So this is actually a big deal.

[Hasbinlulz]

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2013/01/federal_judge_releases_from_cu.html

[Greegon]

? fuck him, let his ass rot in jail

[Autotune]

just kill him and move on, no reason to waste taxpayer money on a retard.

[Greegon]

yeah, better solution

[Hasbinlulz]

It's a court order against political affiliation, tards.

[OforOppression]

still stands, death 2 him

[Hasbinlulz]

I disagree, but can respect your opinions on that.

That, however, is NOT why this is a big deal.

[Hasbinlulz]

<object width="420" height="315"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/0qW3F48s1fQ?version=3&amp;hl=en_US&amp;rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/0qW3F48s1fQ?version=3&amp;hl=en_US&amp;rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="420" height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>

[Greegon]

sounds pretty reasonable when the political action of this group is to throw molotovs, honestly, if theyre gonna put dopers away might as well fry this one asap.

I don't consider anarchism politics i consider it dumbassness,

lay off that alex jones.

Im just surprised theyd even consider letting him go i mean. fucking molotov?

[Tecmos Deception]

Anarchism IS politics. But that condition for release isn't "a court order against political affiliation" any more than a normal bail is "a court guilty of a kidnapping/random felony." Of course HBB probably thinks a normal bail IS a kidnapping...

[Tecmos Deception]

Also:

<object width="560" height="315"><param name="movie" value="https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/v/3Sm8JM-K1dc?hl=en_US&amp;version=3&amp;rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/v/3Sm8JM-K1dc?hl=en_US&amp;version=3&amp;rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="560" height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>

[Andrew Jackson]

its not a peaceful anarchist group its clearly a terrorist organization

[Lemmy]

It's against ALL communication with ANY anarchist organization.

[Lictor]

So you can have all your freedoms taken away sitting in jail until a march trial, or you can be out of jail with considerably more freedoms and restrictions on your communications. I don't see how this is news worthy.

[Sirken]

~cough~ innocentuntilprovenguiltyinacourtoflaw ~cough~

[Andrew Jackson]

no give hoot

[Andrew Jackson]

and i give so many hoots about politics i give myself a hoot attack

[Daldolma]

Sigh. RC fail. The court isn't ordering him away from political affiliation. The court is offering him a conditional bail that restricts his communication with anarchist groups. He has absolutely no obligation to accept the offer. He is willingly choosing to cease communication with anarchist groups in order to get out of jail while awaiting trial.

[Knuckle]

this is a funny article

[Daldolma]

a) As per US law, it isn't indefinite.

b) There is a third choice. It involves not throwing a Molotov cocktail at a police car.

[Daldolma]

a) Indefinite detentions are unrelated to bail procedures in US criminal court. You don't get bail agreements in the midst of rendition.

b) His arrest was lawful and reasonable. He is not necessarily entitled to bail while awaiting trial. He was charged with a felony. Being charged with a felony is inconvenient. One should make an attempt to not be charged with a felony.

[Lexical]

He got off too easy. If he had done this in Texas, we would have strung his ass up. The man is a domestic terrorist and you are up in arms about him not being allowed to talk to his political party? There is injustice and that is the fact that this git is running around with both legs still working.

[Lexical]

You are right, but what I was alluding to is that he should have never gotten the choice in the first place.

[Lexical]

Okay then, why are you pissed off?

[Daldolma]

He's pissed because one of the conditions of his bail could be interpreted as some kind of infringement upon his freedom of association and/or political belief.

Never mind the fact that a) it requires an affirmative agreement that he has no obligation to accept, b) the court has no obligation to grant him bail at all, and c) release agreements regularly abridge basic civil rights. See: home arrest, tracking bracelets.

[Lexical]

So when was the last time someone had a bail condition that said "you can't talk to any republican?"

When is the last time someone had a bail condition for firebombing a cop car?

[Lexical]

was not is** sorry drinks at the pub D:

[Andrew Jackson]

republican party platform doesnt include firebombs like this terrorist anarchist group does

[Andrew Jackson]

well it does, but just to 'defend' ourselves from smaller foreign nations with no navy or air force halfway around the globe

[Lictor]

So you are upset because you don't understand how granting bail works under our legal system?

[Daldolma]

So when was the last time someone had a bail condition that said "you can't talk to any republican?"

How does that matter? The case is unique and the bail conditions are unique.

And your equivalence between anarchists and Republicans/Democrats is ridiculous. There are > 50 million registered Republicans and even more Democrats. You literally cannot avoid them. Anarchists are few and far between; it's a substantively lesser restriction.

As already stated, civil rights can be and regularly are abridged in release agreements. The court is not obligated to grant bail and the accused isn't obligated to accept the terms of his bail. If he doesn't like it, he can sit in jail while awaiting trial. That's the position you're in when you're charged with a felony. It's best to not be charged with a felony.

[Littlegyno 9.0]

A judge can require, as condition to the person's release, an individual follow certain conditions. Most the time, these conditions include no illegal drugs, excessive alcohol, no contact with alleged victim or witnesses, and no possessing firearms.

Does this mean that the judge is overstepping their authority and infringing on the rights of the accused. Of course not, the accused has every right not to accept and spend time in jail waiting trial. This is in no way out of the ordinary considering this negroid's political affiliations.

Let's look at the definition of anarchist.
an·ar·chist [an-er-kist]
noun
1.
a person who advocates or believes in anarchy or anarchism.
2.
a person who seeks to overturn by violence all constituted forms and institutions of society and government, with no purpose of establishing any other system of order in the place of that destroyed.
3.
a person who promotes disorder or excites revolt against any established rule, law, or custom.

Obviously this negroid is in favor of the violent overthrow of the U.S. Government. This judge should not have granted bail. Regardless since he did, he is well within his rights to restrict his communication to ANYONE he sees fit, until the trial is concluded. If he's found not guilty, he can be free to resume any association he feels he wants to.

[Littlegyno 9.0]

Also, that definition of anarchism is juvenile and informed by an obvious statist bias, IDC what dictionary you got it from.

Cool, let's get one from Merriam-Webster:
Definition of ANARCHIST

1
: a person who rebels against any authority, established order, or ruling power
2
: a person who believes in, advocates, or promotes anarchism or anarchy; especially : one who uses violent means to overthrow the established order

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anarchist

Obviously this negroid throwing a firebomb at a police car can't be considered anarcho-pacifism right? This guy obviously advocates for the violent overthrow of the U.S. government. He should spend 20 years in jail for this.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2385

[Littlegyno 9.0]

BTW, regardless of what the police do to a movement, nonviolence is the ethically and correct way to attempt to enact change. You're a fucking retard negroid thinking this guy is some sort of model.

The civil rights movement experienced this same type of violent retaliation. These violent negroids dishonor previous movements with their negroid behaviors.

[Littlegyno 9.0]

Still not addressing the issue. Gee, I wonder why.

No, I am addressing the issues, you're just a condescending dipshit who thinks reading Reddit articles makes you a special snowflake.

THE JUDGE HAS EVERY AUTHORITY TO RESTRICT COMMUNICATION TO ANY PARTY AS CONDITION TO THE BAIL.

IF A MOBSTER IS ARRESTED, AND GRANTED BAIL, DO YOU THINK THE JUDGE WOULD NOT RESTRICT COMMUNICATION TO KNOWN GANG MEMBERS?

God damn you fat fucking whale. You are dense as fuck. Those 5 Associate's degrees don't seem to have done shit for you huh?

[Littlegyno 9.0]

I'll accept your point when u show me a single case where bail conditions included "don't talk to any republican."

Has a republican affiliated group advocated the violent overthrow of the U.S. Government?

If an individual from a Christian Right organization firebombed a car/abortion clinic/something else, the judge would have every right to restrict communication. Communication with a specific group is not an inherent right when you are undergoing a criminal trial.

[Daldolma]

I'll accept your point when u show me a single case where bail conditions included "don't talk to any republican."

This is either phenomenal trolling or startling stupidity.

[Littlegyno 9.0]

"anarchists" is not a specific group fucktard.

So your issue is that the order is non-specific instead of a specific bail condition like "No contact with convicted felons" etc?

[Daldolma]

His issue is apparently that this is an atypical bail condition. Why that matters in his mind is still uncertain.

[Littlegyno 9.0]

His issue is apparently that this is an atypical bail condition. Why that matters in his mind is still uncertain.

Because he's implying that this negroid is being oppressed by a meanie judge because of his ties to anarchist movements and probably Occupy organizations.

Basically, Hasbinbad is a ******.

[Littlegyno 9.0]

Still you haven't posted about when this has ever happened before.

Also, convict vs political affiliation is a weak analogy at best.

True. I'm not a lawyer and don't have access to court records like that. However, violent anarchists are as illegal as gangs that deal in drugs.

Violent anarchist = illegal
gang that deals drugs = illegal
mafia = illegal

Judge restricts communication with other members of this political ideology seeing as it is an illegal movement.

Dunno more to tell you. Judge is right and there isn't anything anybody can do.

[Lexical]

Still you haven't posted about when this has ever happened before.

Also, convict vs political affiliation is a weak analogy at best.

Here we have a prime example of a temper tantrum being thrown by a child whose only capable of forming minute and inadequate arguments in the guise of a profound defense of some insufferable injustice. Being a child, his world view is not complete and his imagination sometimes gets the better of him and thus lacks a competent understanding of how small this media drivel is as well as how merciful the courts have been.

[Lexical]

Oh wow..

..i..

..um..

..i don't even..

..oh wow.

Did the big words overheat your brain?

[Lexical]

Not even going to try to defend yourself I see. You, as a child, will just sarcastically sink back into your hole feeling you have somehow saved face. I will accept it since I pity you and your petty and naive ideals and feel that the parents are to blame for raising such a child with an incredible sense of entitlement.

[Lexical]

Soooo, any time u all are done attacking me, you can start looking up when this has ever happened before and shut me up.

I will not humor such a childish argument. The only injustice was your fellow man-child wasn't killed on the spot or sent to jail to rot with the other troglodytes.

[SupaflyIRL]

Soooo, any time u all are done attacking me, you can start looking up when this has ever happened before and shut me up.

could save some time by handing you a $20 and giving you a ride to old country buffet, that should shut you up for a few hours

[Lexical]

Only if you tell me the last time a domestic terrorist was granted any type of conditional bail after fire bombing a car.

[Lexical]

oops, cop car. Sorry, we must be specific if we are going to make HBB arguments.

[SupaflyIRL]

not all muslims are violent release khalid sheikh mohammed and dont you dare bar him from contacting al qaeda that would be mean

[SupaflyIRL]

what a sloppy fat idiot

[SupaflyIRL]

First of all, it's an "alleged" crime until this person is convicted. Secondly, because someone does something you don't agree with does NOT make them a domestic terrorist. Thirdly, the onus is on you to present your argument. My position is evident in this thread and I stand by it. You can't attack me without even attempting to address the issue and expect me to take you seriously.

throwing a firebomb at a cop car is not something two people disagree over, it's a crime

[Lexical]

First of all, it's an "alleged" crime until this person is convicted. Secondly, because someone does something you don't agree with does NOT make them a domestic terrorist. Thirdly, the onus is on you to present your argument. My position is evident in this thread and I stand by it. You can't attack me without even attempting to address the issue and expect me to take you seriously.

Your "argument" is utterly asinine. Just because a low end court made some novel ruling isn't a basis for an argument. You and I both agree that the ruling was terrible, but you somehow think he deserved bail and therefore this is "a big deal." You also have a clear lack of understanding on how our legal system actually operates and therefore need to educate yourself and then make a logical argument which I will engage. Your innocent until proven guilty is a correct statement, but it doesn't apply here.

You are right in your second point though so kudos; however, firebombing a cop car as some political motive is a clear act of domestic terrorism. You, being a child, probably didn't understand that much and made some rapid abstraction and came up with that garbage.

[Hailto]

Alleged crime.

Damn do you guys ever get tired of being wrong and looking stupid?

Hey I know, call me fat again. Maybe this time it will hurt my feelings and get me to stop posting.

Yes, everyone around you is wrong and you are actually the enlightened one. One day you're going to have an epiphany and realize the opposite is true.

[Abacab-]

Who is this Lexical faggot? All talking about the legal system like he is full partner and shit

[Lexical]

Here is your asinine argument and tell me what you think. I am just shifting the scope so I hope you can successful follow the logical flow.

There is a small town in Texas who has elected a beer drinking goat as its mayor.
Since this has never happened before, you feel this is animal cruelty since the goat had no say in the matter and proceed to bang pots and pans together saying "This has never happened before therefore we have animal cruelty!"

But since you have been so oblivious of what has been stated on my part, I will spell it out for you. I do not have any prior knowledge (nor am I willing to research such a trite matter) of a low end court ruling on conditional bail that bars the alleged criminal from communicating with their radical political party. What is your point?

Please note: I use the term radical very specifically. Your whole barring from seeing a republican party analogy is nothing more than a straw man argument. You probably didn't know that since you are a child.

[Lexical]

Who is this Lexical faggot? All talking about the legal system like he is full partner and shit

if you only knew dweeb.

[Triangle]

Now I am all for civil rights, but here is why what the judge did was acceptable. For a brief summary: this man's rights and my rights/your rights are different. He is a person awaiting trial and you are not. A judge can take away certain rights of his as a condition to his release while awaiting trial. These rights include his right to travel, and in this case his right to associate with certain groups. The rationale behind such decisions is to decrease the risk this man poses to society. For a longer discussion see below:

Didnt read the whole thread but here is why its not a big deal: you do not necessarily have the right to post bail in all cases. In some states, one of those cases is when you pose a significant danger to society. In this case they let the guy go of course, but they didn't have to because an argument could have been made that he was a significant danger to society. So remember, he is only allowed to not be in jail now while awaiting trial by the grace of the judge - keep that in mind.

Secondly, even though he posted bail he is not a free man, and he will be due back in court. there are restrictions such as his not being able to leave the country, or probably even the state. The reasoning behind restricting his communications with anarchists is is a provision to help ensure that he does not pose a significant danger to society, and this reason alone is why such a restriction can be set.

Don't you think restricting his right to leave the state is worse than restricting his right to meet with anarchists?

[EvilMallet]

0/10 h00ts

[Hailto]

Who is that Hiimbadaka faggot?

[EvilMallet]

he's pling and giving us plat+loot to not pk him

[Lexical]

Now I am all for civil rights, but here is why what the judge did was acceptable. For a brief summary: this man's rights and my rights/your rights are different. He is a person awaiting trial and you are not. A judge can take away certain rights of his as a condition to his release while awaiting trial. These rights include his right to travel, and in this case his right to associate with certain groups. The rationale behind such decisions is to decrease the risk this man poses to society. For a longer discussion see below:

Didnt read the whole thread but here is why its not a big deal: you do not necessarily have the right to post bail in all cases. In some states, one of those cases is when you pose a significant danger to society. In this case they let the guy go of course, but they didn't have to because an argument could have been made that he was a significant danger to society. So remember, he is only allowed to not be in jail now while awaiting trial by the grace of the judge - keep that in mind.

Secondly, even though he posted bail he is not a free man, and he will be due back in court. there are restrictions such as his not being able to leave the country, or probably even the state. The reasoning behind restricting his communications with anarchists is is a provision to help ensure that he does not pose a significant danger to society, and this reason alone is why such a restriction can be set.

Don't you think restricting his right to leave the state is worse than restricting his right to meet with anarchists?

I was hoping to let the man-child figure this out for himself. Simply telling him the answer only fuels his narcissistic, self entitled view of the world.

[Lictor]

Innocent until proven guilty standard has nothing to do with a bail proceeding. The defendant has been indicted for a felony through an Oregon grand jury. There are million burden of proof grand jury opinions, you don't need a lexis or westlaw account to look them up.

Once indicted in Oregon, ORS 135.250:

General conditions of release agreement. (1) If a defendant is released before judgment, the conditions of the release agreement shall be that the defendant will:

(a) Appear to answer the charge in the court having jurisdiction on a day certain and thereafter as ordered by the court until the defendant is discharged or the judgment is entered;

(b) Submit to the orders and process of the court;

(c) Not depart this state without leave of the court; and

(d) Comply with such other conditions as the court may impose.


The whole idea of bail is to actually have the defendant show up for the trial to determine guilt or innocence. These four conditions, as per statute, are construed with great liberty by the trial judge.

If the judge determined further communication with his political group somehow lessened the chance the defendant would show up for trial, he can make conditions to conteract it. In some jurisdictions such great deference is given to the trial judge regarding bail, that his decision is not even subject to appeal.

Finding a specific case on point, with your exact facts, and in your exact jurisdiction is often like finding a needle in a hay stack. That is why you pay thousands of dollars for young attorneys to look up in the firm you retained.

[Daldolma]

First of all, it's an "alleged" crime until this person is convicted. Secondly, because someone does something you don't agree with does NOT make them a domestic terrorist. Thirdly, the onus is on you to present your argument. My position is evident in this thread and I stand by it. You can't attack me without even attempting to address the issue and expect me to take you seriously.

Actually, your position isn't evident. Your conclusion is that this is a big deal. You have yet to fully explain why.

Even if no such bail condition had been set previously -- and that's very much an 'if' that you have yet to prove -- so what? Past bail conditions have abridged freedom of association, freedom of travel, freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, etc. There is absolutely no reason to be surprised that a defendant charged with a felony has had his civil rights restricted in a release agreement that he, you know, agreed to. For some inexplicable reason, you seem to believe freedom of political association should be the one untouchable civil right in bail agreements.

It isn't and it's not news. Bail conditions can require you to live in your fucking room with a tracking device attached to your ankle if the judge sees fit. They can require you to cease all communication with your parents, your wife, or your favorite pizza delivery store. They can do just about anything the fuck they want, because they're not legally binding unless they're agreed to by the defendant. Your martyr accepted these terms in order to get out of jail. He had every right to reject the conditions and sit in jail. He chose this.

[EvilMallet]

TG: laptops dont need cozies
TG: nothing needs cozies
TG: cozy is a goddamn adjective
TG: maybe ill crochet myself an iphone snuggly

[Lexical]

Yes. The former has precedents and is a well established way of increasing penalties for (conversely reducing the likelihood of) flight. This is completely different. The part of the thread you probably didn't read had to do with me asking "when did the dude who allegedly assaulted cop property have the judge tell him 'YOU CAN NOT TALK TO ANY REPUBLICANS WHILE YOU ARE OUT ON BAIL' ??"

When did that happen?

Fucking never, that's when.

Go back to your tinker toys boy. The adults are done humoring your jejune stance.

[Breeziyo]

p1999 - young lawyers edition

[SupaflyIRL]

ok fuck specifics, when did this ever happen when "you can't talk to any republican" on the bail conditions for any crime ever?

straw man

you just keep saying its a big deal and not giving any proof why it is

fuck this guy, in cases like this i'm pretty sure you're even supposed to wink when you say "alleged"

[Daldolma]

He's just trolling.

[stormlord]

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2013/01/federal_judge_releases_from_cu.html
Is that John Rambo?

Looks like him, don't it? I thin so.

[stormlord]

So what kind of anarchists was this guy associating with? Not all of them are equally dangerous. There're a lot of undergrounders that're anti-government but non-violent.

Just being anti-government is not justification to take that right away. I understand this John Rambo committed a crime and is awaiting trial and thus is not a free man and that courts have the power to assign conditions to bail, but there's a certain assumption in there that the anarchist group(s) are not only the cause of his behavior but a violence-inducing hate-group.

[stormlord]

If there's reason to believe the man is a threat outside jail I think it's better to just keep em locked up. Otherwise, you're setting a precedent by cutting away freedoms in the outside world. You start to take liberties with it and before long you're like the gatekeeper of what's acceptable and what's not. The big daddy.

[stormlord]

You might think I'm blowing smoke.

But cops aren't always good guys. Just remember that.

[Daldolma]

If there's reason to believe the man is a threat outside jail I think it's better to just keep em locked up. Otherwise, you're setting a precedent by cutting away freedoms in the outside world. You start to take liberties with it and before long you're like the gatekeeper of what's acceptable and what's not. The big daddy.

What precedent are you setting?

Freedom of association has been revoked thousands and thousands of times in bail agreements. Far more restrictive conditions are commonplace, including house arrest and tracking devices. What is so special about the political angle that makes it immune to bail agreements in comparison to, say, a person's right to move without the government tracking it?

And anyway, the reason for restricting his communication with anarchist groups had nothing to do with them being dangerous. It was based on him being a flight risk and anarchists openly opposing he submit to the justice system.

[Daldolma]

Er, anarchism promotes the non-recognition of governmental authority. The criminal justice system is an apparatus of governmental authority. So pretty much yes.

[Daldolma]

Still sticking with something I didn't say, that you implied? No.

If you had read your own link -- or even my post -- you'd see that I was merely relaying the reasoning given by the prosecution. The anarchist group he was involved with was "trying to obstruct" the federal inquiry. Naturally, the prosecution viewed them as a contributing factor to his risk of flight. But their ideological underpinning involves the promotion of non-recognition of governmental authority. It is then reasonable to expect that similarly minded groups may add to his risk of flight.

And it's anarchist groups -- it's not every single anarchist.

[Daldolma]

It is a fallacy to apply to the general that which pertains to the specific. I'm sure you know that.

How does one differentiate between a group and an individual? Is any individual who is in a group therefore considered a group? If not, why have this ruling anyway since he can just talk to any individual in the group? They are repressing him from his friends and his family. They are doing it based on political ideology. This is part of a continuing trend within activist "justice" to make the level of consequences reflect NOT the level of criminality, but rather to reflect the level of ideological dissonance with the state. I can furnish many completely ludicrous examples of charges brought against radicals and anarchists and other non-statists if you're interested in me backing up that statement.

No, it isn't a fallacy. A fallacy would be to say that because his anarchist group obstructed his trial, every anarchist group would obstruct the trial.

The court has held that because the defendant is an anarchist that has allegedly acted criminally in conjunction with those beliefs, and because anarchism promotes an ideology that would interfere with his cooperation in criminal proceedings, further interaction with anarchist groups would increase his risk of flight. His own anarchist group is an example. That is not a logical fallacy.

And there are many ways for the court to differentiate between a person and a group, but for the sake of argument, let's say yes: communicating with any current member of an anarchist group would qualify as communicating with the group itself.

That is not a form of illegal repression. It is a restriction that he willingly accepted after being charged with a felony. But what you're not understanding is that even the worst of the things you're accusing the court of, repressing him by alienating him from his friends and family, are 100% legal under bail agreements. They could have eliminated the pretense altogether. They could have just said "you can't talk to friends or family". They could have said he can't talk to anyone at all except his lawyer. That would have been a 100% legal bail agreement.

He didn't have to accept this. There was no obligation for the court to give him bail, and no obligation for him to accept it. But he did. For all you know, it was his lawyer that proposed it. In fact, it probably was.

It's funny, he was also ordered to maintain a job, to abstain from drugs and alcohol, and to live with his girlfriend. Many of his civil rights were restricted, but there's only one that you seem to care about.

[SupaflyIRL]

tl;dr saying "If all Anarchists oppose the justice system, this specific anarchist must oppose the justice system." is not applying to the general that which pertains to the specific, but the exact opposite.

If an anarchist believes he should let the justice system decide his fate, he's not "doing it rite"

[Daldolma]

Oh and by the way, I'd seriously and not sarcastically like to see some historical proof that the level of consequences in this case are not in line with previous cases in which a Molotov cocktail was thrown at a police building or vehicle.

[SupaflyIRL]

Shut your whore mouth. Grown folk are speaking.

You don't even know what the fuck you are talking about, much less what this conversation is about.

fat

[Daldolma]

1.) It absolutely is a fallacy to say that "It is then reasonable to expect that similarly minded groups may add to his risk of flight." It absolutely is NOT reasonable to expect that of every anarchist group based on the actions of any given group within the set.

1a.) Anarchism or anti-statism is not synonymous with "violent" or even "revolution." Anarchism can be and (most often) is practiced within the bounds of a state. If we need to define terms here, we should, because you keep casting implications that somehow this dude is a violent crazy BECAUSE HE IS AN ANARCHIST, rather than because he threw a molotov cocktail on a cop car.

2.) You keep coming back to this same argument of "willing acceptance." Of course he chose to be free during trial. That's a ridiculous statement, considering the issue has nothing to do with this dude's thoughts or actions, the premise I am holding is that the bail conditions are completely out of line with anything that has ever been done, and that the reason for said conditions is state repression of a political ideology.

3.) Those other bail conditions have precedents and well-understood rationales.

1.) Right, which is what I just said. You're ignoring the substance of my last post. It is not an expectation of "every" anarchist group, and it is not on the sole basis of the actions of his anarchist group. The defendant has allegedly acted criminally in conjunction with anarchist beliefs. Anarchism, as an ideology, would also promote his non-cooperation with court proceedings. His own anarchist group has provided an example of that. The ideology of non-cooperation, not the actions of his group, are the basis for the condition. His group merely provides evidence.

1a.) Is this even directed at me? I've never said anything of the sort. This man was, allegedly, violent. He was violent toward government officials, ostensibly in conjunction with his anarchist beliefs. That doesn't make anarchism violent, and in fact, the origins of his violent behavior are not a contributing consideration in this bail. It's about his risk of flight, not his risk of danger. He's not a violent crazy because he's an anarchist, but the fact that he has already (allegedly) broken the law in support of his anarchist beliefs should rightfully be weighed when considering his bail -- especially since that same ideology may very well also prompt him to not cooperate with the courts.

2.) Your premise is based on false information. This isn't at all out of line with anything that's been done before. Bail conditions routinely abridge a person's rights, including freedom of association. They don't often abridge a person's right to political association but that's a matter of practice more than a matter of principle, and freedom of political affiliation isn't materially different than freedom of association in general. It's not often necessary to restrict a person's political affiliation while on bail. That doesn't mean it's illegal or unethical. It's just not often done, for the same reason bail conditions don't often restrict access to video games or amusement parks.

3.) This bail condition also has precedent. Freedom of association is regularly abridged. Even within the sphere you're emphasizing, of political affiliation, you've yet to provide evidence that this is the first and only time it's ever happened. I find that difficult to believe. And the rationale behind this condition is evident. He subscribes to an ideology that promotes non-cooperation with governmental authority. His alleged crime ostensibly stems from that ideology. In other words, he has already allegedly broken the law in coordination with these beliefs. Now, his cooperation with the criminal justice system is a condition of his bail. As such, his continued association with groups that support an ideology that runs contrary to his cooperation with the criminal justice system is viewed as unacceptable by the court.

[EvilMallet]

http://i.imgur.com/iEWqo.jpg

[Daldolma]

I never said that. RC fail.

How does one differentiate between a group and an individual? Is any individual who is in a group therefore considered a group? If not, why have this ruling anyway since he can just talk to any individual in the group? They are repressing him from his friends and his family. They are doing it based on political ideology. This is part of a continuing trend within activist "justice" to make the level of consequences reflect NOT the level of criminality, but rather to reflect the level of ideological dissonance with the state. I can furnish many completely ludicrous examples of charges brought against radicals and anarchists and other non-statists if you're interested in me backing up that statement.

I am asking you to prove that the consequences do not reflect the level of criminality. You're placing this within a larger context, and I'm questioning its place in that context. The level of criminality is throwing a Molotov cocktail at a police vehicle. I will also accept a police building as similar conditions. Show me an example of the consequences for that level of criminality being less severe than in this scenario. I am not saying it doesn't exist -- I'm just asking you to provide evidence before making such a sweeping claim. From what I can tell, the consequences very much fit the level of criminality and in fact, I would not be surprised if there have been defendants charged with similar crimes in the past that were not offered bail at all.

[SupaflyIRL]

Wait. I made a statement. You refuted it with [a bunch of words]. You cannot now seriously be asking me to back up stuff I have said in response to your [talking a lot] without backing up what you originally said.

You then even go so far as to ask me to prove the thing I'm asking you.

So, I ask you again sir. When has this happened before?

My postulation is "I doubt it ever has." That was the point of the OP, and something YOU have argued with. I'm eagerly awaiting your response.

Actually I'm going to bed. I may or may not have more to say to the other post tomorrow night, but that depends on if the girl puts out.

fat

[SupaflyIRL]

and by that i mean, of course she'll put out she's fat

[SupaflyIRL]

but maybe not because you're fat too

[SupaflyIRL]

if that's how we're going to measure how mad someone is, you just quadruple posted

[SupaflyIRL]

Did I? was it to call you names?

post your pic again

[Daldolma]

Wait. I made a statement. You refuted it with [a bunch of words]. You cannot now seriously be asking me to back up stuff I have said in response to your [talking a lot] without backing up what you originally said.

You then even go so far as to ask me to prove the thing I'm asking you.

So, I ask you again sir. When has this happened before?

My postulation is "I doubt it ever has." That was the point of the OP, and something YOU have argued with. I'm eagerly awaiting your response.

Actually I'm going to bed. I may or may not have more to say to the other post tomorrow night, but that depends on if the girl puts out.

My response is that bail conditions routinely restrict the freedom of association, and freedom of political affiliation isn't substantively different from freedom of association. In other words, it happens literally every day. To that end, freedom of association is no more or less important than other basic civil rights such as freedom of speech and freedom of movement. All of these are subject to restriction under the terms of a bail agreement. This is not a special snowflake.

Good luck with the sex.

[Andrew Jackson]

stop spergin out over anarchist terrorist bail conditions far as im concerned he should be gitmo'd

[Hitchens]

It does not. It never has. Freedom of association restrictions with a specific group or specific individuals I could understand - this has precedent. But contact with any individual with the same political affiliation is not something that happens, and you know it. You can try to spin this whatever, you dance around the issue, but you still have never produced when this has happened before. This IS a special snowflake.

You are doing great work for the cause of liberty by posting your opinion on this issue. You are a modern day Voltaire.

Also:

http://i.imgur.com/yFZL4.gif

[Lexical]

ITT: HBB thinks anarchists are not a specific group.

[Lexical]

u dum as fuq

lulz

What percentage of Americans would you say identify themselves as anarchists?

[Lexical]

kinda does.

[Lexical]

Answer the question first.

[Lexical]

Would you say that anarchists have a very clear attribute that sets them apart from non-anarchists?

[Lexical]

So it is more of a political philosophy you are saying than a party?

[Lexical]

This makes it different than banning the person from seeing anyone who affiliates with the republican party right?

[Lexical]

but you didn't say conservative, you said republican party and now you are saying anarchism is not a political party :confused:

[Lexical]

I guess by completely changing your stance is a way to avoid a trap card, but that still doesn't matter. Anarchism has very clear ideologies that set it apart from other things making anarchists a specific group who thus you would agree with is okay to bar from seeing. Not only that, but given the very small population of anarchist groups(which the court barred the man-child from seeing) it ruling becomes even more specific. You are only using hyperbole to make your point seem relevant, but in the grand scheme of things, it isn't.

[Lexical]

it explains why you are wrong which is a trivial matter so yes nothing in the grand scheme of things.

[Lexical]

why?

[Lexical]

I think saying "anarchists are not a specific group" is by far a much more retarded thing to say.

[Lexical]

care to explain why or are you unable?

[Lexical]

I am not the one who completely changed their argument during the questioning. It is cute to see you try to sound intelligent though.

[Lexical]

You still haven't answered me though. It was a good run, but you are the biggest retard.

[Lexical]

and yes you did change your stance. Reread the thread.