Pepper Spray - No Big Deal...

Patrick patrickl at
Fri Nov 7 20:50:53 EST 1997

Zane wrote:

Just a word of caution Zane, there is more than one Patrick posting here
so try not to get us confused OK.

> >One of my teams assignments in our last mutual aid escapade to Humbolt
> >county was to block a road to prevent entry into a logging area where
> >spiking had taken place during the last Earth First! Demonstration. Now
> >just call the Humbolt County Sheriffs Office and asked them about
> >spiking of trees by Earth First! They have been using spiking techniques
> >for over 10 years.
> Do you guys have a reading comprehension problem, or do you fail to
> address points raised out of a malicious disregard for the truth?
> You said that trees had been spiked specifically to damage chain saws
> and that it has led to injury and death of loggers.  I defy you to
> produce evidence to that effect.

Zane, just how do you propose that I produce proof here that would
satisfy you? I have friends and relatives who live in that area, and it
is common knowledge, through experience, that loggers have been killed
and injured when a spike broke the chain from the bar of the chain saw
and the chain struck the user. 

I told you what one of my last assignments was. Why else would my team
be placed there to prevent an act if the act had not occurred

Spiking is not intended to break the equipment at a mill because by then
it's too late, the tree is already down. The aims of Earth First! are to
stop the harvesting of any further trees.

I do not have access to patient records so I can't give you a medical
report on an injured logger. I am not going to even try and search news
articles because I have neither the time or desire. I would however
suggest that you contact Earth First! and asked them directly if they
ever advocated and engaged in spiking. According to the SF Examiner they
admit that they did, but now claim that they do not.

> >The device was not motion sensitive. It was a timed device. If it had
> >been motion sensitive I might believe her story.
> You _might_ believe it?  And if it was a timed device (I don't see
> that it's a terribly relevant point or I'd go look it up) then how
> does that make her "story" unbelievable?  Would be rather silly to set
> a timer so that it just happened to go off shortly after you got in
> your car eh?

Sorry, by the way you were speaking I was under the impression that you
knew something about ordinance. A timed device is a poor option to place
in a car because it is unknown if the target will be in the car at the
selected time of detonation. Now, a motion sensitive device could be
acceptable, but still not a good choice. Let me explain:

There are numerous triggering devices available that could be used to
make the bomb go off. Motion devices fall under the two following
categories: Trembler switches and tilt switches.  A trembler switch
could be something as simple as a loop of wire around a nail. If the
package is vibrated enough sooner or later the wire ring will come into
contact with the nail and complete an electrical circuit. The tilt
switch can be a mercury switch or something as simple as a ball bearing
inside a pipe.

So, if the bomb was motion sensitive the bomber could have decided that
running around on bumpy roads while Barri was driving would get her. As
you can see this is a poor idea, because Barri might not be driving, but
it is better than a timed device, and might give Barri's story

The only really effective device if you wanted to be sure you got your
target would be a remotely detonated device. In this system you can see
your target enter the car from a safe distance and then trigger the

You also ask if I believe that Barri would have been stupid enough to
set the timer on the bomb in her own car. I do not know what set the
bomb off, but I do know about capacitance, short circuits, static
electricity and all the other things that can make a bomb go off in your
face when you didn't expect it.
> Btw, if Barri had _any_ history of bomb-making then we surely would
> have heard about it by now.  And, of course, I don't recall that any
> of the direct action folks in No. Cal. were ever found to be involved
> in bomb-making.

How long did the Unibomber operate without any history?
> Oddly enough, however, the FBI was giving out lessons about how to
> make the very sort of bomb that blew up Barri not long before it
> happened.  Of course they were showing how to defuse or handle the
> things, but in the process they showed building too.

Yes I am aware of this, so what you are saying is that the FBI and
Oakland PD decided to conspire against Barri. That's why I want the
lawsuit to go through. It's either the truth or a damn lie.

> Here's a new word for you: bullshit.  If the FBI and the Oakland PD
> show up in federal court just after a recent car bombing and tell the
> judge they want to search someone's house because of [insert any weak
> rationale here] then they'll get the warrant.  They might as well have
> a damned rubber stamp for the occasion.

That's your opinion. Under the law an agency must show the judge that
there is probable cause to believe that ->evidence<- of a crime is in
the place to be searched.
> I would think that you would know the difference between probable
> cause and _evidence_, which is what I asked you for.

See above.


More information about the Ag-forst mailing list