Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Radical environmentalist sentenced 1 year, 1 day for speech
AP via SFGate ^ | 3/27/8 | ALLISON HOFFMAN, Associated Press Writer

Posted on 03/27/2008 2:01:04 PM PDT by SmithL

A radical environmentalist was sentenced Thursday to one year and one day in federal prison for speaking publicly about how to make a homemade Molotov cocktail.

Rodney Coronado apologized for his past use of violent tactics in the name of animal rights and the environment, and said he had cut his ties to groups, including the Earth Liberation Front.

"I have done things in my past that I now regret," Coronado told U.S. District Court Judge Jeffrey Miller. He said he wanted to serve his sentence and then get on with his life in Tucson, Ariz.

The 41-year-old activist pleaded guilty in December to distributing information on destructive devices during an August 2003 speech about militant environmental activism at a community center in San Diego.

According to an account and photos of the speech posted on the Internet, Coronado demonstrated how to build a crude ignition device using a plastic jug filled with gasoline and oil.

The speech was given just hours after an arson fire destroyed a San Diego condominium project that was under construction a few miles away. A banner at the site indicated that the ELF claimed responsibility for the $50 million blaze, which at the time was the costliest act of eco-terrorism in U.S. history.

Coronado, who once acted as a spokesman for the group, arrived in San Diego after the fire broke out and has never been linked to the blaze.

Prosecutors accused Coronado, a longtime environmental activist renowned for helping sink whaling ships and destroying mink farms and animal research labs, of wanting people to follow in his footsteps.

(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...


TOPICS: Extended News; Government; US: Arizona; US: California; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: alf; ecoterrorism; elf; homegrownbomber; terrorist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-31 last
To: GulfBreeze

I did thank him, when my ears stopped bleeding.

;)

(Do you know, if you pile up enough explosives, you can make a mushroom cloud? No I don’t care who you are, that is FUN!)


21 posted on 03/28/2008 11:48:01 AM PDT by patton (cuiquam in sua arte credendum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: patton

www.tannerite.com


22 posted on 03/28/2008 11:50:42 AM PDT by GulfBreeze (McCain is our nominee. Yeah... I guess.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: patton

A tank I can believe, even an empty grenade casing I can believe, but live explosive ordinace? As far as I know “destructive devices” in the form of bombs, grenades, and the like are generally not allowed. It would absolutely have to be registered with the Federal government by filing ATF Form 1, and I don’t think they will grant permission for that sort of thing.


23 posted on 03/28/2008 11:51:20 AM PDT by messierhunter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: GulfBreeze

“Proper storage is a must, as shelf-life can be adversely affected by extremes of temperature and humidity. “

LOL


24 posted on 03/28/2008 11:53:37 AM PDT by patton (cuiquam in sua arte credendum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: messierhunter

I don’t know from ATF forms - I am not in the business.

But certainly, companies all over the US possess explosives, from large mining concerns right down to farmers trying to remove a rock or tree stump.


25 posted on 03/28/2008 11:55:57 AM PDT by patton (cuiquam in sua arte credendum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: patton

Absolutely, ATF regulations I’ve read said that companies can receive licenses to do so and once authorized require less identification than a civie to do so. My point is just that you can’t willy nilly go on a bomb making hands-on demonstration without having a license to build it (though you probably don’t need a specific license if you’re a military instructor, granted). I highly doubt this criminal had a license.


26 posted on 03/28/2008 12:13:00 PM PDT by messierhunter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: messierhunter

Ok, his crime was not the speech, but the actual construction of an incindiary device during the speech?

Because, from the article, he seems to have been sentenced for daring to speak.

Which is WAY more frightening that the widdle molotov coctail he constructed (as in the pic).


27 posted on 03/28/2008 12:17:40 PM PDT by patton (cuiquam in sua arte credendum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: patton

I read elsewhere that his charge was “demonstrating the use of a destructive device,” which would seem to indicate an action that’s only possible if there’s an actual device of some kind involved, something that would fall under the jurisdiction of the National Firearms Act, and probably other local ordinances too.


28 posted on 03/28/2008 12:22:04 PM PDT by messierhunter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: messierhunter

Hmmmmm. What if he used water and grape coolaide to demonstrate, and said, “Use gas in place of the water, use...”

How about that term, “Demonstrating the USE of...”

Is that like when the instructor said, “Put the sticky-bomb on THIS part of the tank...”

I am really uncomfortable with this idea of convicting people for talking.

Placing bombs, sure - hang’em high.

But discussing them? I find that scary.


29 posted on 03/28/2008 12:28:46 PM PDT by patton (cuiquam in sua arte credendum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: patton

Generally I agree, as long as the discussion doesn’t have a terroristic objective (put tab a into slot b to kill infidels), though I think that given his background, the focus of the talk which was there for a specific terrorist group (the ALF, ELF, or whatever), it warrents wiretapping and a whole slew of other surveillance on those attending. I don’t know how operational his demonstration device was, but even immitation bombs can be quite disruptive if placed in a public area and may not be legal for public display. I don’t know all the details so I can definately see both sides here, and perhaps I’m being too paranoid. I work in a place where even a single itty bitty cocktail in the wrong place would cause rather spectacular secondaries and a nice cloud of toxic gas to kill anyone nearby. No, I don’t think that makes thought crimes ok, but this treads the line between thought and action.


30 posted on 03/28/2008 12:40:00 PM PDT by messierhunter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: messierhunter

I agree - it is a fine line.


31 posted on 03/28/2008 12:44:05 PM PDT by patton (cuiquam in sua arte credendum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-31 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson