Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The OT' started by Unknown, Jul 20, 2012.
There is also a bill in Congress to ban online ammunition sales and to require reporting of purchases of ammunition of more than 1000.
Of course I don't think that will shut down sites like The Armory. Plus I think it also goes without saying, if someone really wanted bulk ammo etc, they will be able to find someone to buy it from that doesn't follow the regulations.
Since we were talking about exonerations and wrongful convictions, I'd thought I'd toss this out here:
Just when you think we can't possibly get any more stupid.
If buying it on-line, where you have to use some form of electronic payment AND have it shipped somewhere didn't ring any bells, do you think walking into a couple of Wal-Marts and paying cash would?
So, can I consider that "a sign"? Or are we still going with the notion that this DB was just a regular guy up until he put on the hair dye?
At least with the one site, though I think it's the big exception to the rule, they ship the products out in multiple packages. Sometimes 10-20 separate pieces. Payment is in bitcoin.
While not quite the same as using your Visa and having a 100 lb. box labeled "Crap-load of ammunition" shipped to your office, it's still trackable. They have to ship it to someone and bitcoin is public domain.
If I was so inclined, I could buy more ammo than he did in a few hours paying cash with no trail at all.
True, though since they don't have your IP, as the site is only accessible through Tor, it does make it more difficult.
This is an interesting story. Reading the link, I can't tell completely what happened, but it appears that other persons have given statements implicating themselves in the crime.
It may well be that the persons convicted are innocent. However, it does not appear from the story that there are any allegations of improper actions by law enforcement, or of ineffective assistance of counsel by the defense.
What our system provides for is a process by which twelve (in most states) jurors evaluate the evidence and reach a verdict. There is no guarantee that the twelve jurors will "get it right." There is no guarantee that an innocent person will not be convicted, nor is there any guarantee that a guilty person will not be acquitted. What the criminal justice system guarantees is the integrity of the process, not the correct result.
If you were accused of a crime and were innocent, would you testify in your own defense? Would you opt for a court or a jury trial?
Now ask yourself the same questions, but assume that you are guilty.
Just food for thought.
Oh, you were serious?
I can see the lawyers firing up their lawsuits now.
Attempt at what? Self-defense?
Can't say I blame him since apparently the police and feds won't respond to pshychologists requests to look into deranged individuals that they think might be a threat to society...