Courthouse takeover defendant fights back tears

[Cirque du So-What]

Courthouse takeover defendant fights back tears

BILL POOVEY, Associated Press
Updated 03:32 p.m., Friday, October 21, 2011

KNOXVILLE, Tenn. (AP) — A former Georgia militia member testified Friday at his trial in a bizarre attempted courthouse takeover case, fighting back tears and saying "my government has called me a potential domestic terrorist."

Prosecutors contend Darren Wesley Huff of Dallas, Ga., drove to East Tennessee with a handgun and an AK-47 on April 20, 2010, after threatening to use force and to sacrifice his life if necessary to take over the city of Madisonville and the Monroe County Courthouse.

Huff is charged with carrying a firearm in interstate commerce with the intent to use it in a civil disorder. He is also charged with using a firearm in relation to another felony, which on conviction carries a mandatory two-year minimum prison sentence.

<snip>

Green (the domestic terrorist's mouthpiece) told jurors they should not convict Huff "because his views are different doesn't mean you should send him to jail.'

more...

Read more: http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Courthouse-takeover-defendant-fights-back-tears-2227531.php#ixzz1bVvjNNA6

How about that bolded statement above? Does this domestic terrorist's lawyer make a convincing case here in the Gun Forum? If you were a juror, how would you vote?

[Kolesar]

1. The judge should have told him to retract that remark

Huff has about nothing going for him. The best he could hope for is some leniency in sentencing.

[ileus]

2. It's your right to judge both the law and the defendant as a juror.

Look at the law as it applies to the case and judge it first. Then decide the intent of the defendant.

[TheCowsCameHome]

3. Huff isn't quite so tough without his weapons, is he?

[no_hypocrisy]

4. Huff was being tried for his actions, not his beliefs.

He conveniently ignored that fact.

BTW, WTF is his attorney? I'd ask the judge to release me from representation with a client like that.

[The Magistrate]

5. Man Tries A Stunt Like That, Sir, Ought Not Cry Over It Afterwards

Acts have consequences, and these must be embraced in the decision to act.

[rrneck]

6. Leave the bold moves to the brilliant players. mt

[petronius]

7. That's a good question for everyone to contemplate from time to time:

does our support for sending a person to prison, or prosecuting him, vary depending on how his views might differ from ours? I hope that it doesn't for DUers, and that we're swayed by evidence and not a person's opinions or what a lawyer might say about them...

[AtheistCrusader]

8. I hope is is convicted and sentenced under the law, as commensurate with the crime he committed.

[Callisto32]

9. What, that bolded statement that doesn't even exist in the original?

How nice of you to convict him before his jury...

Anyway, if you remove your editorializing, I agree fully with the comment. We should not jail people for holding views different than what we would like them to. However, if he harmed or threatened harm to people, he should be held responsible for that. Easy.

[Cirque du So-What]

10. Who's convicting?

I'm making an observation based upon statements this domestic terrorist made to police and other - with video documentation to boot. IMO he's already convicted himself. I don't advocate taking away his rights to a fair trial, but, then I'm not on the jury, so my opinion don't mean jack shit anyway.

[SteveM]

11. Life is not a channel-changer. nt

[slackmaster]

12. Basic gun safety should be taught in public schools.

It couldn't hurt.

[krispos42]

13. I'm waiting for this militiaman to do the patriotic thing...

...and shoot himself. I'm sure he's spend a lot of time worrying about domestic terrorists of the Muslim variety, and probably pumped himself up that he'd shoot one if he got the chance.

Well, now he sees one (of the non-Muslim) variety every time he looks in a mirror!

[Euromutt]

14. "Carrying a firearm in interstate commerce with the intent to use it in a civil disorder "?

All other considerations aside, that strikes me as flagrant misuse of the Commerce Clause in federal statute. Unless Huff was planning to sell the firearms in Tennessee while being a Georgia resident, interstate commerce doesn't enter into it, and this seems a rather contrived excuse to prosecute him under federal law, rather than under state law.

FWIW, I quite agree with Huff's lawyer that "because his views are different doesn't mean you should send him to jail," but it's entirely irrelevant to the case. Huff is not on trial for having a divergent opinion; he's on trial for transporting a firearm across state lines, allegedly for the purpose of seizing control of a county government building under threat of force.

That said, whether I'd label Huff a "domestic terrorist" depends to a very great extent against whom and in which circumstances he was prepared to threaten or use force. The threat, or even use, of violence by a non-state actor does not, in and of itself, constitute terrorism; such a definition has been rejected by every country that had a resistance movement under Nazi occupation, or an anti-colonial independence movement. That's a lot of UN member states right there. Any workable definition of "terrorism" must, at least, contain an element of indiscriminate use of violence. And that's assuming he's found guilty, I might point out; call me a civil libertarian nutjob, but I still cling to the idea that "innocent until proven guilty" applies to everyone, not just to people who share my political views.