Schaeffer Cox

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

You asked for a source in regards to my statement. I gave you one. I don't really give a damn if you're so desperate to victimize this clown that you make up reasons to dismiss a direct quote of him.

He's not the poor innocent lamb you're trying to convince everybody he is. Deal with it.

a reply to: Shamrock6

I don't really give a damn if you're so desperate to victimize this clown that you make up reasons to dismiss a direct quote of him.

I didn't dismiss the quote he said, I asked you whether you think he'd talk about his militia so openly if you thought he had any sinister intentions. He also talks about his militia near the end of the lecture I posted, and there is nothing about what he says to indicate he plans to commit any violent acts, in fact he specifically states that he hopes his militia will never be faced with that situation. Furthermore, I see nothing wrong with what he said, true liberty means the right to form a citizen militia, the right to put any substance you wish into your body, etc.

I'm sorry but I just cannot take the side of people who seem to have used every under handed tactic in the book to get this guy. Don't get me wrong I usually believe what the FBI has to say, but in this case we're relying on a former drug dealer as the mole and apparently he kidnapped Cox's family, I mean seriously, that's just wrong. Here's a question for you: why didn't they use the 2-for-1 tape recording when the case was taken to the federal level, the article clearly states the recordings were deemed legal under federal law... yet they relied on witness accounts to convince the jury, isn't that odd.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

I don't know him so I don't know what he's inclined to do or not do. His own attorney submitted a psych evaluation claiming paranoid personality disorder and mental illness so...I'd suggest you start there with why he did what he did.

The recordings were submitted as evidence during the trial, and at least portions were brought up. So no, it's not odd.

Either you're woefully misinformed about the topic you decided to post today, or you're willfully omitting information that doesn't support your view of what happened. Either way, I'm done here. There's no point in discussing something with somebody, particularly when they're the ones that brought it to the table to discuss, when they're either ignorant about their own subject matter or are just plain lying about it.

Cheers!

a reply to: Shamrock6

His own attorney submitted a psych evaluation claiming paranoid personality disorder and mental illness so...I'd suggest you start there with why he did what he did.

The article you posted states they tried the mental issue angle after they lost the federal case, that would be why, it was a last ditch effort. Also I'm fairly sure anyone would be left with some sort of mental problems after someone tried to take their child away, accused them of beating their wife, made death threats against them, then kidnapped them. If at any point Cox did start to humor the 2-for-1 plans being suggested by the moles, he was clearly driven to that point through continual psychological abuse. That's not to say he would have been justified, but anyone will eventually strike back when pushed far enough.

The recordings were submitted as evidence during the trial, and at least portions were brought up. So no, it's not odd.

The article also says they were able to convict him based on circumstantial evidence including a list of names on his phone and his effort to acquire illegal weapons... if he was caught on a recording promoting the 2-for-1 idea it would have been a clear cut case and the jury wouldn't have spent 2 days deliberating. Also I'm pretty sure his militia was well armed and acquiring a few more weapons wouldn't make much difference, legal weapons can kill too.