#1 Craig Cobb in Leith Thread (Craig Cobb's PLE in North Dakota)

[Bill LeMier]

Originally Posted by varg

Pretty sure he wanted to take over the town and throw other town residents or dissidents into his makeshift jail. I guess you could somehow construe that as 'wanting to be left alone'

Wonder why they didn't like the guy.. (though I admit, after time some of them have shown themselves to be anti-white liberals, but I'm sure the stuff above didn't help things either)

This is what I cannot figure out. Up here in Alaska I can easily get nods of agreement whenever I bring up racial news and information. In basically any rural area that is mostly White people, I find them all to be pretty much racialist, overtly or covertly. That race mixing girl with the black guy really are a small minority. Most rural Whites, especially in places like North Dakota are in fact considerably racist on average... even most the so-called anti-racist liberal types are only that on the surface.

Get them in private or get a few beers into them and the true colors come out. Most Whites are in fact racist, I don't really see a way around this. If you are intelligent and charismatic, and thus you know how to bring up racial information without using buzz words, you can easily get outrage at non-White on White crime, non-White immigration, or Whites dwindling as a race.

Basically the vast majority of those protesting illegal immigration are racially focused. It isn't any immigration, it is non-White mestizo immigration they are against. How do I know this? You never hear those types talking about illegal immigration from White Europe. Same with the wars in the Middle East.

I just can't fucking understand how Cobb can go to a rural conservative town and not get people agreeing with him. But look at his antics... he brought a tonne of media attention to a place where the locals just want to be left alone and live their own lives. He did some disgusting things like bring about that guy's daughter (or was it son?)'s murder and used it against him, and the jail, basically just a bunch of horrible shit.

You have to really fuck up to get the results Craig did. I've lived in small towns for much of my life, and if you were polite, respectful, and friendly, you can befriend the locals pretty damn easily. Just look at the drunk ass Dutton in the town hall meeting!

Not once did he bring up pro-White sentiment. He just harassed and belittled fellow White people for no good reason. Even the police were on his side when the Injuns were being hostile, believe me, any cops around reservations are very racist by nature. I bet that Sheriff is a racist, and only said what he said to appear good for keeping his job. Fact is you have to play the PC line when the multicult media comes to town.

Basically if I were Cobb or Dutton I would've gotten my place fixed up to code first and started my own business that the locals could use. Maybe a grocery store or a book store, clothes store, pharmacy, whatever. Heck, even a taxi for the surrounding areas would likely have been alright, anything really.

Then I would've established a repertoire with the townsfolk. I would've went to community events and treated people really nice and made myself welcome in the town first. My plan would be to really get on the good side of the locals, once that happened, then I would've started bringing people in.

I would've done it in secret as well, not using my real name. I would've recruited people from here in private, and once the town was mine, then announce the project openly.

I mean if Cobb had treated everyone nicely and shown the pro-White facts in a positive sympathetic light, he would've had a completely different reaction. Something tells me Cobb just had a late life crisis and is really no different than a Hollywood Nazi himself, trying to get one last bout of fame before he went out.

That said I still don't agree with jailing him, but the whole way he went about the project was bad from the get go... bringing in Dutton and those types really I think drove the nail in the coffin.

I just cannot figure out why you would antagonize White people who were living there and likely equally hated the multicult in the first place, hence living in the middle of nowhere in a town mostly White.

And naturally nobody is going to take sides with Cobb publically, as that would be suicide at this point.

[Rounder]

Originally Posted by Bill LeMier

The defense lawyers are 100% correct. There is zero indication that Cobb & Dutton threatened violence, and Cobb was likely equally afraid for his life his whole time living in Leith, which promoted his actions of an armed patrol, but I don't see terrorizing charges against people who taunted or protested against him and Dutton.

Basically anyone who thought he might get a fair trial separate of recent events, to which I will include myself, should see this as being shattered. EVERYTHING about the trial is fixed on his political activities, not at all the charges themselves! Why is Bobby Harper & his fat cunt of a race-betraying wife there?

Trial by jury?! In rural ND?! You serious?! Do they really think they will get twelve jurors who are 100% unbiased as is required under law? Every one of those jurors is going to be familiar with the Cobb case and it will interfere with their decision!

By law these charges should be reduced or dropped. There were no threats of violence, nobody harmed, and if those people were afraid for their lives, why the fuck did they engage Cobb in argumentative conversation? If I were truly scared for my life, I'd be telling the person with a gun anything they wanted to hear, certainly not arguing with them and getting them further agitated.

Here's my defense...

1. No guns were pointed at any person.

2. No threats of violence were made.

3. Cobb had equal right to fear for his safety due to previous death threats from ARA members and taunts from townsfolk alike, which prompted the armed patrol (which was completely 100% legal) in the first place.

4. Free speech rules that you can in fact call someone a fucking idiot if you desire, even if you have a gun in your hand. That is not terrorizing, if it were, that shitty Leith ND website should be taken down for libel and the owner charged with terrorizing.

5. Unreasonable bail, far too much bias in the area for a proper jury trial, charging Cobb & Dutton with the same crimes, and the lack of credibility of the arresting sheriff who in fact had personal bias and malicious intent to begin with, all add up to a complete mistrial. Cobb should be able to counter sue the state of ND for several infractions of proper protocol of law.

6. At most you could seek disorderly conduct charges, which aren't even justifiable because swearing at people is not illegal, open carry is not illegal, and no threats were made = no crime took place.

Fuck this show trial USSR bullshit! The retarded prosecution is no doubt likely to make the jury as aware as possible of their political activities, even thought it is irrelevant to the case, and the moronic jury made of people of Walmart Christian Kwans are going to be inclined to lock these evil nazis away... regardless of the charges at hand.

How do I know this? The same reason women get lesser sentences than men. The bias is that men are more capable and prone to violence and thus the reverse sexist society discriminated unfairly against men, regardless of the case at hand.

The same can be said about the obvious double standard on hate crimes and racial bias incidents. See people getting convicted for calling someone a nigger, but blacks promoting genocidal lyrics in rap and it getting played on MTV.

Basically this doesn't look good for Cobb & company. In a realistic situation, if Cobb was charged independent of his activities, say he was just a cooky old man who had problems with his neighbors and the exact thing happened, he'd be out on around a $5000 bail if not less, and the charges would very likely be dropped by now or reduced... and there certainly wouldn't be a massive media coverage of this story.

One silver lining is that there's a good chance some of those jurors may be pro-Whites selected by random chance who are sympathetic to Cobb. However, a trial by judge who was truly unbiased and followed the law, which is rare, would've been more ideal.

If I were a judge I'd look at the facts regardless of the political viewpoints of the accused, and I would definitely have these charges thrown out or reduced... there's zero way you can substantiate terrorizing charges with this evidence.

Just for the record, three crips who were convicted of four terrorizing charges were pointing guns at people and threatening to kill them if they didn't do certain things... now THAT is terrorizing.

Basically to substantiate terrorizing charges you should need threats of violence, but what makes it more serious than just threats, is there is a means to follow-up said violence... say a gun in your hand pointing it at someone or some capacity to do said violence.

Cobb never threatened nor pointed the firearms.. these charges are bogus and the trial is a show trial.

Some good points.

The jury will be expected to believe that Craig deliberately terrorized citizens of Leith, even though he phoned the sheriff first about his intent to patrol armed, then deliberately had every second of his armed patrol video taped; and then voluntarily gave the video to the sheriff in order to prove he'd violated no law.

If the jury can be led to believe that Craig was that crazy, then they'll have to decide that Craig is not guilty by reason of insanity.

Somebody look up the exact ND statute Craig and Kynan are charged under, so we can read it. Convictions should require the intent to terrorize. If so, then it's obvious the charges are absurd.

PS: I just phoned and spoke with Deborah. She says she and the children are OK. I won't repeat her comments about the charges or about yesterday's hearing for fear it'll help the other side. She did say she's confident her 2 hour interview with NatGeo went very well.

[Bardamu]

Originally Posted by Bill LeMier

The defense lawyers are 100% correct. There is zero indication that Cobb & Dutton threatened violence, and Cobb was likely equally afraid for his life his whole time living in Leith, which promoted his actions of an armed patrol, ...

Zero indication? No. He's patrolling the hamlet armed and pissed off at the other villagers.

but I don't see terrorizing charges against people who taunted or protested against him and Dutton.

This is true. Generally speaking, at this point in Western history, Whites are subject to every form of terrorism, from verbal to murder, imaginable.

[Sam Emerson]

The legal analysis posted by people who aren't lawyers defending Craig won't help. If you don't know that courts, juries, cops, and most witnesses are biased against us by now and won't cut any of us a break by now you're retarded.

Bottom line: If Craig doesn't hire a good lawyer he's going to be convicted and spend years in prison.

[Jimmy Marr]

Originally Posted by Rounder

Yaw'll write to our men and also send them a few bucks for commissary

I haven't seen any evidence of pedophilia or murderous psychopathology in either of these men.

Shall we send money anyway?

[zoomcopter]

Originally Posted by Sam Emerson

Hard to get much worse advice than "use Google" for anything more than researching idle questions. It's almost as useless as your get a good job and save money platitudes. On the ground intelligence isn't in Google, and by intelligence I don't mean Google street view.

This is true. There is but one substitute for actually being there and that is having someone you trust reporting back as to the actual conditions there.

[Jason 916]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Marr

I haven't seen any evidence of pedophilia or murderous psychopathology in either of these men.

Shall we send money anyway?

Haha! Touché.

[zoomcopter]

Originally Posted by Bill LeMier

Get them in private or get a few beers into them and the true colors come out. Most Whites are in fact racist,

I just can't fucking understand how Cobb can go to a rural conservative town and not get people agreeing with him.

And naturally nobody is going to take sides with Cobb publically, as that would be suicide at this point.

While I agree with you that most rural towns are, indeed, racist, having the ADL/SPLC outside the local watering hole, with TV cameras rolling is certainly going to influence opinions, in any rural bar. The MSM played a huge part in destroying Craig.

[Gordon Green]

Originally Posted by Bardamu

A bit late in the game to get realistic. Reminds me of Bill White's equally unrealistic self-entrapment, where he thinks the law is some chemical element where all agree on exact constitution. No, the law is fluid and can be parsed this way and that depending on the opinions of people. Human opinions, probably the most fickle thing in the universe.

This is why democracy, and even republics, didn't work for that long in our history. Attica Greeks and Athenians tried and it failed even among them. It used to be the nobles were the only ones allowed in all ranks of the court, ones with special schooling in law, rhetoric, philosophy, and logic.

[Ann2]

*SNIP*

Originally Posted by Rounder

The jury will be expected to believe that Craig deliberately terrorized citizens of Leith, even though he phoned the sheriff first about his intent to patrol armed, then deliberately had every second of his armed patrol video taped; and then voluntarily gave the video to the sheriff in order to prove he'd violated no law.

This is the first I've read of this. He called and told the sheriff he was going to do an armed patrol? What did the sheriff say? Did he record the call?

PS: I just phoned and spoke with Deborah. She says she and the children are OK. I won't repeat her comments about the charges or about yesterday's hearing for fear it'll help the other side. She did say she's confident her 2 hour interview with NatGeo went very well.

Some people never learn.

[Jimmy Marr]

Originally Posted by Bill LeMier

Most rural Whites, especially in places like North Dakota are in fact considerably racist on average...

Sure. Most Whites, anywhere, are racially aware on some level, but very few are also aware of International Jewry's genocidal intent behind the promotion of "diversity" in all White countries and only White countries.

Craig aggressively furnished them with the solution to a problem they didn't know existed, and they were understandably upset by it.

Craig's worldview, in my opinion, has a better chance of gaining traction among more worldly folk.

Craig is a refugee from a world North Dakotans have never witnessed, nor even suspected in the wildest of their provincial dreams.

They are in state of culture shock by events Craig triggered, and they resent him for their loss of innocence.

You can hear this in their oft repeated comments: "We just want things to go back to the way they were before Craig came to Leith".

That isn't going to happen.

Regardless of how severely Craig and Kynan are punished, North Dakotans will never again wake up in Kansas.

[Jason 916]

Originally Posted by Ann2

Some people never learn.

Yeah, and "went well" and comes across well after extensive editing, sinister music cues, biased narrating and convenient sound bytes, is something else entirely.

Which many many WN in the media have learned the hard way.

[zoomcopter]

Originally Posted by Ann2

Quote:
PS: I just phoned and spoke with Deborah. She says she and the children are OK. I won't repeat her comments about the charges or about yesterday's hearing for fear it'll help the other side. She did say she's confident her 2 hour interview with NatGeo went very well.


Some people never learn.

She's getting her extended moment of fame and I wish her well.

[zoomcopter]

Originally Posted by Jason 916

Yeah, and "went well" and comes across well after extensive editing, sinister music cues, biased narrating and convenient sound bytes, is something else entirely.

Which many many WN in the media have learned the hard way.

No doubt it will be spun into something even Deborah would find hard to recognize, but she should be given credit for standing up for what she believes in.

[Donnie in Ohio]

Originally Posted by Sam Emerson

In 2011 it wasn't easy to find a place to stay in North Dakota. Craig had specific answers on all the details.

Well, Craig's a bit of a kook (in my anonymous, cowardly opinion) so any intelligence he provided would have been suspect at best. Lots of other people, thousands, made and continue to make the move to the oil fields looking for boom work. They didn't seem to need Craig Cobb.

Thank you, Captain Obvious.

Hard to get much worse advice than "use Google" for anything more than researching idle questions. It's almost as useless as your get a good job and save money platitudes. On the ground intelligence isn't in Google, and by intelligence I don't mean Google street view.

Fair enough. Then don't take the advice, Sam. Means nothing to me personally. Although I would disagree that working hard and saving your pay to bankroll a start-up is a "useless platitude". That shit works. More WN should be doing it.

This was before Craig invited people to Leith.

I don't think it was a matter of timing as much as he just had no takers. Starting your own cult sans sewer is a hard sell. Harder yet still when one is a paranoid-schizophrenic, I would think.

You wouldn't nullify the charges against Craig if you were on the jury?

I'm not actually currently eligible to serve on a North Dakota jury, so whatever I might do is irrelevant.

[Kelley]

Originally Posted by Donnie in Ohio

Well, Craig's a bit of a kook (in my anonymous, cowardly opinion) so any intelligence he provided would have been suspect at best. Lots of other people, thousands, made and continue to make the move to the oil fields looking for boom work. They didn't seem to need Craig Cobb.

Craig did know a thing or two about working Bakken. Yes, there are others working there... I know several people working there... but he did try to help people. In fact, his ND job information was probably more extensive than mine.

[Donnie in Ohio]

Originally Posted by zoomcopter

She's getting her extended moment of fame and I wish her well.

Woop Woop!

[zoomcopter]

Originally Posted by Jason 916

Which many many WN in the media have learned the hard way.

The MSM will always demonize us, but that should not prevent us from standing up and stating our case for what we truly believe in. If the threat of demonization silences us, from commenting on our own racial destruction, then we do deserve to be herded off the cliffs, like the sheep we've become.

[Jimmy Marr]

Originally Posted by Donnie in Ohio

God, I miss Rouse.

Don't arouse expectations, please.

[Mr A.Anderson]

http://www.ndcourts.gov/court/opinio...0099.htm#FN_1_

[¶7] Laib argues the evidence is insufficient to support a conviction for terrorizing because there is no evidence that he verbally threatened his wife, which he contends is required by the threat element of the offense. The State argues that the threat contemplated by N.D.C.C. § 12.1-17-04 does not need to be verbal; it requires only that a threat be communicated by speech, writing, or act. We hold that a threat does not have to be made verbally to be a terroristic threat under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-17-04.

[¶8] Section 12.1-17-04, N.D.C.C., provides, in part:
A person is guilty of a class C felony if, with intent to place another human being in fear for that human being's or another's safety or to cause evacuation of a building, place of assembly, or facility of public transportation, or otherwise to cause serious disruption or public inconvenience, or in reckless disregard of the risk of causing such terror, disruption, or inconvenience, the person:

1. Threatens to commit any crime of violence or act dangerous to human life[.]

For Laib's conviction of terrorizing, the State had to prove: (1) the defendant intended to put the victim in fear for her safety or acted with reckless disregard of the risk of causing her fear; and (2) the defendant made a threat of a "crime of violence or act dangerous to human life." N.D.C.C. § 12.1-17-04; Carlson, 1997 ND 7, ¶ 36, 559 N.W.2d 802. "[T]he critical inquiry is whether the defendant intended to place others in fear for their safety." Carlson, at ¶ 20. Whether N.D.C.C. § 12.1-17-04 requires verbal threats is a question of law, fully reviewable by this Court. Estate of Kimbrell, 2005 ND 107, ¶ 9, 697 N.W.2d 315.

[¶9] Section 12.1-17-04 does not define "threat." Words used in statutes are to be given their ordinary meaning. N.D.C.C. § 1-02-02. Black's Law Dictionary defines "threat" as: "A communicated intent to inflict harm or loss on another or on another's property, esp. one that might diminish a person's freedom to act voluntarily or with lawful consent." Black's Law Dictionary 1519 (8th ed. 2004). "Communication" is defined as: "The expression or exchange of information by speech, writing, gestures, or conduct; the process of bringing an idea to another's perception." Id. at 296. The plain reading of these definitions is that a threat can be communicated in several ways, only one of which is verbal. Webster's New World Dictionary defines threat as "an expression of intention to hurt, destroy, punish, etc., as in retaliation or intimidation." Webster's New World Dictionary 1482 (2d coll. ed. 1980). Neither definition limits the method of communicating a threat to speaking.

[¶10] Section 12.1-23-10(12), N.D.C.C., defines threat for theft and related offenses. Threat in this context is defined, in part, as:
an expressed purpose, however communicated, to:
a. Cause bodily injury in the future to the person threatened or to any other person;
. . . .
c. Subject the person threatened or any other person to physical confinement or restraint;
d. Engage in other conduct constituting a crime; [or]
. . . .
l. Do any other act which would not in itself substantially benefit the actor or a group he represents but which is calculated to harm another person in a substantial manner with respect to his health, safety, business, employment, calling, career, financial condition, reputation, or personal relationship.
N.D.C.C. § 12.1-23-10(12). Although the definition provided in N.D.C.C. § 12.1-23-10 specifically applies only to chapter 12.1-23, the definition demonstrates what the legislature intends when it uses the word "threat." The phrase "however communicated" implies that a threat could be in words, verbal or written; actions; gestures; suggestive innuendo; or any other form of communication.

[¶11] Section 12.1-17-04, N.D.C.C., was patterned after § 1614 of the proposed Federal Criminal Code, and we look to the Working Papers of the National Commission on Reform of Federal Criminal Laws for guidance when interpreting sections of the North Dakota criminal code. E.g., Carlson, 1997 ND 7, ¶ 19, 559 N.W.2d 802. The Working Papers discussing terrorizing and menacing state: "The threat may be a prank, or may be made in anger; while there may be no intent to inflict actual injury, such acts can be intended to cause fear." II Working Papers of the National Commission on Reform of Federal Criminal Laws 837 (July 1970).

[¶12] To hold that a threat must be verbal would lead to the irrational result that a perpetrator could clearly threaten and terrorize a victim, but would be immune from the crime of terrorizing merely by not saying a word. For example, a perpetrator could tie a victim to a chair, pour gasoline around the victim, step away, and light a match, all without saying a word. Although the perpetrator has never said, "I'm going to kill you," or "you're going to burn," this message is still clearly communicated. Actions can speak louder than words.

[¶13] Weighing the evidence in a light most favorable to the verdict supports the conviction. Laib's act of forcing his wife outside their house in the middle of winter while she was wearing only a nightshirt constituted a threat of a crime of violence or act dangerous to human life. Laib's wife testified that after attempting to choke her, Laib took her by the arm and forced her outside. She testified that it was cold and that she was wearing only a nightshirt. Although Laib did not lock the door, his wife did not know that until she tried to reenter. She reentered after a couple of minutes because she could no longer stand the cold, especially on her bare feet. Being outside during a cold winter night without proper attire or shelter can be dangerous to human life. A communication, either verbal or nonverbal, is sufficient to be a threat if a reasonable person could conclude that it was a threat under the circumstances. State v. Hass, 268 N.W.2d 456, 463 (N.D. 1978). The jury, as a reasonable fact-finder, could easily conclude that Laib was threatening to commit an act dangerous to human life, specifically, locking someone outside during a cold winter night without sufficient clothing or shelter. There was sufficient evidence for the jury to find Laib guilty of terrorizing as provided for in N.D.C.C. § 12.1-17-04.

At issue here, is the presence of firearms. I’ve watched the video closely, several times, and there was never a weapon pointed at anybody (a gesture to communicate “I’m going to shoot you”) or anything of the like. There was one point, during Craig's verbal interaction with Paul Ferrie where his body language caused your shotgun to ‘shake’ in your right hand when you physically moved forward – although it was pointed in a safe direction and not at anyone. Just be aware of that. It was caused from the body tensing to raise his voice to be heard over a long distance while pointing with his left hand and taking a step forward all at the same time.

Since the firearms were never used in a directly threatening manner (such as pointing them at anyone) then the only conclusion that I can make is the mere presence of firearms is what they will attempt to portray as a threat to commit a violent crime or an act dangerous to life.

Gourko v. United States: Carrying a Gun is an Innocent Act

The defendant in Gourko v. United States, [FN46] John Gourko, was a 19- year-old Polish immigrant. [FN47] He lived with his brother, Mike, in a mining camp in the Choctaw Nation. [FN48] Peter Carbo, another Polish immigrant aged 40-45, had a dispute with them over certain loads of coal, which he claimed the Gourko brothers had filched. [FN49] According to a witness, Carbo threatened "to shoot John like a dog." [FN50] Carbo was easily capable of violence - he weighed 200 pounds, was very strong, and was considered dangerous. [FN51] John Gourko, weighing only 135 pounds, was considered delicate "and was deemed a quiet, peaceable boy." [FN52]

*300 One holiday, Carbo confronted John Gourko near a post office, shaking a fist in his face and screaming at him. [FN53] Witnesses feared that Carbo would kill John on the spot. [FN54] About half an hour later, there was a confrontation between Carbo and John Gourko in a billiard hall. [FN55] They argued and then went outside. [FN56] Gourko fired his pistol once over Carbo's head, then twice to the body, killing him. [FN57]

The Supreme Court's opinion was written by Justice John Marshall Harlan. [FN58] It is only natural that the Court's first decision vindicating a fundamental right would be written by Justice Harlan. Today, Harlan is best remembered for his dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson, [FN59] and is one of only twelve Supreme Court Justices to be rated "great." [FN60] Too often, Harlan's human-rights opinions came in the form of a dissent, as in the case of O'Neil v. Vermont, [FN61] where Harlan failed to convince the Court to determine whether a sentence of fifty-four years at hard labor for liquor law violations constituted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. [FN62] But in Gourko, Harlan enjoyed the rare pleasure of authoring a human-rights opinion for a unanimous Court. [FN63]

Justice Harlan noted that Gourko's act might have been lawful self-defense, but that was not the precise issue that had come to the Supreme Court. [FN64] Instead, the question was the validity of Judge Parker's instructions to the jury about the difference between premeditated murder and manslaughter. [FN65] Judge Parker had told the jury that Gourko's carrying *301 of a handgun could be considered evidence of premeditated intent to kill, even if the carrying was purely for self-defense. [FN66]

Justice Harlan, writing for a unanimous Court, disagreed, stating that

"the jury were not authorized to find him guilty of murder because of his having deliberately armed himself, provided he rightfully so armed himself for purposes of self-defence, and if, independently of the fact of arming himself, the case tested by what occurred on the occasion of the killing was one of manslaughter only."

So merely lawfully carrying a firearm is not evidence of premeditation to commit a crime of violence or an act dangerous to human life.

Thompson v. United States: There is Nothing Wrong with Carrying a Rifle for Protection

The Gourko decision was announced in April of 1894, [FN98] and the Starr case in May of that same year. [FN99] Seven months later, in Thompson v. United States, [FN100] the Supreme Court again emphasized its determination not to let Judge Parker draw adverse inferences about an individual because of his exercising the right to bear arms.

Thomas Thompson was a seventeen-year-old farmboy. [FN101] Half a mile away lived Charles Hermes, who made threats to kill Thompson if he came near the Hermes farm. [FN102] One afternoon, Thompson was sent to deliver a bundle to a woman who lived a few miles away. [FN103] The only road to the woman's house went by the Hermes farm. [FN104] Passing by the farm, Thompson got into a heated argument with Hermes, who repeated his threats to kill Thompson. [FN105] After delivering the bundle, Thompson, realizing that the only road home was the road that ran by the Hermes property, borrowed a Winchester rifle. [FN106]

*304 As Thompson rode home, Hermes's sons called out to Thompson. [FN107] One of the sons, Charles Hermes, started towards a gun that was propped on a fence. [FN108] Thompson, believing that Hermes intended to kill him, shot Hermes first, and then fled on horseback. [FN109] Charged with murder, Thompson pleaded self-defense. [FN110]

In the Thompson trial, Judge Parker instructed the jury that they were free to conclude that Thompson had provoked the trouble, and therefore lost his right to self-defense. [FN111] According to Judge Parker, Thompson could be viewed as the instigator of the confrontation because he had armed himself and returned to a place where he knew Hermes would be. [FN112] Similarly, the judge instructed the jurors to the effect that they should not convict Thompson of manslaughter, rather than murder. [FN113] By arming himself, Thompson had shown the kind of deliberation and premeditation which amounts to murder. [FN114]

Quoting at length from the Gourko case, the Supreme Court unanimously reversed Thompson's conviction because of the defective jury instructions. [FN115] Merely being armed and traveling by the only road available could not possibly be considered evidence that Thompson wanted to provoke trouble or that he intended to kill Hermes. [FN116]

The Court concluded that the trial court's error "is in the assumption that the act of the defendant in arming himself showed a purpose to kill formed before the actual affray." [FN117] That same error was found in the instructions regarding the right of self-defense in Gourko. [FN118] Thompson was freed, and was not retried. [FN119]

Once again, the mere presence of a firearm is not an indication of premeditation or intention to commit a crime of violence or an act dangerous to human life.

A Massachusetts high court ruling that the mere presence or sight of a firearm is not cause for fear or alarm.

Firearms Records Bureau v. Simkin (Mass. Aug. 8, 2013):

http://www.volokh.com/2013/08/08/int...highest-court/

Next, we suspect that the average Massachusetts resident may become “alarmed” on learning that someone other than a law enforcement officer is carrying concealed weapons in his or her presence. However, Simkin is not responsible for alarm caused to others by his mere carrying of concealed weapons pursuant to a license permitting him to do exactly that.

I’m sure there are many other such examples, but just did a quick search, keying on the components of *intent* and *threat* as it relates to the possession and/or carry of firearms.