Anonymous' Barrett Brown Raided By FBI During Online Chat

SternisheFan sends this excerpt from Wired: "For the second time this year, self-proclaimed Anonymous spokesman Barrett Brown was raided by the FBI. The latest dramatic incident occurred late Wednesday evening while Brown and another woman identified by some as his girlfriend were participating in an online chat on TinyChat with other individuals. Two minutes into the recorded chat session, loud voices could be heard in the background of Brown's residence in Texas while the woman in the room with him was in front of the computer screen. She quickly closed the computer screen, but the audio continued to capture events in the room as the FBI appeared to strong-arm Brown to put handcuffs on him. Brown could be heard yelling in the background. A spokeswoman in the Dallas County sheriff's office confirmed to Wired that Brown was raided last night and was booked into the county jail around 11 p.m." (Warning: the video embedded with the article contains mature language.)

Comments

Just self defense

[cpu6502]

In my opinion every individual has a right to defend himself when an intruders (or intruders) suddenly busts down the door and puts you in fear for your life. I would have no problems if a resident shot & killed the intruders.

Re:Just self defense

[Anonymous Coward]

True, but if they're wearing police uniforms you'll almost certainly get your butt kicked if you resist arrest. And they'll shoot back.

Re:Just self defense

[Maho Shoujo]

If it were a no-knock raid perhaps, but if they announce that they are police, then such action would be inexcusable murder.

Re:Just self defense

[Anonymous Coward]

Down in momma's basement you'll never worry about it.

Re:Just self defense

[CoderJoe]

Even in a no-knock raid, if you fire on the police, and especially if you kill one of them, you are going to be in for a world of hurt from the brotherhood of blue.

Re:Just self defense

[sjames]

If they don't show credentials, it doesn't mean much. Any thug can yell police.

Re:Just self defense

[Anonymous Coward]

Ofcourse, everyone knows intruders can't scream "Police"...

Re:Just self defense

[silas_moeckel]

Have we stopped being civil? Was this guy a risk of flight? Did he have a history of violence? A friend committed mail fraud, they called him told him there was a warrant out for his arrest. He was asked to turn himself in, he got council they had time to review it. Assuming that everybody is a violet offender that will run is a core issue of our police system these days.

Re:Just self defense

[silas_moeckel]

And this is right how? That is exactly the abuse of power governments are supposed to protect us from.

Re:Just self defense

[TheSwift]

If it were a no-knock raid perhaps, but if they announce that they are police, then such action would be inexcusable murder.

I agree. I'm all for justice and for protecting our rights, but police who have legitimate warrants to arrest people shouldn't have to worry that they'll get shot when they announce they're coming in. Maybe I'm a little biased since Barrett sounds unnecessarily inflammatory to me.

Re:Just self defense

[kurt555gs]

You can in Indiana! Really.

Re:Just self defense

[Anonymous Coward]

Government: Arrest this criminal.
Police: *Go to arrest criminal*
Criminal: *Shoots and kills cop* Self defence!
Government: You're right, self defence. Sorry, you're free to go.

Are you retarded, or really fucking retarded?

Re:Just self defense

[morari]

Murder in a uniform is heroic, in a costume it is a crime.

Re:Just self defense

[CanHasDIY]

If it were a no-knock raid perhaps, but if they announce that they are police, then such action would be inexcusable murder.

I agree. I'm all for justice and for protecting our rights, but police who have legitimate warrants to arrest people shouldn't have to worry that they'll get shot when they announce they're coming in.

Totally.

Of course, if they have a legitimate warrant, there is zero excuse for executing a "no-knock" search unless the individual being served is a known violent/flight risk. Being an attention-hungry diva doesn't quite qualify, IMO.

Re:Just self defense

[CanHasDIY]

You can in Indiana! Really.

Missouri too, provided they do not identify themselves as LEO's prior to kicking in the door.

Even then... anybody can buy blue shirts and badges from a variety of online retailers, and there have, locally, been several incidents in recent years of people impersonating cops so they can rob/rape/whatever.

Re:Just self defense

[Anonymous Coward]

Depends on the nature of the "arrest"- without a Warrant, they're not operating within their authority. Seriously.

Re:Just self defense

[CoderJoe]

Where, exactly, did I say that it was alright?

Re:Just self defense

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope, see "probable cause".

Re:Just self defense

[Charliemopps]

If I were constantly being harassed and raided by the police, I'd simply cut a 6'x6' hole in my floor just inside the front door and staple a rug across it. Start using the garage door and keep it closed from the inside. Next time they entered without knocking they'd end up in my basement.

Re:Just self defense

[Anonymous Coward]

Why was that marked as flamebait? If they didn't have a warrant, Brown would have every right to shoot them.

Re:Just self defense

[BlueStrat]

Depends on the nature of the "arrest"- without a Warrant, they're not operating within their authority. Seriously.

Doesn't matter.

You'll still be ventilated if they even think you look like you're going to resist, whether or not the raid is legal or not. They're trained to treat every raid as if they were going up against hardened, experienced, and well-armed enemies.

And that's what you are at that moment. An enemy to be neutralized and rendered helpless and harmless as swiftly as possible with the least risk to themselves. not the least risk to the people they're charged to protect, themselves.

Whether or not you are guilty of anything isn't their job or worry. They are a paramilitary assault & entry team. They assault and enter like they face at least an equally-armed & trained force at a minimum. Until you are face-down, restrained/cuffed, and have been searched you are potentially a heavily-armed threat.

Just look at how Amish dairy farmers were raided, and Gibson Guitars were raided. Guns drawn, like the Amish or a luthier normally pack an H&K MP5.

Strat

Re:Just self defense

[Anonymous Coward]

There are two reasons for a no-knock arrest. Either they think the suspect will resist or they thing evidence might be destroyed; in either case surprise and overwhelming force are used whether you approve of it or not.

Re:Just self defense

[Anonymous Coward]

He's a fucking nerd. They could have knocked on his door, politely informed him that he was going to be arrested, then given him the chance to accompany them peacefully.

This is how it works where I live.

Re:Just self defense

[SternisheFan]

And if you ever do end up in ANY jail, be respectful to the guards, or they WILL hurt you badly. In the 90's I served 15 days in the county jail in Long Island. A guy who came in was "mouthy" to the guards there, after a couple of days they pulled him out of his cell, which was next to.mine)surrounded him (15guards) while one head guard kicked him mercilessly. Between every kick, the guard yelled, "Who's the big man NOW!! HUH? Who's the big man NOW!" I'll never forget this. Four days later they bring him back to his cell, and he must've gotten their 'message', because he didn't cause any more problems. So, if you're dealing with law enforcement, play it cool, my advice.

Re:Just self defense

[shiftless]

For bonus points put some long spikes at the bottom.

Re:Just self defense

[Anonymous Coward]

That isn't what was said in the video. Stop propagating propaganda. He said he would defense against those he believed NOT to be government officials.

Re:Just self defense

[Anonymous Coward]

Not if you have any halfway decent lawyer.
It really depends on the specific situation.
If you give the impression that you were sitting there, gun aimed at the door waiting for the fuzz to bust through the door,
then yes you will be fucked.
But if you can make a good case for why you thought it was a bunch of criminals, then you'll walk.
Also, this is exactly why I think people should be armed.
Cops should always be kept on their toes.
If it's legal to shoot them, they will be extra careful not to fuck up.

Re:Just self defense

[hairyfeet]

Then in that case there shouldn't be a fricking no knock take down huh? lets face it if someone yell police while blasting down your door either with their feet or a fricking ram do you REALLY think you are gonna hear them over the exploding door?

If you REALLY want to see what the problem is at its core watch "The largest gang in America" on YouTube, No bullshit, nothing made up, just actual footage of cops acting NO DIFFERENT than your average gang bangers. Bashing people's heads who haven't done shit, starting trouble just so they can pound on someone, its completely disgusting and even more so when you realize that the vast majority of cops on that video are STILL ON THE FORCE thus condoning that kind of behavior.

Re:Just self defense

[DarwinSurvivor]

If I were constantly being harassed and raided by the police, I'd simply cut a 6'x6' hole in my floor just inside the front door and staple a rug across it. Start using the garage door and keep it closed from the inside. Next time they entered without knocking they'd end up in my basement.

1) How do you plan to get in if it's closed from the inside?

2) In Canada, setting "traps", even in your own home, is a crime in and of itself. This is to protect fire/ambulance as well as police officers that may need to enter, sometimes to save YOUR sorry ass. Does the US not have an equivalent to this law?

Re:Just self defense

[icebike]

Its almost impossible to make the claim that the Swat team dressed in bulletproof vests labeled POLICE in 6 inch high letters, hollering POLICE, SEARCH WARRANT was mistaken for a bunch of criminals.

Good luck with that.

Re:Just self defense

[kelemvor4]

Depends on the nature of the "arrest"- without a Warrant, they're not operating within their authority. Seriously.

If you live within 100 miles of a U.S. Border, no warrant is needed. That's 66% of all Americans. http://www.aclu.org/national-security_technology-and-liberty/are-you-living-constitution-free-zone

Re:Just self defense

[icebike]

If the intruders come by the dozen full combat gear and bullet proof vests does it really matter if they aren't police?

You are still dead.

Re:Just self defense

[icebike]

Really?
Maybe they should call ahead and give him a couple weeks to wipe his hard drive?

Say, Barret, we were going to be in the neighborhood next week, how bout we drop by and pick up your computers, Ok? We got a warrant and everything. 10:am sound fine? Good , see you then old boy. On, and you won't erase anything between now and then will you? Goodl. Thought not. Shall we bring you a Latte when we come? Ok, then. See you next week.

You know, I bet that approach would work with drug dealers, bank robbers, and murderers too.
Have you thought about running for Sheriff or something? You'd be bound to get elected.

Re:Just self defense

[Anonymous Coward]

Murder in a uniform is heroic, in a costume it is a crime.

Correct!

Re:Just self defense

[macraig]

What you described is a police state in miniature. That we're engaged in scaling it up now doesn't seem to be open to much debate, only how far along we are. Such a lovely time to be an American.

Re:Just self defense

[Anonymous Coward]

Just like John Rambo. Let him slip through the cracks and they can pick him up in a couple months in Portland working at a car wash.

Okay, not quite the same but they can scope out his house and pick him up the first time he gets in his car or takes out his trash. Police swat teams are ITCHING to use their training and force and the code of blue will always protect them from any action that might get them into trouble for using excessive force. He lunged at me or I saw him reaching for something from his waste band is all one of them has to say. Most policeman are policeman because they like the authority and power. Just about anyone can become a policeman. Just about anyone with above average physical ability can become a member of an assault or swat team. Code of blue to taught from day one and their structure is similar to the military (but missing many of the critical pieces). It breeds the culture of protect your own against the enemy. Again, "reaching for something from his wasteband" is all it takes. How many criminals that don't have guns on them are realistically going to act like they do and going to pull out a cell phone in a quick and deliberate manner to make it appear as they do? Cops are aiming guns at me, I'm standing in the middle of a room looking at them, I suddenly have the urge to rapidly reach for my cell phone from my underwear and call someone. I don't fucking think so. At least not as many times as that excuse is used by those in blue.

Re:Just self defense

[Larryish]

Sung to the tune of a Lee Greenwood song:

I was born in America
Where I'm often told I'm free
And I voted for the piece of shit
Who told that lie to me
And I'll prick my finger next to you
At the all-you-can-eat buffet
I can't afford to move abroad
Trapped in the U.S.A.

Re:Just self defense

[notdotcom.com]

Oh course you do realize that if he did think that it wasn't real, and was armed with any rifle, body armor does very little good.

There is an advantage to trying to do things civilly first. Papers, knocking, waiting for him to leave home, etc is actually in any police forces's best interest.

An ar-15 with 5.56mm green tip (mil surp) ammunition will destroy body armor and kevler helmets.

An ar-10 or M1A or ak style with 7.62 will make someone with body armor "extra dead"

Both can easily and legally hold 30-100 rounds per magazine in about 49 states (by civilians).

Re:Just self defense

[notdotcom.com]

The typo in "violets" for the op made me think of this classic Gilda Radner SNL skit:

Emily Littela: And in other news, there's too much violins on TV. There's too much violins on television. They should put the violins on at eleven after the kids are asleep.

Chevy Chase: Um, Emily, that's violence, not violins.

Emily Littela: Never mind.

Re:Just self defense

[Anonymous Coward]

Two points.

1. No one can make a clear decision in such a rash situation. P.S. You can buy swat gear in catalogs, but that would make this even stranger.

2. The only true purpose of a raid is to catch someone in the act of doing something or having knowledge that the situation is dangerous. I highly doubt the second is true, so they hoped to catch him in the act of something, of which nothing was mentioned in the summary so that failed.

Honestly speaking, this would have gone over much better if they served a warrant at his door and walked in instead of forcing themselves. They wanted big headlines, and I hope they get some that they don't like.

Re:Just self defense

[icebike]

He still dies.
The difference is that he has time to destroy his hard driv.

Re:Just self defense

[Anonymous Coward]

It is Extremely easy when it's in the middle of the night, when everyone is asleep and they break into your house waking you up. Who would you think it would be? grandma trying to get into your kitchen to bake cookies? I don't think so. Not to say violence against police should be preached or anything, but Police or not if people break into your house, even with a no knock warrant (which should be illegal) than use of deadly force should be well within the rights of the home owner, police or not.

If you have a full swat team trained for entering dangerous areas and you go into a house unannounced you deserve to be shot... all of them do. If you clearly announce you are police AND you have a warrant and then enter... well then I have all sympathies with the police in that case and I'm sure most others probably would as well. What we have an issue with is a no knock warrant served by military type police units who have no respect for the rights of home owners to defend themselves.

Hell Even the fucking real military is better than swat. If it's a house by house thing and not just a out in the open operation, they seem to announce themselves quite clearly when doing basically the same operations as swat, except in their case, instead of teenagers or eldery people (who they seem to like shooting) the military has to deal with Huge mortar shells, and other IEDs people with AK-47s or other assault rifles as well as rpg's small missiles, sniper rifles..etc oh and explosive suicide vests... yeah not much worry of those for swat.... and yet they, the military units, seem to show more respect when breaching a house than swat does. At least the people know what is happening if they understand any english... swat on the other hand just breaks into your house... doesn't say they are police.. doesn't say they have a warrant... no you have a bunch of men in black with ski masks on with automatic weapons all of a sudden breaking windows, the door(s) and stampeding into your home. God forbid you have a cellphone or a remote in your hands or you will be shot dead and no charges will be pressed against the "police". Don't even want to think about what happens to those who actually try and defend themselves.

the sad part is in many cases the home is either the wrong one or the people inside are completely innocent of the charges yet we still invade their homes, their privacy, their rights without any thought to what might happen... it's just pathetic.

Re:Just self defense

[Anonymous Coward]

And if this poor slob didn't fight back, if he didn't hang out outside the jail to wait for these slovenly cocksuckers to leave to go home to their sperm-holes and their little fucking brats so that he could wait for them all to go to sleep and set their house on fire.

Then the pussy got what he deserved.

The weasels aren't scared of the people anymore, therein lies the problem.

Re:Just self defense

[maitai]

Busting in on someone playing in a chat room really has little chance of the guy having a rifle in his hand.

Re:Just self defense

[Anonymous Coward]

Trick question, we were never civil to begin with, not with enslavement and certainly not with the extermination of brown people in the Middle-East. Common criminal scenarios today show that we are not civil. The people that are existent in today's society will always be primitive, especially assholes in uniform. They are given a safe pass to be elite-est assholes.

Re:Just self defense

[Jane Q. Public]

"If it were a no-knock raid perhaps, but if they announce that they are police, then such action would be inexcusable murder."

BUT -- and these are the relevant criteria here -- "no knock" raids are ONLY supposed to be attempted when (A) there is probable cause, (B) there is a judicial warrant based on that probable cause, and (more to the point) (C) the person involved is suspected to be CURRENTLY armed and a danger to the public. OR, (D), there is a significant chance that evidence will be destroyed before it can be recovered. One of the justifications for allowing "no knock" raids in the first place were when it was suspected that drug dealers would flush their merchandise before a "proper" warrant could be served. But they have grossly abused it since then.

(Note also: "Danger to the public" does NOT mean danger to the POLICE! It means a danger to the PUBLIC. If the suspect is only dangerous to the police they can simply choose not to raid, and apprehend him/her elsewhere. End of problem. Lots of court precedent.)

If there is not a clear and present danger, they are supposed to KNOCK on the fucking door, and READ the warrant if asked, before entering.

If it's a "no-knock" raid, and they DIDN'T have probable cause, or announce themselves properly, or a number of other things, it still isn't murder, it's self-defense. At least in this state.

Re:Just self defense

[sumdumass]

google "cops raid the wrong house". You will not only find where they went to the wrong door, but killed someone inside.

Re:Just self defense

[phantomfive]

Here is what Brown said:

“Any armed official of the U.S. government, particularly the FBI, will be regarded as potential Zeta assassin squads,” he said in the video. “As FBI knows they know that I’m armed and I come from a military family and I was taught to shoot by a Vietnam veteran and I will shoot all of them and kill them if they come and do anything. I have reason to fear for my life.” “Frankly, it was pretty obvious I was going to be dead before I was 40 or so, so I wouldn’t mind going out with two FBI sidearms like a fucking Egyptian pharaoh. Adios.”

It's not clear what the warrant was for, but I sure understand why they arrested him the way they did.

Re:Just self defense

[Miss Emily Litella]

You botched it. How ironic.

Chevy Chase: And now with tonight's commentary; Miss Emily Litella.
Emily Litella: Thank you, cheddar. What's all this talk about violins on tv? I think we need more violins and less of that loud rock music. And furthermore...
Chevy Chase: Uh, excuse me; Miss Litella. It's violence on TV, not violins.
Emily Litella: Oh. Never mind.

Re:Just self defense

[dna_(c)(tm)(r)]

[...] They're trained to treat every raid as if they were going up against hardened, experienced, and well-armed enemies.[...]

Just look at how Amish dairy farmers were raided, and Gibson Guitars were raided. Guns drawn, like the Amish or a luthier normally pack an H&K MP5.

For the Europeans amongst us: That's what you get in return for the freedom to bear arms.

For the US citizens amongst us: See your hard earned tax dollars at work.

Re:Just self defense

[Anonymous Coward]

Until the criminals start copying them. It's a good defense against getting shot. The neighbors won't call 911. And you aren't 'stealing' you are collecting evidence.

Re:Just self defense

[jafiwam]

There are two reasons for a no-knock arrest. Either they think the suspect will resist or they thing evidence might be destroyed; in either case surprise and overwhelming force are used whether you approve of it or not.

It's done mostly to intimidate.

You can't fucking tell me a half a pound of weed destroyed down a toilet is worth the violence. (Plus, you'd have to make a bunch of assumptions someone is ready to destroy evidence at a second's notice all the time.)

Re:Just self defense

[Anonymous Coward]

The cops have got a new angle. If someone barricades himself in his house and shoots at the cops, the cops will rip holes in his house with a backhoe.

Re:Just self defense

[Anonymous Coward]

how on earth did you get from 'there is zero excuse for executing a "no-knock" search unless...' to 'Maybe they should call ahead and give him a couple weeks...' ?? obviously he meant they show up unannounced, knock on the door, and go from there.

Re:Just self defense

[icebike]

That doesn't work when evidence can be destroyed instantly.
Use your head son.

Re:Just self defense

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd be more than delighted to hear of such a fate befalling an asshole like Barrett Brown. That's an asshole in need of a serious, serious tune up.

Re:Just self defense

[Anonymous Coward]

And Barrett Brown and company deserve every bit of it. I'm not going to cry any tears if the prick winds up "hanging himself" in his cell. It'd be worth every dime of those taxes I'm paying.

Re:Just self defense

[Larryish]

To whoever modded this down, I just want to say one thing:

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_kq22e2Sro01qzma4ho1_500.jpg

Re:Just self defense

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like Barrett is back on drugs again. He self-admittedly had problems with drugs in the past.

Re:Just self defense

[amiga3D]

Sometimes you can be shot even if you attempt to flee. I know of at least one case where police mistakenly knocked down the wrong door when they got the address on the warrant wrong. They shot and killed a young mother when instead of flopping on the floor like any felon would know to do she jumped up to run like anyone who was innocent and couldn't conceive of police breaking their door down would do. Too bad, it was an honest mistake by some half trained cops. I think the lawsuit was expensive for the city though.

Re:Just self defense

[amiga3D]

You know they have to take your freedom away to keep you safe. Really it's for your own good. They care about you.

Re:Just self defense

[amiga3D]

I really think the FBI love the cowboy shit too much. That said, the dumbass called them out. He skirted the edges of threatening one of the agent's kids and coyly threatened to shoot them and pretend they were part of some drug cartel that were after him. I don't believe he's a threat other than to bullshit someone to death but fucking around with the FBI and daring them to come after you is just fucking stupid. It's like someone going over to a chained pit bull and teasing him, when you get bit what the hell did you expect?

Re:Just self defense

[cpu6502]

>>>2) In Canada, setting "traps", even in your own home, is a crime in and of itself. This is to protect fire/ambulance as well as police officers that may need to enter, sometimes to save YOUR sorry ass. Does the US not have an equivalent to this law?

Only if the home (or barn or shed) is not being lived in..... then you cannot set traps to protect the property. If it is an actual residence then you most-certainly can set traps to stop intruders, because then you are protecting your life & the lives of your family. (The Supreme Court made this ruling about forty years ago.)

Re:Just self defense

[Anonymous Coward]

hell ya. some busts into my place expect 30-06 and Glock 23 return fire. duh.

Re:Just self defense

[DarwinSurvivor]

You are probably thinking of the Castle Doctrine which has never been in effect in Canada. Ian Thomson was not allowed to even point a gun at people fire-bombing his house in Ontario. Brian Knight was given community service for *injuring* a thief with bird shot. And just for some perspective on traps, even the Supreme Court of Iowa in the US ruled that Edward Briney be charged for setting a trap in his home that caught an actual thief.

Re:Just self defense

[Zero__Kelvin]

Actually, you see "probable cause". It doesn't allow the police to burst into your home without a warrant except in cases of imminent danger, or when in hot pursuit. It doesn't apply in the slightest in this case.

Re:Just self defense

[Zero__Kelvin]

Bullshit. Did you even read the page you linked to. Your link points to a page that talks about the stopping of searching of certain people in public, and has nothing to do with the requirement of a warrant to enter a private residence.

Re:Just self defense

[Anonymous Coward]

According to the original article and various other news agencies, Brown made threats against the FBI and against one agent's children. Anonymous thrives because they follow through on their threats, which makes their threats credible. Brown's threats to "look into" the agent's children were just plain wrong. He deserves a lot worse than what he's gotten so far. So he wants to play hardball with the FBI, he needs to wake up. They aren't just a bunch of servers to hack or to attack with DDOS. They're a bunch of law enforcement officers, and he's incredibly stupid for threatening them in any way.

Personally I'm surprised he's still alive after threatening children.

Re:Just self defense

[Anonymous Coward]

Except they're wearing high tech kevlar and brain buckets with weapons drawn and pointing at you. Pull out a piece and you may as well kiss your own ass goodbye, if you can reach. I'm not behind door busting for an unarmed hacker and I'm sure a knock on the door would've sufficed.

Re:Just self defense

[CanHasDIY]

Really? Maybe they should call ahead and give him a couple weeks to wipe his hard drive?

Say, Barret, we were going to be in the neighborhood next week, how bout we drop by and pick up your computers, Ok? We got a warrant and everything. 10:am sound fine? Good , see you then old boy. On, and you won't erase anything between now and then will you? Goodl. Thought not. Shall we bring you a Latte when we come? Ok, then. See you next week.

You know, I bet that approach would work with drug dealers, bank robbers, and murderers too. Have you thought about running for Sheriff or something? You'd be bound to get elected.

What you've just said ... is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone... is now dumber for having listened to it.

I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

Re:Just self defense

[Anonymous Coward]

you most-certainly can set non-lethal deterrents to stop intruders

FTFY.

Not news

[girlintraining]

"In other news, the spokesperson for an organization responsible for dozens of high profile electronic attacks, distributing classified data, and hundreds of other felonies was taken into custody today..."

Agree or disagree with Anonymous, it shouldn't be a surprise that he took the ride.

Re:Not news

[Anonymous Coward]

Generally, a spokesperson for a group of interest would be approached calmly, not raided (which makes it news).

Re:Not news

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for telling how it should be. Not, your comment was lame.

Re:Not news

[girlintraining]

Generally, a spokesperson for a group of interest would be approached calmly, not raided (which makes it news).

The spokespeople of multinational crime syndicates tend not to be well-regarded by law enforcement. I know, it's confusing.

Re:Not news

[Applekid]

Generally, a spokesperson for a group of interest would be approached calmly, not raided (which makes it news).

The spokespeople of multinational crime syndicates tend not to be well-regarded by law enforcement. I know, it's confusing.

Was Barrett armed? Was he dangerous? Was there any reason to believe he was a threat to the officers' personal safety whatsoever? People get taken into custody all the time without being raided. This was an excuse by the police to let out some steam by bashing down the door and busting heads.

Re:Not news

[jeffasselin]

Would you consider it normal if a GoldmanSachs spokesperson were arrested?

Re:Not news

[tsa]

How do you know that?

Re:Not news

[mooingyak]

-- I got my nickname tsa long before the TSA existed so please refrain from making remarks about the TSA.

OT, but
I suppose you would describe the TSA as a bunch of no-talent ass clowns?

Re:Not news

[Jafafa Hots]

Actually its more likely they wanted the surprise so that no hard drives could be wiped.

Pretty standard for computer-related stuff.

Re:Not news

[Microlith]

You don't have to bust down doors and charge in with guns for that. Over-application of force, however, is pretty standard these days.

Re:Not news

[Anonymous Coward]

like when they could have apprehended david koresh during one of his many routine outings, but they chose to do the worst.

Re:Not news

[Hatta]

In other news, we're still waiting for Lloyd Blankfein, CEO of a company responsible for hundreds of felony counts of perjury and fraud, to take the same ride. The rule of law is dead in America.

Re:Not news

[Hatta]

Lloyd Blankfein, Jamie Dimon, Vikram Pandit, etc seem to be well-regarded by law enforcement.

Re:Not news

[Mitreya]

The spokespeople of multinational crime syndicates tend not to be well-regarded by law enforcement. I know, it's confusing.

Ah, you are one of "those" people
As long as the person in question is likely/potentially an asshole, he deserves everything he gets, right? You don't even wonder if there had been a valid (i.e. legal) reason to arrest him.

Next step would be to arrest and harass any lawyer that will dare to represent that guy. I mean, the guy's got some bad connections, so anyone working for him is probably fair game too.

Re:Not news

[Jafafa Hots]

I'm not defending the raid, but yes, you DO.

Hard drives can be destroyed in seconds. You do have to bust down the doors to get them in time... (though that should be saved for actual criminals, not internet trolls IMO)

And when you bust down doors you have to have guns because you don't know if the people inside have them and will react.

I agree on over-application of force and wouldn't disagree with the argument that the raid may not have been necessary in the first place, and I personally hate and distrust cops and want their powers scaled back... ...but if law enforcement wants your HD without going through the use of a subpeona and the attendant risk that you'll wipe it first, this is really the only way for them to do that.

Re:Not news

[mmell]

Add to this the allegation that he made public threats against an F.B.I. agent and the agent's family . . .

But everyone here is right . . . the F.B.I. shouldn't have gone all S. S. on this guy. Now, if the agent who was threatened had come alone and blown Brown's brains out I would've found that perfectly acceptable. Of course, that agent would now be in custody facing charges of murder; but I'd like to think that a self-defense plea would work for him there.

Yes, I know - I'm not supposed to RTFA before posting. Man, am I gonna get downmodded and flamed for this . . . but again, just because B. Brown is a hacker doesn't give him a free ticket to issue threats (which no matter how veiled they are were still threats) agains an F.B.I. agent and his children. If it had been the F.B.I. agents threating Mr. Brown and his family, everyone here would be organizing for war; but since it's Mr. Brown who made the threats, everyone here appears to be mobilizing for war.

Just stop and think for with your heads instead of your endocrine systems for a minute, will ya folks?

Re:Not news

[Anonymous Coward]

We don't know (yet), but there is the possibility that he is more than just a spokesman.

Re:Not news

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, for a moment I thought you were talking about the US government. Except no one seems prepared to take them into custody.

Re:Not news

[Anonymous Coward]

My favorite part was how everyone else in the chat was all "holy shit that was awesome!" These people are thrill seekers, nothing else. Their only cause is to feed the amygdala.

Re:Not news

[shiftless]

The spokespeople of multinational crime syndicates

Anonymous? No, actually, that's just a word. Not an organization. Not a crime syndicate. A word.

Re:Not news

[shiftless]

Yeah, it's standard now that we live in a police state.

Hint: if erasing a hard drive is all that it would take to completely get a "criminal" off the hook for his "crime", and if police announcing their presence before barging is enough time to erase that evidence, then you know what? No crime was actually committed.

Re:Not news

[shiftless]

Hard drives can be destroyed in seconds. You do have to bust down the doors to get them in time... (though that should be saved for actual criminals, not internet trolls IMO)

Define an "actual criminal"? Would you say people who are peacefully growing plants inside their own house and causing no harm to others are "actual criminals"? Because no-knock warrants are becoming more and more commonplace in the War on (Some) Drugs. How easy do you think it would be to destroy an entire garden full of plants leaving no trace of evidence? How much of an effect do you think the police announcing their presence beforehand would have on that?

nd when you bust down doors you have to have guns because you don't know if the people inside have them and will react.

Mother fucking bullshit. Stop repeating police state propaganda. Only if cop is a fucking moron would they have no clue whether someone is likely to be violent, etc. What a cheap, flimsy excuse to throw away our rights in favor of more police power.

I agree on over-application of force and wouldn't disagree with the argument that the raid may not have been necessary in the first place, and I personally hate and distrust cops and want their powers scaled back...

So why do you keep arguing and apologizing for them?

...but if law enforcement wants your HD without going through the use of a subpeona and the attendant risk that you'll wipe it first, this is really the only way for them to do that.

Which is more important and worthy of protection: my rights, or the cops' God-given need to arrest and imprison people for non-violent "crimes"? It's either one or the other. Choose.

Re:Not news

[Eth1csGrad1ent]

Careful with the labels there... trolling is about to be illegal in Australia, and if you go using labels like that then we'd have to try and extradite his arse...

Re:Not news

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly!

After they put him in jail for the rest of his natural life, they'll have plenty of time to work out what he actually did wrong...

Re:Not news

[elucido]

"In other news, the spokesperson for an organization responsible for dozens of high profile electronic attacks, distributing classified data, and hundreds of other felonies was taken into custody today..."

Agree or disagree with Anonymous, it shouldn't be a surprise that he took the ride.

Yeah but at this point he cannot be considered as the spokesperson anymore. He just got raided, why would any active hacker or activist trust him now that he has been raided and arrested by the FBI? They can plant bugs in his house, they can force him to cooperate, so it's basically over for him. His days as an online spokesperson/activist are over and he will be lucky if he avoids prison.

Re:Not news

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear mods, the parent is an Office Space reference.

Re:Not news

[Anonymous Coward]

But he's rich. That's different.

Re:Not news

[hairyfeet]

Oh horseshit, have you been watching CSI or something? Short of sticking explosive to the things ANY software based tool is gonna take a SERIOUSLY long time to even do a single pass and simply pulling the plug would kill that shit quick.

Now one could argue that MAYBE, just maybe, he had something like truecrypt on the drive but if that was the case simply popping the power switch with his foot would be enough to unmount the drive so kicking in the door wouldn't help shit anyway and a better strategy would be to simply grab this guy on the way to his car where he don't know shit is going on or bug his PC when he isn't at home.

Nope the whole point of shit like this is INTIMIDATION, its to make YOU scared to speak up against them. Look at this nice little Jewish girl that gets to be hassled and intimidated every time she flies anywhere by being put on the watchlist, her crime? Speaking about your constitutional rights.

I'm sorry but LEOs aren't the good guys anymore, they are pitbulls used by the state to keep the peasants scared of speaking up or talking back.

Re:Not news

[Jafafa Hots]

I totally agree with you about law enforcement.

All I'm saying is that IF someone wants to be sure they can grab your hard drive without you destroying it, they have to do it FAST.

Which is what's WRONG with these police powers, they use this fact to justify busting in with guns... because they have a legitimate reason to IF we grant that they should have the right to seize hard drives in the first place in cases like this. I disagree with this, but the fact remains.

I have read statements from people who leave their hard drive outside the case for that very reason - they can grab it quickly.

I've destroyed a few obsolete drives myself experimentally.
All a person would have to do is have their HD outside the case with a 22 caliber concrete nailer they got from Home Depot to quickly put several nails straight through the case and platters, most likely shattering the platters to bits in the process.

Silly scenario? Sure, maybe - BUT if the police assume that the person expects to be raided, they sure might imagine such scenarios and design their raid accordingly.

I'm not saying it's good or just or fair, but if you see their mindset it's hardly surprising or unexpected. Quite the opposite - if you are in a position to fear being raided, you'd be silly NOT to expect these tactics.

Re:Not news

[Anonymous Coward]

What specific actual, not imagined crimes did he commit?

Most of what the Wall St. bankers did was reckless, unethical, immoral, etc and most were guilty of making bad bets, taking advantage of loopholes put into law by lawmakers of both parties, and just downright basic appallingly bad management. What really angers so many people is the massive bail-outs these bankers got... but really they were handed truckloads of taxpayer cash by a pack of panicky politicians (from both parties) who were terrified by all the hyperbolic projections of doom at the height of a cash liquidity crisis which they, the politicians, had created through years of inept and corrupt lawmaking and oversight. Indeed, some of the bankers were forced to take the money in an effort to fool the voters/taxpayers and keep them from knowing which banks were solvent and which were rotten.

Mad at the bankers? that's fine as long as you are also mad at the politicians in BOTH parties who [1] enabled the activity in the first place [2] bailed out the bankers so they would feel no consequences for their bad actions [3] refused to prosecute the bankers for the few laws some of them actually DID violate (see Obama not prosecuting Cornyn) and [4] passed a massive new banking law that promises "reform" but actually does nothing about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (the core of the 2008 meltdown) while penalizing small local banks (who had nothing to do with 2008) with piles of new regs and fees and making too-big-to-fail the new norm for the big banks.

The scumbags at anonymous have engaged in an actual crime wave involving specific prosecutable offenses and being a "spokesperson" for them is simply not a good thing.

Re:Not news

[Anonymous Coward]

...You don't even wonder if there had been a valid (i.e. legal) reason to arrest him...

Are you asserting that the cops busted in and arrested the guy without a warrant? If so he will get rich after the ACLU is done helping him with his civil rights lawsuit. If he was arrested with a valid warrant then he will get his day in court... which is much more mercy and justice than he and his pals provided to all those people around the world in dangerous places who were "outed" as collaborators with the US when the embassy cables were released, and much more justice than anonymous provides to all of the victims of its internet attacks.

When anonymous attacks somebody over some perceived injustice, do they go to court first to get a warrant? Do their victims get a day in court before a jury of their peers? Nope. Anonymous acts as prosecutor, judge, juror, and hangman.

screw 'em and anybody who aligns with them or supports them or speaks for them; we don't do things their way in the civilized world.

 

Re:Not news

[hairyfeet]

He's a fricking geek dude, if you wanna grab a fricking geek it ain't fricking rocket science!

Grab him while he's at work, grab him when he is walking to his car, five will get you ten that like most people on this planet he is predictable as all hell.

And I'm sorry but your "scenario" is beyond batshit. Show me ONE, just one mind you, arrest the FBI has EVER made where anybody did anything that completely batshit. I have a friend that works at the state crime lab, the guys they nab are looking at 60+ years, more than this little nerd would EVER look at and the worst thing they've had to deal with is encrypted DVDs.

No exploding hard drives, no nailguns,this is just as retarded as yanking on the diaper of that 98 year old by the TSA because "Maybe granny hid a bomb in her pissy diapers"...yeah horseshit. Its designed for ONE thing and that is intimidation, they want to make sure YOU read about this and are afraid to speak against them.

Re:Not news

[arth1]

if law enforcement wants your HD without going through the use of a subpeona and the attendant risk that you'll wipe it first, this is really the only way for them to do that.

The police needs to learn that "want" doesn't mean "am entitled to".A violent approach should be the last resort, not first.

Unless the judge who approved this warrant request asked "Is there no other non-violent way you can obtain enough evidence", he was negligent.

Anyhow, doesn't the police have moar than enough evidence already? So what was the purpose of this exercise?

Police Private L. Icksack sums it up thus:
I came

Re:Not news

[Anonymous Coward]

You're pretty hard on Anonymous, considering you go by the moniker of Anonymous Coward. Or are the rules different for you?

Re:Not news

[Stickerboy]

Generally, a spokesperson for a group of interest would be approached calmly, not raided (which makes it news).

The spokespeople of multinational crime syndicates tend not to be well-regarded by law enforcement. I know, it's confusing.

Was Barrett armed? Was he dangerous? Was there any reason to believe he was a threat to the officers' personal safety whatsoever? People get taken into custody all the time without being raided. This was an excuse by the police to let out some steam by bashing down the door and busting heads.

How the fuck is this insightful? FTFA, in Barrett Brown's own words:

"It’s toward the end of the video that Brown makes his threat: “Robert Smith’s life is over. So when I say life is over, I don’t say I’m going to kill him. But I’m going to ruin his life and look into his [expletive] kids because Aaron Barr did the same thing and he didn’t get raided for it. How do you like them apples?”

Barr is the former HBGary Federal CEO whose email was hacked by Anonymous in February.

He goes on: “Any armed officials of the U.S. government, particularly the FBI, will be regarded as potential Zeta assassin squads and they know that I’m armed and I will shoot all of them and kill them if they come and do anything because they are engaged in a criminal conspiracy and I have reason to fear for my life, not just from the zetas but from the U.S. government.”"

Hmm. Publicly threatening to shoot anyone that approaches him that's wearing a police uniform. Gee, I don't know why they arrested him with a SWAT team.

Re:Not news

[girlintraining]

Ah, you are one of "those" people

Yes, I'm one of those people that believe in doing everything by the book and within the law first, and only expanding outside those restrictions when all other avenues of recourse have failed. It's called being socially responsible, a concept you are apparently unfamiliar with.

Re:Not news

[Anonymous Coward]

Man, am I gonna get downmodded and flamed for this . . . but again, just because B. Brown is a hacker doesn't give him a free ticket to issue threats (which no matter how veiled they are were still threats) agains an F.B.I. agent and his children.

Barrett Brown is in no way, shape, or form a hacker of any sort at all. Whatsoever. Period. The end. He's not even a script kiddie.

He's a hack writer. A junkie. An attention whore. He was hanging out with anonymous to be cool, edgy, one of the bad boys.

Now he's just another idiot who's probably going to pend some time in prison because he shot his mouth off without engaging what's left of his brain after all the drugs he's done (and he didn't start with much in the way of brains to begin with.) If he does go to prison he will absolutely end up being someone's bitch.

So uh

[Dyinobal]

So uh what are the charges?

Re:So uh

[Anonymous Coward]

I've read something about this guy threatening an FBI agent in some video on youtube. No proof, as I haven't seen the video.

Re:So uh

[Anonymous Coward]

Positive, Negative, or Neutral.

Re:So uh

[Tharkkun]

So uh what are the charges?

He could be a terrorist technically and rot in Guantanamo for a couple years before being released.

AMERICA HELL YEAH

[Anonymous Coward]

U.S.A.! U.S.A.! U.S.A.!

Re:AMERICA HELL YEAH

[x0d]

Murrica, hell yea!

Re:AMERICA HELL YEAH

[Anonymous Coward]

LONG LIVE ANONYMOUS!!! You guys rock. Never stop protecting us.

Mature language???

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck this shit! We're all adults here...

Re:Mature language???

[Hartree]

Maturity is highly overrated.

Re:Mature language???

[tqk]

Intellectual or cognitive maturity is highly underrated.

FTFY. When I was growing up, the mantra was, "Don't trust anyone over thirty." I was nowhere near thirty, yet still I thought that was one of the stupidest things I'd ever heard. Charles Manson was ca. 34 when Sharon Tate was murdered. Alexander the Great was ca. 33 when he died. Physical age has nothing to do with pretty near everything.

Maturity is highly overrated.

You must mean that in a way that I don't recognize. Marie Curie was ca. 67 when she died.

Re:Mature language???

[js33]

Maturity is highly overrated.

Vulgar, foul language is not an indication of maturity. On the contrary, it seems to be more closely associated with the pot-smoking, meth-addled, lip-ringed, tongue-pierced, ear-stretched, purple-haired, and tattooed youth of today who can't even keep up with today's abysmally low educational standards, or hold down a job even if the world's economy depended on it.

Barrett Brown only claimed to be Anonymous

[Anonymous Coward]

Barrett Brown is not Anonymous. Most of the Anons I know worth their salt think of him as a fraud. This is the problem of a leaderless, hierarchyless political movement: anyone can claim affiliation. All Barrett did was claim to orchestrate some invisible campaign against Mexican drug gangs, of which no evidence was ever actually presented, and idiot reporters lined up to print his lies verbatim.

Barrett Brown claimed affiliation with Encyclopedia Dramatica, another Internet community, on Twitter recently. Current and former ED admins lined up to denounce him as never being known there.

Barrett Brown is a liar and a fraud. His days are up now that he's finally committed the crime of threatening an FBI agent. There's no way he's getting bail.

Re:Barrett Brown only claimed to be Anonymous

[Sydin]

So he's an attention whore. That's all fine and dandy, but the last time I checked the FBI had better things to do. You just said it yourself: There's no evidence at all that he had anything to do with anonymous, its activities, or any of its affiliated groups, everything about the guy can be laid at the feet of the media, who are more than happy to sensationalize lies. If the layman on the internet knows that, the FBI knows that. So why are they raiding his house? What's there to gain? Well, it sends a strong message. It scares people. Oh right, that's what the FBI is for these days. Barrett Brown's lack of affiliation with anonymous isn't what makes this newsworthy, it's that despite knowing that, the FBI were more than happy to ruin him in order to send a message.

Re:Barrett Brown only claimed to be Anonymous

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but if you're an attention whore and you flaunt your (however tenuous) attachment to a high-profile group that causes "The Man" to "look bad", don't be surprised if the attention you get isn't the kind of attention you wanted. If absolutely nothing else, "The Man" will use those who are easy to find as examples to strike fear into others.

Short version: don't paint targets on your own back unless you intend to get shot.

LOL: the capcha is AMATEURS...

Re:Barrett Brown only claimed to be Anonymous

[circletimessquare]

he threatened an fbi agent

it's really not that complicated

Re:Barrett Brown only claimed to be Anonymous

[mmell]

Better things to do than arrest people who threaten their officers and their families? In a HIGH VISIBILITY, PUBLIC FORUM, no less?

Re:Barrett Brown only claimed to be Anonymous

[BlueStrat]

he threatened an fbi agent

it's really not that complicated

Here's the YT video in question: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=TOW7GOrXNZI

Strat

Re:Barrett Brown only claimed to be Anonymous

[Kaenneth]

"Well, it sends a strong message. It scares people."

And we all know the word for that.

Re:Barrett Brown only claimed to be Anonymous

[circletimessquare]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/49031630

In a profanity-laced tirade, Brown threatens in the video to strike back at Smith.

"So that's why Robert Smith's life is over," Brown said. "But when I say his life is over, I don't say I'm going to go kill him. But I am going to ruin his life and look into his (expletive) kids."

Brown then smiles before adding: "How do you like them apples?"

are you saying he shouldn't be arrested for that?

Re:Barrett Brown only claimed to be Anonymous

[penguinbrat]

Whats the message they are sending though? If I were a legit member of anonymous, knowing that Brown was not a member - what am I suppose to take from this? That the FBI has no idea who they really are (good thing for anonymous), that they are the bad guys (the point anonymous exists) and will destroy ones life on a whim (already knows this)? From the sounds of it, my reaction would be the same that was in the video - LOL, OMG, that sux! and continue chatting.

Personally, I sincerely hope the FBI didn't raid this guys place because they "thought" he was a spokesman for anonymous when he wasn't even involved - that would just mean that the KGB (?) of the USA is out gunned by the out laws of the internet, and flat out embarrassing that as a country we are at the mercy of such an elite clueless power.

Re:Barrett Brown only claimed to be Anonymous

[shiftless]

Yes, but if you're an attention whore and you flaunt your (however tenuous) attachment to a high-profile group that causes "The Man" to "look bad", don't be surprised if the attention you get isn't the kind of attention you wanted.

Yes, I agree you shouldn't be surprised....if you live in Soviet Russia....or if you're completely aware that the U.S. is now under the rule of fascism. But for the average citizen who still thinks this is the "Land of the Free" etc, it certainly should be a surprise. Unfortunately they're too busy chanting right along with the "WELL YOU SHOULDNT BE SURPRISED LOL" fucking cocksuckers who sit amongst us, cheering on fascism.

Re:Barrett Brown only claimed to be Anonymous

[BlueStrat]

In a profanity-laced tirade, Brown threatens in the video to strike back at Smith.

        "So that's why Robert Smith's life is over," Brown said. "But when I say his life is over, I don't say I'm going to go kill him. But I am going to ruin his life and look into his (expletive) kids."

        Brown then smiles before adding: "How do you like them apples?"

are you saying he shouldn't be arrested for that?

Many political "opposition research" teams as well as political organizations and groups attack enemies the way Barrett describes. Heck, the government uses such tactics when they deem it to their advantage. Look what kinds of tactics were employed against Sarah Palin, for example. Teams of investigators and lawyers flown into AK, pouring over every detail they could dig up to destroy her. This isn't limited to one political party or ideology either.

Are you saying they should be arrested?

Strat

Re:Barrett Brown only claimed to be Anonymous

[circletimessquare]

oh, i'm talking to a wack job, sorry, i didn't know

carry on then, don't mind me, i'm lucid

Re:Barrett Brown only claimed to be Anonymous

[elucido]

So he's an attention whore. That's all fine and dandy, but the last time I checked the FBI had better things to do. You just said it yourself: There's no evidence at all that he had anything to do with anonymous, its activities, or any of its affiliated groups, everything about the guy can be laid at the feet of the media, who are more than happy to sensationalize lies. If the layman on the internet knows that, the FBI knows that. So why are they raiding his house? What's there to gain? Well, it sends a strong message. It scares people. Oh right, that's what the FBI is for these days.

Barrett Brown's lack of affiliation with anonymous isn't what makes this newsworthy, it's that despite knowing that, the FBI were more than happy to ruin him in order to send a message.

Do you think that matters? If the FBI is at war with Anonymous they can make use of Mr. Brown.

Re:Barrett Brown only claimed to be Anonymous

[elucido]

he threatened an fbi agent

it's really not that complicated

If he did that then he's a friggin idiot and deserves what he got. Doesn't he know the law? Doesn't he know what happened to Jim Bell?

Re:Barrett Brown only claimed to be Anonymous

[Anonymous Coward]

WTF. That's protected speech. It ISN'T a death threat and he shouldn't be arrested. As far as actions he might claim it isn't apparent he even plans to commit a crime. He explicitly states he has no intention to commit a criminal act.

Re:Barrett Brown only claimed to be Anonymous

[circletimessquare]

he threatened to ruin his life, and look into his fucking kids

i guess he's going to do that the squeeky clean way?

Re:Barrett Brown only claimed to be Anonymous

[BlueStrat]

oh, i'm talking to a wack job, sorry, i didn't know

carry on then, don't mind me, i'm lucid

You use that word "lucid"...

I do not think that word means what you think it does.

I posted a factual reply. The government, both political parties, and political activists and groups/organizations across the spectrum use the tactics Barrett described against their opponents and enemies. You can't deny that's true. We hear the stories in the news almost daily.

All you can do is call names? What, are you 10 years old?

Strat

Re:Barrett Brown only claimed to be Anonymous

[circletimessquare]

so you are saying that the are tactics people shouldn't use

but assassination is perfectly ok

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3118115&cid=41337445

Maybe these camera-snipers would be more effective if they changed targeting priorities to the government officials responsible for pushing these programs

now i understand why you defend this guy. you're both vicious thugs

maybe the valid conditions for violent revolution against the government is way over here, and your mental triggers for imaging we've met those conditions is way over there

think about. or start issuing threats. your call, wackjob

Re:Barrett Brown only claimed to be Anonymous

[BlueStrat]

so you are saying that the are tactics people shouldn't use

but assassination is perfectly ok

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3118115&cid=41337445

       

Maybe these camera-snipers would be more effective if they changed targeting priorities to the government officials responsible for pushing these programs

now i understand why you defend this guy. you're both vicious thugs

maybe the valid conditions for violent revolution against the government is way over here, and your mental triggers for imaging we've met those conditions is way over there

think about. or start issuing threats. your call, wackjob

Not being a fucking sheep =/= wackjob.

And if you're going to quote me, quote the whole thing.

The sad part is, these people, will pass blame for their actions onto the government, rather than taking responsibility for what they've done, and feel completely justified in doing so. The response to this will be the government putting up more cameras...

Well, the blame IS largely on the government, as often these camera programs are slipped in "under the radar", so to speak, as most city/county councils/governments are aware that in many cases most of the constituents are against them. Also to blame are judges that are fine with witnesses that can't be cross-examined (the camera) used to "prove" guilt.

Maybe these camera-snipers would be more effective if they changed targeting priorities to the government officials responsible for pushing these programs and accepting them as legal proof of guilt, if they refuse to listen to their constituents when they object to Big Brother style surveillance? The camera system makers/contractors and the Feds are throwing a lot of gold at these officials to adopt camera surveillance and enforcement systems, so lacking gold, maybe the populace should throw hot lead instead?

Thomas Jefferson and his contemporaries knew that government, despite their best efforts to keep it in check, would grab more and more power and confiscate ever more of the people's wealth. They envisioned the citizens rising up using the 2nd Amendment and forcibly "downsizing" the government every few decades. According to TJ and his buddies, we've been slacking at decorating the trees in the town square and downtown D.C. with government officials swinging by their necks at the end of a rope.

I issued no threats. I asked questions. See the little squiggle with the dot at the bottom at the end of the sentences? That's what they call a "question mark". Might want to make a note.

I prefer a nice porterhouse steak. You seem to prefer the taste of bootleather. Not on my watch. My father didn't risk his life and get wounded in WW2 to have the nation he fought for turn into some authoritarian hellhole where the people must fear their government.

Here's another vocabulary word for you; "timid".

As in:

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty." - Thomas Jefferson

Strat

Re:Barrett Brown only claimed to be Anonymous

[circletimessquare]

i'm a descendent of a revolutionary war soldier. don't lecture me about thomas jefferson

you know nothing about the principles of the founding fathers. no one familiar with their wisdom would reach for violence so quickly. you rise to arms carefully, wisely. i believe you call that sort of wisdom "timidity." you don't look forward to violence and revolution and fantasize about its application with relish, like you obviously do. your thinking and your "solutions" are WORSE than the abuses you see in our government

don't think you stand for the principles of this great nation. you're just a hothead with a boomstick who thinks that makes him a man. go ahead and wrap yourself in the flag if you like but you're still a dumb violent thug. the only people interested in sticking boots in peoples faces is the likes of you. you represent the roots of the shocktroops of any real abusive government that would come to this land

“When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.”

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/unreasonablefaith/2011/11/fascism/

find a better way to deal with your petty frustrations in life other than your violent fantasies. you're a shitbag one misunderstanding away from inappropriate violence

Re:Barrett Brown only claimed to be Anonymous

[BlueStrat]

Oh, and you *still* haven't answered or refuted this:

are you saying he shouldn't be arrested for that?

Many political "opposition research" teams as well as political organizations and groups attack enemies the way Barrett describes. Heck, the government uses such tactics when they deem it to their advantage. Look what kinds of tactics were employed against Sarah Palin, for example. Teams of investigators and lawyers flown into AK, pouring over every detail they could dig up to destroy her. This isn't limited to one political party or ideology either.

Are you saying they should be arrested?

Can you or are you willing to answer honestly without attempting to distract from the question I asked, as you've been doing so far?

Strat

Re:Barrett Brown only claimed to be Anonymous

[BlueStrat]

i'm a descendent of a revolutionary war soldier. don't lecture me about thomas jefferson

Apparently someone needs to. That soldier must be spinning in his grave.

Strat

Re:Barrett Brown only claimed to be Anonymous

[circletimessquare]

no you're right: he threatened to ruin the agents life, and look into his fucking kids. he obviously meant he was going to do that the squeeky clean way

you're a fucking moron

Re:Barrett Brown only claimed to be Anonymous

[Anonymous Coward]

ROTFL!!!

You got PWNED!!

Re:Barrett Brown only claimed to be Anonymous

[BlueStrat]

Oh, and if you're going to accuse me of jumping headlong to violence, maybe you should have also read my post that followed the one you quoted where I said:

Nobody needs to get violent. There still is this thing called a ballot box. Anyone who has voted for an incumbent official no matter where or when is part of the problem. Don't hang the unresponsive officials, but just vote them out and let them get a real job in the private economy, if they can find one.

I agree that if it is possible to vote them out without resorting to violence, that's the best option.

Problem is, the officials understand this as well and have used their powers of office to protect themselves through gerrymandering, vote tabulation fraud, and bused-in voters etc to undermine and negate the people's ability to remove them from office in many cases.

Coupled with a judiciary that is unable and/or unwilling to prosecute these officials and their lackeys even when confronted with video evidence (if it hasn't been confiscated and destroyed), that accounts for soap, ballot, and jury boxes.

That leaves the people with only one box left. And they're working on removing that option as quickly as they can.

Gosh, it looks almost like you were attempting to take my comments out of context, as I clearly stated I preferred the non-violent route if possible.

Please stop. I don't even particularly like you, and it's still painful to watch you continue to embarrass yourself like this.

Strat

Re:Barrett Brown only claimed to be Anonymous

[circletimessquare]

Do you know what the fundamentalist retards in the middle east rioting and killing over a bad you tube video would call the idea they should calm down and shrug it off?

Timidity

Know thyself, violent douchebag

And no, you really don't stand for any of the principles of the founding fathers. You're not the solution to any problem. You are the problem

Re:Barrett Brown only claimed to be Anonymous

[10101001 10101001]

No, he shouldn't be arrested for that. By the same token, you shouldn't be arrested either for having such a threatening tone to your posts. This holds true whether you are or or are not an FBI agent. You see, there's this funny thing called "freedom of speech". Perhaps you've heard of it? And as much as the Supreme Court has repeatedly worked to bastardize what is covered under "freedom of speech", they've repeatedly made clear that when threats are involved, it has to be of the bodily harm or death variety before it can be classified as some way as a crime and not covered under "freedom of speech". So, Barrett Brown might well be a horrible person, very little above the standards of pond scum, and a general asshole and a liar and a general attention whore whom I'd rather much like to never associate with. But as other posters note, there's lots of people like that, especially well known in the political world, and there's no real consideration that the courts should waste their time locking up every horrible asshole in the world.

Now, if you think he should be arrested because he made a threat with the intention of getting donations or indirectly to get a book deal and he doesn't actually try to follow through... But, then, you'd also have to arrest a lot of talk radio personalities who speak very big and do very little. Of course, since it's already considered okay to lie on the air and act like its news while declaring it's entertainment to the courts, we're already at a point where it's really hard to see actually where you could hold anything Barrett Brown says as a sort of fraud.

Now, if Barrett Brown actually followed through, Agent Smith could get a restraining order, and this would be a whole different matter. But, then, it wouldn't be an FBI matter.

Re:Barrett Brown only claimed to be Anonymous

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't look now, but I think your *PDS is showing.

*(Palin Derangement Syndrome)

Re:Barrett Brown only claimed to be Anonymous

[Anonymous Coward]

no you're right: he threatened to ruin the agents life, and look into his fucking kids. he obviously meant he was going to do that the squeeky clean way

So it's not OK when it's done to some individual or group you like, but it's OK to do to those you don't like or that have different views that oppose your own.

Got it.

Re:Barrett Brown only claimed to be Anonymous

[tqk]

Here's the YT video in question: ...

Yeah, and about thirteen minutes into it, I'm thinking he wants to get busted because it's a cheap and simple way to bust into heroin rehab.

Why is anyone wasting time on this again?

Re:Barrett Brown only claimed to be Anonymous

[Anonymous Coward]

Barrett Brown is not Anonymous. Most of the Anons I know worth their salt think of him as a fraud. This is the problem of a leaderless, hierarchyless political movement: anyone can claim affiliation. All Barrett did was claim to orchestrate some invisible campaign against Mexican drug gangs,

Well, that would explain why he was raided if he's in the Dallas area. Much of the Dallas Sheriffs Department is under the control of the cartels, and has been for quite a while now. The Sheriff herself has been seen at gang parties, and drugs moving through the DFW area sometimes get police escorts. What used to be one of the best departments in the country is now hopelessly corrupt.

It hurts to see how quickly we became a corrupt police state.

Re:Barrett Brown only claimed to be Anonymous

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice strawman - no one threatened Palin's kids. It is patently NOT part of the political argy-bargy to threaten someone's children.

When you promise to do something to an FBI agent's children you'd better expect the wrath of hell to descend (ascend?) upon you.

Seriously, Barrett Brown isn't only a douchebag, he's a fucking moron ...

Re:Barrett Brown only claimed to be Anonymous

[BlueStrat]

Nice strawman - no one threatened Palin's kids.

They did "dig into", to use Barrett's term, Palin's kids though. Including using a Downs Syndrome baby and her daughter's pregnancy to attack her. But that's different, right?

Seriously, Barrett Brown isn't only a douchebag, he's a fucking moron ..

And I'd likely agree. It doesn't make what he said OR what he said he'd do illegal though. I guess he should have played it safe and called for bombs to be tossed through the windows of "cracka-baby" nurseries, or put out a cash bounty dead-or-alive like the NBPP has done. We know that must be OK, otherwise they would have been arrested. Right?

Is it now illegal to search public records for incriminating data and evidence of wrongdoing on those in government and the FBI/law enforcement, who may be committing illegal acts and carrying out vendettas under color of authority, and point it out to others?

When was that law passed? Can you cite a legal reference, precedent, and/or the law that makes it illegal to gather publicly-available information on those in government and law enforcement?

When you promise to do something to an FBI agent's children you'd better expect the wrath of hell to descend (ascend?) upon you.

Yeah, screw the laws and individual rights! Screw equal protection under law! He's challenging their authori-taaay!!!

GET HIM!!

And, to make it even worse, he's using the same tactics they use and are not prosecuted for! Only THEY are allowed to do certain legal things!!

BURN THE HERETIC!!

Is that the kind of government you want? What about if the other side uses the same tactic on someone you like and agree with when they hold power?

Strat

What's with the audio?

[ArsenneLupin]

Any version anywhere where you can actually understand what they are saying/yelling?

Re:What's with the audio?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who cares! Any versions of this where the blitzkrieg girl keeps stripping at the end?

Re:What's with the audio?

[TheSwift]

I think there's a transcript on pastebin if you look through the article. Not sure I'm convinced that it caught all of those words though. They sound pretty unintelligible to me. Moreover, how did they know he was getting handcuffed? For all we know, he may have just seen a light shining in his window and he started having a seizure and began screaming.

Re:What's with the audio?

[SternisheFan]

The article does link to the site (pastebin?) where it says an audio is. If someone can post a link to it... I watched some of the video, this guy is not "operating on all cylinders", as they say. Right off he states he been off heroin for over a year. Maybe he is, who the f knows for sure. He sure doesn't act sober to me.

This guy is a joke...

[Anonymous Coward]

He completely deserved his party van. Congrats!

Laptops

[Anonymous Coward]

Didn't he threaten the FBI the other day to reveal all kinds of information unless he got his laptops back from the FBI taken in the first raids? There were two videos on his Youtube channel (can't check now).

Re:Laptops

[elucido]

Didn't he threaten the FBI the other day to reveal all kinds of information unless he got his laptops back from the FBI taken in the first raids? There were two videos on his Youtube channel (can't check now).

Yeah real smart, threaten the FBI and think they wont do anything.

That's what you get

[Anonymous Coward]

When you pull stunts like Anonymous online.

Blanks

[Anonymous Coward]

Blanks are beautiful!

it is illegal to disrupt electronic comms

[swschrad]

or to release sensitive data. and if he's spokespersoning for Anonymous, he's an accessory at the least. they could also go RICO (Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization) on Anonymous, it's a great little Swiss Army Lawbook for repeat offenders. so it's definitely FBI material, and Brown might well find himself without much of a legal defense.

"mature"???

[mark-t]

I'd question calling offensive language "mature", when that's not really the case.

Not that I'm saying that adults don't often talk like that... I know many that do. But in my own experience, it really seems to me that such offensive language is far more frequently used by younger people than by older.

It reminds me of how some kids will sometimes start smoking because they think it's "grown-up", whereas almost everybody who smokes these days actually started before they even turned 18.

Re:"mature"???

[fsterman]

Seriously, when did Slashdot turn into FM radio?

Re:"mature"???

[SternisheFan]

You got modded redundant, it should be insightful. He isn't 'mature'. He stopped growing emotionally the day he started abusing drugs, and that's the reason he talks like the kids you know, 'cause inside, he's still a little boy. A lot of people who look old enough to be called adult really still think like children. You made a good observation there, imo.

Too bad

[Guru80]

It's too bad this guy went down the conspiracy and lies route...he could have been on hell of a speaker for a legitimate (i.e., not made up in his own head) movement.

Thank you, Slasdot editors...

[SternisheFan]

Submitter here. I'd like to express my gratitude here, to "Soulskill", and all the other /. editorial staff. I've had a few of my submissions 'cleaned up', and made better by their work. (See, I haven't yet figured out how to embed links professionally here.) They make my submissions far more professional looking, and add their own expert knowledge to them. This site has 'schooled' me greatly over the last few years. So, "KUDOS" to all the people who make this such a great site to visit. S.F. :-)

The guys who leak stolen credit card data?

[gelfling]

Curb stomp him and throw his dead body on his mom's lawn.

Re:The guys who leak stolen credit card data?

[Anonymous Coward]

Excellent satire of the typical ignorant reply to anything with the word "Anonymous" on it.... ...Please, please tell me this was satire?

Wrong because you're a moron

[shiftless]

or to release sensitive data. and if he's spokespersoning for Anonymous, he's an accessory at the least. they could also go RICO (Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization) on Anonymous, it's a great little Swiss Army Lawbook for repeat offenders. so it's definitely FBI material, and Brown might well find himself without much of a legal defense.

How can one be a "spokesman" for an "organization" that doesn't actually ...you know... exist?

Re:Wrong because you're a moron

[tqk]

How can one be a "spokesman" for an "organization" that doesn't actually ...you know... exist?

You mean like the Mafia or the Zetas? I think, based on past actions, anyone can assume they exist. What that means is up to interpretation. However, you don't need a corporate head office to be considered an organization. The prosecutor needs only to convince a jury of conspiracy, or obstruction, these days.

On topic, I really wonder why they can't just follow him to the Starbucks he goes to every morning and arrest him there (I would guess they've been collating his daily routine for weeks before this happened). Wouldn't that be a lot simpler, cheaper, and safer for everyone? The computers would be safe back in his apartment, nobody gets shot, he's in the pokey, and no headlines are made.

Why expensive and potentially catastrophic paramilitary intervention for a mouthy geek?

Transcript

[shiftless]

Anyone got a transcript of this guy's ramblings so I don't have to spend twenty minutes on the video to figure out where he fucked up? Thanks.

he threatened an FBI agent

[YesIAmAScript]

http://thescoopblog.dallasnews.com/2012/09/anonymous-spokesperson-barrett-brown-raided-arrested-in-dallas.html/

So that's why he's being cuffed and treated as threatening.

Maybe you should ask Barret Brown if we've stopped being civil?

Re:he threatened an FBI agent

[Anonymous Coward]

http://thescoopblog.dallasnews.com/2012/09/anonymous-spokesperson-barrett-brown-raided-arrested-in-dallas.html/

So that's why he's being cuffed and treated as threatening.

Maybe you should ask Barret Brown if we've stopped being civil?

Good call, ask a member of the thug gang "anonymous" what he thinks of the government agency who just arrested him. You're sure to get an objective answer.

He may be the next Sabu informant

[elucido]

If it's true that he was raided by the FBI they don't just do that. They are likely going to make him an offer he cannot refuse.

Brown isn't going to remain active in Anonymous for much longer if he ever was to begin with.

Re:He may be the next Sabu informant

[rtb61]

Brown's outspoken activities hardly speak of anonymity, which largely precludes him acting on behalf 'Anonymous', one of the major principles of 'Anonymous' is the acts being protested are the sole focus of the protest and are not about promoting the protester. So to publicly claim to be a spokesperson for 'Anonymous' is more about self promotion and has very little to do with 'Anonymous'.

Although it is beginning to sound like another FBI overreach, threatening to destroy someone is acceptable as long no claims of illegal actions are involved ie there are a range of legal measures of doing so, filing complaints, civil suits. For example the FBI retaliation is an attempt to actively destroy the life of an individual and truly is crossing the border of criminal activity considering the intent. Consider the raid itself, one false move and it is immediate execution basically any excuse for the officer on site to summarily execute the individual will be acted upon. Then there is the direct, pseudo legal physical assault itself, whilst not lethal, there are real attempts to legally inflict permanent harm. Then the expected destruction of personal property and of course kidnapping and extended detention, with psychological torture masquerading as interrogation.

It is expected the FBI will play the legal game and use their knowledge of the courts to extend the case out for as long as possible, inflate bail to enable long term detention and force the individual to effectively pay a major fine masquerading as legal defence costs. In the end, whoops tee hee the FBI girlishly state they got it wrong, all free of penalty for blatant perversion of justice and the legal system. The honour and integrity abandoned for personal ego.

He is irrelevant now as he has been closed by FBI

[elucido]

Barrett Brown is not Anonymous. Most of the Anons I know worth their salt think of him as a fraud. This is the problem of a leaderless, hierarchyless political movement: anyone can claim affiliation. All Barrett did was claim to orchestrate some invisible campaign against Mexican drug gangs, of which no evidence was ever actually presented, and idiot reporters lined up to print his lies verbatim.

Barrett Brown claimed affiliation with Encyclopedia Dramatica, another Internet community, on Twitter recently. Current and former ED admins lined up to denounce him as never being known there.

Barrett Brown is a liar and a fraud. His days are up now that he's finally committed the crime of threatening an FBI agent. There's no way he's getting bail.

What I mean is he will never again be considered a part of any serious activist movement. Once they know he got raided by the FBI they know he's the new FBI bitch. Many people suspected that Sabu was the FBI bitch after he got raided but somehow people still trusted him and look what happened there?

If an activist gets raided by the FBI they need to find a new profession because their activism days are over. They can look forward to lifetime surveillance from that point on and pressure potentially for 10 or 20 years straight by the FBI to cooperate and that is if they don't go to prison. Since I doubt Mr. Brown will be going to prison it's much more likely that he will cooperate and what does that mean?

Anyone with common sense at this point will watch what they say and do around Mr. Brown or anyone associated with him. You can bet if the FBI raids someone they had that someone under surveillance for a long time and will continue to have that someone under surveillance or control for the foreseeable future.

He asked for it so they closed him, he's done.

[elucido]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/49031630

In a profanity-laced tirade, Brown threatens in the video to strike back at Smith.

"So that's why Robert Smith's life is over," Brown said. "But when I say his life is over, I don't say I'm going to go kill him. But I am going to ruin his life and look into his (expletive) kids."

Brown then smiles before adding: "How do you like them apples?"

are you saying he shouldn't be arrested for that?

From this point on Mr. Brown is irrelevant. He's part of the system now.

Re:He asked for it so they closed him, he's done.

[circletimessquare]

?!

i think this thread is attracting all the crackpots

Re:He asked for it so they closed him, he's done.

[Anonymous Coward]

Look in the mirror, boy...

Still too comfy to stand up for anything? Your appeals to authority are quite touching. I bet you're one of those people who believe in 'humanitarian' bombing... as long as you agree on the target. But really, you're just trolling.

Not anonymous.

[Anonymous Coward]

He's not anonymous if he reveals his name. He's an idiot.

Good.

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know why the hell this is even an important story. Anonymous is a bunch of young ass script kidding self important wankers (I think of them as people with spray cans).

But besides that, he threatened a federal agent, what did he think was going to happen? (getting arrested is kind of what happens when you threaten anyone, more or less a federal agent).

Besides, he looks like he has infant alcohol syndrome.

Simple is Best

[Anonymous Coward]

Relative to the FBI's psychosis, they see Mr. Barrett Brown as:

1) The Muslim

2) The NIgger.

Both categories in the psychosis of the FBI call for ....
brutal measures and death as they like it for Mr. Brown,
or anyone else who they 'feel' challenges their and the
perceived authority of Barak Hussein Obama II.

This is the way the ObamAmerica Government works
best for Obama! And He pays them good ... even if
sequestration occurs.

Very serious about this, no sarcasm, just plan talk.

Many sad days to come in the U.S.A.

BTW Obama is not a Nigger nor a Muslim as neither would ever call such a
thing as Him ... 'Their Own'. :)

Good work BTW in the Middle East.

"Spokesman for Anonymous"

[Anonymous Coward]

Hilarious! The FBI has been trolled. Obviously, there's no such thing as a spokesman for Anonymous, but don't tell the FBI that.

Wrong people for the job

[dbIII]

Sending in a paramilitary force to arrest some guy for a crime that is of the same degree of violence as stealing a stapler from a workplace really just shows a lack of professionalism and a willingness to waste resources on overkill. I wonder what the real soldiers think of these idiots playing soldiers in such minor situations. What good is a SWAT team if they are diluted so much that their members are unlikely to meet situations where they are actually required? A hundred curb stomp situations is a pointless amount of experience for a group that you want to rely on when there is a real threat of something requiring a paramilitary response.

Re:Wrong people for the job

[Anonymous Coward]

Them there taxpayer dollars aint gonna spend themselves.

Re:Wrong people for the job

[Anonymous Coward]

Police forces have to do something with all that grant money they get from the DHS. Their chosen course for a damn long time now has been to play paramilitary. Once they had all the neat toys, they had to create a justification for having them, so they started using them for routine things.

This is why I find complaints of slippery slope fallacy to be way overstated. Not enough people read history.

Re:Wrong people for the job

[BlueStrat]

Police forces have to do something with all that grant money they get from the DHS. Their chosen course for a damn long time now has been to play paramilitary. Once they had all the neat toys, they had to create a justification for having them, so they started using them for routine things.

This is why I find complaints of slippery slope fallacy to be way overstated. Not enough people read history.

Amen on people not reading history, or only skimming the "revised" versions provided to public schools.

It's not all the state and local police at fault here for the militarization of the civilian police, essentially turning them into an occupying military.

The Feds only recently temporarily suspended the DoD/Pentagon "1033" program that from 1994 until very recently supplied full military weapons and equipment including tanks with .50-cal machinegun turrets, armored personnel carriers, LAWS anti-tank rocket launchers, grenade launchers, Blackhawks, Hueys, and on and on. All the local agency had to pay was the shipping charges, and of course the insurance and operation/maintenance costs. What could possibly go wrong, eh?

Here's a couple of links to stories. Google has tons more.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/11/pentagon-suspends-weapons-program-cops-military_n_1585328.html

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012/09/14/ariz-sheriff-ordered-to-return-military-goods/57781594/1

And finally, an interesting look: http://www.dps.mo.gov/dir/programs/cjle/dod.asp

I guess one way to get around that clunky old Constitution and that inconvenient Posse Comitatus Act ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act ) is to not obviously bring IN troops, but to simply turn the existing law enforcement apparatus already around us into the military.

No convoys of soldiers rolling into neighborhoods, everyone just suddenly wakes up one day and the local police are now wearing combat equipment and patrolling in armored vehicles and you need a pass to clear the checkpoint to travel to your job. Oh, DHS recently posted a bid for tens of thousands of prefab bulletproof portable checkpoint guard shacks.

Nothing to see here, move along, move along.

Strat

Re:Wrong people for the job

[cpu6502]

Posse Comitatus does not forbid the use of soldiers on U.S. territory. It forbids local officials from the using the soldiers. See the wikipedia article that you linked (but were too lazy to read): "the Act does not prohibit members of the Army from exercising state law enforcement... it simply requires that any authority to do so must exist with the United States Constitution or Act of Congress. In this way, most use of the Army and the Air Force at the direction of the President does not offend the statute." In other words Presidents Obama and Bush violated nothing when they used the army on U.S. soil to stop riots.

Re:Wrong people for the job

[BlueStrat]

Posse Comitatus does not forbid the use of soldiers on U.S. territory. It forbids local officials from the using the soldiers. See the wikipedia article that you linked (but were too lazy to read): "the Act does not prohibit members of the Army from exercising state law enforcement... it simply requires that any authority to do so must exist with the United States Constitution or Act of Congress. In this way, most use of the Army and the Air Force at the direction of the President does not offend the statute." In other words Presidents Obama and Bush violated nothing when they used the army on U.S. soil to stop riots.

Before you scold me, I did and do realize what the Act means.

I apologize if perhaps I was not as clear as I could have been in favor of brevity, but I was trying to describe a possible authoritarian takeover, and those grabbing control not having to quite visibly roll in troops would help to keep people from becoming alarmed and mounting a defense until much later, perhaps too late for them, by simply turning the police into de-facto soldiers. Most people would still not believe it for a good while after it was well underway precisely because they have seen no military convoys rolling in.

Not until they find themselves being herded into trucks for the trip to detention/re-education camps...or to an open field to stand in front of large open pits with pallets of 100lb lime sacks sitting to either side.

Strat

Re:Wrong people for the job

[Anonymous Coward]

The extra precaution wasn't unwarranted. From the article:

“As FBI knows they know that I’m armed and I come from a military family and I was taught to shoot by a Vietnam veteran and I will shoot all of them and kill them if they come and do anything. I have reason to fear for my life.”

and

“Frankly, it was pretty obvious I was going to be dead before I was 40 or so, so I wouldn’t mind going out with two FBI sidearms like a fucking Egyptian pharaoh. Adios.”

Re:Wrong people for the job

[dbIII]

Doesn't just about every poster on this site that calls themselves a "libertarian" and a pile that don't write exactly the same sort of teen macho stuff here?

This guy is no hero for humanity.

[SternisheFan]

You are not in the right when you threaten to somehow commit violence on another person. It's the law, and it's a damn good law. Brown, whose brain appears to not have yet recovered completely from his drug using days, crossed that line. He brought this attention on himself. He's not a hero, he's not rational, he acts pretty deranged. What he really is is another good example to young people why they should not allow themselves to get involved with opiate consumption of any sort, heroin or it's legal prescription pill form. If you're hooked on it now seek help and treatment, before you end up like this poor tortured soul. Heroin addiction is not cool, and it causes you to make some real bad life decisions. Like this guy has. Life's 'heros' are, imho, the people who live within the law, all other's are just 'posers'.

silence

[Anonymous Coward]

They did this in Germany when it was under Nazi control, now that has evolved to Interpol to take out the "Jews".

Re:silence

[Anonymous Coward]

If I have to choose between a world with Nazis and a world with Barrett Browns, I'll take the Nazis. Thanks.

Re:silence

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you sure what are you choosing?
People, please have at least knowlegde what Nazi did to its citizen and other countries.
No tyranny is better than stupid.

OK

[koan]

https://rt.com/usa/news/indiana-shooting-law-state-591/

I'm pretty sure...

[tlambert]

For the Europeans amongst us: That's what you get in return for the freedom to bear arms.

For the US citizens amongst us: See your hard earned tax dollars at work.

We get the ability to shoot some percentage of assholes who were "just following orders".

As a European, you've heard of Nuremberg, right?

This seems relevant

[Anonymous Coward]

http://cryptome.org/2012/09/brown-vanned.htm

"I'm sure it must have been that stupid film, though", he crypticly averred.

Re:This seems relevant

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't use Jim Bell's lawyer, either.

Live V&ing took this long?

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, 4chan has been around for this long and we hadn't had a live v&ing yet? For shame /b/, for shame!