Kokesh arrested for holding consitutionally protected property

[davidmcbeth]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying, but in order to file a lawsuit one must prove that s/he was injured by the law.
Merely speaking out against something, of course anyone can do.

Wouldn't it be great if it comes out at trial that the nut did his stunt in front of a green screen, added a background video taken somewhere in DC, and published it?

In state courts you do have to prove you were injured. Not in federal court, when dealing with constitutional issues ~ you can file w/o violating the law. Although most folks who do file do list some "injury" its not required. These types of cases are not common but also not unheard of..

 

[KBCraig]

Back to the original topic: Adam Kokesh was released on bond today (Monday, 7/15). Trial is scheduled for October.

http://www.wjla.com/articles/2013/07/adam-kokesh-faces-bond-hearing-monday-91372.html


After a weekend in the Fairfax County Adult Detention Center and an initial hearing during which he didn't say a word, activist and Iraq war veteran Adam Kokesh was granted bond Monday.

A Fairfax County judge gave Kokesh, who is facing gun and drug charges after a video of him surfaced showing him allegedly loading a shotgun in Freedom Plaza, $5,000 bond. He'll likely be released from custody later Monday afternoon.

Kokesh was arrested last Thursday at his home in Herndon. He’s accused of possessing hallucinogenic mushrooms and a gun-related offense.

He'll be placed on pre-trial probation and will be prohibited from possessing firearms until his case is complete.

 

[77zach]

Judge admits government prime directive to destroy liberty

http://www.metroweekly.com/news/?ak=7324

Judge orders Kokesh held without bail for thought crime, claims he fears Kokesh, but lets attempted murderer go free.

 

[eye95]

While I think that his being held without bail is despicable, unsupportable, and unconstitutional, Kokesh is not charged with "thought crimes."

As long as folks keep discussing Kokesh, my signature will continue to contain his quotations.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[marshaul]

While I think that his being held without bail is despicable, unsupportable, and unconstitutional, Kokesh is not charged with "thought crimes."

I'm sorry, what else could you possibly call the criminalization of the possession of psilocybin mushrooms?

There's no victim. No economic ramification. No possible justification under the sun for what is being done to this man.

He's not being charged for the things in your signature.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

I'm sorry, what else could you possibly call the criminalization of the possession of psilocybin mushrooms?

There's no victim. No economic ramification. No possible justification under the sun for what is being done to this man.

He's not being charged for the things in your signature.

People too often confuse rules with law........

 

[eye95]

Um...an act, not a thought. Duh.

Whether or not you think such possession ought to be a crime, it is still no more a "thought" than a bank robbery is*.

Moving on from that little moronic distraction.

*Yes I know that some think that possession should not be a crime and bank robbery should be. However, folks making that distinction are dishonestly clouding the facts. Both are still ACTS and not thoughts. Earlier, a poster argued that possession was a "thought crime," and that is just plain stupid.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.
<O>

 

[77zach]

COMMENTS REMOVED BY ADMINISTRATOR: Violation of forum rules

 

[marshaul]

Whether or not you think such possession ought to be a crime, it is still no more a "thought" than a bank robbery is.

No more an act than bearing without the "separable act" of concealing.

I didn't say possession wasn't an act, however. I opined than the prohibition of such possession has no function other than the moral and practical equivalence of thought-crime laws, namely to control that which is private to a man's person – his thoughts. (Let's not forget that psilocybin mushrooms are used to alter... wait for it.... thought.)

I repeat: there is no conceivable justification, nor societal interest, behind such prohibition. It is in every way equivalent to the prohibition of a mere thought, both in intent and in effect.

 

[georg jetson]

Um...an act, not a thought. Duh.

Whether or not you think such possession ought to be a crime, it is still no more a "thought" than a bank robbery is.

Moving on from that little moronic distraction.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

Incorrect. A bank robbery is theft. There is nothing left to discover about the perpetrators intentions. In the case of illegal possession, it is to prevent the misuse of the controlled substance. It is a presumption about what the possessor MAY do with the substance. It is a thought crime. It's the same logic the antis use for gun control.

Your post did serve as a bit of "indignant" practice though... you wouldn't want to lose that particular skill after having mastered it so well.

 

[marshaul]

Incorrect. A bank robbery is theft. There is nothing left to discover about the perpetrators intentions. In the case of illegal possession, it is to prevent the misuse of the controlled substance. It is a presumption about what the possessor MAY do with the substance. It is a thought crime. It's the same logic the antis use for gun control.

Your post did serve as a bit of "indignant" practice though... you wouldn't want to lose that particular skill after having mastered it so well.

Good call. I meant to say something along these lines as well, but I was too focused on the specific case of psilocybin mushrooms.

I share your logic, however. Suffice it to say such prohibitions are intended to control how people think (and in a broad sense behave), rather than to mitigate the harm resulting from any specific aggressive act – the only acts of any concern to government.