3D Gun Co Owner a Wanted Man

[SPST]

They have issued a warrant for his arrest for sexually assaulting a minor. He is out of the country and didn't board his return flight home.

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/cody-wils...ny-wanted-162012212--abc-news-topstories.html

 

[BlackGun]

So a little whore got on a sex site for money and then set up a guy the government didn’t like? What a surprise.

 

[Studentofthegun]

On the one hand I have little sympathy for a guy that buys sexual intercourse. On the other hand...this guy made a lot of powerful enemies and it wouldn’t surprise me at all if this were to be revealed as a set up.

 

[GymB]

or he did it. The site plays a video ad, and I hate that, but if you read the article there seems to be rather a lot of evidence.

 

[JimP42]

I don’t trust our overlords any further than I can throw them. Any charges against anyone that the establishment is already after are suspect, and they are quite capable of manufacturing evidence and witnesses if they want to.

I do not trust the FBI or DoJ at all any more. I suspect I am not alone. Once it has been perverted for political and personal purposes (for at least the last 2 terms) it has no credibility until the house is thoroughly cleaned.

 

[GymB]

I don’t trust our overlords any further than I can throw them. Any charges against anyone that the establishment is already after are suspect, and they are quite capable of manufacturing evidence and witnesses if they want to.

I do not trust the FBI or DoJ at all any more. I suspect I am not alone. Once it has been perverted for political and personal purposes (for at least the last 2 terms) it has no credibility until the house is thoroughly cleaned.

I don’t disagree, but you also must admit that self important people often seem to think themselves beyond the law, or they just do stupid stuff that happens to be illegal.

 

[JimP42]

I don’t disagree, but you also must admit that self important people often seem to think themselves beyond the law, or they just do stupid stuff that happens to be illegal.

Sure, but if I were on a jury the standard for “beyond a reasonable doubt” in a case like this would be impossibly high. IMO there there is definitely a chance he was set up or it was just fabricated, so there is doubt. Period.

 

[Ikarus1]

Sure. And Kavanaugh's a teen rapist. And Julian Assange as well.

Let's just say all enemies of the deep state are pervs, and the Clintons don't visit Islands, and the Bushes don't dance in the wilderness at Bilderberg.

 

[noway2]

Sorry, but the kiddie porn thing has become just too common to be credible.

 

[Get Off My Lawn]

He wears skinny jeans, gotta be guilty.

 

[Pbj ak]

Seems to me anyone that the gov is against turns out to be into child sex. Is there a better way to turn almost everyone against someone they don’t even know? Call them a pedophile. Not saying there’s not those kind of folks out there and imo they are some of the worst.

 

[CZfool68]

So a little whore got on a sex site for money and then set up a guy the government didn’t like? What a surprise.

Maybe. But he still should be a better and smarter man than that. And anyone that syas "I'm kind of a big deal" is a tool.

 

[J R Green]

Funny thing about that, in this and many other states she would have been of legal age.

 

[CZfool68]

I don’t trust our overlords any further than I can throw them. Any charges against anyone that the establishment is already after are suspect, and they are quite capable of manufacturing evidence and witnesses if they want to.

I do not trust the FBI or DoJ at all any more. I suspect I am not alone. Once it has been perverted for political and personal purposes (for at least the last 2 terms) it has no credibility until the house is thoroughly cleaned.

And this is how countries fail and societies fall. At some point the Gov is going to show up arrest someone amd a town's PD and people may just say no. Or a county.

 

[CZfool68]

Sure. And Kavanaugh's a teen rapist. And Julian Assange as well.

Let's just say all enemies of the deep state are pervs, and the Clintons don't visit Islands, and the Bushes don't dance in the wilderness at Bilderberg.

I think they call that projection. Dems do it all the time. Accuse your opponents of that which you do.

 

[GymB]

Here’s the thing, the government making allegations doesn’t make him guilty, but some of you are like if the government makes allegations he is innocent. It’s early in the morning, but that seems idiotic. The government has at least some evidence, contrived maybe, we don’t know, but we have absolutely nothing beyond the news reports. I understand withholding judgement, and applaude that as I’m sick of folks being tried in the media, but to say that because they have allegations we’re going to say he’s innocent is just partisan bullshit.

 

[CZfool68]

Funny thing about that, in this and many other states she would have been of legal age.

This is true. I have 2 daughters that play sand volleyball. I can also testify that identifying a teenage girl's exact age by physical standards is not easy. And quite disturbing. Then again if you are making a purchase from a web site with the phrase Sugar Daddy in the name that might be a subtle clue.

 

[Sleazy P. Martini]

This is true. I have 2 daughters that play sand volleyball. I can also testify that identifying a teenage girl's exact age by physical standards is not easy. And quite disturbing. Then again if you are making a purchase from a web site with the phrase Sugar Daddy in the name that might be a subtle clue.

But you have to be at least 18 to make an account. Not excusing him, just pointing out that he had the expectation that any women he met from the site we're at least 18.

 

[Diablos]

So they're high tech randy weavering him

 

[CZfool68]

But you have to be at least 18 to make an account. Not excusing him, just pointing out that he had the expectation that any women he met from the site we're at least 18.

Yeah, because everybody in the sex industry is totally honest.

If you are dumb enough to buy sex online then I don't have a lot of sympathy. If he's being set up it is because he made it easy on them.

 

[Radar]

I wonder if she remembers her birthday? Maybe she was like Dr Ford and can’t rmember her she or when it happened

 

[noway2]

And this is how countries fail and societies fall. At some point the Gov is going to show up arrest someone amd a town's PD and people may just say no. Or a county.

At the start of The Gulag Archipelago the author says that in hind sight he wished people had. If I were him, I'd tell the US govt. to get stuffed and never return.

Here’s the thing, the government making allegations doesn’t make him guilty, but some of you are like if the government makes allegations he is innocent.

The government has earned itself a sizeable credibility gap. If you assume it's lying, you're going to be right more often than not. This one has too much stink about it and the alleged evidence would be easy to fake.

 

[GymB]

Ockham’s razor.

For these allegations and evidence to be contrived by the government requires assumptions that the (federal) government cares and that they manufacture credible online evidence, hotel video evidence, hotel registration evidence, and testimony from the minor or that they convince the local Austin police department to proceed as if such evidence exists and is credible.

Much more likely that he actually did it.

Perhaps the government entrapped him, that’s more likely I think than that he is innocent.

Again, that he is accused by the government is no evidence that he is innocent, this is ludicrous on its face.

 

[JimP42]

Ockham’s razor.

For these allegations and evidence to be contrived by the government requires assumptions that the (federal) government cares and that they manufacture credible online evidence, hotel video evidence, hotel registration evidence, and testimony from the minor or that they convince the local Austin police department to proceed as if such evidence exists and is credible.

Much more likely that he actually did it.

Perhaps the government entrapped him, that’s more likely I think than that he is innocent.

Again, that he is accused by the government is no evidence that he is innocent, this is ludicrous on its face.

Only you are claiming that. Nobody said that the gov allegations meant he was innocent. You are making the ludicrous claims.

What we said, over and over, is that the gov is not trustworthy. Therefore, in a court of law “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” is impossible. By any reasonable standard he cannot be found guilty because the evidence is not trustworthy. Even if there is a 1% chance it is fake (and I would say it’s a lot more than 1%) then conviction should be impossible. It is very simple. “Not guilty” verdict doesn’t mean he is innocent - it means the gov cannot prove he did it, which at this point is a given.

 

[JimP42]

Ockham’s razor.

For these allegations and evidence to be contrived by the government requires assumptions that the (federal) government cares and that they manufacture credible online evidence, hotel video evidence, hotel registration evidence, and testimony from the minor or that they convince the local Austin police department to proceed as if such evidence exists and is credible.

Much more likely that he actually did it.

Perhaps the government entrapped him, that’s more likely I think than that he is innocent.

Again, that he is accused by the government is no evidence that he is innocent, this is ludicrous on its face.

Occam’s razor says the simplest explanation is true. We have these possible explanations (feel free to point out others):
1) the incidence of child porn/sex crimes is astronomical among people that are antagonizing the feds
2) the general population is actually that bad but we just don’t know it
3) the feds are using a convenient, emotional, and simple to frame crime to bring down people that they can’t get legitimately. And we know that they have been corrupted for political purposes so they are certainly not of outstanding moral character.

Which of those three seems like the simplest explanation?

 

[jimmyjames8]

Some would say he is or was "the most dangerous man in America". With that sign on your back, you gotta keep looking over your shoulder.

 

[noway2]

“Not guilty” verdict doesn’t mean he is innocent - it means the gov cannot prove he did it, which at this point is a given.

I think this guy has joined the club where "getting him into court" is the surface excuse for the end goal of just getting hands on him and there would never be a real court hearing. Sorry, govco, no sale.

 

[GymB]

Only you are claiming that. Nobody said that the gov allegations meant he was innocent. You are making the ludicrous claims.

What we said, over and over, is that the gov is not trustworthy. Therefore, in a court of law “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” is impossible. By any reasonable standard he cannot be found guilty because the evidence is not trustworthy. Even if there is a 1% chance it is fake (and I would say it’s a lot more than 1%) then conviction should be impossible. It is very simple. “Not guilty” verdict doesn’t mean he is innocent - it means the gov cannot prove he did it, which at this point is a given.

I’m saying that the claim is ludicrous, I’m not making the claim.

Why do you distrust local law enforcement in Austin TX? Have I missed lots of stories about them fabricating evidence related to sex crimes?

 

[JimP42]

I’m saying that the claim is ludicrous, I’m not making the claim.

Why do you distrust local law enforcement in Austin TX? Have I missed lots of stories about them fabricating evidence related to sex crimes?

Nobody else made that claim. It is a straw man argument.

Let’s see the Austin PD records of how they started and proceeded with investigation and find out where the info came from and then investigate those sources and see where they lead. Maybe I am too cynical now, but I suspect that the gov is even more corrupt than I think it is.

The whole thing could be leading that PD, or some of them could be part of the set up. There couldn’t be anyone in very liberal Austin’s PD willing to step over the line to save us all from “anyone can make an untraceable undetectable gun at home!”.

 

[GymB]

Nobody else made that claim. It is a straw man argument.

Let’s see the Austin PD records of how they started and proceeded with investigation and find out where the info came from and then investigate those sources and see where they lead. Maybe I am too cynical now, but I suspect that the gov is even more corrupt than I think it is.

The whole thing could be leading that PD, or some of them could be part of the set up. There couldn’t be anyone in very liberal Austin’s PD willing to step over the line to save us all from “anyone can make an untraceable undetectable gun at home!”.

So if someone is, in your opinion, at odds with the federal government, then they can’t ever be convicted of any crime because the odds that the evidence for that crime could have been manufactured by the government makes it impossible for the prosecution to clear the reasonable doubt hurdle?

Doesn’t seem like a very workable system. Say mean stuff about the government and be immune to prosecution for life...cool.

 

[JimP42]

So if someone is, in your opinion, at odds with the federal government, then they can’t ever be convicted of any crime because the odds that the evidence for that crime could have been manufactured by the government makes it impossible for the prosecution to clear the reasonable doubt hurdle?

Doesn’t seem like a very workable system. Say mean stuff about the government and be immune to prosecution for life...cool.

Exactly. That’s it in a nutshell.

In a workable system the government would be of and for the people, not of and for its own power. Once the gov loses credibility and the trust of the people, it can no longer govern. That’s the gov’s fault, not mine or Cody Wilson’s.

Do you think the colonists believed all the charges their colonial governors brought against the people who were speaking out against the king and parliament’s treatment of loyal English citizens? Were they wrong to distrust them? Yes, that system became unworkable, but the LEAST of the problems was that occasionally some patriot probably got away with an actual crime because a jury didn’t believe the King’s men.

“Unworkable” doesn’t mean it is OK to convict people for things they may not have done. I would say that’s much less workable.

 

[GymB]

Exactly. That’s it in a nutshell.

In a workable system the government would be of and for the people, not of and for its own power. Once the gov loses credibility and the trust of the people, it can no longer govern. That’s the gov’s fault, not mine or Cody Wilson’s.

Do you think the colonists believed all the charges their colonial governors brought against the people who were speaking out against the king and parliament’s treatment of loyal English citizens? Were they wrong to distrust them? Yes, that system became unworkable, but the LEAST of the problems was that occasionally some patriot probably got away with an actual crime because a jury didn’t believe the King’s men.

“Unworkable” doesn’t mean it is OK to convict people for things they may not have done. I would say that’s much less workable.

Except that you assume that the person didn’t do the thing, or that the prosecution can’t prove that the person didn’t do the thing because you don’t believe there are any facts.

So try this, Cody come back and swings by your house on the way home. He ties you up, rapes your wife, daughter and adorable puppy dog. You see this happen. He is however immune from prosecution so continues home to deal with whatever junk the feds want to drum up.

You’re okay with that?

 

[J R Green]

I hate the Govt. therefore they can never prosecute me for any crime. Yaay

 

[JimP42]

Except that you assume that the person didn’t do the thing, or that the prosecution can’t prove that the person didn’t do the thing because you don’t believe there are any facts.

So try this, Cody come back and swings by your house on the way home. He ties you up, rapes your wife, daughter and adorable puppy dog. You see this happen. He is however immune from prosecution so continues home to deal with whatever junk the feds want to drum up.

You’re okay with that?

Could you sit down and listen?

I didn't say it was good. I didn't say it was fair. I didn't say it was right. I didn't say I liked it. I didn't say whether I thought he did it. I didn't even say that the accusations prove he is innocent as you claimed.

All I am saying is that we cannot rely on gov prosecutors to tell the truth any longer. They have clearly demonstrated over and over that they are willing and able to go beyond the law in order to meet their goals. Whether it is to exonerate or ignore the crimes of their cronies, or set up/frame their enemies, or just outright murder people (see BLM protest, Weaver, etc..). Shutting down Cody Wilson and DD was clearly a goal of a chunk of the gov. Since that is the case, it is impossible to convict him in a court with an honest jury, because we cannot trust the facts they are presenting. Period.

I will certainly say that I am emphatically NOT OK with sending the gov's political enemies to jail based on the claims of the gov. That's how it works in big chunk of the world. Are you OK with that? You want to live where it isn't a theoretical question but an action reality that the police come and haul off their bosses' critics in the middle of the night and they spend years in prison or worse?

You answer this - do you trust everything the gov tells you? If not, how do you know what to believe and what to doubt?

 

[noway2]

Surprise surprise, I missed the Austin part which of course is more librul than Chapel Freaking Hill. Just adds to my suspicions. @JimP42 is correct, we’re not quite at the point where they openly jail dissenters, so instead they lie, cheat, and steal. This guy did more than “hate” government, he embarrassed them and made them look impotent. He got people thinking and talking publicly about arms that aren’t able to be regulated. Sorry, but govco has a LONG hard road to get past reasonable doubt, assuming he ever comes back here. I wouldn’t. I’m sure someone elsewhere is willing to invest in his ideas.

 

[SPST]

So, when are you guys taking up arms and stopping this kind of crap? Oh, that's right ya'll are just going to bitch about it on the internet and then go right back to your daily routine. Why aren't you marching on the DOJ or something? Why aren't you shouting in the streets about it? I must be missing all of the protests about what is going on. Maybe the MSM is just ignoring all of your protests to keep us from seeing them?

 

[noway2]

Doesn't look like he plans on coming back, but Tiawan may not be his best choice: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...-rent-an-apartment-in-taiwan-per-local-media/

@SPST you know as well as I do that protest marches are worthless. I've already filed my protest by republishing the CAD files. Right now, I'm just enjoying watching him give the US "authorities" a big waving middle finger.

 

[J R Green]

How about people who live in glass houses should shut the EF up?

This guy decided to waive a big stinky turd under the noses of the government, that got their attention. Just saying that when you seek attention you have to accept that they are going to look at all of your life and if you are not completely above board you should expect the hammer to fall eventually.

Trying to make this guy out to be a martyr is going to work about as well as nominating Michael Brown for sainthood.

 

[GymB]

Could you sit down and listen?

I didn't say it was good. I didn't say it was fair. I didn't say it was right. I didn't say I liked it. I didn't say whether I thought he did it. I didn't even say that the accusations prove he is innocent as you claimed.

All I am saying is that we cannot rely on gov prosecutors to tell the truth any longer. They have clearly demonstrated over and over that they are willing and able to go beyond the law in order to meet their goals. Whether it is to exonerate or ignore the crimes of their cronies, or set up/frame their enemies, or just outright murder people (see BLM protest, Weaver, etc..). Shutting down Cody Wilson and DD was clearly a goal of a chunk of the gov. Since that is the case, it is impossible to convict him in a court with an honest jury, because we cannot trust the facts they are presenting. Period.

I will certainly say that I am emphatically NOT OK with sending the gov's political enemies to jail based on the claims of the gov. That's how it works in big chunk of the world. Are you OK with that? You want to live where it isn't a theoretical question but an action reality that the police come and haul off their bosses' critics in the middle of the night and they spend years in prison or worse?

You answer this - do you trust everything the gov tells you? If not, how do you know what to believe and what to doubt?

Sorry for the delay, had to get to a computer to respond, too much for the ipad which can't seem to handle quoting.

First you said:

Any charges against anyone that the establishment is already after are suspect, and they are quite capable of manufacturing evidence and witnesses if they want to.

the first part of which is absolutely true and a basis of our justice system, the second part is factually correct but a little tinfoilish in tone, that is I agree that they have good technical capability but that doesn't mean that they could manufacture all of the evidence presented in this case or that they did. I think it important to note that we have no evidence that any of the facts have been manufactured in this case, just concerns that they could be.

Then you said:

if I were on a jury the standard for “beyond a reasonable doubt” in a case like this would be impossibly high. IMO there there is definitely a chance he was set up or it was just fabricated, so there is doubt. Period.

which was followed by:

Sure. And Kavanaugh's a teen rapist. And Julian Assange as well.
Let's just say all enemies of the deep state are pervs, and the Clintons don't visit Islands, and the Bushes don't dance in the wilderness at Bilderberg.

Sorry, but the kiddie porn thing has become just too common to be credible.

He wears skinny jeans, gotta be guilty.

And this is how countries fail and societies fall. At some point the Gov is going to show up arrest someone amd a town's PD and people may just say no. Or a county.

some of this is obviously not intended to be taken literally, but then I respond

but some of you are like if the government makes allegations he is innocent.

which is the tone of what was being said IMO. To be more precise, what you meant was that he could not be convicted because you distrust authority. You also equate "doubt" with "reasonable doubt" which is clearly a problem as a threshold of any doubt would make it almost impossible to convict anyone of anything.

So that's where that came from, and you aren't just saying that we should distrust government allegations as you describe:

All I am saying is that we cannot rely on gov prosecutors to tell the truth any longer.

you said is that were you on the jury you would disregard all facts because you think they are all tainted by a government that you distrust.

I don't happen to think that the government really cares about Cody Wilson, he's mostly just kinda a big deal in his own mind, but let's assume that he's infuriated the deep state and they are intent on getting him as you presume. They have a few options, let's first look at the one which is playing out and I think is was well described by @pinkbunny :

So, let me see here, the government:
1.) Found a 16 year old girl that would make a claim of having sex with him. One that can keep a story straight against trained investigators.
2.) created an account for her, and for him, as well, as correspondence with them
3.) registered him in a hotel room
4.) faked multiple video's of him and the girl together
5.) found a psychiatrist to falsify records of working with the girl long term
6.) had this psychiatrist file a report with the police
7.) Tricked the guy into fleeing to the only first world country with a non-extradition treaty
8.) Didn't have any leaks, were completely airtight in their conspiracy.

The gov had other options, he could have been killed in a random shooting or industrial accident, or maybe they could have arrested him for distributing the plans in spite of the court order (trumped up charges perhaps) and stick him in a hole. Austin is indeed very liberal, maybe they could have pulled his business license, audited his property and sales taxes. Gov could certainly have hacked his website and altered the plans in some small way and then watched the revised plans be widely distributed eventually discrediting him.

Ockhams razor comes in because what's playing out would be a wildly complicated conspiracy that will be very difficult to maintain while there are many far simpler solutions once you've set the rules of the game as the deep state isn't going to follow any laws to meet their goals. The obvious conclusion is that while they may have taken an extra look into his affairs, it is really most likely that he diddled the girl and then ran away.

Finally you ask:

do you trust everything the gov tells you? If not, how do you know what to believe and what to doubt?

No, I do not trust everything the government tells me or says, I make no presumption about it being either accurate or inaccurate. I decide what to believe by looking at the facts. This is complicated by the bias and emotion that surrounds every important issue, but I think it important to evaluate things as calmly as possible even when I feel strongly about an issue.

How would you answer the same question, because based on what you've said you'd start by distrusting everything, then disregarding all facts, and so you obviously end up in the same place you started. You seem happy with this approach, and it is quite prevalent on the internet, it just isn't very productive.

I hope that clarifies things.
Jim

 

[J R Green]

Sorry for the delay, had to get to a computer to respond, too much for the ipad which can't seem to handle quoting.

First you said:

the first part of which is absolutely true and a basis of our justice system, the second part is factually correct but a little tinfoilish in tone, that is I agree that they have good technical capability but that doesn't mean that they could manufacture all of the evidence presented in this case or that they did. I think it important to note that we have no evidence that any of the facts have been manufactured in this case, just concerns that they could be.

Then you said:

which was followed by:




some of this is obviously not intended to be taken literally, but then I respond

which is the tone of what was being said IMO. To be more precise, what you meant was that he could not be convicted because you distrust authority. You also equate "doubt" with "reasonable doubt" which is clearly a problem as a threshold of any doubt would make it almost impossible to convict anyone of anything.

So that's where that came from, and you aren't just saying that we should distrust government allegations as you describe:

you said is that were you on the jury you would disregard all facts because you think they are all tainted by a government that you distrust.

I don't happen to think that the government really cares about Cody Wilson, he's mostly just kinda a big deal in his own mind, but let's assume that he's infuriated the deep state and they are intent on getting him as you presume. They have a few options, let's first look at the one which is playing out and I think is was well described by @pinkbunny :


The gov had other options, he could have been killed in a random shooting or industrial accident, or maybe they could have arrested him for distributing the plans in spite of the court order (trumped up charges perhaps) and stick him in a hole. Austin is indeed very liberal, maybe they could have pulled his business license, audited his property and sales taxes. Gov could certainly have hacked his website and altered the plans in some small way and then watched the revised plans be widely distributed eventually discrediting him.

Ockhams razor comes in because what's playing out would be a wildly complicated conspiracy that will be very difficult to maintain while there are many far simpler solutions once you've set the rules of the game as the deep state isn't going to follow any laws to meet their goals. The obvious conclusion is that while they may have taken an extra look into his affairs, it is really most likely that he diddled the girl and then ran away.

Finally you ask:

No, I do not trust everything the government tells me or says, I make no presumption about it being either accurate or inaccurate. I decide what to believe by looking at the facts. This is complicated by the bias and emotion that surrounds every important issue, but I think it important to evaluate things as calmly as possible even when I feel strongly about an issue.

How would you answer the same question, because based on what you've said you'd start by distrusting everything, then disregarding all facts, and so you obviously end up in the same place you started. You seem happy with this approach, and it is quite prevalent on the internet, it just isn't very productive.

I hope that clarifies things.
Jim

I applaud the reason and effort you put in on this .