White supremacist podcaster charged after machine guns found in basement

submitted by ShalomEveryone from theguardian.com

all 12 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]filbs111 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

It's never really explained what "white supremacist" means, but maybe that's intentional. "Anti-government views" ? How dreadful!

[–]ShalomEveryone[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/feb/12/podcaster-arrested-machine-guns-weapons-basement

  • Federal prosecutors have charged an “alt-right” podcaster who espoused strong anti-government views with assembling an arsenal of weapons, including machine guns, in the locked basement at a home in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania.

  • The pair, Joseph Raymond Berger, 67, and Joseph Paul Berger, 32, were arrested last week and charged with multiple firearms offenses including possessing machine guns, possessing non-registered firearms and possessing non-registered silencers.

  • “To be sure, the defendant’s views do not form the basis for these charges, but they provide strong evidence of his anti-government ethos,” they argued. “Based on these views, it is highly unlikely that the defendant will respect or abide by conditions of release set by this court, thereby making him a danger to the community and a risk of flight.”

  • The government cited a podcast episode of Alt-Right Armory in which Berger, the host, said that a “white man with a rifle can be very dangerous to the system indeed if he has the right motivation”.

  • Berger goes by the moniker “GlockDoctor1488” – 1488 being a popular coded signal among neo-Nazis, with “14” referencing the slogan “We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children” and “88” standing in for “Heil Hitler”.

  • The indictment alleges that the Bergers illegally possessed 13 fully-automatic machine guns and 12 silencers. They were arrested after agents with Customs and Border Protection intercepted three firearms silencers addressed to them at their home that had been illegally imported.

Looks like this white supremacist and his father were gearing up for a race war. Glad to see one of their shipments was intercepted and they were arrested. Who knows how many mass shootings the federal government successfully prevented before these machine guns ended up in the wrong hands.

Shalom

✡️

[–]Antarchomachus 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Hey Shalom, agree these particular fellows are concerning, but I'm going to try to challenge your perspective a bit, and maybe have mine challenged as well.

Federal prosecutors have charged an “alt-right” podcaster who espoused strong anti-government views with assembling an arsenal of weapons

Looks like this white supremacist and his father were gearing up for a race war.

It does in this instance, but I would urge caution with generalizations like this. I'm not a white supremacist, but I do hold anti-governmental views, so this kind of talk worries me in that it sounds like we are trying these guys in the court of public opinion for:

  1. Having the wrong opinions

  2. A violent crime they never actually committed (pre-crime if you will)

The only real crime here is a possessions charge based on a pretty arbitrary distinction between classes of firearms, which admittedly they knowingly failed to follow.

Personally I think racism is stupid, and my distaste for it stems from that, but as someone who holds views that are often unpopular or outside the norm, I also am sensitive to discriminating against people based on not liking their beliefs. If this was a couple of Jewish guys stashing illegal weapons in Hitler-led Germany would you apply the same standards?

Again, my intention isn't to defend these guys, and I think in this instance you are probably right that arresting these guys was in the public interest. My intent is more to discuss objectivity in general, and how to maintain fairness when dealing with people we have strong distaste for.

[–]ShalomEveryone[S] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

it sounds like we are trying these guys in the court of public opinion for:

That's what happens when someone is arrested. Thy are tried in the court of public opinion.

The only real crime here is a possessions charge based on a pretty arbitrary distinction between classes of firearms, which admittedly they knowingly failed to follow.

The distinction between a semi automatic gun and a machine gun is not arbitrary. The law is clear-cut on what is a machine gun.

Federal law defines a machine gun as “any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.” This definition includes the frame or receiver, any part or combination of parts designed and intended, solely and exclusively, for use in converting a weapon into a machine gun, and any combination of parts from which a machine gun can be assembled (26 USC § 5845(b), 27 CFR §§ 478.11 & 479.11). It does not include “antique firearms” (26 USC § 5845(a) & (g)).

They were also arrested and charged for having unregistered guns and unregistered silencers.

I also am sensitive to discriminating against people based on not liking their beliefs.

The guys who are arrested are not being discriminated against because of their beliefs. They were investigated and arrested due to their illegal actions.

If this was a couple of Jewish guys stashing illegal weapons in Hitler-led Germany would you apply the same standards?

Yes, they broke the law, they got caught, time to face the consequences.

and how to maintain fairness when dealing with people we have strong distaste for.

So far it looks like their civil rights were not violated so until something comes up that says otherwise. It looks like they're being treated fairly.

Shalom

✡️

[–]Antarchomachus 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

The distinction between a semi automatic gun and a machine gun is not arbitrary. The law is clear-cut on what is a machine gun.

Clear cut and un-arbitrary are not the same. I can draw the line on magazine capacity at 10 or 19 or 20 or whatever number of bullets. It is very clear-cut, but also completely arbitrary. You can have this gun, but it can only shoot so many bullets per second/trigger pull is still somewhat arbitrary as well.

The mass shootings involving handguns (e.g. virginia tech) are often just as deadly as ones involving assault rifles - it's just not that difficult to massacre a bunch of unarmed civilians with any kind of modern firearm. A non-arbitrary distinction would be 'no rocket launchers', 'no nuclear warheads', which clearly diverge from the intent of the constitution to allow people to carry portable handheld bullet shooters. Its not that clear that there was any intent to limit the effectiveness of the firearms carried by the populace - in fact I'd suggest their experience with the revolutionary war meant their intention was just the opposite.

They were also arrested and charged for having unregistered guns and unregistered silencers.

I'll grant that this is not arbitrary.

Anyways, to get back to my original point

If this was a couple of Jewish guys stashing illegal weapons in Hitler-led Germany would you apply the same standards?

Yes, they broke the law, they got caught, time to face the consequences.

This was my concern, but I seem to have misread your intent. So many of the quotations were about the ideology of these guys that I inferred this was the reason for the post. It seems this is not the case, and I commend the fact that you would be objective about people found to break the law regardless of whether you view that person as being in your 'in' or 'out' group.

[–]ShalomEveryone[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

You can have this gun, but it can only shoot so many bullets per second/trigger pull is still somewhat arbitrary as well.

The law is the law, people know ahead of time it is illegal to own a gun in which you pull the trigger once and more than one bullet fires out continuously. Bump stocks are legal and they make a gun shoot a bullet faster per trigger pull and for the time being they are legal depending on where you live.

So many of the quotations were about the ideology of these guys that I inferred this was the reason for the post.

Criminals are criminals no matter their ideology.

I commend the fact that you would be objective about people found to break the law regardless of whether you view that person as being in your 'in' or 'out' group.

I commend you for having a good back and forth debate without resorting to name calling like so many people here do.

Shalom

✡️

[–]Antarchomachus 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I commend you for having a good back and forth debate without resorting to name calling like so many people here do.

I have also enjoyed our debates. It is indeed nice to engage in philosophical dialogue with someone who is not an idiot, a zealot, or just arguing in bad faith.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

That's what happens when someone is arrested. Thy are tried in the court of public opinion.

Tried in the court of public opinion means the verdict has been influenced by media coverage and popular opinions as opposed to 12 supposedly impartial jurors.

Yes, they broke the law, they got caught, time to face the consequences.

You think the Nazi resistance should have been prosecuted?

[–]ShalomEveryone[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Tried in the court of public opinion means the verdict has been influenced by media coverage and popular opinions as opposed to 12 supposedly impartial jurors.

No it does not mean that.

Trying cases in the court of public opinion refers to using the news media to influence public support for one side or the other in a court case. This can result in persons outside the justice system (i.e. people other than the judge or jury) taking action for or against a party.

That's what it means. Judges also instruct jurors to not watch/read/listen to reports about the trial in the media so they wont be influenced by the media. So if jurors are following what they're instructed to do they wont be influenced by the media because they will be ignoring media reports on the case. Depending on how major the case is, juries can also be sequestered.

You think the Nazi resistance should have been prosecuted?

Yes, if they were caught breaking the law by stockpiling weapons.

Shalom

✡️

[–]IkeConn 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

If you are going to stir shit up then you need to keep a clean house they can't use against you.

[–]ShalomEveryone[S] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

They weren't thinking about covering their tracks and making things hard for the government to make their case. A lot of the time, criminals think they're smarter than they are and those very same criminals think investigators are idiots when they're not.

Shalom

✡️

[–]Zahn 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

mitromem mizdayen batahat