You can see the possibility but all the actions they have taken up to getting detained are pretty damming and thus far the only thing they have to offer to the contrary is "Well we were stupid enough to think bringing illegal weapons cross-country to a convention we just jokingly threatened was okay."
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Boston PD stops plot to attack Pokemon World Championship
- Thread starter antonz
- Start date
They have yet to be charged with anything like that, so apparently they feel it either does not or requires more investigation.
Making a credible threat of violence is illegal even if you don't have guns in your car. Honestly it's not a leap to assume that letting them go means they did not have a reason to suspect they had actually issued a credible threat, and the fact they were told by one of the two people that they had weapons only underlines that.
Again, if the investigation turns up evidence suggesting they did potentially aim to do harm the charges will be filed. Boston won't let that slide.
Squirrel Killer
Member
"By who?" refers to this:
Who informed the police that the suspects were in possession of several firearms in their vehicle? Someone who saw and reported the threats could not have known that the guns were in the suspects' possession in Boston.BPD Press Release said:
I'm suggesting that what may have happened is that when they were detained, one of the suspects told the police about the guns and did so in a convincingly enough way that the police believed that they weren't a real threat. That's why they seized the car, that's why they let the suspects go, and that's why the suspects were only charged with firearm related charges.
It's the only way things make sense to me. If the police have probable cause to seize the suspects' car and they legitimately believe the suspects truly threatened the tournament, I don't see how they could release them. It would be a dereliction of duty. Imagine if, after being released from police custody, these two morons went out and built a pipe bomb.
Adam Scott Aukerman
Member
They could just hold them in a country in which guns are not readily available.
PopcornMegaphone
Banned
Based on what you know, beyond a reasonable doubt?
They will wait until the case is air tight then drop the hammer, they really don't need much more than what we have here and now to do so.
dude the threat is a picture with two weapons ON A CAR WHILE THEY TELL THE WORLD THEY ARE GOING TO THE CONVENTION. do you see why someone reported they had weapons in the car? Again a conspircy charge does not require specific intent or a current threat, just a plan and reasonable means to carry the plan out
Enough for an indictment, but I wouldn't be comfortable with saying without a doubt, but it is by far the more likely occurrence. Please read my posts and see if you disagree.
You're making this all up. This is pure fiction you're writing. Weren't you the one asserting you were on the right side of Occum's Razor earlier? This is the opposite of that.
If the police had a solid reason to suspect they had issued credible threats, they had a duty to detain and hold them. If you believe the posts on facebook are enough to assume they were a threat you must also argue the police failed in their duty.
To reiterate again something I had already said. They posted a picture of guns and just guns saying they were ready for Worlds. There was nothing else in the picture that was fully in frame so the guns were the main object of the photo and they made no mention of taking the guns to anywhere else. The guns were both illegal in Boston and the two men had no licenses for them. They also had "joked" about "killing".
(Edit) Additionally they had an incredible amount of ammunition for either going to non-gun related event and like I had said no gun range, hunting trip, or anything else was mentioned. All they mentioned was the convention and implied there were prepared for it because they were bringing those guns.
The only defense thus far that I've seen offered for these two is that they were stupid and maybe they just took them along because "eh why not?" and all the implicating stuff was just coincidence. This is not a solid defense case.
Innocent of what? They talked about killing people.
They transported guns from an unlicensed state to an licensed one.
They transported the guns in flower boxes to intentionally hide the fact they had guns, instead of a gun case which actual sane gun owners will transport their guns in if they're taking them anywhere for multiple reasons.
They brought enough ammo to have the ability to shoot, and reload, multiple times. Hunters do not travel with enough ammo to kill 200 deer, only one or two at most, depending on your state's tag limits.
Whenever I have gone hunting, I've only ever taken like, 5-10 shotgun shells at most. The most ammo I've ever taken was a whole box of .22 ammo and that's because we had a .22 and wanted to go shoot cans for a bit after walking the fields all day.
The ammo pictured would have allowed them to reload the AR about 4 times. They had enough shotgun ammo to reload it 120 times.
Innocent until proven guilty and all that but all of their intents and effort to take guns across the country to a Pokemon tournament say otherwise.
And suffice to say, the ballpark cost for ammo means they certainly spend a truckload of money for something they supposedly didn't intend to do.
Why does the threat have to be credible in order to be charge with conspiracy? Also, I already explained how the immediately searched them and found no weapons on their person, which means they weren't CURRENTLY a threat, that does not take the credability from the threat.
PopcornMegaphone
Banned
I'm not a lawyer, so I'm not going to wade in the debate if they should be indicted. I'm just saying based on what we know I think there is reasonable doubt about their intent about a murder plot. Obviously violating the permit laws is something they should be charged with. So I think we basically agree with each other. Regardless of intent these guys are complete idiots.
edit - although if prosecutors don't think they can prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt, they aren't going to be indicted for a murder plot
Squirrel Killer
Member
That's... doesn't relate at all to what I'm talking about.
I see that someone reported the threat. Of course someone did, we wouldn't be having this discussion if they didn't. Whoever that was, however, had no actual knowledge that the guns were actually in the car in Boston. The police press release, however, definitively states that detectives were informed that firearms were in vehicle after the suspects were detained.
Of course I'm making it all up, as I state, "I'm suggesting that what may have happened..."
As for Occam's, the detectives knowing the guns were in the car from a suspect requires one assumption, a suspect fessed up. The detectives knowing the guns were in the car by someone else requires assuming that there was someone else that knew of the guns and that they informed the police. That mystery person is not in the record of available sources at this time.
Why a movie theater? Why an elementary school? Why shoot people at random as has happened countless times?
Because without a credible threat there is no "plot" to conspire and carry out. That's really just by definition of the word.
That doesn't make sense and I don't think you understand fully the legal concepts you're throwing around. If the police believed they issued credible threats they could arrest them. They don't need to find guns on them or in their car. It seems fairly obvious that if the police did not arrest them, they did not believe those threats were a reflection of their intent to do harm.
Just imagine these two people did really intend to kill folks. Clearly that makes them unstable, unpredictable and incredibly dangerous. The police would know this, and they would know they drove a thousand miles to carry this out. Do you believe, for one second, that if the police had any reason to suspect this was true they would let them free? That would be an immense failure as public servants entrusted with protecting people's safety. They would have every legal and moral right to arrest and hold them and yet they did not.
Lol people actually believe this?
Again what does that matter when it comes to charging them with conspiracy to commit murder (which is the only charge that is currently up in the air)? All you need for a conspiracy charge is a plan (the threat on FB, while not air tight does suggest a possible plan) and reasonable means (the shit load of illegal ammo and weapons they transported illegally to Boston). It doesn't matter if they ever were an "actual threat" the data we have now suggest they probably committed the crime, now all the FBI needs to do is find anything that resembles further communication of the plan between these two idiots and they will indict them.
Okay I'm going to try again, it does not matter what the police did when, for all I know they screwed up royally and put a number of people at risk (in reality the same situation I proposed numerous times is just as likely as yours), all that matters is the threat (which makes up the basis of searching for more solid "plan proof") and the means (weapons the actually had at the site they threatened earlier). All the police knew at the time they searched them was that people reported a threat, nothing more. After the two arrived they were searched (suggesting the police took the thereat seriously), after they were not found with weapons they were deemed an unlikely/not a current threat (without weapons how could they attack the convention?) According to Squirrel Killer the confessed to the weapons, they were released to their hotel until the police found the weapons and then they were arrested.
None of this means the threat was not credible, it just means they sucked at caring it out. Credible does not mean effective, it just means the threat has INTENT and MEANS. the threat shows obvious intent, so does the weapons. The weapons are also the means to carry out the threat. Does that make sense?
Ah, yes, the "LOL JK Defense"
Apparently that is a rock solid defense for many on this forum.
Squirrel Killer
Member
That is completely tangential to what I was talking about.
PopcornMegaphone
Banned
lifeexpectancy
Member
Perhaps, given Boston's recent history of terrorist attack, the kids here were saying that they were "ready" for Boston with the pic of guns as in "If some crazy terrorist asshole tries anything while we're at the tournament, we're ready to fight back".
Just sayin. Not that I believe that's the case, but none of us here really knows anything about anything with regard to this situation.
Just sayin. Not that I believe that's the case, but none of us here really knows anything about anything with regard to this situation.
It's not a slam dunk case, but there needs to be brought some really good new evidence or details about some already existing evidence to really give them a chance.
Kirye
Member
Something about this just smells off. If you're planning on shooting up a place, why announce it? Unless subconsciously they wanted to get caught, but both with that mentality?
No I think they're just a pack of morons. Jail time should hopefully beat that out of them. Good on the BPD for taking the threat seriously.
No I think they're just a pack of morons. Jail time should hopefully beat that out of them. Good on the BPD for taking the threat seriously.
What kids?
PopcornMegaphone
Banned
"beyond reasonable doubt" by definition should be a slam dunk case.
Then what are you talking about? Please spell it out for me.
Jackben
bitch I'm taking calls.
Don't waste any more time with the devils advocate bullshitters guys.
They just like to get a rise out of riling people up and being contradictory which you can tell by the smarmy tone and cute little headers they use
Other identifiers include:
- saying "TECHNICALLY this is the definition of this word"
-using inductive instead of deductive reasoning and other logical fallacies: "if they were a threat then you have to admit the police failed!"
-using circular arguments and deflection: "that's not related to what I'm saying" but refusing to clarify
-and most of all moving goalposts
They do this just to stir up attention.
Basically they are pseudo-intellectual trolls "at best".
They just like to get a rise out of riling people up and being contradictory which you can tell by the smarmy tone and cute little headers they use
Other identifiers include:
- saying "TECHNICALLY this is the definition of this word"
-using inductive instead of deductive reasoning and other logical fallacies: "if they were a threat then you have to admit the police failed!"
-using circular arguments and deflection: "that's not related to what I'm saying" but refusing to clarify
-and most of all moving goalposts
They do this just to stir up attention.
Basically they are pseudo-intellectual trolls "at best".
No additional evidence is required for what they've been charged with. It's well established they had the guns and did not have licenses for them. Clearly additional evidence is needed to charge them with anything else as either law enforcement is currently investigating to find that evidence or they don't believe enough exists to add the additional charges.
lifeexpectancy
Member
I think it's the exact opposite. Unless some other evidence comes to light there's no way these guys get convicted of anything more than the weapons offences.
If I was a prosecutor I wouldn't be happy to see this land on my desk (and asked to prove conspiracy to murder) with the info we have here. Impossible to meet the standard of proof.
We literally had a defense attorney pop in and said this would be a nightmare case for him to defend, what are you talking about?
That's my point. It's fairly close though.
There's more than enough to pursue more. If they got anymore evidence that went towards that way of any kind of conspiracy like a discussion about "how badly they want to win" or more "jokes" then I would definitely except more than just weapon offenses.
But like I said if they instead find something that explains the the circumstances better they'll be probably just getting violation of those gun laws.
PopcornMegaphone
Banned
underrated post
Sure, but unless i'm a juror on this case I'll always hold out a bit of doubt, I just don't have ALL the possible info and I wouldn't condemn someone to life in prison without hearing everything. that doesn't mean a half decent prosecuter could crush this with only a little bit more information.
PopcornMegaphone
Banned
We agree. There is enough evidence to pursue an investigation.
What? The police suspected guns were in their car because the facebook post of the guns on top of the car was what was brought to the attention of the event security staff to begin with. From there they contacted the police. Why are you inventing unnecessary go betweens? What line of thought are you even on trying to break down the actions of the police? The police didn't tackle the suspects to the ground immediately so therefore the threat was not real? Is that where you're going with this?
I do agree, I'm just not feeling their chances about anything new pointing to something good for them and the prosecution is probably going to try to get as much as they can to get these guys in court for anything.
PopcornMegaphone
Banned
That's basically what the poster you quoted said.
FWIW, I agree with you. As is stands we need more damning information to meet the beyond reasonable doubt threshold. Obviously they already have a lot of information that doesn't look good.
They've only been charged with the firearms violations. That says rather definitively that the authorities don't yet feel they have evidence for additional charges. That may change as a result of any investigation that's ongoing.
Their arraignment is still to come. So we'll see what happens, but I'm saying right now for the law them being just unfortunate idiots with illegal guns and a ton of bullets won't fly. They will definitely try to find something.
It seems WE do agree, but he was for sure painting a picture in which CRAZY amounts of evidence had to come out, to the point where he'd be pissed as the prosecuter, I just pointed out the fact that a REAL defense attorney said this case would be a nightmare for him, suggest the evidence is already pretty damning.
Exactly, what their charged with right now doesn't mean much, other than the fact that the police can now detain them. We probably wont know anything more until they are arraigned.
PopcornMegaphone
Banned
Well, we're all seeing reasonable doubt based on what we know, so I'm going to say this would be a tougher case for the prosecutor. That said, it's not going to take much more to send these guys to prison for a long time.
SolicitorPirate
Member
I haven't read every post in this thread, but in case I am the lawyer you were referring to, I need to clarify that I'm not a defence attorney. I practiced tax law. My knowledge of criminal law comes from law school and what I picked up from internships.
They already have them on the weapons charges. That's what people are suggesting they were being idiots about, and obviously that doesn't work (and wasn't proposed) as any kind of defense. It's meant to serve as a possible explanation as for why they had the weapons in the car, as a contrast to the idea they intended to carry out an attack. I think you're mixing up what people are saying.
If the authorities currently had a reason to charge them with anything in addition they would do so. Since they haven't, it's reasonable to conclude they either don't have it and won't find it or don't have it and are looking for it.