Pixiq

Kind of a weird issue. I don’t understand the whole story about the warrant and investigation?

Andrew,

I don’t either. I sent Tutu a message through his Youtube account to call me or send me an email so I can get more details.

Who wastes our tax money providing warrants and squanders police time for something like this? The issuing judge needs to be examined by a mental health practitioner and committed.

They would no doubt justify the warrant etc by saying they were trying to preemptively cease another Virginia Tech type incident. Racial profiling anyone?

I saw a hilarious movie-trailer-candidate-video there.

How anyone gets a threat out of that – outside of “ZOMG GUNS SO SCARY” – no, I don’t see how an intelligent human could get there.

I mean, obviously because he said he is going to get his girlfriend back and then a scene is shown of his ability to employ a handgun, he is threatening to shoot the bloke who has his girlfriend. Erm, yeah, sorry about the snark.
I guess the guys who thought that one up missed the part where he said implied he’d get his girlfriend back by winning SCP.
Good thing I never make a video about my kenjutsu skills after saying I wanted my girlfriend back. sigh Fools?

So this is a threat WOW I DIDNT KNOW YOU COULD ARREST PEOPLE FOR MAKING A COMMERSAL there goes my next big idea

5. Any rectangle shaped cardboard, white paper plates, gray duct tape, white PVC pipe, wood and cedar blocks.

This made me shoot peas out of my nose. I really shouldn’t be eating casserole so late.

Yeah, well done comercial.

I guess it’s “suspicious” for an asian college student to like guns. Wear black pants and black tee shirts. I can’t wait to see how this one works out. This is one where I really hope the cops end up looking like the fools they appear to be.

Simon,

there just is now telling what he might do with those things. He might serve some sushi or something like that.

I was just thinking I’ve got all that stuff in my place. What am I planning?

Simon,

And let’s not forget the most dangerous item of all.

8. Any camera with the ability to store still and video images and the electronically stored data contained within.

Duane,

You know how 9/11 changed everything, especially for Muslims?

Well, Virginia Tech changed everything for Asian college students exercising their Second Amendment rights.

Carlos,

I understand the implications. It’s like when I happened to take photos of some kids during a fire drill the day after the Amish School Shooting. It’s like everyone is planning a shooting.

I’ve said this before. Since Columbine there have been about 200 people shot or wounded in school shootings. Over ONE HUNDRED Billion Dollars have been spent on school security. I doubt that there would have been any more shootings or any less if we had spent ZERO dollars on this. Yet THOUSANDS of high school and college students end their lives every year by suicide. Yet we haven’t even spent ONE billion dollars on trying to figure out how to do anything about this. Want to do something to save peoples lives and make their lives better. Do something about educating people about depression.

You’re exactly right. We need to get to the root of the problem, not just make empty gestures.

In fact, depression was the factor that prompted all those school shootings.

They were just a more volatile form of suicide, but suicide nonetheless.

carlos they are getting to the root of the problem. Asians with guns and cameras.

Didn’t you read the article you wrote?

I don’t see how anyone can be upset or find it laughable that this incident is being looked into. Hindsight is 20/20, but, unfortunately, foresight is not.

I do not claim to know all of the facts, but from my understanding those cardboard cut-outs that Tutu Lee is shooting at had the names of opposing candidates on them.

Yes, billions have been spent on school safety since Columbine. How can you say that you are sure that this has been a non-factor one way or the other regarding the number of incidents? How many possible incidents have been exposed early on that you have not heard of? Because, I guarantee plenty of people will never hear about this one and take it into account when considering how many possible threats there have been.

Nothing described on that warrant is stupid. Of course they want the cardboard cut-outs, especially if they represent specific people. Maybe it’s just me, but I am extremely thankful that this incident is being investigated for my own safety and the safety of those around us. I don’t care if he is Asian, white, black, whatever. I do care that he had a gun and was acting questionably.

reasonable,

So what is it exactly that you are afraid of?

The cardboard targets with names scribbled on them?

Note to Reasonable: You said, “Nothing described on that warrant is stupid”. You might be correct. However, I’m confused about one entry, the one that reads “Any maroon and black colored portable outdoor chairs”. I assume that the chairs (or chair, so far, I’ve only noticed one) are important because they’ll help to “establish identities”. If so, seems odd. The principals don’t appear to be hiding their identities. Even if I’ve gotten people mixed up, and the man who was sitting in the chair isn’t identifiable, how is the chair especially useful compared to all of the other items that they’re looking for? Is it backup evidence of some kind in case they don’t get cell phones, clothes, cameras, computers, firearms, etc. ? I’d hate to be the person who needed to move a case forward based on a chair that was partially visible for just a few seconds.

First they tried to do it without a warrant, but then they realized there are certain formalities in violating someone’s First Amendment rights.

Why are you babbling about the first amendment when warrants are a fourth and fifth amendment matter?

You people are your own worst enemies. Duane Kerzic can’t even spell or focus his camera but he’s confused himself into thinking he’s some legal expert. “All Be Damned” is the best yet. With an articulate spokesman like him, you’re exposed for the laughing stocks that you are.

Is Reasonable right about names on the cutouts? If so, failure to obtain a warrant makes the police look foolish, but I’d feel that an investigation was called for. On the other hand, the warrant does seem odd in places. It appears to be a massive fishing expedition, an attempt to find something, anything that will stick. That doesn’t seem appropriate. Aren’t there guidelines for addressing this sort of situation through administrative means that don’t involve the police? At this point, I’m neither attacking nor defending Mr. Lee. However, if I lived in the area, I’d want to see some kind of investigation and I’d want to see tighter reins on how the investigation was conducted.

Note to Taser Time: You appear to be a troll. Possibly just somebody who feels the need to vent, and I’ve done that myself. However, your handle suggests troll. If you’re sincere, try to debate specific facts, where possible. The people you’ve addressed are willing to do this themselves. They’ve debated “jones”, somebody with strongly opposing views. Of course, if you’re not sincere, I’ve just fed a troll, but I like to encourage genuine debate where possible. It brings things to light.

The issues here are many, but I can’t help but wonder if some idiot in the police department is thinking about the massacre at Virginia Tech 2 years ago, which was committed by an Asian dude. You know how the police think…or rather, ASSUME….

Hi all.

I appreciate the conversation regarding the circumstances surrounding the search warrant. Unfortunately, as of yesterday, things took an unexpected turn for the worse (as if getting my property taken wasn’t bad). A recent ex-girlfriend very likely saw this video and despite having not seen, contacted or heard from her in over quarter of a year, she has decided to file a restraining order against me for stalking. Be aware that this is not even the beginning nor the end of this story and there exist much deeper complications that I can only reveal at some time early next week due to issues associated with the administration at my school. But rest assured, I will let all of you here know the extent of my activities and I will do so with candor and acceptance of mistakes I have made in my life, which are legion.

Please do not spend an excess of effort defending me because the more I will reveal to you, the more controversial you will realize my situation to be and the less you will want me to be a poster child for civil liberties.

Yours in honesty,
Tutu Lee

TT,

Going after somebody for a video he made is not a First Amendment violation?

Note to Carlos Miller: You said, “In fact, depression was the factor that prompted all those school shootings”. No, though it’s a simplified way of looking at some cases. Conditions at home, school, or both, can lead to depression, which can lead to shootings, suicide, or both. Depression can also arise from other causes, and may or may not lead from there to any of the above. Therefore, depression is a factor. However, depression isn’t the factor unless you use the term loosely. Depression is a specific illness (or group of illnesses). Some cases involve other conditions or circumstances.

If the subject is of interest, I recommend the book “Going Postal” by Mark Ames. You can get it from Amazon.

I’m not familiar with the specific civil rights issues addressed by this web site. I’ve stopped by, probably temporarily, because I’m intrigued by the fact that sites like this one and Mr. Pataky’s site are able to exist and might contribute to change. Traditional media is generally useless for this purpose (so I’m not sorry to see the end of the newspaper era). However, I’m personally familiar with some of the issues that you and Mr. Kerzic have mentioned in this thread. I agree with the thrust and intent of Mr. Kerzic’s post 11. That said, it might be a bad idea to oversimplify things. Educating people about what depression is and what to do about it is important. However, depression can be triggered by external factors. There’s things that schools could do to mitigate the effects of the external factors, which would prevent some cases of depression from occurring in the first place. A highly-desirable outcome. Even if somebody doesn’t commit suicide, the effects of this kind of thing can last a lifetime. I’ve seen no evidence that policymakers are interested in addressing the issues involved. Instead, in recent years, schools have put policies into place that have a sharp focus on minimizing their exposure to litigation. In some cases, the results have been appalling.

“she has decided to file a restraining order against me for stalking”

Oops. Looks like the Lawrence Police Department was right after all. They stepped in and stopped possible violence and bloodshed. Good job guys.

V of R,

Thanks for agreeing. In these small snippets it’s sometimes hard to fully address an issue.

I will say a few things. Depression is a biological illness and can be terminal, suicide is often terminal depression. Everyone has some degree of depression at some time. Yes there can be external events that trigger depression but it’s much deeper than that. Most of the things you mention play a part at some point in the process. People that are depressed have altered brain chemistry which is why they are depressed.

People that suffer from very deep and prolonged depressions have brains that are more susceptible to being in this altered state of brain chemistry. This is why antidepressant medications work as well as they do. If depression was something you willed to have or not to have taking a pill would not make it better. Just as you can’t will yourself to have lower cholesterol or blood pressure.

I think that Carlos’ comment that In fact, depression was the factor that prompted all those school shootings didn’t mean it was the lone factor. Just that everyone that has done something like this was suffering from some type of mental illness and that depression was common to all of them. I’m not saying that only being depressed would make one likely to commit any of these actions. There was much more involved.

What I will say is that if we gave more attention to the mental health of people in general by removing the stigmas associated with mental illness the country would be much healthier as a whole. It would probably do more to prevent school shootings then all the money we have spent on so called security. If you ask me this “security” isn’t providing much security but it certainly is interfering with peoples civil rights.

I am going to close with one observation. I’m sure you all remember all the controversy surrounding antidepressant medications in the past several years which resulted in hearings by the FDA and the issuance of the “black-box” warnings on these medications. Because of these warnings and the press reports the number of percriptions for these medications was reduced.

As a result, the suicide rate went up. http://www.afsp.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.viewPage&page_id=88083052-...

According to another study published in the July issue of the journal (coauthored by AFSP Scientific Advisory Council members Drs. Maria Oquendo, Madelyn Gould and Barbara Stanley; AFSP Scientific Council member Dr. David Brent contributes an editorial), the number of SSRI prescriptions for pediatric depression (ages 5 to 18) tumbled more than 50 percent between 2003 and 2005. Alarming, the number of teen suicides during this relative time period jumped a record 18 percent between 2003 and 2004, the most recent year for which data exists.

Talk about some chilling data.

Taser Time;

Anyone, even you, can set their camera on automatic and make OK sharply focused photos all day long. That is called “PHOTOS BY “. I choose not to make PHOTOS BY CANON but to instead use my own sense of what I do and don’t want in focus and use the camera in manual mode most of the time. I exercise control over what iso setting, f stop and shutter speed I’m using. While I’m sure this is beyond your comprehension as an automatic shooter I felt that there are others that might be interested. Check here for some out of focus photos, http://photos.duanek.name/gallery/7846132_Q5fn7/1/508725714_74UEp

Tutu,

How about getting your whole story, the video and such, on one web page. Digg, Fark and Reddit would love stuff like this.

Hey, LAPG, my situation is morally unusual and in the end, I will own up to everything that I’ve ever done. But you know what else is unusual? That your Operator Tactical pants are ripped from designs by TAD Gear. Are you going to own up?

Ah, LAPG, I sense a troll.

Filing does not always mean granted, and accusing someone of stalking doesn’t make them guilty…

Besides, even being right in hindsight doesn’t justify going overboard in the first place. That pesky ends not justifying the means concept, you see.

the only difference between these 2 guys and my redneck West Virginia uncles is that these 2 guys are not drunk when they film themselves to see how fast they can jump out of their camping chairs to shoot stuff. oh, and these 2 guys aren’t white either.

If I had a buck for everytime I heard a woman use the word stalker I’d have 2x as much camera gear as I have now. If I had a buck for everytime a woman was going to get a restraining order I’d have 4x as much camera gear.

It’s well knoww that most judges will issue a retraining order against a ham sandwitch if someone asks for one.

Just what is a stalker? It’s an overused term.

Note to Duane Kerzic: The following remarks might come across as disagreement. They’re not. Though I stand by the concerns that I expressed in my post 23, all of the facts stated in your post 25 appear to be correct. And, yes, it’s difficult to address things completely in brief postings, but that isn’t a problem. Consensus evolves over time, doesn’t it?

I’d like to add a note that I consider to be important. “Antidepressant medications work as well as they do” if, and only if, the right tool is used for the job. As I understand it, most, though not necessarily all, modern antidepressants work by adjusting neurotransmitter reuptake inhibitors or through similar operations that have an effect on neurotransmitter levels. Unless things have changed in recent years, there’s no simple way to conclusively identify the neurotransmitter that needs to be operated on. I can assure you that if the wrong neurotransmitter is selected initially, serious problems may occur. Some of these problems may be highly unpleasant. I thought about mentioning one striking example that might literally give some of the people reading this post nightmares. I don’t mean that the side effects are nightmares. I mean that simply reading about one of them might be sufficient to produce nightmares. At the risk of being told that this example is pointless without details, I’d prefer not to elaborate.

The fact that medicine is an art, as opposed to a science, is not a reason to avoid treatment. It’s just something that complicates policy discussions in a society where people prefer sound bites and one size fits all solutions. Policy makers, in particular, don’t like to deal with things that aren’t all one way or all the other. The antidepressant-suicide rate issue mentioned in post 25 might be a good example. Both sides of the issue need to be addressed, and policymakers don’t like that sort of thing. They’d prefer to pass a law that makes a particular pill either compulsory or forbidden.

Did any of you commenters, or even the author of the article bother to watch the video in it’s entirety?

I’m all for protection of the first amendment and the second amendment. It’s perfectly legal to own and shoot guns.

But here’s the catch. At the end of the video, it says: “We’re going to hit this son of a bitch so hard his drivers license photo will get a black eye”, followed by the sound of a gunshot. THAT could certainly be perceived as a threat, especially coming from someone who has firearms.

Carlos, would you care to address this issue?

Note to Duane Kerzic: You said, “Just what is a stalker?” I might be mistaken about this, but I believe that the following guideline is sometimes used: If a “reasonable” person would “feel” that a situation is “stalking”, then it’s “stalking”. There’s apparently no need to demonstrate “illegal intent”, contrary to opinions that you’ll find in some places.

The specific legal definition that seems to apply in most jurisdictions is that if you communicate with somebody by any means (except through an attorney), or you intentionally make them aware that you’re physically in the area, and they’re “afraid” of you or “in fear” of you, it can be prosecuted as “stalking”. In practical terms, if somebody is “afraid” of you or “in fear” of you, there’s essentially no difference between being a “stalker” and violating a restraining order.

Some victim’s rights groups might take strong exception to what I’ve said. However, if the specific definition that I’ve stated happens to be correct, it strikes me as inappropriate. I believe that policymakers (and jurors, in some cases) should reject vague laws of all types.

Note to Carlos Miller: You said, “TT, Going after somebody for a video he made is not a First Amendment violation?” The question sidesteps an important point.

If you “go after” somebody “for a video he made”, and the video isn’t evidence of illegal activity, that’s probably a First Amendment issue.

However, if you “go after” somebody “for a video he made”, and the video is evidence of illegal activity, that’s probably appropriate.

Those are general statements. Mr. Lee’s case has some grey areas. This web site seems to be good at finding cases of that type.

The primary problems with this case, aside from the foolish attempt to proceed without a warrant, are that the evidence of illegal activity produced so far is debatable and that the warrant itself appears to be based on little more than the desire to conduct a massive fishing expedition. As I’ve said elsewhere, they were simply hoping to find something, anything that would stick.

It’s possible that illegal activity will eventually be proven in this case. If so, the video is evidence of illegal activity. However, there might still be a First Amendment issue, regardless, because the warrant was apparently issued before there was any clear evidence that a crime had even taken place.

Chriggy,

The only details I know of this case is what I presented.

I called Tutu and he said he will call me tonight. We’ll see.

As for the video, I didn’t perceive anything as a threat. I saw it all as hyperbole.

I didn’t see enough to justify getting a search warrant.

It seems this issue could have been addressed by simply talking to Tutu. Maybe they did. I don’t know.

If they raided him based on that video, it scares me because it makes me think that they could raid me for something I say on this blog.

Note to Carlos Miller: Let me hasten to add that many of the cases listed on this web site don’t have any grey areas at all. The Manship and Pataky cases leap to mind. Those cases seem to be pure black and white.

However, Mr. Lee himself has acknowledged that his own case has grey areas, and Mr. Hester had to step in to clarify what was going on in his own video.

Grey areas aren’t necessarily a problem. They’re interesting.

VoR,

I am aware that we do not have all the information on this incident and I did attempt to contact Tutu last night, but I was not going to wait for him to contact me before I published the story.

Sometimes stories change as more information comes out.

Until then, all we have are the facts presented unless someone else come forward with new details.

A good example of a story that changed after it was published is the one of the dangling bare ass man in Colorado.

Here they are in order as they appeared on this site.

http://carlosmiller.com/2009/01/08/man-who-photographed-dangling-bare-as...

http://carlosmiller.com/2009/01/19/colorado-company-threatening-lawsuit-...

Note to Carlos Miller: “If they raided him based on that video, it scares me because it makes me think that they could raid me for something I say on this blog”.

With no offense intended, you’re obviously being facetious. You already knew that a raid was possible. You learned this the moment that the Pataky story broke. You’ve got far more in common with Pataky than with Lee. You and Pataky are LEO critics, who some people will see as “cop bashers”. Lee’s a young Asian man with a gun. Two completely different stereotypes.

In fact, you might be at greater risk than Pataky was for Pataky-style raids because you’re aggregating stories that might irritate a much larger number of police departments.

On the other hand, you’re sincere, the Pataky case demonstrates that sincere LEOs may support sincere critics, you yourself just posted a story tonight about a sincere LEO who’s probably be happy to be quoted on your site, and you’re not specifically “going after” a police department located in your area the way that Pataky is.

Either way, you should follow the suggestions that people offered in the Pataky case (offsite backups, etc.).

I’m going to cover the three posts in one.

First V or R,

You have a lot there to respond to.

I don’t take what you said about antidepressants as a disagreement. There are three neurotransmitters that generally are considered effect depression, serotonin, norepinephrine and dopamine. You need to adjust the right one. The features of the symptoms are used to decide which one to adjust first since, as you correctly pointed out, there is no lab test to determine which one to adjust.

Most people that are depressed are helped by SSRI’s.

Some people are so adversely effected by side effects they can’t take some of these drugs, so then different drugs need to be tried. 80-90% of those that take an antidepressant have a very positive reaction to the treatment. Most of the rest have some improvement. I’m not saying these drugs are perfect or that everyone should be taking something.

On the stalking. I once had a stalker. I didn’t really know he was following me or watching me and I didn’t have any fear of him. The behaviour that brought him to my attention was his calling me at 3am and telling me what he wanted to do. This calling was found to originate from an intercom in the building I was living in. Since I wasn’t answering his unknown desires he was also damaging my automobiles. This went on for over a year before he was caught. No I’m not gay.

I just think the stalker thing is overboard. Someone drives past your house 2 times and it’s stalking. I just think it’s gone way overboard.

Chriggy,

Yes I watched it to the end. Yes I read what he said. I’d suggest you ask yourself is the “son of a bitch” a person or an object. I took it to be a meaningless statement. I also took many of the features of the short video to be parody. Tutu says he’s not perfect, no one is. But I just don’t see a real or veiled threat to anyone in that video. Have you seen any of the stuff that some of the shooters left behind?

I get the feeling this video was made to address a certain audience, address a certain issue. When it’s removed from that context and is “adjusted” it can be forced to mean something that it wasn’t mean to mean. I can tell there was lots of thought that went into making this for dramatic effect.

Actually, I am not being facetious. This story, along with the Pataky story, scare me.

It shows me that judges will give cops a search warrant based on people’s writings and videos, which supposedly are protected under the First Amendment.

In both cases, I did not see any direct threats.

For all I know, they’re working on getting a warrant against me based on what I wrote about the prosecutor in my case.

http://carlosmiller.com/2009/02/23/state-attorney-is-granted-yet-another...

About the antidepressants:

The best thing to do is get your neurotransmitters tested through a urine test to determine where the imbalance, if there is an imbalance, lies.

Then base the type of antidepressant you will take on the results.

Note to Carlos Miller: You said, “Sometimes stories change as more information comes out. Until then, all we have are the facts presented unless someone else come forward with new details”.

Yes, that’s correct. And yes, it does apply to Mr. Lee’s case. As I’ve noted repeatedly, the search warrant in this case appears to be a massive fishing expedition. The police rushed into things based on the existing evidence, which wasn’t conclusive, to say the least. Therefore, as I’ve acknowledged, the case may involve First Amendment issues whether or not Mr. Lee is eventually convicted of something. My criticism of something that you said doesn’t change that.

There’s no way, however, that this case isn’t far more grey than the Manship or Pataky cases. The First Amendment issues here aren’t black and white. Mr. Lee himself seems to have acknowledged this.

Some how I missed the second widespread ass photo post. Must have happened when I was traveling.

There was one thing I wanted to say about guns. While I was in HS I used to take a shotgun and ammunition to school with me all the time during hunting season. No one cared, no one was concerned I was going to shoot up the school. It was common knowledge that I had a gun in the trunk of my car, my other friends had guns.

What’s changed in this period of 30 years.

It’s kind of like the movie ‘Jaws’. As a dramatic effect the film gave the shark a personality. It was evil, it plotted. I can assure you that no shark has a personality. A shark only interested in eating and growing. A shark doesn’t hunt down or target anyone. A shark doesn’t have any feelings, it doesn’t express hate, rage, love or kindness. A shark is just a shark going about doing what it needs to survive.

I have come to believe that how things are shown in movies has come to rule how people see the world. They can’t separate fiction and fact. They can’t separate fantasy from reality.

Note to Carlos Miller: You said, “For all I know, they’re working on getting a warrant against me based on what I wrote about the prosecutor in my case”.

Yes, based on what happened to Pataky, that’s a distinct possibility. You’re not simply criticizing the police in general. You’re also doing something similar to what Pataky was doing. That’s more of a problem.

Some LEOs might tell you that you’re being paranoid. Not true. Everybody wasn’t out to get Pataky, and everybody’s not out to get you. The problem is that it doesn’t take everybody.

The Pataky raid was obviously a mistake, and it’s going to embarrass the higher-ups. However, if they do the same thing to you, it won’t make you feel much better to hear that people are embarrassed about it. Therefore, you should take sensible precautions.

I’ll repeat one suggestion that other people have made, and I’ll add some new suggestions of my own. I know very little about anything. If these suggestions are foolish, no harm is intended. However, my remarks are sincerely meant.

Use offsite backups. Additionally, set up a mirror web site. If you own any firearms, move them far away or sell them. Run more positive LEO stories like the one about Mack Pettigrew and use them to build positive contacts. Encourage LEOs and their sympathizers to post, as long as they follow the rules of debate. Discourage trolls (i.e., insincere posters) and bashers (i.e., people who don’t follow the rules of debate) on both sides.

Offsite backups might cost you as little as $20 to $40, plus the time to make them. Copy your legal documents and web site to a Flash stick. They’re small, and they hold gigabytes these days, more than a DVD. Remember to encrypt the data. Mail the stick to a friend who lives in a different state. If you encrypt the data, it shouldn’t matter if the stick gets lost in the mail. If that happens, just make another backup. Repeat weekly or monthly until things settle down.

Post a story that asks the question, is anybody out there willing to mirror my web site? If you point out that you’re preparing for a possible raid, you should be able to get the story on Digg. The Pataky story is still fresh in people’s minds. If you get positive responses, go with the people who know how to set up automatic mirrors. Don’t use a manual mirror. If you know somebody like this personally, obviously you should use them as opposed to a stranger.

By the way, the mirror site should not be located at the same ISP as your main site. It’s possible that people on the other side will try to DMCA you, whether or not DMCA actually applies. You don’t want to make it easy for them to take down both sites at the same time.

If this sounds excessively cautious, there’s been a lot of DMCA abuse in the past few years. Attorneys have even tried to use copyright law to prevent the Internet publication of legal threats that they’ve made. It’s definitely possible that they’ll try to pull this kind of stunt on you.

If they can’t DMCA you, they might try to get you using DNS. This approach would involve taking your domain name away from you. Register one or two additional domain names now. They’re affordable. Don’t use the registrar that holds your current domain name. Use a different one.

If they manage to DMCA or otherwise shut down both the main site and the mirror, use the Streisand Effect to your advantage. For example, right now, Wikileaks wouldn’t care about you. However, if the site is yanked for political reasons, they’d probably be willing to set up an offshore copy for you. It would probably be a static copy (based on one of the offsite backups discussed in my previous posting), and you wouldn’t be able to edit it, but Wikileaks’ involvement would call attention to the situation.

“But here’s the catch. At the end of the video, it says: “We’re going to hit this son of a bitch so hard his drivers license photo will get a black eye”, followed by the sound of a gunshot. THAT could certainly be perceived as a threat, especially coming from someone who has firearms.”

ORLY? First of all, to threaten somebody, there actually has to be a threat against…. somebody. I don’t think he actually named anyone in the whole video. Also the ‘we’re going to hit this sob’ is more like a ‘we are going to get working on this’ than a physical threat. Yeah, I see how it could be misunderstood, but the cops/university are just looking for a story.

Note to Carlos Miller: A few more points. Hope you don’t mind. You sounded genuinely concerned earlier, so I’ve turned my full attention to this issue temporarily. When I do that, I’ve got a tendency to think about all the angles.

I really did believe that you were being silly when you identified with Lee earlier. Didn’t mean to take your concerns lightly. Hopefully my suggestions will make up for it. I still believe that you should focus on Pataky, not on Lee, as your role model. Lee’s case doesn’t suggest that they’re coming for you. Despite the common factor that you pointed out, it’s mostly a different situation. Pataky’s case, on the other hand, isn’t exactly reassuring. If I were in your shoes, I’d definitely think of his situation as a wake-up call.

First, I suggested previously that you should discourage trolls and bashers on both sides. I’d like to make this a little easier. You don’t really need to do much about trolls and bashers on the other side, because they’ll make you look good. Possibly ban the worst offenders, the ones who are obviously insincere. However, you should definitely discourage trolls and bashers on your side. There’s four reasons to do this:

1. Trolls and bashers on your side make you look bad.

2. They chase away possibly sincere posters on the other side who might have made you look good. For example, I’d have liked to seen Ziggy stick around. Sincere debate with people like Ziggy would raise your standing with LEOs significantly.

3. Discouraging anti-LEO trolls and bashers might raise your standing with LEOs, whether or not people like Ziggy stick around.

4. It’s easy. Since they’re on your side, they’ll probably listen to you.

Second, I assume you’re aware that the opponents in your legal case might be mirroring your web site themselves, possibly on a daily basis. Depends on how experienced they are. It’s easy, and it doesn’t cost anything. Your attorney should have advised you to keep this in mind when you post. Thought I’d add that you might want to check your access logs for evidence of the mirroring. If you see your opponents, you can post a friendly greeting to them. Welcome to the site. Be sure to tell your attorney as well. This kind of thing happened to me once. Somebody thought they were smart, tried to go through a mirror that I didn’t have access to, but I noticed them because they made a minor technical mistake.

Of course, if your opponents are mirroring the site, they’ll probably change the way that they’re doing it as soon as they read this posting. Doesn’t matter. If they’re present, you should be able to see them in past logs. They can’t do anything about those.

Third, thought I’d mention that you shouldn’t be concerned about discussing precautions such as backups, Wikileaks, and so on in front of your opponents. Remember, higher-ups don’t like to be embarrassed. If you’re obviously prepared to embarrass people in the event of a DMCA takedown or raid, this might reduce the chances that it’ll actually happen. In fact, it might push the chances down to zero, though I can’t promise that.

Note to Carlos Miller: I’d like to emphasize something that I said earlier.

I have no idea how old you are, but recently I’ve come to realize that I might be a bit old myself. Possibly ancient by your standards. Doesn’t seem that way to me. I’ve only got one piece of ancient tribal elder wisdom to pass down to future generations, but fortunately, it’s relevant to your situation. I assure you that I paid dearly for this information. If you’ve read my interactions with Mr. Kerzic, you might be able to guess exactly how dearly. Take my advice seriously. This isn’t a lark.

With respect to priorities, after you get past oxygen, food, water, and sex (lumping pleasure, reproduction, and parenthood into one category), things like right and wrong, the law (obviously separate from right and wrong), religion, and even money aren’t nearly as important to people as the fifth most important thing. That’s position or standing. It’s why one group of LEOs went after Pataky, and it’s why they might come after you. It’s also why you can help to protect yourself by cultivating a positive atmosphere and positive relationships with LEOs. Then you’re not trying to drag the entire group down, just the part that should be dragged down, and far fewer people will be interested in taking you out. In fact, you’re giving some LEOs the opportunity to boost their own standing. There’s nothing cynical about this. They’ll be boosting their standing by participating in an attempt to do what they believe is perceived as the right thing. Since they’re not involved in the wrong thing, they’ll gain standing instead of losing it. It’s why LEOs helped Pataky.

Study some of the stories that you yourself have posted. When Dave Barnes “spoke out against the department”, what happened to him? It had very little to do with “cops are bad” or anything like that. He did something that every major group in society would view as a cardinal sin. Admittedly, LEOs are probably the group that’s the most vigorous about this kind of thing. However, this principle applies everywhere. Barnes thought that right and wrong are important. He thought that mistakes related to serial killings are important. They are, but they come after position or standing. He was supposed to be loyal to the group, not to right or wrong, or to anything else. He wasn’t supposed to drag the group down.

Did you notice that “jones” called me childish names, but backed down a bit when I patronized him, but showed him a little respect at the same time? I was implying that I wasn’t going to attack his standing, that I would help to boost it at some point. That was far more important than his specific positions on the issue of the moment. It helped that both of us were sincere, though he still needs to learn the rules of debate.

The flip side is that you’ve attacked the standing of powerful people who might be interested in harming you. Right now, your opponents in the legal case have no reason not to take you out using possibly unpleasant approaches that transcend the boundaries of the case itself. In fact, if they don’t do so, it’s mostly because the point that it would be easy to do this hasn’t occurred to them. I don’t necessarily mean a raid; there’s numerous things that they could do that would be much simpler. You’re not the first person who’s run into this kind of thing. Not the ten thousandth. However, I became interested in your site because you and Pataky might be among the first people who’ve gotten as far as you have in the Internet age. It has nothing to do with the law, what’s right, or anything of that type. Put those notions aside. They’re not important. I haven’t reviewed the postings that you’ve referred to yet, though I’ll do so if you ask. Doesn’t matter. I know that your opponents are irritated because you’ve attacked their standing. That’s a motivation to do something. Possibly something unpleasant. The law doesn’t enter into it.

You don’t need to back down. In fact, if you’re young enough to believe in concepts like right and wrong, you shouldn’t do so. If it matters, I respect you and Pataky quite a bit, even though, contrary to what “jones” thought, I’m not a “cop basher”. Mostly, I dislike liars, people who kill and laugh about it, that kind of thing. However, you should make it clear that the situation might be embarrassing for your opponents if they take you out. You don’t need to be dangerous to them legally or financially (the avenues that most people in your position believe will save them). You just need to be able to embarrass them. It’s that simple. That’ll be a lot more important to some of the people involved than anything else.