--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anony_sleuth_ff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anony_sleuth_ff <no_reply@> > > wrote: > > <snip> > > > > > The applicable question is it a crime to withhold knowledge of a > > > > > planned murder or crime if not interogated -- as would > > > > > presumably be the case of insiders making stock trades > > > > > based on prior knowledge. > > > > > > > > It was a crime for Michael Fortier who received a 12 year > > > > sentence for withholding info on the Oklahoma City bombing. See: > > > > http://tinyurl.com/mwglh > > > > > > Assuming you are addressing my point above, > > > > Hmm. What other point might he be addressing, > > I wonder? > > I was extending Shemp the courtesy of realizing he might be making a > general observation. People do that -- not commenting on a specific > point. I notice that some, particularly you, often mistakenly > assume a post is about your points, when the post is realy a general > observation, or perhaps a response to another posters point. And you > flare out in your usual flaming style.
I'm sure you can locate and cite some examples, right? > In this case, I specifically was being diplomatic, becasue I didn't > wand to come across like I have a huge stick up my ass, like you > appear to often. Actually, since Shemp's post *directly* addressed your claim, I believe you were doing your usual passive-aggressive thing, suggesting that his comment was somehow *not* really responsive to your point, and that that was the reason you weren't sure he was addressing it. It was a nasty little dig, not an act of diplomacy. > > > your cite does not appear to answer the question. > > > > > > "who previously received a 12-year sentence for withholding > > > information about the bombing," > > > > > > does not indicated if he withheld it during interrogation by LE, or > > > was just mum. > > > > From the link (which you apparently didn't read): > > Ah the stick up you ass again. It must really be painful Judy. Or > perhaps its some deep trauma you have suffered that makes you > perpetually snide and condescending. You have my sympathy and > compassion for your pain. Translation: you didn't read the link. > > "Fortier was also asked to participate in the deadly scheme, yet > > he refused to be a part of it. He didn't alert the police of the > > plot because he didn't believe Nichols and McVeigh would actually > > follow through with their plans, Newsday reported. It was a > > mistake that cost 168 lives." > > While this implies he was just mum, it is not definitive that he was > not also interogated by the police -- but not covered by the short > story -- and it was on THAT withholding of information that he was > convicted. The biggest problem you have with your attempts at analysis is your inability to grasp aspects of proportionality with regard to likelihood. In this case, the word "alert" in the quote is a clear signal that if he had informed the police, it would not have been in the course of an interrogation in which he was asked what he knew about terrorist plans. But common sense would tell you that, since, before the bombing, the authorities had not the foggiest idea that any such act was being contemplated. Moussaoui, in contrast, was asked directly about al Qaeda's plans for terrorist attacks because he was known to have connections to al Qaeda and al Qaeda was known to have conducted terrorist attacks against the United States. And finally, even in that relatively short article, it would have been very odd indeed if he had been interrogated in police custody and that fact were not mentioned. > The reason I question this is that the law as some imply (just being > mum) quickly gets into very wierd territory. If one hears some old > babbling off-meds street person make some odd threat while one is > rushing to work, and you brush it off, and the event does happen, > then you could be liable for perhaps 12 years in prison? It jsut > seems to draconian. Indeed. But it's usually fairly easy to make a distinction between what a babbling off-meds street person says and what two apparently fully rational people say about their detailed plans for a bombing that's likely to kill many people. Proportionality again. > > We all could be liable. We all have had advanced knowledge of great > disasters pending upon the US. (And and the UK). We have assumed the > warnings are not credible, even though they come from a man we all > have greatly respcted, honored, and given great trust. And we have the > knowledge to prevent it. What happens if they come true. Will we have > cellblock FFL in Leavenworth? > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
