Addis Pool

spectabillis · Post by **spectabillis** » Mon Oct 29, 2007 1:13 pm

now a church!?

Bell T. · Post by **Bell T.** » Mon Oct 29, 2007 1:14 pm

Hard to see this latest bit of acting out as anything but a ploy. He didn't have enough stuff on him to do real damage, the cops were "tipped," hellooo. Like a little child, packing his stuff to "run away," hoping parents will pay attention. Addis is pathetic. I really wish, since his arson on the playa is indelibly written in the event's history, that he was actually an interesting, entertaining person. Even with his Hunter S. gig, it's hard to even see him as creative. The guy's got some short-circuits. Really short. Really, really short. And if he doesn't get the attention he wants doing stupid pranks, will he keep going until he hurts someone?

Let's nominate someone else to pay attention to (translate: put our energy into!). Someone with heart, vision, and who knows they are fallible. Who would that be?

mars · Post by **mars** » Mon Oct 29, 2007 1:28 pm

Perhaps this is just Act Two of his Three-Act play. Final Act: He torches the prison he is in.

--Ever-- · Post by **--Ever--** » Mon Oct 29, 2007 1:45 pm

Bell T. wrote:He didn't have enough stuff on him to do real damage, the cops were "tipped," hellooo. Like a little child, packing his stuff to "run away," hoping parents will pay attention. Addis is pathetic.

"Officers were tipped off to the alleged plot by the manâ€™s neighbor, who reportedly heard him say the cathedral wasnâ€™t going to be there anymore"
http://www.kcbs.com/Burning-Man-Arson-S ... SF/1147488

Stryder · Post by **Stryder** » Mon Oct 29, 2007 2:05 pm

I'd say that would pretty much be anybody who enjoys going to Burning Man, loves it, warts and all, and knows how to participate! I'm hoping that there will be a temple next year, and if there is, I'd like to pay attention to that!

My second choice would be Spectabillis, but I'm not sure he is 'electable'.

Let's nominate someone else to pay attention to (translate: put our energy into!). Someone with heart, vision, and who knows they are fallible. Who would that be?

spectabillis · Post by **spectabillis** » Mon Oct 29, 2007 2:15 pm

Bell T. wrote:Let's nominate someone else to pay attention to (translate: put our energy into!). Someone with heart, vision, and who knows they are fallible. Who would that be?

thats not what many people want as a substitute - an object of ridicule that justifies an exercise of hate and resentment. burningman is quickly becomming more of a representitive subset of world society than separate.

even though a communal scapegoat can successfully gather people together to a common cause, with indirect benefits of strenghening certain social boundary identities with who is acceptable and why vs. who isnt, its one of the worst ways to develop community.

of course whenever you try to point that out to certain others who are acting on some deeper personal issue of anger, they dont like it, and will try and find alternative justifications to continue once they finally have a justified channel for those agressions in a public space.

so its too late to channel that attention, have to focus on a different route until things run their course.

spectabillis · Post by **spectabillis** » Mon Oct 29, 2007 2:17 pm

Stryder wrote:My second choice would be Spectabillis, but I'm not sure he is 'electable'

i really hope that was sarcasm.

skygod · Post by **skygod** » Mon Oct 29, 2007 2:40 pm

spectabilliseven though a communal scapegoat can successfully gather people together to a common cause, with indirect benefits of strenghening certain social boundary identities with who is acceptable and why vs. who isnt, its one of the worst ways to develop community.

I imagine that is the reason we no longer have public stonings or executions:
People enjoyed them too much.

Post by **mdmf007** » Mon Oct 29, 2007 4:21 pm

He has pretty much boned himself - If he was going for an insanity plea, which I though when I first heard of it it could have worked. Now, after reading the article I think he is actually nuts. A church can net him a charge of domestic terrorism, hate crime, and obviously serial arson.

crazy bastard.

ZaphodBurner · Post by **ZaphodBurner** » Mon Oct 29, 2007 5:46 pm

mdmf007 wrote:He has pretty much boned himself - If he was going for an insanity plea, which I though when I first heard of it it could have worked. Now, after reading the article I think he is actually nuts. A church can net him a charge of domestic terrorism, hate crime, and obviously serial arson.

What's weird is this: "Addis was wearing an old ammunition belt that carried small explosives" and, yet, "Did he have the capability to do substantial damage? Absolutely not"

What kinda freakin' idiotic comment is that? As if forest fires haven't been started by discarded cigarette butts or entire apartment complexes haven't burned down because somebody fell asleep smoking or let their kid play with matches.

I LOVE this quote: "Deputy Chief Morris Tabak said Addis had only a small amount of explosives. " (Fuckin' wuss. I thought he was a burner.) I wonder what the threshold is for a "small" amount of explosives.

Is this what passes for brains in California law enforcement, or are diminutive comments about Addis simply to tweak Addis' ego?

-c

Otisserie · Post by **Otisserie** » Mon Oct 29, 2007 6:03 pm

ZaphodBurner wrote: What's weird is this: "Addis was wearing an old ammunition belt that carried small explosives" and, yet, "Did he have the capability to do substantial damage? Absolutely not"

What kinda freakin' idiotic comment is that? As if forest fires haven't been started by discarded cigarette butts or entire apartment complexes haven't burned down because somebody fell asleep smoking or let their kid play with matches.
-c

Forests are made of wood, this church was made of concrete and stone. And remember, they didn't say he couldn't do any damage, they said he couldn't do "substantial" damage. And that makes sense; it would take some serious explosives to do major damage to that building.

All Addis has managed to do is prove that he's eight kinds of crazy AND a retard.

Badger · Post by **Badger** » Mon Oct 29, 2007 6:29 pm

Is there any way to amend my initial 'Sentence Guess' poll at the top of the page?

The CO · Post by **The CO** » Mon Oct 29, 2007 6:49 pm

I am now willing to place a bet in the pool (original charge)...

I'll go with 2/3rds to max sentence time. He had some chance before this, but commiting more arson while released on bail/bond... The judge ain't gonna look kindly on that.

Kinetik V · Post by **Kinetik V** » Mon Oct 29, 2007 8:12 pm

I'm wondering just how stiff of a sentence he'll get. On the surface it looks like one of those throw the book at him cases. But having followed lots of CA celebrity cases through TMZ.com it's a fact that the jails are full, also he apparently has some defenders including some that have funds to mount a defense, and there's usually some crazy legal type out there who would take the case just for the PR it would give. So...with that in mind...I'm thinking 5 years would be considered extremely harsh...heck even probation is still a slim but realistic possibility.

I'll add this...I predicted the Rockies would win the World Series....I sure screwed that prediction up so this one may be no different.

Valkyrie · Post by **Valkyrie** » Mon Oct 29, 2007 10:22 pm

Yeah. I wanna amend my initial guess. But what he's done is demonstrate pretty clearly exactly why it's important to prosecute someone who pulls that kind of trick. That kind of attention is alluring and addictive. So what was that people were saying about letting him get off? You wanna amend your perspective?

I do have to say that I appreciate skygod and spectabillis' perspectives on this. It reminds me why I think burners are so cool and not like the regular sheep of society.

diane o'thirst · Post by **diane o'thirst** » Mon Oct 29, 2007 11:48 pm

Otisserie wrote:Forests are made of wood, this church was made of concrete and stone.

The outside is made of concrete and stone, but the inside is wood. Pews, altar, pipe organ (well, mostly), et alia. If he'd gotten in and set a fire going, it could have gutted the place.

Again, I have to wonder what he was thinking.

spectabillis · Post by **spectabillis** » Tue Oct 30, 2007 5:34 am

Valkyrie wrote:That kind of attention is alluring and addictive. So what was that people were saying about letting him get off? ... I do have to say that I appreciate skygod and spectabillis' perspectives on this. It reminds me why I think burners are so cool and not like the regular sheep of society.

thanks, but i am curious, who was saying he should get off?

i dont remember people proposing that. i am still worried how people who point out certain things gets automatically seen as support or worse, somehow personally assoicated with the actions of the criminal in order to dismiss what they have to say. i was saying it was the community reaction that should be mitigated some against the tendency for people to get carried away. others have said it was a long time comming with the observation there's been talk about doing it themselves (including me). and i think its more important to face the reasons why rather than let the drama draw people into a false sense of security and community show of support yet problems are still ignored.

yeah, cetain things about attention can be alluring and addicitive. its also interesting to watch one of the effects of self-empowerment where those with issues not only have the opportunity to hate, but also enjoy the attention as being the most vocal. in a public lynching i bet they would be the leaders who could shout the loudest. online they are usually the most persistant, and always involved in conflicts with others because... well, thats what draws attention.

skygod · Post by **skygod** » Tue Oct 30, 2007 8:54 am

I have thought about it, and previous posters have it right I think. I believe Paul is pulling a McMurphy (Jack Nicholson's character in One Flew Over the CuCkoo's Nest)
He is establishing a track record of irrational acts to bolster his future claim of incompetence to stand trial. In lieu of a trial, a judge may go for a LPS Conservatorship for involuntary admission to Napa or Atascadero State Hospital. Those court orders are good for a year, and then have to be renewed after review by the judge of their "progress". He would probably get less time locked up that way.
The smart ones often try to do that, the really incompetent ones are too stupid to think of it, it's ironic.

spectabillis · Post by **spectabillis** » Tue Oct 30, 2007 9:48 am

could be, i think the article mentioned a psyche eval.

Kinetik V · Post by **Kinetik V** » Tue Oct 30, 2007 10:01 am

spectabillis wrote:could be, i think the article mentioned a psyche eval.

It's been mentioned in a couple of places that there was some kind of incident last night while in police custody and Mr. Addis is indeed getting his first of no doubt many more to come psychological evaluations.

Valkyrie · Post by **Valkyrie** » Tue Oct 30, 2007 4:25 pm

skygod wrote:I have thought about it, and previous posters have it right I think. I believe Paul is pulling a McMurphy (Jack Nicholson's character in One Flew Over the CuCkoo's Nest)

In some ways I think it's a bit of a pity they don't do frontal lobotomies any more.

EB · Post by EB » Tue Oct 30, 2007 5:56 pm

Not sure if post-arrest acts (i.e. setting churches on fire) are admissible in re: to the current charge (setting a public pavillion on fire.) Seems if that were the case, then every violent felon out on bail would be running around trying to pad their insanity defenses with even MORE acts of nuttery.

Maybe the Addis defenders will now see the guy for what he always was: A sad loser without a clue.

There was never any "message" behind his bullshit. It was, and continues to be, all about him.

Own it.

skygod · Post by **skygod** » Tue Oct 30, 2007 7:08 pm

Valkyrie wrote: In some ways I think it's a bit of a pity they don't do frontal lobotomies any more.

They use mostly chemicals these days.

Kinetik V · Post by **Kinetik V** » Tue Oct 30, 2007 10:43 pm

Kinetic V wrote:I'm wondering just how stiff of a sentence he'll get. On the surface it looks like one of those throw the book at him cases. But having followed lots of CA celebrity cases through TMZ.com it's a fact that the jails are full, also he apparently has some defenders including some that have funds to mount a defense, and there's usually some crazy legal type out there who would take the case just for the PR it would give. So...with that in mind...I'm thinking 5 years would be considered extremely harsh...heck even probation is still a slim but realistic possibility.

I'll add this...I predicted the Rockies would win the World Series....I sure screwed that prediction up so this one may be no different.

The beauty and also the curse of the information age is how quickly new information can be made available....it also makes it easy to open your mouth and really stick your foot in sometimes. That being said as more details of this latest accusation come to light....I realized my original post was off the mark. I'm going to toss out a link to something Help posted in another thread...it really illustrates why my thoughts changed on this after I first heard about it, watched the KTVU clip...and then learned the details earlier today. In short...things are not always what they appear to be.

http://eplaya.burningman.org/viewtopic. ... 394#351394

The CO · Post by **The CO** » Wed Oct 31, 2007 8:37 pm

EB wrote:Not sure if post-arrest acts (i.e. setting churches on fire) are admissible in re: to the current charge (setting a public pavillion on fire.)

I am not sure either, but...

Commiting crime very similar to what you are currently out on bail for is going to come up at trial. And... carrying an "imitation firearm" whilst on bail, also not good.

Post by **mdmf007** » Wed Oct 31, 2007 9:02 pm

I know "prior bad acts" are not admissable - but how about "Post bad acts"?

either way he is boned -

later

Teo del Fuego · Post by **Teo del Fuego** » Thu Nov 01, 2007 1:31 pm

sentencing usually is NOT done by a jury, so suppression of evidence of similar acts is not much of an issue. With sentencing, one factor is deterrence. Post-sentencing arson attempts are directly relevant to the issue of deterrence.

Insanity defense will fail. Too many post BM interviews filled full of his recognition of the consequences of his actions.

This is about a calculation to pay an assumed small price in order to reap the benefits bestowed in America on celebrity.

skygod · Post by **skygod** » Thu Nov 01, 2007 1:36 pm

[quote="Teo del Fuego"]
Insanity defense will fail. Too many post BM interviews filled full of his recognition of the consequences of his actions.[quote]
You may be right, but the standard of incompetence is only that he cannot adequately participate in his own defense.

Post by **mdmf007** » Sun Jun 29, 2008 10:39 pm

Had to dig this one out -

I guessed 6 months.

21% of burners guessed correctly.

EvilDustBooger · Post by **EvilDustBooger** » Mon Jun 30, 2008 7:17 am

...with good behavior he could be out in time for the burn this year.

Addis Pool

Sentence Guess

a clear ploy

Re: a clear ploy

Re: a clear ploy

Re: a clear ploy

Re: a clear ploy

Re: a clear ploy

reasonable

Re: reasonable