I'd imagine that farmergreen was pointing out that regardless to being convicted (which doesn't always equal innocence) this wasn't just some random AFT raid, but court ordered due to past complaints including brandishing firearms in a public place. Removing that part of the article makes it seem as if the government was just raiding a person's house for kicks. Which isn't the case.
My personal opinion of the story is that they should have sent someone to check on the Veteran's mental state before resorting to violence. But, that would require more money be put into the VA.
Prosecutors like to muddy the waters by throwing around wild accusations about horrific crap, then only putting the guy away for something else.
Look at Ross Ulbricht. They tried him for running a website. They smeared his name by accusing him of hiring a hitman, but never gave him an opportunity to defend that accusation in court. Destroyed a lot of popular support. Tremendously effective, because people say, 'Well sure, that seems like a harsh sentence, but there were other things too. Didn't he hire a hitman, or rape his daughter or something?'
You don't need any evidence, because you're not charging him.
Because you're not charging him, he never gets the chance to shoot holes in your fabricated story.
I'd imagine that farmergreen was pointing out that regardless to being convicted (which doesn't always equal innocence) this wasn't just some random AFT raid, but court ordered due to past complaints including brandishing firearms in a public place. Removing that part of the article makes it seem as if the government was just raiding a person's house for kicks. Which isn't the case.
My personal opinion of the story is that they should have sent someone to check on the Veteran's mental state before resorting to violence. But, that would require more money be put into the VA.
Prosecutors like to muddy the waters by throwing around wild accusations about horrific crap, then only putting the guy away for something else.
Look at Ross Ulbricht. They tried him for running a website. They smeared his name by accusing him of hiring a hitman, but never gave him an opportunity to defend that accusation in court. Destroyed a lot of popular support. Tremendously effective, because people say, 'Well sure, that seems like a harsh sentence, but there were other things too. Didn't he hire a hitman, or rape his daughter or something?'
You don't need any evidence, because you're not charging him.
Because you're not charging him, he never gets the chance to shoot holes in your fabricated story.