Plane crash in Austin

[James48843]

A "Crime"? or "Terrorism"?


And, if he had survived...

Civilian court? or Military Tribunal?



and why?

 

[grandma]

A "Crime"? or "Terrorism"?
And, if he had survived...
Civilian court? or Military Tribunal?
and why?

you don't think his writings would qualify for a Hate Crime?

 

[James48843]

you don't think his writings would qualify for a Hate Crime?

1. What exactly is "a Hate Crime"?
And..."don't you think his writings would qualify for a Hate Crime"?
Hmmm......

No, I certainly don't think the writings qualify as a "Hate Crime". In fact, I would say it could be argued that it was Protected Speech under the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment.

I think the question could be asked if they violated "Imminent lawless action" standard set by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case "Brandenberg Vs. Ohio", and if asked, it would be hard to say it met that standard.

2. I'm just asking- do you view this as a crime, or as a terrorist act?


And, do you think, had he survived, the case against him be done as a civilian court case, or as a military tribunal, and if either, why that way?

 

[burrocrat]

A "Crime"? or "Terrorism"?


And, if he had survived...

Civilian court? or Military Tribunal?



and why?

note: i wish i knew how to separate/post multiple quotes like Nordic can, any tips?

"Crime or Terrorism"?: crime implies a resident violating the law of his jurisdiction (U.S. citizen breaking local or national law). terrorism suggests an individual revolting against a foreign power (U.S. citizen protesting the pound of flesh extracted by an internationally owned coalition of financiers/the fed). maybe a little of both here, how about Crimorism or Terrorime?

"Civilian Court or Military Tribunal"?: doesn't matter, once those hooks were in neither was going to play catch and release.

"and why"?: again - doesn't matter, what he did overides any reason why, he attacked a general target to address a personal affront and put innocent lives at risk, sleep now in the fire.

at least he saved the taxpayers some money supporting decades of trials and appeals.

 

[alevin]

To me this is no different than someone unhappy with the Postal Service (usually employees, possibly former employees).

We had a guy shoot and kill several people in the employee/visitors parking lot behind the Federal Building a couple towns over about 4 years ago. He was a Post Office employee who went off his rocker. 2d and 3d floors of the 3-story building are occupied by people I know in my agency who work for the unit over there. I have to go there for meetings on occasion.

Only entrance to the upper levels for people who don't work there-is to go up a secured elevator (key card only)-,which means have to go right past the PO lobby, use a callbox to tell people upstairs you are waiting downstairs and stand around and wait for someone to come down with their keycard to let us up the elevator. Could have been me or any one of my local office coworkers visiting, coming through the parking lot towards the building or headed out to lunch with somebody from the local unit that day. Nobody called that guy a terrorist, just a sad mass-murderer-criminal justice system works for me. See no need for a military tribunal.

 

[burrocrat]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wu67yo-3jfw&feature=player_embedded

 

[grandma]

1. What exactly is "a Hate Crime"?
And..."don't you think his writings would qualify for a Hate Crime"?
Hmmm......
No, I certainly don't think the writings qualify as a "Hate Crime". In fact, I would say it could be argued that it was Protected Speech under the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment.
I think the question could be asked if they violated "Imminent lawless action" standard set by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case "Brandenberg Vs. Ohio", and if asked, it would be hard to say it met that standard.
2. I'm just asking- do you view this as a crime, or as a terrorist act?
And, do you think, had he survived, the case against him be done as a civilian court case, or as a military tribunal, and if either, why that way?

1) You are probably right about the Hate Crime, unless, of course, the GayLesbian organization can prove that one of their members was in the building. They have that Special Protection hidden in the Defense Bill that was signed by President Obama last October. But, then again, maybe the IRS could get enough backing to be considered as victims even if none are of the GL persuasion.
2) You asked: Crime or Terrorism.
I just imagined you were asking for our thoughts, mine includes if it is considered a Hate Crime - any prosecution would be under civil law.
3) But you are not

.... just asking- do you view this as a crime, or as a terrorist act?

...
...because I responded with a possible crime scenario and you want an extended discussion requiring decisions based on news reporters take on what information has been released.
4)

I think the question could be asked if they violated "Imminent lawless action" standard set by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case "Brandenberg Vs. Ohio", and if asked, it would be hard to say it met that standard

If you think this question could be asked, then do ask it, and share the standard set of the Brandenberg case.

edit: I also think, if you want to carry on a back 'n forth discussion, you could at least go green so we can see who we are talking to ---

 

[James48843]

edit: I also think, if you want to carry on a back 'n forth discussion, you could at least go green so we can see who we are talking to ---

Sorry- reference "going green", I think you mean (but I am not sure) that little dot next to my name. That is set by whether someone is logged in (green), or off-line (dark), or, when red, simply means neither logged in nor logged out is visible to the public. I keep mine red because I am on and off several different computers- and there might be one logged on when in fact I am nowhere near a computer at the time. I have one at home that's usually on, even if no one is there, and I don't want someone to think I'm logged on watching when in fact I am not.

RE: As for the "Hate crime", you made me think for a bit and have to go look up criteria for that. I did, and didn't see where it applied. There is some pretty specific criteria regarding "hate crime" statutes that don't really match up with anything known about this case so far.

But you did get me to pondering that for a little bit, and I had to think about it. My best guess is - no, nothing revealed so far that I've seen would put it in that category.

RE: "Brandenberg vs. Ohio", or "Brandenberg Standard" means: "Imminent lawless action"- That's pretty much the standard on writings or speech under the 1st Amendment- The guy can pretty much SAY or WRITE anything he wants, up to the point where he is inciting others to break the law, and then, only if it's happening so quickly, that it doesn't leave time to call the police.

In short- not only does he have to try and incite others to do bad things (illegal things), he also has to do it in a way that there is no time to call the police to intervene, before the illegal event by others takes place.

In his writing, he laid out the reason he said he did what he did. But I really didn't see in there that he was telling others to do something illegal as well.
In my read of it, he didn't tell others to also do what he did. (although I may have missed it- I'll have to go back and read it again).

That makes it hard to prosecute- it may be protected free speech.

Now, if it WASN'T protected free speech, then you still have the test if by posting what he did, Was there, or was there not, time to call the police in an attempt to stop him from influencing others to the point of acting, before police could arrive. That's the "Imminent Lawless Action" argument which could be made. That's basically the free speech standard in the law.

I think under current law, the fact that he wrote what he did was probably legal. The writings were legal, the action was not.

That's my 2 cents, anyway.

 

[James48843]

note: i wish i knew how to separate/post multiple quotes like Nordic can, any tips?

Yes. break apart what you want, and put a quote marker before it like this- > "[ quote ]"
around it. And then after that part, you do an "unquote" marker like this. -> " [ /quote ]

But tighten it up so there are no spaces. It becomes then:

this is a quote

for you to break things apart.

is that what you

were asking?

 

[James48843]

"Brandenberg standard" example of legal vs. illegal "speech" or writing:

Legal speech under Brandenberg: "Hey, New Orleans Saints are a bad team. Let's all go over to New Orleans next month, and burn the buildings down."

Illegal under Brandenberg: "Hey, New Orleans Saints are a bad team. Let's all go over to New Orleans right now, and burn the buildings down." (no time to inform law enforcement of the potential hazard, and have them react, before the illegal action of burning a building takes place.)



This is an important concept, because before the last Administration, it was "well settled law" that freedom of speech boundaries were like that. You had to have evidence of a crime was going to be committed before you could arrest someone and charge them with a crime. You wouldn't charge them with burning, you would most likely charge them with "Conspiracy to burn...."

It became cloudy under the last Administration with the invention of "preventive detention". Until the "Patriot Act", typically the crime charged with a "Let's go next month" would be a "conspiracy to..." charge, if multiple people were involved.

Now it's a bit murkier as to whether or not just posting something is illegal.

That's what I was trying to say.

Make me think, though.

 

[McDuck]

Aren't all murders hate-crimes?

 

[burrocrat]

Yes. break apart what you want, and put a quote marker before it like this- > "[ quote ]"
around it. And then after that part, you do an "unquote" marker like this. -> " [ /quote ]

like this?

But tighten it up so there are no spaces.

i think i got it now.

It becomes then:

for you to break things apart.

were asking?

yes, thanks, and that's the nicest way i've ever been told to

tighten it up

cool.

 

[burrocrat]

A "Crime"? or "Terrorism"?

crime implies a resident violating the law of his jurisdiction (U.S. citizen breaking local or national law). terrorism suggests an individual revolting against a foreign power (U.S. citizen protesting the pound of flesh extracted by an internationally owned coalition of financiers/the fed). maybe a little of both here, how about Crimorism or Terrorime?

And, if he had survived...

Civilian court? or Military Tribunal?

doesn't matter, once those hooks were in neither was going to play catch and release.

and why?

again - doesn't matter, what he did overides any reason why, he attacked a general target to address a personal affront and put innocent lives at risk, sleep now in the fire.

at least he saved the taxpayers some money supporting decades of trials and appeals.

 

[James48843]

Aren't all murders hate-crimes?

Not under federal law. Under Title 18 USC 245, and Title 28 USC 994, the crime would have to be motivated by race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, and disability.

Simple murder is a crime under State laws, but isn't considered "hate crime" under federal law.


I would point out- that murdering a federal employee IS a special category of crime, the penalty of which includes the death penalty. Someone committing such a crime could be prosecuted in federal court and be convicted and sentenced to death, even if that state did not permit the death penalty under State laws.

 

[James48843]

i think i got it now.

yes, you do.

 

[James48843]

crime implies a resident violating the law of his jurisdiction (U.S. citizen breaking local or national law). terrorism suggests an individual revolting against a foreign power

How about "domestic terrorism" then? That all changed under the Patriot Act. Public Law No. 107-52.

http://www.aclu.org/national-security/how-usa-patriot-act-redefines-domestic-terrorism

 

[burrocrat]

That all changed under the Patriot Act. Public Law No. 107-52.

now that's a crime.

or is it terrorism?

maybe just a matter of perspective?

 

[James48843]

For the record-

This is the federal employee who was killed in the plane crashing into that Austin, Texas IRS office:

View attachment 8611
Vernon Hunter was a 68-year old
IRS employee, and a veteran of
two tours in Vietnam.

From "the Statesman":

Valerie Hunter had just stepped off the elevator on the first floor of the Northwest Austin building where she and her husband have worked for years.
She heard a loud explosion. She felt a violent shake.
Then, according to friends and relatives with whom she has shared the horror of Thursday morning, she bolted toward the nearest exit with co-workers and started searching for her husband, Vernon.
As minutes ticked away, she figured he was still helping others escape. After all, he was a volunteer safety coordinator for his floor.
But after two days of helpless waiting, family members received confirmation Saturday that Hunter, a 68-year-old Internal Revenue Service employee for more than two decades, was dead.
"It still probably hasn't all set in," son Ken Hunter of San Antonio said. "It didn't seem like something that could happen."
Authorities said Hunter was one of two people killed when a pilot preliminarily identified as Andrew Joseph Stack III flew his single-engine plane into the building, which houses IRS offices. Stack is believed to have died in the inferno.
Before taking off, Stack left behind a lengthy letter blaming the IRS for many of his troubles and saying, "Take my pound of flesh and sleep well."
"My dad, in that building, he didn't write the tax laws," Ken Hunter said. "If he would have talked to my dad, my dad would have helped him."
In a statement, Hunter's relatives said their thoughts also are with Stack's family.
"We are not angry at them because they did not do this," the statement said. "We forgive Joe for his actions, which took Vern's 'pound of flesh' with him."
Loved ones shared more stories of Hunter's life — he was an usher at his church and a fan of Rudy's barbecue and talked of another career after retirement — on Saturday, a day in which a second injured victim was released from a San Antonio burn unit.
Shane Hill, an employee of the state comptroller's office, said he was praying for Hunter's family and for Stack's wife and her daughter.
"I am so blessed to be home today," Hill said in a statement. He requested privacy so that he can "focus on making a quick and full recovery."
Another man in the building was treated and released Thursday, officials have said.
On Saturday, crews began removing shattered parts of the plane from the scene, and officials said they hoped to reopen the frontage road of U.S. 183 today.
The American-Statesman also confirmed Stack's audio transmissions with the airport in Georgetown, from which he departed about 9:30 a.m. Thursday. The conversations provide little glimpse into the destruction that happened minutes later, although Stack told an air traffic controller that he was heading south.
At Hunter's home in Cedar Park, friends, fellow church members at Austin's Greater Mount Zion Baptist Church and IRS co-workers tried to comfort his family.
Others from across the nation who knew Hunter and weren't at the house spoke of him by telephone.
Hunter's oldest brother, Harold L. Jackson, 79, of Huntsville, Ala., said Hunter grew up in a small South Carolina town.
Hunter was adopted by the Jackson family when he was 2 months old, and although he kept his original name, he was one of five brothers who called themselves "The Other Jackson 5."
He joined the Army after high school.
Harold Looney, a retired Army chief warrant officer who met Hunter in 1962 when they were students in the military in Augusta, Ga., remembered him as one of the most mild-mannered men in the service. Looney recalled a particular incident during the racially divided 1960s in which Hunter went to a boardinghouse where another soldier was staying to give him a ride.
"The owner came to the door and said he should never, ever come back to that house again," Looney said. "He was almost in tears after that."
Family members said Hunter served two tours of duty in Vietnam and will receive full military honors at his funeral in Austin. He will be buried in the Central Texas State Veterans Cemetery in Killeen.
Ken Hunter said his father, who had three children, three stepchildren and seven grandchildren, retired in El Paso after more than 20 years in the military. He worked as a substitute teacher before the IRS recruited him.
Ken Hunter said work brought Vernon Hunter to Austin in the mid-1990s.
Friend and fellow church member Larry McDonald said he and his wife met the Hunters several years ago at church and struck up an immediate friendship that included regular trips for barbecue.
"It was a great relationship, a great friendship,"
McDonald said. "They are just good people."
On Thursday, when he learned of the crash from their pastor, McDonald said he began praying and asked fellow church members for their prayers as well.
Ken Hunter said that his father enjoyed working for the government but that he had more frequently talked of retirement — and a possible new career.
They had discussed Vernon Hunter going to school to learn how to help children with learning disabilities like the one a granddaughter has.
"He was so involved in her life," Ken Hunter said. "He wanted to make sure he could help everybody."
Additional material from staff writers Isadora Vail, Jeremy Schwartz and Christina Rosales.

​

​

 

[James48843]

Statement From the IRS:



On Feb. 18, a small plane was intentionally crashed into a building in Austin, Texas, where almost 200 employees of the Internal Revenue Service work. This wanton act of violence took the life of Vernon Hunter, 68, who served his nation as an IRS employee for almost three decades.

In today's world, it is difficult for some to see beyond the labels -- to see the person. Hunter worked for the IRS, a difficult and demanding job. He did his job fairly, and he did it well. He was a dedicated public servant who respected taxpayers and their rights.

There are tens of thousands of Vernon Hunters at the IRS, helping taxpayers navigate a difficult tax code that we did not write and collecting the taxes to keep our nation vibrant and strong.

For some in America, the IRS will always be viewed as a faceless bureaucracy. But they are wrong. It is an organization of hard-working people whose love of country and spirit of public service were embodied in Vernon Hunter -- a spirit that lives on in them today. I sincerely hope that is one lesson we can learn from this terrible tragedy.

Doug Shulman

Commissioner, Internal Revenue Service
Washington, D.C.

 

[tsptalk]

Very sad. Thank God all of the other employees got out safely. It could have been so much worse. I know IRS folks in Austin, but I don't think I knew any from that building.