BLUE EARTH, Minnesota USA — A 12-member jury — 10 women and two men — found an 18-year-old Blue Earth man guilty Wednesday of possessing explosive components with the intent to make a bomb.

After six witnesses had testified, John Andrew Yahnke took the stand on his own behalf and told jurors, "I was not making a bomb."

Convicted terrorist John Andrew Yahnke.

During the one-day trial, Yahnke's attorney — public defender Bill Grogin — says the state's case hinged on a 15-year-old girl's statement that his client told her to stay out of the kitchen in his apartment because he was making a bomb.

"She is definitely mistaken in what she heard. We all make mistakes," Yahnke told the jury, adding that he did not think the girl was lying.

He says loud music that was playing while several friends gathered and talked in his apartment on July 9 would make it easy to misunderstand someone.

"I think it's unfortunate my client was convicted because of the inconsistent statements of a 15-year-old girl," says Grogin, adding she changed the story she originally told police.

The girl testified that when she and a friend visited Yahnke she saw him taking fireworks apart in the kitchen and also saw fireworks in his bedroom.

She says he asked them if they had a checking account so he could buy "some stuff" to make a bomb.

"I took it serious," says the girl.

Under cross-examination, Faribault County Attorney Brian Roverud asked Yahnke if he remembered writing a letter to a friend in which he wrote: "I finally figured out who told on me. It was A.I. I have statements from her, she narced on me."

However, Grogin says in the letter his client asks for support from his friend because he is "an innocent man."

"I can't believe this is happening to me .... I was never making a bomb. You've got to believe me," the public defender says his client wrote to his friend.

Following testimony of witnesses totaling almost three hours, jurors deliberated about one hour to return with a guilty verdict.

"The evidence may have been circumstantial, but it was a good indication of what he (Yahnke) was thinking and intending to do," Roverud says of the jury's decision.

Grogin would not comment if his client plans to file an appeal.

"I will talk with him on whether he wants to make an appeal. If so, I will put him in touch with the appropriate office," he says.

In convictions involving public defenders, cases are sent to the State Public Defender Appeals Office to determine if an appeal will be made.

Yahnke was arrested on July 14 after authorities executed a search warrant at his residence at Crescent Apartments in Blue Earth.

Officials confiscated two 5-pound plastic bags labeled ammonium nitrate and one 10-pound bag labeled sodium nitrate. Other items seized included five Black Cat Blooming Flowers, Jumbo Crackeling Balls, cardboard cylinders, two model rocket engines and igniters, wooden dowels, fuses, ionized salt and 75 miscellaneous legal fireworks.

Yahnke says he intended to use the items to make model rockets, but he gave up because he didn't have the equipment, materials or the money. He says the ammonium nitrate and sodium nitrate cost him $60-$70, so he kept the chemicals in case he decided later to build a rocket.

In his opening statement, Roverud told the jury, "I want to make a bomb. That's what John Yahnke said to a witness.

"You'll hear evidence that these items could be put together to manufacture an explosive device," Roverud added.

Grogin told jurors any of the items found in Yahnke's apartment were legal and could be purchased at some stores. He says the prosecution was trying to create a crime.

"John Yahnke was not building a bomb. He never intended to build a bomb. He never told anyone he wanted to build a bomb."

"They (police) did not find a bomb, did not find directions of how to build a bomb, and did not find a partially built bomb," says Grogin.

It was the girl's mother who notified police after being told of the incident nearly a week later.

In his testimony police officer Jake Ruppert says he requested a search warrant right away because the situation was serious.

Grogin asked the officer why he did not seek other witnesses before obtaining a warrant.

"My main concern was how far along the bomb was. I really didn't know what was going on," Ruppert says.

The officer says he did interview two other people who also said fireworks were being taken apart in the kitchen.

When local authorities found the plastic bags of white substance, Ruppert says, Police Chief Dean Vereide contacted the Minnesota Duty Officer.

The Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension then dispatched the Chemical Assessment Team (C.A.T.) of Mankato, Bloomington Bomb Squad and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms to the scene.

Glen Cansler, a member of C.A.T., testified the white substance was evaluated at the scene and found not to be dangerous in its current state. He says the building was not evacuated, but residents were told of the situation and they could decide if they wanted to leave.

Cansler says the materials were determined to be as labeled and then packaged in sterile jars so they could be tested at the BCA laboratory.

In a two-page report, BCA forensic scientist Kristin McDonald says she found the substances to be ammonium nitrate and sodium nitrate.

McDonald testified three components are necessary to make an explosive — an oxidizer, a fuel and something to ignite it.

She says ammonium nitrate or sodium nitrate would act as an oxidizer.

As for the fuel, it would need to be carbon based, McDonald says, such as sugar, wood chips or powdered metals. She says fireworks contain flash powder, which have powdered metals. To ignite the device engines from model rockets could be used, she adds.

"As far as building an explosive device, is there anything missing?" Roverud asked McDonald.

"No. There is not," she answered.

Yahnke says he was surprised to hear McDonald say model rocket engines could be used to make an explosive device.

A teen friend testifying on behalf of Yahnke says the two shared a love for fireworks.

He says he saw Yahnke emptying powder from fireworks onto a piece of paper about the size of a golf ball. But, he didn't think it was illegal or dangerous.

When ignited, it would cause "a very bright flash," says the teen.

When questioned by Roverud, Yahnke admitted purchasing the materials at different places, including out of state.

"In buying and using these, did you ever think you were doing anything wrong?" Roverud asked.

Yahnke replied he did not.

He remains in custody at the county jail and will be sentenced once a pre-sentence investigation is completed.

Conviction of possession of one or more components with intent to manufacture an explosive device carries a maximum penalty of five years in prison and a $10,000 fine.

Copyright © 2008, Faribault County Register.

10-06-2008 12:09 PM  #1
Just Jerry Freeform rockets advocate   Joined: Aug 2006 Posts: 1297	Re: Article: John Yahnke guilty of possessing explosive components Gee, I wonder why science is a dying art in this country? Gee, I wonder why the jails are clogged with people who maintain their innocence, not by mere statement, but with strong justifications of facts corroborated by what investigators find? It seems juries actually BELIEVE the crap prosecutors spew in their zealotry to get convictions apart from logic and fact. It's not just too late. It has been too late for over a decade now. Just Jerry

10-06-2008 12:13 PM  #2
UncleVanya If pigs had fins...   Joined: Sep 2007 Posts: 3640	Re: Article: John Yahnke guilty of possessing explosive components Why on earth? Let's see - we as a country decided that a doctrine of first strike was acceptable and invaded a foreign country without provocation because "we were worried for our safety". This is not a proud day... for anyone.

10-06-2008 12:15 PM  #3
denverdoc Hall Monitor   Joined: Aug 2007 Posts: 3044	Re: Article: John Yahnke guilty of possessing explosive components My guess is he did in fact tell the girl that he was planning to make a bomb, not that he actually was--just said it for the shock value. OOPs.

10-06-2008 12:18 PM  #4
ddmobley Administrator   Joined: Jul 2006 Posts: 4014	Re: Article: John Yahnke guilty of possessing explosive components 5 years and $10K ought to have some shock value to it...

10-07-2008 12:47 AM  #5
jsdemar NAR/TRA L3   Joined: Oct 2006 Posts: 358	Re: Article: John Yahnke guilty of possessing explosive components Quote: Why on earth? Let's see - we as a country decided that a doctrine of first strike was acceptable and invaded a foreign country without provocation because "we were worried for our safety". This is not a proud day... for anyone. Why politicize the thread? Simplifying a complex war is as short-sighted as sending a kid to jail for playing with a few LEGAL chemicals. Here's a better (but just as trivial) analogy... a guy ignores common sense and shows off his ability to make dangerous stuff that could be harmful to his neighbors. Whether you're an 18-yr-old pyro or a ruthless homicidal dictator, you shouldn't be surprised at the response.

10-07-2008 08:12 AM  #6
UncleVanya If pigs had fins...   Joined: Sep 2007 Posts: 3640	Re: Article: John Yahnke guilty of possessing explosive components Quote: Why politicize the thread? Simplifying a complex war is as short-sighted as sending a kid to jail for playing with a few LEGAL chemicals. Here's a better (but just as trivial) analogy... a guy ignores common sense and shows off his ability to make dangerous stuff that could be harmful to his neighbors. Whether you're an 18-yr-old pyro or a ruthless homicidal dictator, you shouldn't be surprised at the response. Honestly - why? Because I think it is the most relevant thing related to this event. I am not trying to switch the topic or talk about the decisions made about Iraq. I'm talking about a switch in the mindset of what is acceptable traced back to this point in history. It is when we as a country overtly admitted that we no longer are playing by the old rules. It is when we determined that preemptive action was acceptable. Minority Report was a hokey dumb film in many ways - but some of what it said about predicting the future and having law enforcement apply that to the present is important to consider. Did this guy probably shoot off his mouth and get himself in trouble - yes. Did he deserve jail for speaking in that way - not likely. Could we all be incorrect and assume his innocence when he might in fact have wanted to bomb something - maybe. I just think it's important to note that not too long ago this country was much less inclined to convict someone on predictions of the future. But your point is well taken - there were better ways to express it that would not have led anyone to think I was trying to drag this into politics.

10-07-2008 08:58 AM  #7
Just Jerry Freeform rockets advocate   Joined: Aug 2006 Posts: 1297	Re: Article: John Yahnke guilty of possessing explosive components According to the preamble of BATFE regulation, citizens are to have the right to have and use explosives. That INCLUDES BOMBS. Under another BATFE regulation you can have GUNS, even MACHINE GUNS. It is what you do with them that should be regulated, not the possession of it, or in this case the possession of pieces to it NOT assembled or shown assembled into one, but intended and usable FOR OTHER PURPOSES. This case amounts to being convicted for SPEECH without action, if you even believe the girl reported the comment accurately. This is EXACTLY like the Firefox case where he sells paper tubes, aluminum powder, and potassium perchlorate all useable for making flash bang grenades like the police use regularly against citizens, but as sold separately can be used for a wide variety of things. But they (CPSC) PRESUME they WILL be used for firecrackers and ban the SALE OF PAPER TUBES, etc. by Firefox. They (CPSC) do not have JURISDICTION over "precursors". Just Jerry

10-07-2008 09:06 AM  #8
UncleVanya If pigs had fins...   Joined: Sep 2007 Posts: 3640	Re: Article: John Yahnke guilty of possessing explosive components Quote: According to the preamble of BATFE regulation, citizens are to have the right to have and use explosives. That INCLUDES BOMBS. Cite? Quote: Under another BATFE regulation you can have GUNS, even MACHINE GUNS. With a particular permit you can have machine guns. But without that permit it is not legal to possess let alone use one. If I recall it's a 10year and 10K fine. Quote: It is what you do with them that should be regulated, not the possession of it, or in this case the possession of pieces to it NOT assembled or shown assembled into one, but intended and usable FOR OTHER PURPOSES. I agree - but that isn't the case anymore. Even in the distant past some things have always been banned - there is a balancing act. But the scales are heavily tipped over - what do we do to push back to where we were?

10-07-2008 09:08 AM  #9
Sono_6 Certified Level Three   Joined: Jul 2008 Posts: 404	Re: Article: John Yahnke guilty of possessing explosive components I'm interested to see what kind of "scientist" thinks metal is carbon based..... Quote: BCA forensic scientist Kristin McDonald says.... *big snip* ...As for the fuel, it would need to be carbon based, McDonald says, such as sugar, wood chips or powdered metals. Whatever the kid's intention I would likely think of them as foolish, maybe dangerous, but not criminal.

10-07-2008 09:15 AM  #10
Steve_Shannon Growing more clueless...   Joined: Aug 2006 Posts: 2211	Re: Article: John Yahnke guilty of possessing explosive components Quote: As for the fuel, it would need to be carbon based, McDonald says, such as sugar, wood chips or powdered metals. What part of powdered metals are carbon based? Unfortunately, none of the people who were involved in this case had a clue. Nearly every kid who has ever played with fireworks has considered bigger bangs and brighter flashes. As others have said, intent to harm must be considered.

10-07-2008 09:41 AM  #11
Just Jerry Freeform rockets advocate   Joined: Aug 2006 Posts: 1297	Re: Article: John Yahnke guilty of possessing explosive components Quote: What part of powdered metals are carbon based? Unfortunately, none of the people who were involved in this case had a clue. Nearly every kid who has ever played with fireworks has considered bigger bangs and brighter flashes. As others have said, intent to harm must be considered. You know what would be interesting and informative for THIS website to publish would be the complaint, the jury instructions, a transcript of the closing arguments, and a copy of the order after trial. Since there was a trial and not merely a plea bargain aka extortion. Jerry

10-07-2008 10:23 AM  #12
Juerg Certified Level Three   Joined: Aug 2007 Posts: 265	Re: Article: John Yahnke guilty of possessing explosive components Are you experimental guys worried now? You should, I guess. Along the lines of this ruling, all of you posess the material required to make a bomb. So you all should go to jail! Every time when I think that our society cannot get more stupid any more, someone prooves me wrong. If stupidity could be converted in energy, a few of our problems would be solved... Juerg

10-07-2008 10:50 AM  #13
tmacklin Certifiable   Joined: Apr 2008 Posts: 121	Re: Article: John Yahnke guilty of possessing explosive components Quote: Are you experimental guys worried now? Every time when I think that our society cannot get more stupid any more, someone prooves me wrong. If stupidity could be converted in energy, a few of our problems would be solved... Juerg Speaking of stupid, it's "proves", not "prooves".

10-07-2008 10:52 AM  #14
H_rocket Village Idiot   Joined: Aug 2006 Posts: 598	Re: Article: John Yahnke guilty of possessing explosive components Quote: Did this guy probably shoot off his mouth and get himself in trouble - yes. Did he deserve jail for speaking in that way - not likely. Could we all be incorrect and assume his innocence when he might in fact have wanted to bomb something - maybe. Unfortunately the schmuck got caught up in hysteria. He stated multiple times (from what I read) he was making a bomb and had materials that a bomb could be made from. It is not much different from walking into a bank and "jokingly" saying that he was robbing the place, or poking fun at a flight attendant with a "take me to Havana" joke. People take things a lot more seriously these days. Sadly in a world where there are people who apply no value to their lives, much less to others there is a marked reduction in tolerance for activities that give the impression of danger. A fair amount points back to the tragedy of 9/11. I often refer to that as the day we lost our innocence. Zero tolerance is a bad thing and this is a great example of how it can go awry.

10-07-2008 12:08 PM  #15
o351 Certified Level Two   Joined: Jul 2008 Posts: 65	Re: Article: John Yahnke guilty of possessing explosive components Quote: Unfortunately the schmuck got caught up in hysteria. He stated multiple times (from what I read) he was making a bomb and had materials that a bomb could be made from. It is not much different from walking into a bank and "jokingly" saying that he was robbing the place, or poking fun at a flight attendant with a "take me to Havana" joke. People take things a lot more seriously these days. I agree. Humor and Security no longer get to go hand and hand!

10-07-2008 12:15 PM  #16
heada Certifiable   Joined: Apr 2007 Posts: 1073	Re: Article: John Yahnke guilty of possessing explosive components Anyone with a plastic soda bottle, drain cleaner and aluminum foil has all the materials for making a bomb. Does that mean we should arrest and jail the 90% (number pulled from my nether region) of homes that have these items in the kitchen? Having the items should not be illegal. I have a car that has the ability to kill multiple people, that doesn't make it illegal. Having the intent to kill people with those items is what should be illegal. Proving intent is extremely difficult though. A conviction based on witness testimony alone should not be allowed. -Aaron

10-07-2008 02:56 PM  #17
Just Jerry Freeform rockets advocate   Joined: Aug 2006 Posts: 1297	Re: Article: John Yahnke guilty of possessing explosive components Quote: Anyone with a plastic soda bottle, drain cleaner and aluminum foil has all the materials for making a bomb. Does that mean we should arrest and jail the 90% (number pulled from my nether region) of homes that have these items in the kitchen? Yes. 100% enforcement would cause the problem to be solved not ignored. Bust all hockey moms first! Jerry

10-07-2008 05:43 PM  #18
10fttall New Member   Joined: Sep 2008 Posts: 6	Re: Article: John Yahnke guilty of possessing explosive components Before you do your next ground test on that 8 inch diameter HPR, take EVERY other piece of rocket supplies and bury it in the woods off your property. If not; someone calls the cops and they somehow get to rooting around in your place, you're going to the klink.

10-07-2008 06:35 PM  #19
Just Jerry Freeform rockets advocate   Joined: Aug 2006 Posts: 1297	Re: Article: John Yahnke guilty of possessing explosive components Here are some words I pulled off Slashdot today: "There's also a key element here: I don't do anything illegal and I'm honest with friends and family. One might say, "What happens when you do?" to which I will reply, "Then I guess I'm going to jail like I should." If someone comes to me with beef about something I wrote, then it's up to me to defend my position." There is a problem with this position. You are making the assumption that nothing will happen in the future to make currently acceptable, moral, lawful behavior illegal. If the law changes in such a way as to be tyrannical and you have allowed no possibility for revolt without getting caught you have sealed your fate long before the tyranny came to pass. Just Jerry

10-07-2008 06:52 PM  #20
H_rocket Village Idiot   Joined: Aug 2006 Posts: 598	Re: Article: John Yahnke guilty of possessing explosive components Quote: Anyone with a plastic soda bottle, drain cleaner and aluminum foil has all the materials for making a bomb. Does that mean we should arrest and jail the 90% (number pulled from my nether region) of homes that have these items in the kitchen? Possessing them - no. Possessing them and telling people you are making a bomb with them (even in humor) stands a good chance of getting you dope slapped. Especially if you are not 100% certain that everyone you say that to plus anyone they repeat it to is likely to understand that you were being humorous. Think of it this way. Lets say I leave a note in your mailbox telling you I plan to kidnap your child as payback for some offense - as a sick joke. Then your kid gets sidetracked on the way home from school and is very late. Would that not give you pause? Or possibly even reason to call the police? Now they arrest me and even though your child came home safe and they are on restriction until they leave grad school, would you feel bad if I was prosecuted and sent to jail? Yeah it's a stretch, however I was trying to come up with an analogy of the situation that is not wrapped up in rocketry. I'm just saying that the guy did something real stupid in the way he ran his mouth and I am finding it hard to feel bad for his misfortune. In fact, I almost feel he deserves to be punished for placing yet another bad light on my pastime.

10-07-2008 07:18 PM  #21
ddmobley Administrator   Joined: Jul 2006 Posts: 4014	Re: Article: John Yahnke guilty of possessing explosive components Quote: I'm just saying that the guy did something real stupid in the way he ran his mouth and I am finding it hard to feel bad for his misfortune. In fact, I almost feel he deserves to be punished for placing yet another bad light on my pastime. I guess I feel the exact opposite, I don't feel anyone should be incarcerated for simply saying something stupid, I don't care who's hobby it is. Al, it's easy to suggest someone do something when you have no idea what that something is. In this case, he could serve up to 5 years in jail. I would suggest to you that if you knew what it was like to serve even one year in jail, you wouldn't feel the same way. In fact, I would be willing to bet you would not wish that on your worst enemy. I contend that it's easy to feel that incarcerating people is a minor detail, a minor insignificance in their lives, but I am telling you that it is not.

10-07-2008 08:20 PM  #22
H_rocket Village Idiot   Joined: Aug 2006 Posts: 598	Re: Article: John Yahnke guilty of possessing explosive components Please understand, I think this is all so stupid that were it not for the life shattering consequences to this dope, I would almost consider it funny. However, I also feel that in the heightened world of paranoia created by, as I said above, people who apply no value whatsoever to lives - either their own or those they have declared to be their enemies that we need to simply be cautious in some activities and behaviors. I truly wish it were not so. For example, do we take immediate action against a teenager who doodled a list of names of those he would like to "see dead" or do we wait until they hose down the school cafeteria with bullets? Should the youngster go to jail if it is just the fear and loathing that all teenagers feel? No. Should there be consequences - yes. There is a saying that goes some thing like "those who would give up some of their security and freedom to ensure it deserve neither." I do agree with that, however those sentiments are sadly out of date in a world with so many dangerously sick people. I hope that things do work out for the young man in question and I hope he has learned in no uncertain terms that saying he is making a bomb where he does not know who is listening is a bad idea of epic proportions. Should he go to jail - absolutely not. Do I feel bad that he is getting his life shaken up to the core? The jury is out on that one. Note I only spent one night of my life in jail - It happened in Juarez, Mexico (seems it is illegal to cheer for the bull in a bull fight - either that or arguing with the Federales while chock full of Tequila is a bad idea) - And you are right, Jail is for violent criminals and those from whom society needs to be protected. Jail is not a minor detail, I strongly believe that if you are there it should (must) be because having you there makes the world a safer place. It is not for dumb jackasses who say stupid things. There are those who belong in jail. John Yannke is not one of them.

10-07-2008 09:42 PM  #23
ddmobley Administrator   Joined: Jul 2006 Posts: 4014	Re: Article: John Yahnke guilty of possessing explosive components Quote: For example, do we take immediate action against a teenager who doodled a list of names of those he would like to "see dead" or do we wait until they hose down the school cafeteria with bullets? Should the youngster go to jail if it is just the fear and loathing that all teenagers feel? No. Should there be consequences - yes. There is a saying that goes some thing like "those who would give up some of their security and freedom to ensure it deserve neither." I do agree with that, however those sentiments are sadly out of date in a world with so many dangerously sick people. It was Ben Franklin who said, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." There is truth in that, but please realize that we simply cannot have liberty and a namby-pamby nanny state at the same time. In order to attain and exercise liberty, you have to provide your own safety. In order to attain safety, you have to give up some of your liberty. You can't have both. I would personally rather have all of the freedoms and liberties that I was born with according to our Bill of Rights than to have my government take them from me without asking in order to make others feel safe. Do you take action against a list of names doodled? Until there is some evidence of conspiracy leading to action, there is nothing that can (should) be done. I myself have often contemplated how much better off I would feel if some of the fine examples of the feminine gender I have been involved with would have assumed room temperature. I have even, in the heat of the moment, said, "I wish you would eat $#!+ and die." Until I act on that, there is no crime committed, and no action to take. Possessing chemicals is not a crime. Possession of chemicals with the intention or action of making an IED is different. Intention is not, "Hey, bi-yatch, I am going to turn these Black Cats into a bomb." Intention is buying the Black Cats, buying the other chemicals, purchasing cold water pipes with caps on each end, searching Google for plans, printing them out. Action is taking the Black Cats, combining them with the other chemicals, placing the mixture into the cold water pipes and determining a place to use them. Quote: Jail is not a minor detail, I strongly believe that if you are there it should (must) be because having you there makes the world a safer place. But do you understand that the majority of the people who ARE there NOW are not making the world a safer place? Because most of them should not be there, either because they are totally innocent, innocent of no meaningful crime or they accepted plea bargains (extortion) in order to get a reduced sentence based on the cornecopia of charges the publicity-seeking prosecutor dreamed up. The American juris system has been turned into a version of "Let's Make A Deal" where none of the options are attractive.

10-08-2008 03:25 AM  #24
Juerg Certified Level Three   Joined: Aug 2007 Posts: 265	Re: Article: John Yahnke guilty of possessing explosive components Quote: In order to attain and exercise liberty, you have to provide your own safety. In order to attain safety, you have to give up some of your liberty. ...what is bringing us to the central question: Is the danger really as high as suggested/promoted by the government or is this just being used (and even inflated) to get a firmer grip on citizens (or to reach other goals)? Most likely, it's rather the second! I'll give you a simple example: You are no longer allowed to take drinks in the terminals of airports, but have to buy the drinks there, at ridiculous prices. You still are allowed to carry a lot of liquid, just the individual containers have to be smaller. Does this makes us any safer: Sure not! You still can bring enough liquid chemicals with you to bring an aircraft down. Does this make airports richer? It sure does!!! Another example: I am working for a large aircraft maintenance company. Recently employee screening has been introduced, like you know it from air travel, plus a 10% "body search" ratio! Help god if you try to enter the company with a screw driver or scissors in your bag. It will be confiscated and destroyed! But the whole company is full of tools, knifes, scissors and plenty of hazzardous chemicals. So does this make any sense? No, it doesn't. You might claim that it prevents people from bringing explosives and firearms in. It doesn't. You simply throw it over the fence, walk through security and pick it up. If we can't trust the people who maintain the aircraft, we should consider walking again! To make above example even worse: Before, staff who entered operating aircraft (for cleaning or maintenance) were subject to search before entering the aircraft. With the introduction of the screening at the entrance, this has been dropped. So now, once you are inside the campus, you don't have any obstacles any more. Increased safety? Barelly! Juerg

10-08-2008 04:00 AM  #25
Juerg Certified Level Three   Joined: Aug 2007 Posts: 265	Re: Article: John Yahnke guilty of possessing explosive components Quote: Speaking of stupid, it's "proves", not "prooves". Well, considering the fact that English only is the third language that I did learn, I am still satisfied with my orthography

10-08-2008 07:00 AM  #26
Just Jerry Freeform rockets advocate   Joined: Aug 2006 Posts: 1297	Re: Article: John Yahnke guilty of possessing explosive components The purpose for the security measures at airports is to make the general flying public "feel safe" that "something" is being done. It is widely accepted the actual security is poor. It supposedly also serves to discourage "convenience terrorists". I know that doesn't work because the actual terrorists that have actually made an effort, all 15 or so of them, devised a tactic compatible with whatever security measure was in place at the time. And pre-tested it. Just Jerry

10-08-2008 08:13 AM  #27
UncleVanya If pigs had fins...   Joined: Sep 2007 Posts: 3640	Re: Article: John Yahnke guilty of possessing explosive components Quote: Well, considering the fact that English only is the third language that I did learn, I am still satisfied with my orthography I wish I had more skill in foreign languages than I do. I couldn't write in French even a tenth as well as you do in English. Bravo!

10-08-2008 10:35 AM  #28
H_rocket Village Idiot   Joined: Aug 2006 Posts: 598	Re: Article: John Yahnke guilty of possessing explosive components Darrell - We are in complete agreement that our prison system has many people incarcerated that do not belong there. They may have broken the law, or as you put simply surrendered and played let's make a deal, however there is most likely a better solution. I'm still not sure I buy fully into your thesis of doing nothing until a crime has been committed. I would prefer that the commission of a crime is prevented. By prevention I do not mean in any way lock up a potential criminal. We need to focus on removing the reason and opportunity for the crime. As to the whole manufactured threat hysteria, I find the funniest and most tragic, this story. A local flyer here was stopped at airport security and searched. It was found that (horrors) he had a too-large bottle of shampoo. Since the rent a cops employed by the TSA could not find either enough muskets for a firing squad, nor enough wood for a gallows, they settled for the next best thing and confiscated the offending fluid. At that point he made friends when he pointed out that even though the world was much safer with his hair dirty he wondered what their plans were to control him and the fact that without his shampoo he would be restricted to (as the pilot) using the aircraft, several thousand gallons of jet fuel, and 300 passsengers as a weapon.... Yes there are very bad people out there, however little or nothing we are currently doing is making us safe from them.

10-08-2008 11:33 AM  #29
tmacklin Certifiable   Joined: Apr 2008 Posts: 121	Re: Article: John Yahnke guilty of possessing explosive components Quote: Well, considering the fact that English only is the third language that I did learn, I am still satisfied with my orthography If the other too langages are Farsi and Arabic, you could be in line four a top payin job with the feral guvmunt is Washerton dc.

10-08-2008 04:35 PM  #30
UncleVanya If pigs had fins...   Joined: Sep 2007 Posts: 3640	Re: Article: John Yahnke guilty of possessing explosive components Quote: As to the whole manufactured threat hysteria, I find the funniest and most tragic, this story. A local flyer here was stopped at airport security and searched. It was found that (horrors) he had a too-large bottle of shampoo. Since the rent a cops employed by the TSA could not find either enough muskets for a firing squad, nor enough wood for a gallows, they settled for the next best thing and confiscated the offending fluid. Uh... why didn't they just empty (partially) the bottle until it contained ONLY the prescribed amount? Oh wait... we federalized those workers didn't we? 'nuff said...

10-10-2008 05:36 AM  #31
Juerg Certified Level Three   Joined: Aug 2007 Posts: 265	Re: Article: John Yahnke guilty of possessing explosive components Quote: If the other too langages are Farsi and Arabic, you could be in line four a top payin job with the feral guvmunt is Washerton dc. German French Englisch (Italian) for your reference... Can we get back to the theme now?

10-10-2008 11:28 AM  #32
tmacklin Certifiable   Joined: Apr 2008 Posts: 121	Re: Article: John Yahnke guilty of possessing explosive components Quote: German French Englisch (Italian) for your reference... Can we get back to the theme now? Thanks. I also speak Englisch and occasionally put my foot in my mouth. As for getting back to the theme, sure. But I don't beleive it was about "you experimental guys". I think the article had to do with an unsupervised child trying to impress his juvenile friends. That he did. If he had enlisted in the Army, he could have gotten into the Combat Engineers where they pay kids to play with explosives. Too bad. Now, even the Army won't take him.

11-06-2008 03:28 AM  #33
Yahnke Certified Level Two   Joined: Nov 2008 Posts: 38	Re: Article: John Yahnke guilty of possessing explosive components Want The Truth, Ask Me. By the way I like what they said in small print below my picture.. It was kinda hurtful..

11-06-2008 09:45 AM  #34
Dwatkins Certified Level Two   Joined: Aug 2006 Posts: 43	Re: Article: John Yahnke guilty of possessing explosive components SO tell us your side. Seems like you will have plenty of time to tell us about it