Anonymous' Barrett Brown Raided By FBI During Online Chat 208
A reader sends this excerpt from Wired:
"For the second time this year, self-proclaimed Anonymous spokesman Barrett Brown was raided by the FBI. The latest dramatic incident occurred late Wednesday evening while Brown and another woman identified by some as his girlfriend were participating in an online chat on TinyChat with other individuals. Two minutes into the recorded chat session, loud voices could be heard in the background of Brown's residence in Texas while the woman in the room with him was in front of the computer screen. She quickly closed the computer screen, but the audio continued to capture events in the room as the FBI appeared to strong-arm Brown to put handcuffs on him. Brown could be heard yelling in the background. A spokeswoman in the Dallas County sheriff's office confirmed to Wired that Brown was raided last night and was booked into the county jail around 11 p.m."
(Warning: the video embedded with the article contains mature language.)
Just self defense (Score:4, Insightful)
In my opinion every individual has a right to defend himself when an intruders (or intruders) suddenly busts down the door and puts you in fear for your life. I would have no problems if a resident shot & killed the intruders.
AMERICA HELL YEAH (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
True, but if they're wearing police uniforms you'll almost certainly get your butt kicked if you resist arrest. And they'll shoot back.
Re:Just self defense (Score:5, Informative)
Depends on the nature of the "arrest"- without a Warrant, they're not operating within their authority. Seriously.
Doesn't matter.
You'll still be ventilated if they even think you look like you're going to resist, whether or not the raid is legal or not. They're trained to treat every raid as if they were going up against hardened, experienced, and well-armed enemies.
And that's what you are at that moment. An enemy to be neutralized and rendered helpless and harmless as swiftly as possible with the least risk to themselves. not the least risk to the people they're charged to protect, themselves.
Whether or not you are guilty of anything isn't their job or worry. They are a paramilitary assault & entry team. They assault and enter like they face at least an equally-armed & trained force at a minimum. Until you are face-down, restrained/cuffed, and have been searched you are potentially a heavily-armed threat.
Just look at how Amish dairy farmers were raided, and Gibson Guitars were raided. Guns drawn, like the Amish or a luthier normally pack an H&K MP5.
Strat
Wrong people for the job (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
[...] They're trained to treat every raid as if they were going up against hardened, experienced, and well-armed enemies.[...]
Just look at how Amish dairy farmers were raided, and Gibson Guitars were raided. Guns drawn, like the Amish or a luthier normally pack an H&K MP5.
For the Europeans amongst us: That's what you get in return for the freedom to bear arms.
For the US citizens amongst us: See your hard earned tax dollars at work.
Re: (Score:2)
Sometimes you can be shot even if you attempt to flee. I know of at least one case where police mistakenly knocked down the wrong door when they got the address on the warrant wrong. They shot and killed a young mother when instead of flopping on the floor like any felon would know to do she jumped up to run like anyone who was innocent and couldn't conceive of police breaking their door down would do. Too bad, it was an honest mistake by some half trained cops. I think the lawsuit was expensive for the
Re:Just self defense (Score:4, Insightful)
Depends on the nature of the "arrest"- without a Warrant, they're not operating within their authority. Seriously.
If you live within 100 miles of a U.S. Border, no warrant is needed. That's 66% of all Americans. http://www.aclu.org/national-security_technology-and-liberty/are-you-living-constitution-free-zone [aclu.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You can in Indiana! Really.
Re: (Score:2)
You can in Indiana! Really.
Missouri too, provided they do not identify themselves as LEO's prior to kicking in the door.
Even then... anybody can buy blue shirts and badges from a variety of online retailers, and there have, locally, been several incidents in recent years of people impersonating cops so they can rob/rape/whatever.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For bonus points put some long spikes at the bottom.
Re: (Score:2)
If I were constantly being harassed and raided by the police, I'd simply cut a 6'x6' hole in my floor just inside the front door and staple a rug across it. Start using the garage door and keep it closed from the inside. Next time they entered without knocking they'd end up in my basement.
1) How do you plan to get in if it's closed from the inside?
2) In Canada, setting "traps", even in your own home, is a crime in and of itself. This is to protect fire/ambulance as well as police officers that may need to enter, sometimes to save YOUR sorry ass. Does the US not have an equivalent to this law?
He may be the next Sabu informant (Score:2)
If it's true that he was raided by the FBI they don't just do that. They are likely going to make him an offer he cannot refuse.
Brown isn't going to remain active in Anonymous for much longer if he ever was to begin with.
Re: (Score:2)
Brown's outspoken activities hardly speak of anonymity, which largely precludes him acting on behalf 'Anonymous', one of the major principles of 'Anonymous' is the acts being protested are the sole focus of the protest and are not about promoting the protester. So to publicly claim to be a spokesperson for 'Anonymous' is more about self promotion and has very little to do with 'Anonymous'.
Although it is beginning to sound like another FBI overreach, threatening to destroy someone is acceptable as long no
Re: (Score:2)
Even in a no-knock raid, if you fire on the police, and especially if you kill one of them, you are going to be in for a world of hurt from the brotherhood of blue.
Re:Just self defense (Score:4, Insightful)
And this is right how? That is exactly the abuse of power governments are supposed to protect us from.
Re: (Score:2)
You know they have to take your freedom away to keep you safe. Really it's for your own good. They care about you.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Just self defense (Score:5, Insightful)
What you described is a police state in miniature. That we're engaged in scaling it up now doesn't seem to be open to much debate, only how far along we are. Such a lovely time to be an American.
Re: (Score:3)
To whoever modded this down, I just want to say one thing:
http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_kq22e2Sro01qzma4ho1_500.jpg [tumblr.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Its almost impossible to make the claim that the Swat team dressed in bulletproof vests labeled POLICE in 6 inch high letters, hollering POLICE, SEARCH WARRANT was mistaken for a bunch of criminals.
Good luck with that.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If they don't show credentials, it doesn't mean much. Any thug can yell police.
Re:Just self defense (Score:5, Insightful)
Have we stopped being civil? Was this guy a risk of flight? Did he have a history of violence? A friend committed mail fraud, they called him told him there was a warrant out for his arrest. He was asked to turn himself in, he got council they had time to review it. Assuming that everybody is a violet offender that will run is a core issue of our police system these days.
he threatened an FBI agent (Score:3)
http://thescoopblog.dallasnews.com/2012/09/anonymous-spokesperson-barrett-brown-raided-arrested-in-dallas.html/ [dallasnews.com]
So that's why he's being cuffed and treated as threatening.
Maybe you should ask Barret Brown if we've stopped being civil?
Re: (Score:2)
The typo in "violets" for the op made me think of this classic Gilda Radner SNL skit:
Emily Littela: And in other news, there's too much violins on TV. There's too much violins on television. They should put the violins on at eleven after the kids are asleep.
Chevy Chase: Um, Emily, that's violence, not violins.
Emily Littela: Never mind.
Re: (Score:3)
“Any armed official of the U.S. government, particularly the FBI, will be regarded as potential Zeta assassin squads,” he said in the video. “As FBI knows they know that I’m armed and I come from a military family and I was taught to shoot by a Vietnam veteran and I will shoot all of them and kill them if they come and do anything. I have reason to fear for my life.” “Frankly, it was pretty obvious I was going to be dead before I was 40 or so, so I wouldn’t mind going out with two FBI sidearms like a fucking Egyptian pharaoh. Adios.”
It's not clear what the warrant was for, but I sure understand why they arrested him the way they did.
Re: (Score:2)
There are two reasons for a no-knock arrest. Either they think the suspect will resist or they thing evidence might be destroyed; in either case surprise and overwhelming force are used whether you approve of it or not.
It's done mostly to intimidate.
You can't fucking tell me a half a pound of weed destroyed down a toilet is worth the violence. (Plus, you'd have to make a bunch of assumptions someone is ready to destroy evidence at a second's notice all the time.)
Re: (Score:2)
Murder in a uniform is heroic, in a costume it is a crime.
Re: (Score:2)
"If it were a no-knock raid perhaps, but if they announce that they are police, then such action would be inexcusable murder."
BUT -- and these are the relevant criteria here -- "no knock" raids are ONLY supposed to be attempted when (A) there is probable cause, (B) there is a judicial warrant based on that probable cause, and (more to the point) (C) the person involved is suspected to be CURRENTLY armed and a danger to the public. OR, (D), there is a significant chance that evidence will be destroyed before it can be recovered. One of the justifications for allowing "no knock" raids in the first place were when it was suspected th
Re: (Score:2)
If it were a no-knock raid perhaps, but if they announce that they are police, then such action would be inexcusable murder.
I agree. I'm all for justice and for protecting our rights, but police who have legitimate warrants to arrest people shouldn't have to worry that they'll get shot when they announce they're coming in.
Totally.
Of course, if they have a legitimate warrant, there is zero excuse for executing a "no-knock" search unless the individual being served is a known violent/flight risk. Being an attention-hungry diva doesn't quite qualify, IMO.
Re: (Score:2)
Really?
Maybe they should call ahead and give him a couple weeks to wipe his hard drive?
Say, Barret, we were going to be in the neighborhood next week, how bout we drop by and pick up your computers, Ok? We got a warrant and everything. 10:am sound fine? Good , see you then old boy. On, and you won't erase anything between now and then will you? Goodl. Thought not. Shall we bring you a Latte when we come? Ok, then. See you next week.
You know, I bet that approach would work with drug dealers, bank robbers, and murderers too.
Have you thought about running for Sheriff or something? You'd be bound to get elected.
Re: (Score:2)
That doesn't work when evidence can be destroyed instantly.
Use your head son.
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
If the intruders come by the dozen full combat gear and bullet proof vests does it really matter if they aren't police?
You are still dead.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh course you do realize that if he did think that it wasn't real, and was armed with any rifle, body armor does very little good.
There is an advantage to trying to do things civilly first. Papers, knocking, waiting for him to leave home, etc is actually in any police forces's best interest.
An ar-15 with 5.56mm green tip (mil surp) ammunition will destroy body armor and kevler helmets.
An ar-10 or M1A or ak style with 7.62 will make someone with body armor "extra dead"
Both can easily and legally hold 30-100
Re: (Score:2)
He still dies.
The difference is that he has time to destroy his hard driv.
Re: (Score:3)
Busting in on someone playing in a chat room really has little chance of the guy having a rifle in his hand.
Not news (Score:4, Insightful)
"In other news, the spokesperson for an organization responsible for dozens of high profile electronic attacks, distributing classified data, and hundreds of other felonies was taken into custody today..."
Agree or disagree with Anonymous, it shouldn't be a surprise that he took the ride.
Re:Not news (Score:5, Insightful)
In other news, we're still waiting for Lloyd Blankfein, CEO of a company responsible for hundreds of felony counts of perjury and fraud, to take the same ride. The rule of law is dead in America.
Re: (Score:3)
But everyone here is right . . . the F.B.I. shouldn't have gone all S. S. on this guy. Now, if the agent who was threatened had come alone and blown Brown's brains out I would've found that perfectly acceptable. Of course, that agent would now be in custody facing charges of murder; but I'd like to think that a self-defense plea would work for him there.
Yes, I know - I'm not supposed to RTFA befor
Re: (Score:3)
"In other news, the spokesperson for an organization responsible for dozens of high profile electronic attacks, distributing classified data, and hundreds of other felonies was taken into custody today..."
Agree or disagree with Anonymous, it shouldn't be a surprise that he took the ride.
Yeah but at this point he cannot be considered as the spokesperson anymore. He just got raided, why would any active hacker or activist trust him now that he has been raided and arrested by the FBI? They can plant bugs in his house, they can force him to cooperate, so it's basically over for him. His days as an online spokesperson/activist are over and he will be lucky if he avoids prison.
Re:Not news (Score:5, Funny)
Generally, a spokesperson for a group of interest would be approached calmly, not raided (which makes it news).
The spokespeople of multinational crime syndicates tend not to be well-regarded by law enforcement. I know, it's confusing.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Generally, a spokesperson for a group of interest would be approached calmly, not raided (which makes it news).
The spokespeople of multinational crime syndicates tend not to be well-regarded by law enforcement. I know, it's confusing.
Was Barrett armed? Was he dangerous? Was there any reason to believe he was a threat to the officers' personal safety whatsoever? People get taken into custody all the time without being raided. This was an excuse by the police to let out some steam by bashing down the door and busting heads.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
How do you know that?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
-- I got my nickname tsa long before the TSA existed so please refrain from making remarks about the TSA.
OT, but
I suppose you would describe the TSA as a bunch of no-talent ass clowns?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You don't have to bust down doors and charge in with guns for that. Over-application of force, however, is pretty standard these days.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Hard drives can be destroyed in seconds. You do have to bust down the doors to get them in time... (though that should be saved for actual criminals, not internet trolls IMO)
Define an "actual criminal"? Would you say people who are peacefully growing plants inside their own house and causing no harm to others are "actual criminals"? Because no-knock warrants are becoming more and more commonplace in the War on (Some) Drugs. How easy do you think it would be to destroy an entire garden full of plants leaving no trace of evidence? How much of an effect do you think the police announcing their presence beforehand would have on that?
nd when you bust down doors you have to have guns because you don't know if the people inside have them and will react.
Mother fucking bullshit. Stop repeating police st
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
if law enforcement wants your HD without going through the use of a subpeona and the attendant risk that you'll wipe it first, this is really the only way for them to do that.
The police needs to learn that "want" doesn't mean "am entitled to".A violent approach should be the last resort, not first.
Unless the judge who approved this warrant request asked "Is there no other non-violent way you can obtain enough evidence", he was negligent.
Anyhow, doesn't the police have moar than enough evidence already? So what was the purpose of this exercise?
Police Private L. Icksack sums it up thus:
I came
Re:Not news (Score:4, Informative)
Generally, a spokesperson for a group of interest would be approached calmly, not raided (which makes it news).
The spokespeople of multinational crime syndicates tend not to be well-regarded by law enforcement. I know, it's confusing.
Was Barrett armed? Was he dangerous? Was there any reason to believe he was a threat to the officers' personal safety whatsoever? People get taken into custody all the time without being raided. This was an excuse by the police to let out some steam by bashing down the door and busting heads.
How the fuck is this insightful? FTFA, in Barrett Brown's own words:
"It’s toward the end of the video that Brown makes his threat: “Robert Smith’s life is over. So when I say life is over, I don’t say I’m going to kill him. But I’m going to ruin his life and look into his [expletive] kids because Aaron Barr did the same thing and he didn’t get raided for it. How do you like them apples?”
Barr is the former HBGary Federal CEO whose email was hacked by Anonymous in February.
He goes on: “Any armed officials of the U.S. government, particularly the FBI, will be regarded as potential Zeta assassin squads and they know that I’m armed and I will shoot all of them and kill them if they come and do anything because they are engaged in a criminal conspiracy and I have reason to fear for my life, not just from the zetas but from the U.S. government.”"
Hmm. Publicly threatening to shoot anyone that approaches him that's wearing a police uniform. Gee, I don't know why they arrested him with a SWAT team.
Re: (Score:2)
Would you consider it normal if a GoldmanSachs spokesperson were arrested?
Re: (Score:2)
Lloyd Blankfein, Jamie Dimon, Vikram Pandit, etc seem to be well-regarded by law enforcement.
Re:Not news (Score:4, Insightful)
The spokespeople of multinational crime syndicates tend not to be well-regarded by law enforcement. I know, it's confusing.
Ah, you are one of "those" people
As long as the person in question is likely/potentially an asshole, he deserves everything he gets, right? You don't even wonder if there had been a valid (i.e. legal) reason to arrest him.
Next step would be to arrest and harass any lawyer that will dare to represent that guy. I mean, the guy's got some bad connections, so anyone working for him is probably fair game too.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, you are one of "those" people
Yes, I'm one of those people that believe in doing everything by the book and within the law first, and only expanding outside those restrictions when all other avenues of recourse have failed. It's called being socially responsible, a concept you are apparently unfamiliar with.
Re: (Score:2)
Careful with the labels there... trolling is about to be illegal in Australia, and if you go using labels like that then we'd have to try and extradite his arse...
So uh (Score:2)
it is illegal to disrupt electronic comms (Score:2)
or to release sensitive data. and if he's spokespersoning for Anonymous, he's an accessory at the least. they could also go RICO (Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization) on Anonymous, it's a great little Swiss Army Lawbook for repeat offenders. so it's definitely FBI material, and Brown might well find himself without much of a legal defense.
Re: (Score:2)
How can one be a "spokesman" for an "organization" that doesn't actually ...you know... exist?
You mean like the Mafia or the Zetas? I think, based on past actions, anyone can assume they exist. What that means is up to interpretation. However, you don't need a corporate head office to be considered an organization. The prosecutor needs only to convince a jury of conspiracy, or obstruction, these days.
On topic, I really wonder why they can't just follow him to the Starbucks he goes to every morning and arrest him there (I would guess they've been collating his daily routine for weeks before this
Barrett Brown only claimed to be Anonymous (Score:5, Insightful)
Barrett Brown is not Anonymous. Most of the Anons I know worth their salt think of him as a fraud. This is the problem of a leaderless, hierarchyless political movement: anyone can claim affiliation. All Barrett did was claim to orchestrate some invisible campaign against Mexican drug gangs, of which no evidence was ever actually presented, and idiot reporters lined up to print his lies verbatim.
Barrett Brown claimed affiliation with Encyclopedia Dramatica, another Internet community, on Twitter recently. Current and former ED admins lined up to denounce him as never being known there.
Barrett Brown is a liar and a fraud. His days are up now that he's finally committed the crime of threatening an FBI agent. There's no way he's getting bail.
Re:Barrett Brown only claimed to be Anonymous (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
he threatened an fbi agent
it's really not that complicated
Re: (Score:2)
he threatened an fbi agent
it's really not that complicated
Here's the YT video in question: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=TOW7GOrXNZI [youtube.com]
Strat
Re: (Score:2)
Here's the YT video in question: ...
Yeah, and about thirteen minutes into it, I'm thinking he wants to get busted because it's a cheap and simple way to bust into heroin rehab.
Why is anyone wasting time on this again?
Re: (Score:3)
Many political "opposition research" teams as well as political organizations and groups attack enemies the
Re: (Score:2)
oh, i'm talking to a wack job, sorry, i didn't know
carry on then, don't mind me, i'm lucid
You use that word "lucid"...
I do not think that word means what you think it does.
I posted a factual reply. The government, both political parties, and political activists and groups/organizations across the spectrum use the tactics Barrett described against their opponents and enemies. You can't deny that's true. We hear the stories in the news almost daily.
All you can do is call names? What, are you 10 years old?
Strat
Re: (Score:2)
so you are saying that the are tactics people shouldn't use
but assassination is perfectly ok
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3118115&cid=41337445 [slashdot.org]
now i understand why you defend this guy. you're both vicious thugs
maybe the valid conditions for violent revolution against the government is way over here, and your mental triggers for imaging we've met
Re: (Score:2)
Not being a fucking sheep =/= wackj
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, and you *still* haven't answered or refuted this:
Can you or are you willing to answer honestly without attempting to distract from the question I asked, as you've been doing so far?
Strat
Re: (Score:2)
i'm a descendent of a revolutionary war soldier. don't lecture me about thomas jefferson
you know nothing about the principles of the founding fathers. no one familiar with their wisdom would reach for violence so quickly. you rise to arms carefully, wisely. i believe you call that sort of wisdom "timidity." you don't look forward to violence and revolution and fantasize about its application with relish, like you obviously do. your thinking and your "solutions" are WORSE than the abuses you see in our gover
Re: (Score:2)
i'm a descendent of a revolutionary war soldier. don't lecture me about thomas jefferson
Apparently someone needs to. That soldier must be spinning in his grave.
Strat
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, and if you're going to accuse me of jumping headlong to violence, maybe you should have also read my post that followed the one you quoted where I said:
Gosh, it looks almost like you were attempting to
Re: (Score:2)
Do you know what the fundamentalist retards in the middle east rioting and killing over a bad you tube video would call the idea they should calm down and shrug it off?
Timidity
Know thyself, violent douchebag
And no, you really don't stand for any of the principles of the founding fathers. You're not the solution to any problem. You are the problem
Re: (Score:2)
Nice strawman - no one threatened Palin's kids.
They did "dig into", to use Barrett's term, Palin's kids though. Including using a Downs Syndrome baby and her daughter's pregnancy to attack her. But that's different, right?
Seriously, Barrett Brown isn't only a douchebag, he's a fucking moron ..
And I'd likely agree. It doesn't make what he said OR what he said he'd do illegal though. I guess he should have played it safe and called for bombs to be tossed through the windows of "cracka-baby" nurseries, or put out a cash bounty dead-or-alive like the NBPP has done. We know that must be OK, otherwise they would have been arreste
He asked for it so they closed him, he's done. (Score:2)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/49031630 [msn.com]
are you saying he shouldn't be arrested for that?
From this point on Mr. Brown is irrelevant. He's part of the system now.
Re: (Score:2)
?!
i think this thread is attracting all the crackpots
Re: (Score:2)
he threatened to ruin his life, and look into his fucking kids
i guess he's going to do that the squeeky clean way?
Re: (Score:2)
he threatened an fbi agent
it's really not that complicated
If he did that then he's a friggin idiot and deserves what he got. Doesn't he know the law? Doesn't he know what happened to Jim Bell?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Well, it sends a strong message. It scares people."
And we all know the word for that.
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, I sincerely hope the FBI didn't r
Re: (Score:2)
So he's an attention whore. That's all fine and dandy, but the last time I checked the FBI had better things to do. You just said it yourself: There's no evidence at all that he had anything to do with anonymous, its activities, or any of its affiliated groups, everything about the guy can be laid at the feet of the media, who are more than happy to sensationalize lies. If the layman on the internet knows that, the FBI knows that. So why are they raiding his house? What's there to gain? Well, it sends a strong message. It scares people. Oh right, that's what the FBI is for these days.
Barrett Brown's lack of affiliation with anonymous isn't what makes this newsworthy, it's that despite knowing that, the FBI were more than happy to ruin him in order to send a message.
Do you think that matters? If the FBI is at war with Anonymous they can make use of Mr. Brown.
He is irrelevant now as he has been closed by FBI (Score:2)
Barrett Brown is not Anonymous. Most of the Anons I know worth their salt think of him as a fraud. This is the problem of a leaderless, hierarchyless political movement: anyone can claim affiliation. All Barrett did was claim to orchestrate some invisible campaign against Mexican drug gangs, of which no evidence was ever actually presented, and idiot reporters lined up to print his lies verbatim.
Barrett Brown claimed affiliation with Encyclopedia Dramatica, another Internet community, on Twitter recently. Current and former ED admins lined up to denounce him as never being known there.
Barrett Brown is a liar and a fraud. His days are up now that he's finally committed the crime of threatening an FBI agent. There's no way he's getting bail.
What I mean is he will never again be considered a part of any serious activist movement. Once they know he got raided by the FBI they know he's the new FBI bitch. Many people suspected that Sabu was the FBI bitch after he got raided but somehow people still trusted him and look what happened there?
If an activist gets raided by the FBI they need to find a new profession because their activism days are over. They can look forward to lifetime surveillance from that point on and pressure potentially for 10 or
What's with the audio? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"mature"??? (Score:2, Redundant)
I'd question calling offensive language "mature", when that's not really the case.
Not that I'm saying that adults don't often talk like that... I know many that do. But in my own experience, it really seems to me that such offensive language is far more frequently used by younger people than by older.
It reminds me of how some kids will sometimes start smoking because they think it's "grown-up", whereas almost everybody who smokes these days actually started before they even turned 18.
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously, when did Slashdot turn into FM radio?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The guys who leak stolen credit card data? (Score:3)
Curb stomp him and throw his dead body on his mom's lawn.
Comment removed (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Maturity is highly overrated.
Re: (Score:2)
Intellectual or cognitive maturity is highly underrated.
FTFY. When I was growing up, the mantra was, "Don't trust anyone over thirty." I was nowhere near thirty, yet still I thought that was one of the stupidest things I'd ever heard. Charles Manson was ca. 34 when Sharon Tate was murdered. Alexander the Great was ca. 33 when he died. Physical age has nothing to do with pretty near everything.
Maturity is highly overrated.
You must mean that in a way that I don't recognize. Marie Curie was ca. 67 when she died.
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't he threaten the FBI the other day to reveal all kinds of information unless he got his laptops back from the FBI taken in the first raids? There were two videos on his Youtube channel (can't check now).
Yeah real smart, threaten the FBI and think they wont do anything.