Time to fire up the militia. What's it going to look like today?
- Thread starter maestro pistolero
- Start date
- Status
Aaryq
Member
It's amazing how 3 months (or whatever the boot camp duration is for the other services) of some guy or gal in a funny hat telling you that you're too ugly, too fat, too skinny, too stupid, too slow, too fast (etc. etc. etc.) turns some punk kid into a model citizen.
Of course there are exceptions to this rule, but it's mostly true.
As to you, Proto, I accept your apology.
Of course there are exceptions to this rule, but it's mostly true.
As to you, Proto, I accept your apology.
sprithitler
Member
Does the militia have to be nationwide or even statewide? Perhaps it needs only be a group of friends training together and practicing dynamic shooting together. The point is for the most part the same as with your daily carrying of a weapon, situational awareness and training. If you make sure to keep yourself and yourself reasonably well trained and reasonably well equipped it is possible to form the militia when it is needed.
The other and more likely to succeed way to form a militia is the same way as with a spy or terror organisation, compartmentalisation. The soldiers in each group should be unaware that there are more to the militia than them, the leader and founder of that group should be aware of the platoon in which his group i supposed to function should the need for the militia arise, in fact he should train and plan with the other group leaders as well as with the platoonleader who in turn should be aware of the company in which his platoon is a part and who should train and plan with the other platoonleaders and so on and so forth. This way you can with a reasonable amount of luck keep your corps of officers loyal and out of trouble as well as minimize the damage should a soldier in the militia do something stupid. OH, and remember the first and second rule of fightclub.
The other and more likely to succeed way to form a militia is the same way as with a spy or terror organisation, compartmentalisation. The soldiers in each group should be unaware that there are more to the militia than them, the leader and founder of that group should be aware of the platoon in which his group i supposed to function should the need for the militia arise, in fact he should train and plan with the other group leaders as well as with the platoonleader who in turn should be aware of the company in which his platoon is a part and who should train and plan with the other platoonleaders and so on and so forth. This way you can with a reasonable amount of luck keep your corps of officers loyal and out of trouble as well as minimize the damage should a soldier in the militia do something stupid. OH, and remember the first and second rule of fightclub.
The poster's choice of vocabulary was poor, but the US has a long history of "Rich man's war, poor man's fight." The reality is that the disenfranchised have always been overly represented among the (enlisted) troops in America's war. That seems to be very true today - when I look at the high schools in my city where the Army recruit intensively, it's not not in the affluent suburbs.
This does not imply any intellectual/moral judgment about folks who serve - military service has been a route out of poverty/unemployment for more than one member of my family - my own father included.
What is germane about this is that minorities are very well represented in our armed forces - but not at all in our prospective militia's. If an individual soldier in one of our armed forces is involved in a racial altercation or violence against the government of some kind, most people don't believe that particular branch of the armed forces is racist in intent (or anti-government).
However, given the demographics of the prospective militia, and the general tolerance of racist language within that demographic, if any member of your militia is involved in a racial altercation or violence against the government, most people will assume that the militia itself is racist or anti-government. Most folks I have run into who entertain the idea of a militia at all seriously have a much higher tolerance for racial slurs, racist symbols, etc. than the armed forces or the general public.
All of that leads me to be believe that if a member of your militia does something boneheaded related in any way to his perception of his militia duty, everyone in the militia will be facing a conspiracy charge. Given that Tim McVeigh/Randy Weaver is the face of average militia member to most Americans, you will face an uphill battle.
The truth is that such a caricature might not be at all unfair. I have yet to see a militia that seriously distances itself from any contact with Aryan Nation types - Confederate flags are common, and I don't see much in the way of black officer in any pictures of any of the rag-tag groups that want to claim to be a militia today.
A racially balanced militia might have a better time of it - but I have never seen one of those.
Mike
Tommygunn
Member
Why? If someone who belonged to the same church did something illegal would that implicate any other church member?
Conspiracy must be proven.
IIRC from my early civics classes, for conspiracy to exist, two or more people must not only discuss performing some illegal activity, but take atleast one actual action toward its completion or performance before a conspiracy legally exists.
I can well imagine if a militiaman did something bad, the BATF & FBI might bend over backwards to find any such activity, but if they could find no evidence, in theory, atleast, no such charges could be made.
Now, on the other hand, it sure would further blacken the public perception of militias ......
For example, if the knucklehead shoots a black or hispanic man, and there is any history of racist comments attitude in the militia, I think you'd likely be facing conspiracy charges.
I think that a "general intent" to break a law is sufficient. Talking derisively about a particular minority - suggesting that that they are ruining country, aren't real "real" Americans, talking about how "something needs to be done" about that minority, all of that might be construed as the intent to commit a racially motivated crime. I have seen stuff on THR that I would not want to hear in testimony against me in such a case.
If there is evidence that the organization had a general intent to break a law, then I don't think that the burden of proof is very high - I am pretty sure that if the government can show that a conspiracy has been formed, they are not required to show that you took any over action to further the conspiracy. Here's what the font of all knowledge - Wikipedia
- says is a typical conspiracy law:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_(crime)
I have heard that the underlying crime does not need to be a felony. In other words, it is a felony to conspire to commit a misdemeanor.
I am not saying that you'd be convicted, but I bet you'd stand a good chance of being charged.
Or more specifically, you don't have any protection from such charges.
I am not a lawyer, so all this may be bogus.
Mike
Tommygunn
Member
RPCVYemen said:
From what I rcall, some further action beyond discussion is required. If someone is saying "something needs to be done to solve this race problem," and one of the fruitcakes goes out and commits a racially motivated murder, then he would be convicted of said murder, and those particular individuals who participated in the discussion might be charged with conspiracy (not the entire theoretical militia -- unless the entire theoretical militia was involved in the discussion) and it would become a matter for the jury to debate over whether or not they truly intended to have the one guy go out and commit the murder.
You could not convict the entire militia of an act they were not party to any more than you could convict the entire membership of a church for the actions of one or a few of its members.
Now, I am assuming the true facts are ascertainable and true justice is obtained. I'm not talking O.J. Simpson or Richard Kimble situations here. We all know in real life screwball things might happen in a courtroom.
By "general intent" I think you have something entirely different in mind than I. Whoever is actually in the process of commiting the crime must have some specific intent toward a crime.
How can I have a "general intent to break a law??" What does that mean? That I want to rob a bank but I might be happy if I wound up stealing a car and running down a pedestrian?
How do you show a group of people had a "general intent to break the law?" You can either demonstrate they broke the law, and the specific laws in question, or not.
Correct, but if Wikipedia is correct - heck they might be
- only one member of the conspiracy needed to make an overt act to further the conspiracy.If there are a series of discussions that reflect a desire to intimidate or harass a minority group, then I would suspect that the whole group would be charged. You are right that much of the decision as to whether those discussions reflect a "general intent" to break the law would be determined by a jury.
BTW, as I read the Wikipedia page, I think that the "general intent" does not mean a hazy intent - it means that the conspiracy need not target a specific victim. In other words, you don't have to show a conspiracy to harm a specific individual - you can form a conspiracy to rob a bank with only a vague notion about which specific bank. So I think that if the evidence was - or could be construed - that the militia had the general intent to harass intimidate Hispanic men, you could be charged with conspiracy if a particular Hispanic man was harmed - even if you had no knowledge of or agreement to attack/harass that specific man.
Let me make it clear that I personally am very skeptical of the constitutionality of conspiracy laws - I first learned of them in the civil rights movement, when Southern states tried to use them against organizers of demonstration in the South - I vaguely recall a law that made it a felony to conspire to commit a misdemeanor (like a black man eating at a while only lunch counter) was called an "H. Rab Brown Law" after a SNCC organizer. The Chicago 8 were charged with "H. Rap Brown Law" violations. Conspiracy laws look very close to violating 1st Amendment to me. But not only am I not a lawyer, I am not a Supreme Court judge - though I do know one.
But nonetheless, if a fruitcake in a militia does hurt/shoot/kill the wrong guy, the whole militia may be in trouble. You can count on the instigator being willing to plea bargain murder (in our hypothetical case) down to conspiracy, and then then it's a real SHTF situation. Then the prosecutor plays musucal chairs.
Maybe I am overly paranoid - but it looks to me like participation in any militia is a way to be (legally) responsible not only for your actions, but for any actions of any member of the group.
If that's the case, then take a close look at the folks who want to organize a militia. I think any of the militia groups in the country would have welcomed Timothy McVeigh with open arms in 1993 or 1994. Many of the folks who see to want to join a militia could be make to look very similar in court to Tom McVeigh - rants about Rudy Ridge and Waco are pretty common. People are entitled to have and express their views about those events. But I don't think you'd want to be in the docket after a crime of violence against a minority with someone ranting about David Koresh by your side.
Mike
Mike
Tommygunn
Member
I think we're closing in on each other.
Of course no specific target of a racial assault is necessary. I think most racial assaults happen because the victim is unfortunate enough to be of the wrong race and present himself as an easy target to his attackers at the wrong time/place.
One thing that bugs me in a way is the assumption that a militia is necessarily racist in nature. I believe there are a number of militias that are not at all racist, but devoted to protecting Constitutionally protected rights.
Now, obviously there are racist organizations. Neo Nazis & skinheads for example come to mind; people like this I would never care to associate with on any level. Maybe some militias are and they call themselves militias to avoid the easy perception of racist groups.
Even overtly racist groups can present themselves as much lower key than are reported in tv programs and documentaries.
During my youth, every summer my family drove down from Connecticut to Alabama to visit family, in the late 1960s at a point when some interstates weren't complete my father would have to go on some backroads through towns. At one point a bunch of men were stopping cars and passing out literature. These guys were dressed in normal everyday cloths ... blue jeans, short sleeve shirts, nothing glaring just dressed like you'd see people walking around town.
Turns out they were Klu Klux Klan recruiting new members Well, my father just said "thank you" took the brochure and drove on. Now he was as far from a racist as you can get; he just didn't want any possibility of a nasty confrontation with his family right there. But the recruiting brochure certainly made the KKK look like a bunch of boy scouts; you'd never guess from what was written they (the KKK that is) had been responsible for burning crosses and all sorts of raceial violence ... even murder.
So yeah, any time you get some group together ... a lot of care is going to be necessary to vet people, and what might be regarded as a "Constitutional" militia could cover up thugs.
The reality is most of America has seen the word militia be associated with bad people so often that their opinions are tainted.
Now as for McViegh, he actually tried to join the Militia of Montana (IIRC) and after attending a couple of meetings, they told him to get lost, as he was promoting too much violence. Now, maybe they thought he was an ATF spy but maybe ... they weren't the violent insurgents the Klintonistas painted them as, either.
In today's environment ... heck even under the klinton regime, possibly. yes.
But those "discussions" would have to be actual planning toward the event.
If an undercover agent was involved likely a covert recording of those discussions would be made and that would show intent and motive in the trial.
But I still believe only those directly involved would likely be accused.
I share your skepticism about conspiracy laws. If properly applied, I really have no problem, but as we seem to be evolving into a greater security state and our freedoms erode, IMHO there's a greater and greater chance of abuse of these laws, as many others as well.
Of course no specific target of a racial assault is necessary. I think most racial assaults happen because the victim is unfortunate enough to be of the wrong race and present himself as an easy target to his attackers at the wrong time/place.
One thing that bugs me in a way is the assumption that a militia is necessarily racist in nature. I believe there are a number of militias that are not at all racist, but devoted to protecting Constitutionally protected rights.
Now, obviously there are racist organizations. Neo Nazis & skinheads for example come to mind; people like this I would never care to associate with on any level. Maybe some militias are and they call themselves militias to avoid the easy perception of racist groups.
Even overtly racist groups can present themselves as much lower key than are reported in tv programs and documentaries.
During my youth, every summer my family drove down from Connecticut to Alabama to visit family, in the late 1960s at a point when some interstates weren't complete my father would have to go on some backroads through towns. At one point a bunch of men were stopping cars and passing out literature. These guys were dressed in normal everyday cloths ... blue jeans, short sleeve shirts, nothing glaring just dressed like you'd see people walking around town.
Turns out they were Klu Klux Klan recruiting new members
Well, my father just said "thank you" took the brochure and drove on. Now he was as far from a racist as you can get; he just didn't want any possibility of a nasty confrontation with his family right there. But the recruiting brochure certainly made the KKK look like a bunch of boy scouts; you'd never guess from what was written they (the KKK that is) had been responsible for burning crosses and all sorts of raceial violence ... even murder.So yeah, any time you get some group together ... a lot of care is going to be necessary to vet people, and what might be regarded as a "Constitutional" militia could cover up thugs.
The reality is most of America has seen the word militia be associated with bad people so often that their opinions are tainted.
Now as for McViegh, he actually tried to join the Militia of Montana (IIRC) and after attending a couple of meetings, they told him to get lost, as he was promoting too much violence. Now, maybe they thought he was an ATF spy but maybe ... they weren't the violent insurgents the Klintonistas painted them as, either.
In today's environment ... heck even under the klinton regime, possibly. yes.
But those "discussions" would have to be actual planning toward the event.
If an undercover agent was involved likely a covert recording of those discussions would be made and that would show intent and motive in the trial.
But I still believe only those directly involved would likely be accused.
I share your skepticism about conspiracy laws. If properly applied, I really have no problem, but as we seem to be evolving into a greater security state and our freedoms erode, IMHO there's a greater and greater chance of abuse of these laws, as many others as well.
Steve Raacke
Member
If, as so many here often point out, the militia includes nearly all adult males of a particular age range (say 17-65yo) then why are so many worried about racism? Example- In a community where blacks make up (just picking a number at random) 60% of the population then a citizens militia should have that percentage of blacks as members by default. Just because you are white doesn't mean you are any more or less a member of the unorganized militia than the hindu down the road or the asian guy next door. If you are in a militia and you look around and see faces which don't reflect your local population and someone is talking "superiority" then you are not in a militia. You are in a hate group. Get up and walk away.
- Status
