Rainbow Farms revisited
September 2, 2003 9:59 PM Subscribe
An article in the upcoming issue of Playboy (via MAP) examines in more detail a lethal standoff between a pot-smoking festival organizer and the government. Another attempt to drop out and do as one pleases met with another unhappy outcome. Rainbow farms was previously discussed here.
Another attempt to drop out and do as one pleases met with another unhappy outcome.
I don't agree with our current drug laws, by any means, but this guy was a thug, who brought all of this on himself. (His criminal record shows that he was a thug his entire life) Yeah, it sucks that his son (or his lover's rather) got taken away, but really.... This was the end that he set in motion and that he wanted. Shooting at news helicoptors and armored vehicles?
The guy was an idiot.
posted by Espoo2 at 10:55 PM on September 2, 2003
I don't agree with our current drug laws, by any means, but this guy was a thug, who brought all of this on himself. (His criminal record shows that he was a thug his entire life) Yeah, it sucks that his son (or his lover's rather) got taken away, but really.... This was the end that he set in motion and that he wanted. Shooting at news helicoptors and armored vehicles?
The guy was an idiot.
posted by Espoo2 at 10:55 PM on September 2, 2003
i had never heard the jarvis saga before and was fascinated. and if at all possible, (its realplayer ack thpht) check out the PBS program. the jarvis family interviews are interesting as hell, and the oldest jarvis son's take on "small thinkers" and "right and wrong" will either chill you or fill you with hope for humanity - and i haven't decided which yet, myself.
posted by quonsar at 11:46 PM on September 2, 2003
posted by quonsar at 11:46 PM on September 2, 2003
Espoo2: "...by any means, but this guy was a thug, who brought all of this on himself."
You think? Quite a criminal record he had-- thirty years ago he was charged with robbery for trying to recover a paycheck and then twenty-five years after that he was in a bar fight. Clearly a danger to all who deserved what he got. Nevermind the people he helped, the people he employed and the little detail that with the exception of one over zealous prosecuter he was apparently regarded as a good neighbor and an asset to the community.
posted by cedar at 5:36 AM on September 3, 2003
You think? Quite a criminal record he had-- thirty years ago he was charged with robbery for trying to recover a paycheck and then twenty-five years after that he was in a bar fight. Clearly a danger to all who deserved what he got. Nevermind the people he helped, the people he employed and the little detail that with the exception of one over zealous prosecuter he was apparently regarded as a good neighbor and an asset to the community.
posted by cedar at 5:36 AM on September 3, 2003
And so Crosslin shot back his reply: "Our friends at the Michigan Militia have their ideas of how we shold handle your threats...."
Crosslin's an unusual case-- gay and pro-pot, but a gun fondler with fascist sympathies, evidently. He doesn't deserve to be canonized. And he did bring this on himself. He made a very good living giving sanctuary to lawbreakers. We can argue about the fairness of the laws he was breaking, but he wasn't a crusader. He was a profiteer.
posted by Mayor Curley at 7:10 AM on September 3, 2003
Crosslin's an unusual case-- gay and pro-pot, but a gun fondler with fascist sympathies, evidently. He doesn't deserve to be canonized. And he did bring this on himself. He made a very good living giving sanctuary to lawbreakers. We can argue about the fairness of the laws he was breaking, but he wasn't a crusader. He was a profiteer.
posted by Mayor Curley at 7:10 AM on September 3, 2003
It's probably fairer to say that he was both, Mayor Curley. He invested a great deal of his time, energy, and wealth in a consistently money-losing venture designed to help change the U.S. drug laws. Not, of course, that he wasn't *trying* to make money at it, but it seems clear that his motives went beyond simple cash.
posted by Mars Saxman at 7:22 AM on September 3, 2003
posted by Mars Saxman at 7:22 AM on September 3, 2003
Mr. Mayor: I'm not sure if Rainbow Farm can really be seen as primarily intended to make a profit. Crosslin, a successful businessman, consciously ran the place at a loss even liquidating assets to keep it afloat. No doubt he would have liked to turn a profit, but I'm sure that realistically he knew that wasn't going to happen.
His decision to continue throwing good money after bad indicates to me that he had motives beyond simple profit taking. As far as "giving sanctuary to lawbreakers" goes, even this is more complex than it would it appear. It could be argued that rather than providing sanctuary, Crosslin simply choose to look the other way and allowed people to behave as they saw fit. It seems he did his research and until the law changed (Son of RAVE, or whatever it's called) as a promoter he would not have been responsible for the actions of his customers. Maybe they should go after Clear Channel too, I hear you can buy drugs at concerts.
Even after much investigation it's worth noting that they never did find cause to charge Crosslin and the events that led to the demise of Crosslin and Rohm were due to a "heavily armed squad" that had come to "support the state IRS on a tax warrant." There is something very wrong with a system that allows heavily armed squads in armored vehicles to serve tax warrants. I got mine in the mail.
I'm not questioning that Crosslin showed horrendously bad judgement, bad enough that it became fatal, but I have a hard time seeing the need to take the guy out (and Rohm) with snipers while negotiations were ongoing. Seems to me they could have backed off a bit and allowed events to run their course, this was not a hostage situation and the only people Crosslin was endangering were those on his property (or flying over it).
posted by cedar at 8:28 AM on September 3, 2003
His decision to continue throwing good money after bad indicates to me that he had motives beyond simple profit taking. As far as "giving sanctuary to lawbreakers" goes, even this is more complex than it would it appear. It could be argued that rather than providing sanctuary, Crosslin simply choose to look the other way and allowed people to behave as they saw fit. It seems he did his research and until the law changed (Son of RAVE, or whatever it's called) as a promoter he would not have been responsible for the actions of his customers. Maybe they should go after Clear Channel too, I hear you can buy drugs at concerts.
Even after much investigation it's worth noting that they never did find cause to charge Crosslin and the events that led to the demise of Crosslin and Rohm were due to a "heavily armed squad" that had come to "support the state IRS on a tax warrant." There is something very wrong with a system that allows heavily armed squads in armored vehicles to serve tax warrants. I got mine in the mail.
I'm not questioning that Crosslin showed horrendously bad judgement, bad enough that it became fatal, but I have a hard time seeing the need to take the guy out (and Rohm) with snipers while negotiations were ongoing. Seems to me they could have backed off a bit and allowed events to run their course, this was not a hostage situation and the only people Crosslin was endangering were those on his property (or flying over it).
posted by cedar at 8:28 AM on September 3, 2003
« Older Hello Karl? This is GW. We need to talk...... | Cincinnati's Abandoned Subway Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by trondant at 10:00 PM on September 2, 2003