public government action against him while using him for their
covert surveillance, and the nature of the publicity that surrounds
him.

Eternal vigilance, here. When the government goes after its
critics, nothing is as it seems.

D. Peter Maus wrote:
On 8/16/10 15:02 , SMITH29 wrote:
D. Peter Maus wrote:
On 8/16/10 14:08 , SMITH29 wrote:
Keith wrote:
The government tightens it's grip around the throat of those who dare
question their agents actions.

A Brooklyn jury took less than two hours Friday to convict right-wing
loudmouth Harold (Hal) Turner of threatening to kill three Chicago

judges.
xxxx
Sounds like this moron got what he deserves.



Be that as it may, when the government goes after an outspoken critic
with criminal charges, it should give all of us the willies.

And reason to look more closely at what actually took place.

xxxx
What gives me the willies is someone with a microphone advocating
bloodshed concerning gun laws.
NO Second Amendment advocate wants to hear or read this kind of language.

"Let me be the first to say this plainly: these judges deserve to be
killed,"

He was WAYYYY out of bounds and he has to take responsibility for
broadcasting that about principals of the court.


Not disputing that he was way out of bounds. Nor that he did not
represent the Second Amendment in the spirit in which it was intended.

The point is that the government went after him, a loud and outspoken
critic of the government, with criminal charges.

That's a very troubling situation, and close scrutiny is not only

warranted, but required.

Further, the issue of his FBI involvement raises deeply concerning
questions about the very nature of the case, and the actions of the
government in not only this pursuit, but in his actions that brought
this pursuit in the first place.

Make no mistake. I'm no fan of Turner. And have told him directly a
number of times.

But I get shivers when I read about this pillory, the very loud and
public government action against him while using him for their covert
surveillance, and the nature of the publicity that surrounds him.

Eternal vigilance, here. When the government goes after its critics,
nothing is as it seems.

xxxx
Sounds like he had become a loose cannon on the deck of the good ship
" Whistle Blow "

On Mon 8/16/10 15:02, SMITH29 wrote:
D. Peter Maus wrote:
On 8/16/10 14:08 , SMITH29 wrote:
Keith wrote:
The government tightens it's grip around the throat of those who dare
question their agents actions.

A Brooklyn jury took less than two hours Friday to convict right-wing
loudmouth Harold (Hal) Turner of threatening to kill three Chicago

judges.
xxxx
Sounds like this moron got what he deserves.



Be that as it may, when the government goes after an outspoken critic
with criminal charges, it should give all of us the willies.

And reason to look more closely at what actually took place.


One must presume that the jury looked very closely at what took place.


xxxx
What gives me the willies is someone with a microphone advocating
bloodshed concerning gun laws.
NO Second Amendment advocate wants to hear or read this kind of language.

"Let me be the first to say this plainly: these judges deserve to be
killed,"

He was WAYYYY out of bounds and he has to take responsibility for
broadcasting that about principals of the court.

On 8/17/10 07:57 , Dakota wrote:

D. Peter Maus wrote:

Be that as it may, when the government goes after an outspoken critic
with criminal charges, it should give all of us the willies.

And reason to look more closely at what actually took place.


One must presume that the jury looked very closely at what took place.



One must presume nothing of the sort. The jury are only able to
look at what has been presented them. Which is, in all cases, not
the whole story.

What the jury can look at CLOSELY is limited by the attorneys who
present the evidence, and the judges who allow it. It's never ALL
the evidence.

What they ACTUALLY look at closely, no one ever knows.