A few thoughts on the recent trial.

[David]

I initially went in with the desire to make a statement, but no real intention to defend myself.  I figured I would be found guilty anyway, especially since I am not a legal beagle.  I don't play the court games well, so I don't even like to try. 
Upon seeing Nick Ryders trial, I decided it wouldn't hurt to ask a few questions, relevant to the case, which I did.  I now regret that. 

My long term goal was to undermine the courts, rather than reinforce its role as secondary enforcer of usually unjust laws.  I really liked how Lauren Canario defended herself in federal court a while back.  Her first question was, "where is the victim?".  I like that approach, because it is the heart of libertarianism.  Good propaganda revolves around repeatedly pushing a simple easy concept, and asking where is the victim is perfect.  The court had me on the defensive, trying to establish 'reasonable doubt' in the mind of a judge, whereas what I should have done is try to put it on the defensive.  Surely they would have declared it irrelevant, but in doing so, they lose a little bit of their own legitimacy every time.  Because in the minds of most people, who the victim is, is not irrelevant, it is in fact the justification for the entire 'justice' system. 

The other mistake I made, was how I made my 'principled stand'.  I made a statement rather than a series of questions.  In my closing, I could have asked questions, that of course would remain unanswered, but I think that they would have been more productive than the defiant statement I managed to say. 

A well meaning friend said before and after the trial that I was not very well prepared.  I now agree, but not for the same reasons.  The individual wished that I would look at the evidence, and mount a vigorous defense to try to clear my name, despite the acknowledgment that I would likely lose.  The problem was, that I believed my 'disorderly' actions were justified by morality, and that I believed I would likely be declared guilty anyway, because the courts have long stopped being places where the injured can find justice, but rather they are now places where all law is enforced no matter who they harm in the process. 

Who is the victim? How was any harm done? What compensation, if any, is warranted? 

[antijingoist]

I understood you were not trying play the legal game... that judge does not make anything easy though. The point you did hammer home was, "I was trying to help a friend, and you did this to me."

It is good that you reevaluate your actions and learn from them. most people don't do this.

[Coconut]

Burke has made it clear he's done with letting people go for refusing the fine. He used to, but that's over.

Non-cooperators must go the extra step, and refuse to voluntarily check in at jail. Turning yourself in is just making their job easy. They'll process 25 activists into jail, even if there's no room, they'll use their tetris skills. They don't give an F.

25 people that won't check in though, that's different. That becomes activist round-up day.

Those that thought just refusing fines was going to win this (I'm not saying David ever thought that, but many seem to think this won't require risks) were sorely misguided. The State will continuously step up their resistance, will we?

[Dalebert]

That's definitely something to consider, Coconut. It raises the cost of enforcement, something David said was his aim once.

[Mike Barskey]

Refusing to turn yourself in to jail when govt. demands it is scarier and more "expensive." The govt. will issue a warrant for you arrest, and cops will come find you or you will be arrested when they detain you for something unrelated, like speeding or jaywalking. Also, their penalty for the "crime" of not turning yourself into jail when they demand is likely more serious than that of the govt's original charge against you.

I'm not trying to dissuade anyone from not turning themselves into jail. I just want people to be aware of the facts.

[Coconut]

Yep. And paying the fine is far less scary than refusing and checking into jail.

It's a matter of taking another scary step. As there will be many of them along this road.

[antijingoist]

well, when the war for independance started, it was because several people were hiding, avoiding arrest, and noone gave them up.

[geoff]

I should start by saying I am not there, so my thoughts may be irrelevant, but I will be there eventually.  Anyways, the way I think about not turning yourself in is the same way that I normally think about things like not complying with mandatory vaccinations or turning in of firearms: I will not, and if that is my line in the sand and that is their line in the sand, then....but I have recently been doubting this stance and trying to think of the what if scenario if I didn't draw the line there and didn't....stand in defiance...shoot my way to freedom (which I don't believe makes any sense now).. but the point is that this is the same topic in my mind for different issues that I don't know what I would do now.  A few days ago, the point was made on FTL that the holocaust may not have occured not if the Jews had responded with force, but if they hadn't responded to voluntary registration/relocation/etc...

None of you may care but I think it's odd that this issue has come up in my mind, and now obviously in others' minds.

So if people didn't turn themselves in, would that represent the line in the sand, or would that be pushing the line further towards the violent state?