SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Jonathan Grant Thompson, the man behind the popular science-focused YouTube channel King of Random has been charged with two counts of second-degree felony possession of an explosive device.
Thompson, 37, runs the King of Random YouTube channel, boasting about 200 videos and 8.9 million subscribers. His videos are of science experiments and are in the vein of science-based shows on networks such as the Discovery Channel.
Thompson has been making videos and putting them on YouTube since 2010. His videos have garnered more than 1.6 billion combined views.
According to the article the first complaint "resulted from a citizen complaint via Facebook Messenger on June 15 about Thompson exploding a dry ice bomb", and for the second:
Thompson said a friend had left him a bag of powder, which he believed to be from a deconstructed firework.
After lighting a couple of small "control fires" Thompson and Timothy Burgess, 20, of Ontario, Canada, ignited a larger pile which exploded, the police report states. According to the report, firefighters heard the explosion from the nearby fire station.
Google Maps shows there is a South Jordan fire station 0.2 miles from Thompson's home.
The explosion left Burgess with small particles of burned material embedded in his arms, charges say.
Burgess was charged with one count of second-degree felony possession of an explosive device. Court records show prosecutors have asked a judge to issue a $15,000 warrant for his arrest
Originally spotted via AvE's channel.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by frojack on Thursday January 18 2018, @10:31PM (14 children)
You assume he has A permit for dry ice?
Guy finds random bag of powder "left by a friend".
He has no real idea of what it actually was.
Lights same.
They might be actually doing the guy a favor by putting him in jail for a month or two.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by arcz on Thursday January 18 2018, @10:40PM (9 children)
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Magic Oddball on Friday January 19 2018, @02:14AM (8 children)
Thought about it? Sure, plenty of people have — even I have, very briefly.
The problem is that if you really do think about it, you realize it would be a matter of a small percentage of the citizen population, using citizen-owned firearms, against the combined forces of the police, FBI, National Guard, and if necessary the military. (Even if it was most of the population, the difference in firepower & training would make it on par with little kids trying to get rid of the Mafia.) There's also the question of how the rebellion would be carried out, who they'd actually be attacking, etc. let alone the many issues regarding what happens after the battle.
As the old saying goes: "There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo." It's generally a good idea to use them roughly in that order if you're hoping for some measure of success rather than just a bloody massacre…
(Score: 2) by Unixnut on Friday January 19 2018, @07:26AM (2 children)
> The problem is that if you really do think about it, you realize it would be a matter of a small percentage of the citizen population, using citizen-owned firearms, against the combined forces of the police, FBI, National Guard, and if necessary the military. (Even if it was most of the population, the difference in firepower & training would make it on par with little kids trying to get rid of the Mafia.)
In reality, those police and military forces would not stay united. After all, they are human, and some of them may be sympathetic to the cause, others may have family/friends to take care of, and a third may simply point out they did not sign up to oppress their fellow citizens, and resign.
As a result, the full forces will not be available. More to the point, some of them would defect to the "other side", and usually take their weapons with them. Normally the first to splinter is the local cops, as they are usually locals themselves. Second would be local military forces, for similar reasons.
The last to splinter are the military itself, but they are more likely to stay out of it entirely (as it is not in their remit to opress the locals, rather their remit is defense of the nation).
Those that defect to the other side will bring weapons, but more importantly, their skills and training, with which they can start training willing recruits. Before you know it you have an army, and what started off as an easy oppression has become more evenly matched civil war,
Not I don't know what it is like in the USA, but I doubt USA citizens are that different to the rest of the world, so I suspect it would play out similar to above. Especially as the US has a history of war, and has already had their own civil war in the past,
The one thing that would be needed, is a separatist government formed quickly, capable of organising land and resources under control, handling finances/taxation, keeping the peace (policing still needs to be done to prevent crime derailing your goals), directing military champagnes and dealing with diplomatic side of things (specifically negotiating with the "other side" in the war).
Without that, you end up with a rabble, and any rebellion would peter out quickly. Likewise, rebellions rarely start without some charismatic leader(s) getting together to get the ball rolling,
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Friday January 19 2018, @03:39PM (1 child)
Military champagnes doesn't mean what you think it means. Military campaigns is what you were thinking of. It is a Friday though.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 19 2018, @03:51PM
Or it was a Freudian slip from a high ranking officer?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by DannyB on Friday January 19 2018, @02:29PM (4 children)
I have lost faith in the second one. It has utterly failed [imgur.com]. The problem isn't with "the government" or "the person in office", in any particular office, even. It is the fact that there are enough voters to put unqualified clowns into office and be proud of doing so. People who will brazenly lie about their their agenda. Who, even during a campaign, where you would expect consistency, flip flop according to whichever way the breeze is blowing.
Just a slight rant for a moment . . .
I would strongly point the finger at people who are or claim to be Christians who would vote in someone who is so openly like the very things they (we, I) claim to abhor. No humility. Bragging at sexual harassment and assault. Openly advocates violence. The bible repeatedly addresses bribery. Helping the widows and orphans. Having uneven scales. I'm just sayin' it is amazing how people can claim to be Christian and yet vote for this guy. And I could go on further along this line, but . . .
(end rant)
The problem isn't "the government" in some abstract sense. It is all of us, or some of us, who put people into power that don't have the common good, the public interest in mind. They protect the extremely wealthy 1%. The corporations which are simply concentrations of wealth and power unimagined by our founders. They fool the ignorant into voting for or supporting policies that will actually hurt their very own interests.
The real question is who would be going to war against who? I know talk of starting some kind of rebellion is fun because everyone is frustrated. But a civil war would be the actual result. And it would be bloody. Unlike the "civil war" which had a geographical dividing line, and a fairly clear identifiable issue (despite some people's denial of that), this civil war would be neighbor against neighbor who have opposing political candidate signs in their front yards.
Just sayin'
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 1) by MindEscapes on Friday January 19 2018, @03:31PM (3 children)
It is quite easy to see actually, who was he running against?
The media have made it near impossible for a 3rd party candidate to get any coverage or traction. (media being controlled by the wealthy after all who have bought off both primary parties)
Pretty much every one of those caveats your pointed out also applied to Hillary.
The swagger, near definite pride that the election was already a given. Also having the DNC rigged in her favor to prevent Sander's from getting the primary, so much for fairness. All about protecting the top 1% wealth, etc.
With the added position of supporting abortion which to many Christians is akin to murdering children.
So yeah, no surprise they decided to vote what appeared to them to be the lesser of evils. When there are no good candidates promoted (ie, not just running but actually able to get coverage so most average people even KNOW they are running), you will not get a good outcome.
Need a break? mindescapes.net may be for you!
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday January 19 2018, @04:10PM (2 children)
What I hear you saying is, and agree with is: people didn't so much vote for Trump as they voted for "NOT Hillary".
But I see it as voting for "NOT Trump".
If we get into a situation where people are voting for (NOT X) versus (NOT Y), we are in real trouble. And here we are.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 19 2018, @11:17PM (1 child)
I didn't want Trump because I felt that he would make no attempt to deliver on his promises.
On the bright side, he was making the most patriotic promises, and Hillary was making abhorrent ones. That made it easy to vote for Trump.
I'm shocked by what Trump has been doing. He actually delivers! WTF, this didn't seem likely at all. Now I am a huge fan of him.
The saddest thing is that we can't keep him forever. We only have 7 years left.
(Score: 2) by turgid on Saturday January 20 2018, @08:31PM
Very wise of you to post as AC. And that's about as far as your wisdom goes it seems.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 3, Insightful) by arcz on Thursday January 18 2018, @10:46PM (3 children)
(Score: 5, Informative) by frojack on Thursday January 18 2018, @11:13PM (2 children)
To be specific:
You don't need a permit to have gun powder. Either modern smokeless gun powder or black powder
You need a permit to manufacture or import it in quantity.
Black Powder is something of a legal oddity:
https://www.atf.gov/explosives/qa/black-powder-subject-regulation-under-federal-explosives-laws [atf.gov]
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1, Disagree) by Paradise Pete on Friday January 19 2018, @02:56AM (1 child)
You're citing US law. This happened in Canada.
(Score: 1) by Paradise Pete on Friday January 19 2018, @02:58AM
Oh. No it didn't. I'll try to work on my reading comprehension.