Darren Huff (pictured right) took the stand today, the third day of his trial on federal weapons charges before U.S. District Court Judge Tom Varlan, charges that could carry a 7-year prison sentence. Huff, who was found carrying a pistol and an an assault rifle in his truck after declaring that he was on his way to make arrests of judges and other officials in Tennessee, testified that he did not touch the guns in his possession on that day and that violence was not his intent. His Colt .45 and the AK-47 were locked in the truck’s tool box according to Huff’s testimony Thursday.
Huff says he and 14 others were just going to protest the trial of birther Walter Fitzpatrick III and had no intent to use violence. On the other hand, he was in possession of a citizens arrest warrant for court officials, accusing them of treason. Huff was arrested some days later after not having actually committed any violent act, taking over the court house, or arresting anyone. Huff denied reports that he said he intended to take over the court house.
I never said anything about taking anything over.
Was he deterred by heavy police presence? Is Darren Huff a scary militia madman who poses a serious threat to public safety, or is he, as his attorney claims, just a guy who talks big? I’m surprised they didn’t charge him with conspiracy to commit kidnapping.
The prosecution cross examines Huff tomorrow. Stay tuned for the verdict.
Read more:
- Knoxville News Sentinel article
- Knoxnews.com coverage
- AP coverage of Huff trial October 19
- AP coverage of Huff trial October 20
- AP coverage of Huff trial October 21
- Obama Conspiracy Theories articles on Darren Huff
- Obama Conspiracy Theories articles on Walter Fitzpatrick III
Update:
The case has gone to the jury, who will begin deliberations on Darren Huff’s fate Monday.
In summary remarks, defense attorney Green said:
Sure, he’s a loudmouth. Actions speak louder than words, though, and these actions are not consistent with someone hellbent on getting to Madisonville to take it over. We’re not here today if he doesn’t run his mouth. Just because he’s a loudmouth and his views are different than yours does not mean you convict him.
Prosecutor Theodore responded:
It is because of his actions. There are so many people who have extreme political beliefs. It is what he did on April 20 and what his intent was on April 20.
I really find the Fitzpatrick and Huff cases fascinating, because they examine the role that personality seems to play in predisposing someone to be drawn to extreme fixes for illusory problems. For example, histrionic and narcissistic disorders describe many of the odd qualities we see in the two men on trail.
I also think popular culture, especially movies, feed the imagination of men like Fitzpatrick and Huff and give them models of action, language, and inspiration.
I was hoping that we could make a list of popular films and books that feature characters who are essentially antisocial jerks, but given the ethical tilt of the book or film, they are meant to be perceived as heroic people doing what needs to be done.
Here’s start:
Film
McMurphy (Jack Nicholson) in “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest”
Travis Bickel (Robert Di Nero) “Taxi Driver”
William Money (Clint Eastwood) “Unforgiven”
Col. Nathan Jessep (Jack Nicholson) “A Few Good Men”
I recall once hearing an assistant district attorney say that she had never seen a defendant help his own case when he took the stand in his own defense. She felt that this is because most defendants who choose to take the stand (almost always against their lawyers’ advice) tend to be lying sociopaths who are transparent and fundamentally unlikable but who are too narcissistic to understand that other people see through their BS.
I’m thinking more along the lines of Die Hard.
In possession of a citizen’s arrest warrant? How da fug does one get one of those? I got a bunch of Bush-era criminals I’d like to serve on.
About films: Any Dirty Harry?
Yeah, me: A little antisocial I guess. Me to Cheney (in my dreams): “Do you feel lucky, punk?”
Paul Kersey (Charles Bronson) in “Death Wish”
Inspector “Dirty” Harry Callahan (Clint Eastwood) in “Dirty Harry”, “Magnum Force”, “The Enforcer”, “Sudden Impact”, “The Dead Pool”
Walt Kowalski (Clint Eastwood) in “Gran Torino”
Frank Castle (Dolph Lundgren or Thomas Jane) in “The Punisher”
But that’s not what THEY’re thinking. They’re thinking righteous citizen, righteous cause. Think any Mel Gibsen movie… Braveheart… The Patriot… hell, even Passion of the Christ
Just a minor nit pick Doc…….
Huffie did NOT bring an “assault” rifle with him, he brought a semi-automatic rifle.
An assualt rile is a select fire weapon that has fully automatic fire capabiities as an example the current M4/M16 in use by the US Army is an assault rifle a civilian semi automatic AR-15 is NOT.
The fact that the prosecution is both fear mongering and being intellectually dishonest by calling it an “assaut rifle” does not make the BS on their part any more true.
This does not in any way lessen or mitigate his offense.
Bovril:
You’re using the military definition of “assault rifle.” The laws controlling “assault rifles” among the general public uses a different definition, under which Doc would be correct. Any weapon with full-auto capacity was already verboten.
The civilian definition of “assault weapon” has been viewed as ludicrous and arbitrary, but that’s another discussion.
The AK-47 is an assault rifle, though. I’m assuming that the AK-47 mentioned in the article is not one of the semi-auto guns that looks like an AK-47, which are really common. Hopefully the prosecution doesn’t blow the case by introducing error by making claims about the weapons which aren’t true. They should (and I’m sure they will) focus on his intent, and let the specific types of guns be irrelevant. It’s a problem that his intent is the central question of the case and that most of the evidence of his intent comes from his own admissions.
The state has a long row to hoe with regard to the specific charges, because they all depend on his intent, which comes entirely from his statements. According to the criminal complaint affadavit, the only evidence of any rifle is from the defendant’s call to a radio show. That might be admissible but it’s hardly compelling.
The state has to prove that he was travelling with intent to incite a riot, which will be easy to do if he ends up admitting it to the court, but otherwise not so easy, and they have to prove that he knowingly transported a firearm with intent to use it to further civil disorder. This is even tougher, since it’s not clear which firearm they are referring to (the Colt 45 is the only one the police actually know about, and the defendant agreed to lock it into a tool box, which the police allowed him to do).
He talked about “taking over the courthouse” which, outside of a trial, seems to make his intent clear, but the standards that have to be met in a federal criminal case are not the same as the standards that have to me for me to be personally satisfied.
Anyway, did he actually have an AK-47 in the truck? I think that isn’t known, at least not to a standard that makes it admissible as evidence. And I don’t see anything in the police affadavit about any AR-15, just the Colt, two magazines, and a concealed weapon permit, and the whole “locking it in the toolbox with the officer’s consent” which to me seems like the kind of detail that could put the whole case at risk.
Add to the list pretty much any Russell Crowe movie, but Gladiator especially.
Jet Li in Lethal Weapon IV?
Oh, and Heat seems to very beloved by these people for some reason.
You might be interested in this article, then:
http://www.upi.com/News_Photos/News/Canadians-demand-the-arrest-of-President-Bush/5785/
According to today’s AP story, Huff admitted having an AK-47 in the truck.
http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Courthouse-takeover-defendant-on-witness-stand-2227531.php
You are technically correct from a purely military definition, however journalists don’t use the military definition
“Assault rifles vs. “Assault weapons”
The term assault weapon is a United States political and legal term used to describe a variety of semi-automatic firearms that have certain features generally associated with military assault rifles. The 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban, which expired on September 13, 2004, codified the definition of an assault weapon. It defined the rifle type of assault weapon as a semiautomatic firearm with the ability to accept a detachable magazine containing more than 10 rounds, and two or more of the following:
Folding or telescoping stock
Primary pistol grip
Forward grip
Threaded barrel (for a muzzle brake or a suppressor, commonly called a silencer)
Barrel shroud”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle
Military or journalistic definitions are equally irrelevant. What is important is the legal definition that would be accepted in a federal case. If he is convicted on the strength of his own testimony about an “AK-47” that nobody seems to have actually seen and which may not even exist, that alone could lead to a reversal on appeal. The court needs that weapon in evidence or they run the risk of any reference to it being struck and not considered by an appeals court.
I would argue for a not guilty verdict. It appears that Huff was nothing more than a “talker” and a “Boaster”. The state has not shown any evidence of violence. Huff had the legal right to have his guns in his truck and he had the legal right to go to Madisonville. I think that in that showing intent to take over the town, the disposition of the guns were key. Did Huff even check his weapons to be sure they were locked and loaded prior to going on his trip. Did Huff have his guns in a position where he was ready to use them in a quick fashion (I believe Huff testified his had them locked in a box in his truck.) Did Huff bring along extra ammo? Did Huff bring body armor? Did Huff bring a Bomb? I think what you have here is a big boasting guy who was just traveling to Madisonville with some guns in his truck, nothing more. Someone said that Huff said he was ready to die for his rights. If this was really true, Huff would killed or attacked to cops who stopped him that day to continue on his mission. Again, there was no hint of violence though. I would vote Not Guilty.
The only legal definition that exists is in the The 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban, which is no longer in effect.
The judge isn’t going to much care whether it was an assault rifle by one definition or another, or just a semi-automatic rifle which is an assault rifle in all but select fire capability. It’s the fact and the circumstances that are important.
I think whatever the jury decides has a presumption of being right. I wasn’t in the court and didn’t hear the testimony and the arguments; they did.
Whatever Huff’s actual intent, what he and the others did was to create a climate of fear and apprehension in the community. He should answer for that and if he didn’t violate the law, then at least he has had to admit in public that he is a loudmouth and everybody (except the jury) knows now that the Oath Keepers and the Georgia militia have kicked him out.
When the FBI did a search at his house, he did have a Romarm AK-47 and ammo, which they seized.
“I think whatever the jury decides has a presumption of being right. I wasn’t in the court and didn’t hear the testimony and the arguments; they did.”
I agree. I have great respect for the jury. What they say goes. If they believe their was intent, then the facts have spoken; there was intent.
I don’t respect judges’ decisions or I am very critical of them being that judges are cold and neutral and they are one person who often have political or other motives.
The deference of jury is far far more respectful.
Unfortunately, there have individuals have never got the benefit of jury or have escaped the deference of a jury and instead were decided by a judge. Notable names include of course Barack Obama and Terri Schiavo.
I don’t think the existence/non-existence of the AK-47 matters.
Huff is charged under 18 USC 231, which refers to “any firearm” knowing or intending that it be used in furtherance of “a civil disorder”. See http://trac.syr.edu/laws/18/18USC00231.html
There is a video of Huff made when he was pulled over containing the following statements:
Read more: http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Courthouse-takeover-defendant-fights-back-tears-2227531.php#ixzz1bSqXwu1W
So basically, Huff’s recorded statements plus the existence of the Colt 45 are enough to support a conviction. To acquit, the jury has to basically buy into the argument that Huff’s own statements of intent are not to be believed. (Which is what his attorney is arguing).
I’m sorry to disagree but the use of “assault firearm” in this context is purely a case of deliberate bad terminology with the sole intent of inflaming a jury.
The definitin I provided is the actual and legitimate one and the demonization of firearms via perjorative labelling is at the least intellectualy dishonest on the part of the prosecution.
I can guaratee if Huffie had brought a firearm of identcal functional characteristics but without the scary “Evil Black Rifle” look to it he would NOT be being charged with the “Assault weapon” terminlogy.
For example if instead he had had an M14 rifle of the 60’s, all wood and nostalgia with the identical characteristics and actually a far deadlier weapon in the right hands the charge would not have that bogus label.
Do you have a link to the actual indictment? Again, the statute refers to “any firearm”. As far as I can tell, the jury can convict on the basis of the Colt 45.
And which only john is gullible enough to believe.
The jury won’t deliberate long on this case. I predict a conviction within two hours of retiring to the jury room. That allows for time to take a comfort break and elect a foreman.
The definition you provided is A legitimate one. It is not THE only legitimate one. The one I offered has the benefit of being the only one that has been used in law.
Don’t fall into the trap of thinking that the way you want something to be is the only way it can be.
On the day of his initial encounter and on the day he was arrested he had the AK-47 in his truck and approximately 300 rounds of ammo in his toolbox, in addition to the Colt strapped to his hip.
“We fully intend to proceed forward with the citizens’ arrests,” Huff says in the video. The roadside stop included bomb-sniffing dogs checking out his truck and Huff chatting with the officers about religion and guns.
“I’ve got my .45 because ain’t no government official gonna go peacefully,” Huff tells them in the video.
Swap out kidnap for citizen’s arrest- which is really what an illegal citizens arrest would be- and the implied threat of violence and the implied threat becomes clearer.
;After the shooting of the Congresswoman, I have little patience for those who say that its all okay just so long as they don’t get the opportunity to shoot.
Cold and neutral seem, to me, to be a good quality in a judge. Your problem is that you want them to be politically motivated to your wishes, which they are not. Instead, most are motivated by the law and constitution.
As is our laws, Darren, as the accused has the appropriate right to an impartial jury. We have this to protect the defendant’s rights, and thus, protect the presumed innocent, which, until the jury rules, is the current status of Mr. Huff. This forces the government/prosecution to bear the burden of proving the guilt of the defendant. However, the birthers want to use the jury system to force Obama (the “defendant”) to prove his innocence. How can the birthers claim to love America and the Constitution and then demand a judicial system that would make Stalin proud?
The article has been updated to indicate that the case went to the jury who will begin deliberations on Monday.
[blockquote]
In summary remarks, defense attorney Green said:
Sure, he’s a loudmouth. Actions speak louder than words, though, and these actions are not consistent with someone hellbent on getting to Madisonville to take it over.
[/blockquote]
Those words apply exactly to someone standing in an airport boarding line joking about the bomb or other weapon they are smuggling on board.
They don’t get a free pass for being an ignorant, unthinking, loudmouth either.
oopsy on the markup (again).
I have to agree with defense’s statement. Darren Huff indicated at one point to that he would die to support his position. If this was in fact true, then Huff would have probably attacked if not killed to cops who stopped on the highway that day to fulfill his mission. But, it appears that Huff’s weapons were locked in box in his truck and not out beside him. The cops even let him go. If Huff’s intent was to take over the town with his weapons, the police would have detained him. They didn’t.
So you’re saying he should get a by because he turned out to be a coward?
Considering what he said, where he was going and what he was bringing, I think this alone constitutes a viable threat.
One has a reasonable belief that they are being threatened when a person has brought a gun and 300 rounds of ammo to a location that he previously stated he was, indeed, going to and for illegal intent.
If I said I was going to hang your child from a rope and drove straight to your child’s school with a noose, you’d probably have concerns for your child’s safety. Same here. It was a viable threat and he will be found guilty of at least one felony.
Because john, like any true birther, has no respect for the law.
I must say that I see some of you are actually seeing through the government BS. I know him better than any of those yahoos and I will say exactly what his defense attorney said. He is a blow hard who wouldn’t hurt a fly (well maybe a fly) but my point is, he was trying to help a town with a corrupt system for people who lived in fear. I carry on my person all the time. I will defend myself with it if necessary. Does that make me a criminal if I travel over state lines? So he had a Ak-47. He is a man who had started collecting guns and wanted an AK. I know so many men who collect and love the AK. It was just his choice of rifle.
He spoke with FBI the night before leaving. He tried to get law enforcement to help him with the citizens arrest. His stress was accelerated because Monroe County refused to acknowledge their complaints and actually arrested Fitzpatrick. He thought Monroe County would kill him. Afterall, an elected official was found burned to death in the trunk of his car soon after this came out. That would scare me.
I just want to caution all readers. The government is now in a position to feel the need of protection from its people. It will do anything it can to take guns out of our hands.
For all of you who seem to be judge and jury, you just show your ignorance and your willingness to take the media as being true. I hope I am never in the defendant position with any of you as my jury. But then again, it may be you one day in the stand under the thumb of the government or of someone who couldn’t think for themselves and you praying that the jury sees through the BS.
I was in the court room and saw the rediculous spin the prosecution played. What idiots!
Judge not least you be judged in like manner.
So, Darren has a brother.
It’s Huff’s cousin Puff and together they plan on blowing the courthouse down.
It’s “rediculous”, of course. “What idiots”!
The farce is strong in this one.
Hey, I’m sure he’s nothing but a loudmouth coward. The issue isn’t really about whether he is carrying or not. The whole issue is about making open threats and then taking steps that indicate the possibility of carrying out such threats.
You are accountable for what you say and do. Simple as that. The closest comparison of the issue here is yelling “fire” in a crowded theater or joking about having a bomb on a plane.
It doesn’t make a difference in those cases if you were just kidding or not. If you are stupid enough to mouth off about making such potentially dangerous threats, then you deserve the consequences of being treated as if that was your intent.
Maybe he’ll learn to stop mouthing off like a jerk if he realizes that he’s liable for what he says.
Heaintheavy:
I’m sure you’re sincere in your love of firearms, your fear that you’ll be deprived of them, and your certainty that Monroe County is rife with corruption and its citizens live in terror, but you have no idea how ridiculous you sound outside the echo chamber of your own obsessions.
You ask that we not pass judgment on you or your ilk, but vigilantism and paranoia deserve to be denounced for what they are–the solipsistic grumblings of a hate-filled mind.
How on earth can you pass judgement on me? My “ilk”? You don’t know me. Obsessions? What obsessions?
Were you in the courtroom? The only info you have is what has been regurgitated by the media in the light the media wants you to see and you take it hook, line and sinker.
You sound like a high school jock with self esteem issues.
Once law enforcement officers are involved, it would stop being a “citizen’s arrest” anyway. If you’re in a situation that compels you to make a citizen’s arrest, if you have time to contact law enforcement, you’re now in a different situation in which you only make that “citizen’s arrest” if the LEO’s command you to do so.
Because he corrects you on your spelling, or because he points out the irony of you calling other people “idiots” while you put your own ignorance on display?
Can I assume from your comments that you were satisfied with the O.J. Simpson verdict?
And I hate to break this to you, but Obama has never been charged with a crime and Terri Schiavo was in no position to make a case to a jury.
Medical Examiner Jon Thogmartin of Florida’s Pinellas-Pasco County countered her parents’ longheld view in his autopsy report. He said Schiavo’s brain was severely atrophied, weighing 615 grams — about half the size of a normal brain — at the time of her death.
“No amount of therapy or treatment would have regenerated the massive loss of neurons,” Thogmartin said during a televised conference yesterday. He also said she was completely blind.
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/autopsy_reveals_terri_schiavos_brain_was_atrophied_dehydration_caused_death/
Maybe some people didn’t get the Father Flanagan reference.
Wait- you judge a whole system as ‘corrupt’ then lecture us not to judge?
And why exactly did he need to travel to this town in particular – and what people ‘lived in fear’? I have yet to hear of anyone in the town in question who cares about this at all.
I fully support the rights of Americans to carry guns. But if you make what appear to me to be implied threats of violence and illegal actions, and then are caught with a weapon, then reap what ye sow baby.
I am sure that Congresswoman Gifford’s family would understand why this prosecution is taking place.
“How on earth can you pass judgement on me? My “ilk”? You don’t know me.”
Oh, the irony for you to post that following your idiotic response to me.
Or is that too “rediculous” for you?
Your bizarre rants read like they might come from an illiterate, short tempered bigot who makes fatuous assumptions based on a very narrow view of the real world.
Did you notice the unmarked van that’s been following you?
“The only info you have is what has been regurgitated by the media in the light the media wants you to see and you take it hook, line and sinker.”
You may need to get out more.
Or The Hollies. Neil was good too.
Birthers hold thought trials when they daydream. They are real to them.
Perhaps they fantasize about being deputized on the spot and handed a badge like in the old Westerns.
Heaintheavy:
I don’t have to meet you, talk to you, or observe you in order to pass judgment on what you’ve written. In toto, you may be a fine person, but insofar as you reveal yourself through your recent posts, you are irrational.
In response to your specific points:
1) “Obsessions? What obsessions?” An obsession is compulsive preoccupation with something or someone. You appear to be obsessed with firearms and phony conspiracies.
2) “My ‘ilk’?” Ilk describes a class of people or things, and often carries pejorative association. I used the word to disapprovingly link you with the small group of people who are sympathetic to Mr. Huff’s fears and obsessions.
3) “Were you in the courtroom?” No. Nor do I have to be. I can read police reports, court transcripts, and Mr. Huff’s own words, which he kindly recorded and placed on YouTube. I don’t need the media to tell me that Huff is a doofus– he’s done the job for them. The same is true for Walt Fitzpatrick . . . although he appears much more disturbed than, to use your words, that “blow hard” Huff.
Jury appears deadlocked in the Darren Huff Case:
http://www.volunteertv.com/home/headlines/Jury_deciding_if_violent_intent_in_weapons_case_132431103.html
It appears that we are looking at a hung jury.
http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2011/oct/24/jury-in-militiamans-alleged-courthouse-takeover/
They will deliberate again tomorrow, but it doesn’t look like we are going to get a verdict.
He done been found guilty…….
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2011/10/huff-jury-hung/#comment-136435