Support for Paul

Mandy Wonder · Post by **Mandy Wonder** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 8:30 pm

also CDS-topher:

Your remarks about support for a felon strike me as a little off center. Can you clarify?

You hinted in your previous post sympathy for those who break laws (felons) perhaps.. You yourself breaking laws? (Drugs, prostitution etc...?)

It seems irrelevant to point out that paul is a felon. As if support for paul would be more relevant if he wasn't a felon?

Mandy Wonder · Post by **Mandy Wonder** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 8:48 pm

to take on cds-topher's argument (which is a good example of those against specta)

"That people being in profound danger etc... is given by..."

Anyone who isn't aware of a large fire (especially one that could, depending on how the man was constructed this year, become explosive and/or significantly more severe at a moment's notice) in their immediate vicinity are, logically, at serious risk.

...does not seem very convincing. Your logic, as you put it does not hold up. However, you bring up some good points.

You have not shown yet, that just because there is an "unsuspected" fire near or around the people there, that they were seriously in any real danger. This is not a given. And your experience in a burning house,doesn't help me believe you are extra qualified to understand the serious risk.

The area under the man was wide open, and anyone there would have seen the flames asap and been able to run, even walk slowly out of harms way with no reasonable threat... (unless they were asleep and unable to be wakened)
A few things would be necessary to make your argument stick:

1. You would have to show that people could not easily get away before things started falling etc... that there was a very real threat. This is not obvious from any given "super-surprise fire".

2. This would be more convincing if the situation was "people were trapped in the maze until fire people got them out of the burning fire" for example.

3. It is not a good thing or necessary for people to be "hurt" in any way, but you can not say that "surprise fire" is always equal to "serious risk". You can not guarantee serious risk with your current argument. You need to go further and explain the details.

4. If someone testifies of pulling out someone asleep then you could have a pretty good case. though... for example. but you haven't. However if people testify that they weren't worried, and no one was hurt at all... then the opposite could be more convincing.

Mandy Wonder · Post by **Mandy Wonder** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 8:57 pm

Bob wrote:
Is it common where your live to burn churches or theaters with people inside and not expect to be prosecuted?

You bring up an important comparison. I do not see them as being equal. If it was a previous burn, and the man was on top of a maze or some other enclosed-trapping structure it would be a more fitting argument. But here your comparison fails.

Bob · Post by **Bob** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 9:26 pm

Dear Mandy Wonder,

Are you going to sneak Paul whiskey & crank when he's cleaning up pee bottles and toilet paper in an orange jumpsuit along I-80? How deep is your love?

Cordially,

spectabillis · Post by **spectabillis** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 9:35 pm

bob, does approaching this differently than you automatically make someone so far on the opposite scale of hate?

didnt think so.

unjonharley · Post by **unjonharley** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 9:41 pm

mandy smells of spec s dirty socks

Jordan 10-E · Post by **Jordan 10-E** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 9:52 pm

Mandy Wonder wrote:to take on cds-topher's argument (which is a good example of those against specta)

"That people being in profound danger etc... is given by..."
Anyone who isn't aware of a large fire (especially one that could, depending on how the man was constructed this year, become explosive and/or significantly more severe at a moment's notice) in their immediate vicinity are, logically, at serious risk.
...does not seem very convincing. Your logic, as you put it does not hold up. However, you bring up some good points.

You have not shown yet, that just because there is an "unsuspected" fire near or around the people there, that they were seriously in any real danger. This is not a given. And your experience in a burning house,doesn't help me believe you are extra qualified to understand the serious risk.

The area under the man was wide open, and anyone there would have seen the flames asap and been able to run, even walk slowly out of harms way with no reasonable threat... (unless they were asleep and unable to be wakened)
A few things would be necessary to make your argument stick:

1. You would have to show that people could not easily get away before things started falling etc... that there was a very real threat. This is not obvious from any given "super-surprise fire".

2. This would be more convincing if the situation was "people were trapped in the maze until fire people got them out of the burning fire" for example.

3. It is not a good thing or necessary for people to be "hurt" in any way, but you can not say that "surprise fire" is always equal to "serious risk". You can not guarantee serious risk with your current argument. You need to go further and explain the details.

4. If someone testifies of pulling out someone asleep then you could have a pretty good case. though... for example. but you haven't. However if people testify that they weren't worried, and no one was hurt at all... then the opposite could be more convincing.

Sorry you took so long to type that stuff up but none of those points or reasons matter under the law. Soon I will be posting the standard definitions of the law so those of you that are not familiar with it can rethink your justifications for this act. Whether people were trapped or not, or if they could walk away, or whatever makes no difference whatsoever. It also makes no difference if anyone was hurt physically. It also doesn't matter what his intent was other than determining the severity or degree of the crime. It doesn't matter if it was at Burning Man or anywhere else. It does not matter if the installation was going to be burned at another time either. None of those arguments would hold up under the law. There isn't even a question. No one needs to "guarantee" anything in terms of possible consequences.

Jordan 10-E · Post by **Jordan 10-E** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 9:56 pm

spectabillis wrote:i was wanting to read a specific case where the arson put someone there at 'serious' risk - an example more than 'because it was ignited around people' and takes the situation into account.

so far there is nothing to show someone almost lost their life, not even close.

I will be posting legal definitions for you to peruse over soon.

BigCock · Post by **BigCock** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 10:15 pm

Do either spec or Mandy really support Paul?

Probably nobody would have gotten hurt by what he did. Maybe but most likely not. It probably wasn't arson, strictly speaking. Anyway 20 years is too much time for this. It does seem more appropriate that a punishment come from the community than from the Feds, although I'm glad that no such infrastructure exists.

That's what I'm hearing and it makes sense. After the knee jerk anger calms and you really think about it, a little anarchy, some tolerance, some forgiveness all seem reasonable.

But Addis did an act of violent vandalism that was mean spirited and bummed a lot of people out. There's nothing good about what he did. The way the man was rebuilt, the way the community responded and anything else good that comes of this - he gets absolutely no credit for any of it. We did it and will do it despite this asshole.

Addis did not do anything good. But what he did wasn't all that bad.

Bob · Post by **Bob** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 10:23 pm

unjonharley wrote:mandy smells of spec s dirty socks

I doubt it, but there sure seems to be a slow-speed chase following Orenthal J Asshat's white Ford Bronco.

Jordan 10-E · Post by **Jordan 10-E** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 10:24 pm

BigCock wrote:It probably wasn't arson, strictly speaking.

Strictly speaking it was arson.

spectabillis · Post by **spectabillis** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 10:55 pm

so how many times do i have to say no, i dont support him? i already said why and what i am concerned about so i dont think it matters if i explain that again.

None of those arguments would hold up under the law.

of course they do, a judge takes them into account, as does a jury.

so before you post anything up please limit it to something directly relevant, like an example of someone there who's life was at 'serious' risk as well as taking into account the environment. it would save us both from wasting more time because i am almost certain what you are going to post isnt all that relevant. and since you want to approach it more specifically in the context of the judicial system you have the burdon of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

ed:

But what he did wasn't all that bad.

thats one of my biggest concerns, from following posts it seems like the anger is subsiding quite a bit and something resembling a rational mindset is starting to sink in. defianately not everyone, but you cant appease everyone. i thought that this would happen.. but to be honest after seeing so many people say he should get the maximum sentance with an incredible ammount of hate while posting direct contact info to pershing county judicial group people.. i started to doubt.

i wonder how many people sent them letters and emails they wouldnt normally do if they were over the blind condemnation part?

Jordan 10-E · Post by **Jordan 10-E** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 11:05 pm

spectabillis wrote:so how many times do i have to say no, i dont support him? i already said why and what i am concerned about so i dont think it matters if i explain that again.

None of those arguments would hold up under the law.
of course they do, a judge takes them into account, as does a jury.

so before you post anything up please limit it to something directly relevant, like an example of someone there who's life was at 'serious' risk as well as taking into account the environment. it would save us both from wasting more time because i am almost certain what you are going to post isnt all that relevant. and since you want to approach it more specifically in the context of the judicial system you have the burdon of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Are you certain of that? Think you should be careful what you wish for since it really is quite clear that you don't know the law very well and you definately don't have a very good idea of how it works in the real world. I will be happy to put it in context for you quite soon. We can do this like they would in a court of law, based on the law as it is written. Hate to tell you but you will lose so I am not too worried about "proving beyond a reasonable doubt". Oh and by the way if you are ever caught up in the judicial system I would advise you to let your lawyer do all the talking.

spectabillis · Post by **spectabillis** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 11:37 pm

despite what you might think, i believe its more important to learn than to prove myself right. if you can do it, thats fine by me.

bigbluedoggy · Post by **bigbluedoggy** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 11:38 pm

*Dons flame-proof suit*

OK, I find myself sucked in here but only to make a couple of points and not particularly to side with any one opinion.

While it is true that we have not yet heard of any person who claims to have been in any grave danger caused by this event, we also have not heard conclusively that there were NOT any such people. The law is likely to adopt that viewpoint as one more in tune with public well being. What if there had been a person passed out drunk in a dark corner under the Man? Can anyone positively say there wasn't? Has anyone who actually heard or witnessed the clearing of people from beneath the man come forward and said "Yes, I was there, and we were warned to clear the area for our safety."? Were there people acting as "Safety Watch" while this guy was doing the monkey act up to the Man and then as he started the fire and as he probably rather quickly came down and ran?

Regarding the arson itself, yes the Man was going to burn on Saturday anyway, but not before thousands of dollars of non expendable equipment was moved clear of the burn area. In the photos we have seen of the man crouched at the base of the Man prior to its ignition, there are clearly visible LED lighting fixtures (CK ColorBlasts) which were used to light the man and the canopies in all the pretty changing colors. These are not cheap fixtures and I can imagine they were destroyed or heavily damaged in the arson caused fire. I would estimate the physical damage to items that were never intended to burn was well into the thousands of dollars. How much property has to be destroyed before the law considers the crime to be felony arson vs. reckless endangerment (I don't know).

My personal opinion of this guy and his act should be clear from the tone of this post. I am not here to defend my opinion on that, but I did want to point out some facts I had not seen clearly discussed as yet.

Flame on.

Toolmaker · Post by **Toolmaker** » Tue Sep 18, 2007 2:58 am

spectabillis wrote:then how do you know people were at serious risk of loosing their lives? and give an example of 'serious.'

How about guy line decapitation? Someone who didn't belong was climbing and setting fires they shouldn't have been setting. Maybe Bob can shed some light on this possibility since he has some experience in rigging. All I know is that the more a guy line has to work the more damage it'll do if it comes undone. I'm sure you can google some gore about guy lines.

diane o'thirst · Post by **diane o'thirst** » Tue Sep 18, 2007 3:18 am

This discussion is all very interesting, but it's pretty academic.

Fact: The arsonist and his buddies made sure and doubly sure that nobody was around in case things took a turn for the worse and minimized the chance of anyone getting hurt. This is probably due more towards pragmatism than any real compassion: the arsonist was a lawyer so he KNEW exactly how screwed up the river he'd be if someone got hurt or killed during his little escapade.

Fact: Nobody got hurt.

Fact: It was arson. And pre-meditated arson.

Fact: It was done in arrogance.

Opinion: He shouldn't get twenty years.

Opinion: The suggestion of a class action suit with the proceeds going to Burners Without Borders is out and out, sheer brilliance. And would be very sweet justice.

Fear: Nobody got hurt this time â€” but what happens if we get a wave of PDArson-hole groupies and wannabees in the next few years? Any guarantees they'll be as careful to cross their i's and dot their t's? He did suggest, in his diatribe, that vehicle gas tanks be punctured and drained. Leave No Trace violation aside, I don't have to go into how dangerous ground soaked with hundreds of gallons of combustible fuel with tents nearby is...

Bob · Post by **Bob** » Tue Sep 18, 2007 7:03 am

Toolmaker wrote:...guy line decapitation?...

The Mythbusters figured it was "plausible" in episode 62 (Discovery Channel).

(Ignore Discovery reference if anybody's pants are still soiled about Charlie LeDuff.)

unjonharley · Post by **unjonharley** » Tue Sep 18, 2007 7:48 am

folks, this guy can be charged with one count of attemped muder for each person that was present at the start of the fire..

the out cry to water down his punishmunt is an invite for other sneaking little criminal to acts of terror..

there is enough danger at burning man.. i do not want more of it loaded on my plate by some anti social assholes..

self expression is great.. if you express youself at anothers expence be ready to pay your way..

what s next? a uni bomber of burning man?

20 years for a useless person is just a way to keep em off the street..

Ugly Dougly · Post by **Ugly Dougly** » Tue Sep 18, 2007 9:51 am

Wrath7sins wrote:I think it was an inside job. I'll explain the theory if requested, otherwise I'll keep my trap shut on it.

Plausible deniability. Just for the fun of it.

[CDS] topher · Post by **[CDS] topher** » Tue Sep 18, 2007 10:27 am

[quote="Mandy Wonder"]
CDS-Topher:
Being sassy and condescending like remedial English is not helping your argument, but it frowns upon your character.

Also: it seems to have devolved into you shouting down anyone who disagrees with your support for a felon.
I do not see this being the case. He's not shouting at anyone but trying to get a logical argument out of you who disagree. You have failed to do so, it seems. You have also used sassy rhetoric and shown your anger. It looks like you are the one shouting.
[/i][/code]

Mandy:

You are correct. I allowed my tone in this discussion - and I do view it as a discussion (or perhaps an argument, in the true sense of the word), not a fight - to become snarky and nasty, and I apologize to all for that. Not only does it not help my arguments at all, but it's typical of people (like me) who sometimes let themselves get caught up emotionally in forum exchanges.

Thanks for the smack on the side of the head - sometimes we all need one.

Mandy Wonder · Post by **Mandy Wonder** » Tue Sep 18, 2007 10:35 am

none of those points or reasons matter under the law.

Jordan 10-E:

You may want to review my posts to date on this topic as I've pointed out there is a clear difference between...
1.) Debating the morality of what he did and what he deserves and
2.) Weather the law is just or not.

Saying "Nothing matters, the law will kill him" for example or
the law says "he will get a slap on the wrist"
are both irrelevant to what we think he "should" deserve.... ethically.
We can also talk about weather the law is just or not.
They are 2 different arguments.

Using a technicality in the law to justify a witch hunt is unethical--i think in this case.

Mandy Wonder · Post by **Mandy Wonder** » Tue Sep 18, 2007 10:39 am

20 years for a useless person is just a way to keep em off the street..

This is exactly the knee-jerk hate revenge mob mentality I'm so worried about.

Keeping this "guy off the streets"? Come on. This guy is no more a threat than any punk who does something stupid.

Putting him on probation with the threat of real imprisonment would be enough to guarantee his behavior on the streets.
[/b]

[CDS] topher · Post by **[CDS] topher** » Tue Sep 18, 2007 10:41 am

spectabillis wrote:despite what you might think, i believe its more important to learn than to prove myself right. if you can do it, thats fine by me.

I heartily agree!

Mandy Wonder · Post by **Mandy Wonder** » Tue Sep 18, 2007 10:43 am

punishing this guy seems like a moot point...

1 year (3 months served with good behavior) is enough to make anyone like him rethink his attitude and it sets an example for others. (obviously he is a punk and not much else)

A fine equal to the price of the man is reasonable, and 3 years or more of probation would keep him walking strait.

Banning him from the burn with the threat of jail time if caught there would keep him away.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

The only real issue as others have pointed out is how do we prevent copy cat punks from emerging? ---This is the real problem that may spawn.

[CDS] topher · Post by **[CDS] topher** » Tue Sep 18, 2007 10:54 am

Mandy Wonder wrote:also CDS-topher:

Your remarks about support for a felon strike me as a little off center. Can you clarify?

You hinted in your previous post sympathy for those who break laws (felons) perhaps.. You yourself breaking laws? (Drugs, prostitution etc...?)

It seems irrelevant to point out that paul is a felon. As if support for paul would be more relevant if he wasn't a felon?

This is where your comments get confusing to me. Are you suggesting that I am a prostitute or a drug dealer? (I'm neither)

Could you show me where I expressed sympathy for those who break laws? Yes, I DO sometimes have sympathy for people who break laws, even to the point of disagreeing with their punishment in its entirety. Other times, I think people get off too easy. So I'm a bit confused by this comment.

Is Paul a felon (right this minute)? I don't know; I don't have access to his criminal records. When I used the term "felon", I was speaking, loosely (and perhaps unwisely) of his presumed guilt and conviction, specifically of felony arson. I recognize that that may not end up being the result of his actions - hell, he may walk free for all I know.

My argument all along has been that he did endanger lives, did destroy property, and did so clearly in violation of the law.

And that pretty much sums up my opinion onn the matter.

[CDS] topher · Post by **[CDS] topher** » Tue Sep 18, 2007 10:58 am

Mandy Wonder wrote:punishing this guy seems like a moot point...

1 year (3 months served with good behavior) is enough to make anyone like him rethink his attitude and it sets an example for others. (obviously he is a punk and not much else)

A fine equal to the price of the man is reasonable, and 3 years or more of probation would keep him walking strait.

Banning him from the burn with the threat of jail time if caught there would keep him away.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

The only real issue as others have pointed out is how do we prevent copy cat punks from emerging? ---This is the real problem that may spawn.

Oddly enough, I agree with the above, although I would suggest the adition of some sort of community service (in addition to monetary compensation) to the BM community - PRE-event, not AT-event - as an additional useful repurcussion.

Simon of the Playa · Post by **Simon of the Playa** » Tue Sep 18, 2007 11:45 am

i like the idea of picking up 100 miles of I-80 or maybe 447-445 which had a SHITLOAD of garbage this year....i was more disappointed with that, than the prematurus burnus..

i hate that crap....i think of that hokey commercial from the 70's with the lone indian crying...

it's not from the onions on the indian tacos, either...deep shame on you, littermonsters....no, actually, FUCK YOU, YOUR MOTHER DOESNT LIVE HERE, YET....CLEAN UP YOUR SHIT!

i do think he should do some time though...it'll do him good....i recommend "the enormous room" by e.e. cummings before going in...

as far as the charges, i believe a class c misdemeanor, as opposed to a felony, would be suitable, as well as "community" service, wherever that may be...being a felon means you lose pretty much every right we USED to have as americans....you cant vote, move freely etc etc...

oh well, under the patriot act, we all are considered felons, are'nt we...

and of course, the worst thing of all......banishment...

paul cant come and play, anymore....

a playa celebrity who doesnt walk the dusty carpet is just a default bozo.

so, i think this will be punishment in a alltogether different way.

now back to the default world.....The BLM has jurisdiction on the playa, the pershing county sheriff's dept handles the prisoners, and, if kept in a local jurisdiction, the case as well.

he did endanger people by his actions.....regardless of the chaotic nature of the event...

it was wrong, and he must get a fair trail, and appropriate punishment...

you may still call him a hero, or a asshole, or a misguided trickster, or a dangerous loon....it is of no matter to the blind eyes of justice.

do the crime, do the time.....get out, and decide what is important, and continue on from there.

good luck paul.

Mandy Wonder · Post by **Mandy Wonder** » Tue Sep 18, 2007 12:14 pm

his is where your comments get confusing to me. Are you suggesting that I am a prostitute or a drug dealer? (I'm neither)

Could you show me where I expressed sympathy for those who break laws?

here....

And in light of this conversation, I've been doing some thinking.

We put kids in jail for decades for selling a couple grams of crack. We (in some states) do our best to ignore the sale of pot. We let obvious murderers walk free on what are euphemistically called 'technicalities'. We kill people for killing people (eye for an eye leads to....where?).

and you've just clarified somewhat in your last post here...

Yes, I DO sometimes have sympathy for people who break laws, even to the point of disagreeing with their punishment in its entirety. Other times, I think people get off too easy.

my concern was that you emphasized that Specta was "supporting a felon".

Otherwise, I think I might refrain from continuing posting in this thread, as it seems to have devolved into you shouting down anyone who disagrees with your support for a felon.

My point is that it is irrelevant weather or not paul is a felon...

This isn't about supporting a felon. Paul's actions is what is important... in short, you made it sound like there is shame is supporting someone due to their label (as felon) when you sometimes support felons yourself...

but it is a mute point now.
[/quote]

Toolmaker · Post by **Toolmaker** » Tue Sep 18, 2007 12:58 pm

Thanks for the MB ref Bob.. I missed that one and will have to look out for that episode.

I saw a video of the Seemen/Helco preformance in 96 and would like to point out that even in those "crazy ol days" that steps were taken to keep folks back with an established perimeter.

As "dangerous" and "unsafe" as some of what we do with fire may seem you can rest assured that most of us know what we are doing. What really bothers me about addishole settin the fire is that this is just another way for more safety shit to be implemented. At least I found out about another event in the same area at BM this past year. I hear I am welcome to bring firearms for drive by shootings and plenty of fireworks. I am also told this is a BLM permitted event so no arrests as someone mentioned in this thread or another.

Support for Paul

Re: Pfffffftht!

Re: Pfffffftht!

Apology