Nancy Genovese - Innocent Victim or Right Wing Teabagger?

[PixyMisa]

The first post is mostly hearsay; it may or may not be true, and the facts have not been disputed in court so we have little to go on.

The other posts are nothing but partisan bias and ignorance, as LTC8K6 explained. Even if the first post is wrong, the others are also wrong.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The first post is mostly hearsay; it may or may not be true, and the facts have not been disputed in court so we have little to go on.

The other posts are nothing but partisan bias and ignorance, as LTC8K6 explained. Even if the first post is wrong, the others are also wrong.

So in your opinion the police should have had no concerns about this woman's behavior?

Fairly neutral news account of the event

observed her taking photographs near the entrance to the base, though she had been previously warned not to do so. At the time of her arrest, authorities said Ms. Genovese had an XM-15 assault rifle and a shotgun—both registered and unloaded—in her car, and an estimated 500 rounds of ammunition in her trunk....

...she insists that ANG officials had never warned her to stay away from the base. She did note, however, that she had visited the Westhampton base before and had been questioned at that time....

...“She was basically notified that if she didn’t have official business, she was not allowed on our grounds,” said Major Scott Williams, the wing executive officer and media contact for the Air National Guard’s 106th Rescue Wing.

Major Williams said Ms. Genovese had been spotted once before snooping around on base property, and ANG members had written down her personal information. They were told to notify authorities if she appeared on the base again, he said: “They were keeping an eye out for her.”

Major Williams pointed out that signs located next to the helicopter read “the use of cameras or video equipment is prohibited,” and explained that the ANG prefers that no one take photos of the base. He said that if anyone is caught taking photos without prior permission, they will be questioned by base officials.

Of course her story sounds so believable. Well she was there before but the guard who talked to her was only interested in her sports car and wanted to drive it, no one warned her not to come back or said any thing about taking pictures.

Is she claiming she never saw the sign that says "no pictures" at the gate and a guard approaching her as she was using a camera would not have said pictures were not allowed?

Why did the "Southampton Town Police Lieutenant Robert Iberger" recognize the woman when he saw her? Why was the woman listed on a BOLO (be on the lookout)? Those details are not consistent with her story. They are consistent with the Nat'l Guard story.

Ms. Genovese, who said she has been firing shotguns at the range since she was a child, explained that she had visited the Long Island Shooting Range of Brookhaven in Ridge last Thursday, July 30, but did not shoot any weapons because of an ankle injury.

So her claim is she took weapons and ammo to a shooting range but didn't really go to the range to shoot? Wanna bet there is no record she went the the shooting range that day?


Further information:

Ms. Genovese has posted remarks that are critical of President Barack Obama and the Federal Emergency Management Agency on her blog and Twitter account. On her blog, she had speculated that FEMA would be conducting military drills with foreign troops from July 27 to 31 on American soil.

But she said Tuesday that she was aware that Gabreski Airport was not a FEMA base and that her web postings have nothing to do with her taking photographs of the Westhampton base.

The evidence is consistent with a nut job who believes Glenn Beck's bizarre paranoia. The evidence is not consistent with a pro-gun woman innocently taking pictures of a helicopter on her way home from target practice.

She was only charged with a misdemeanor. The judge setting the bail may have had serious concerns looking at the case. It took her several days to get bailed out. It might not have been been noticed by the news media (depends on how common this kind of incident occurs) if the woman had not tentatively won the default lawsuit.


Are those of you who think this was just one of those 'bias against gun lovers' incidents familiar with just what Beck actually preaches? Perhaps you don't realize just how paranoid he is about the New World Order threat he sees behind every bush.

 

[sadhatter]

Not necessarily. I just hope no one ever steals your case of guns from your car and then kills someone with one of them.

And i hope no one does the same with my collection of combat ready knives and swords, what is your point?

 

[sadhatter]

I was referring to your post about your arsenal you described as your "hobbies". You brought it up complete with pictures.

If it's nobody's business why did you bring is up? And as far as the discussion goes, you are using your arsenal and your "hobbies" to make the claim this is normal behavior. Perhaps your explanation of what these said hobbies are could shed some light on the normalcy of your arsenal.

In regards to the "civil discussion" I asked a civil question. Apparently you feel defensive. I'm not surprised.

I have to jump on this one.

I am guessing his hobby, is shooting. Call it a wild guess, but i think i am on the right track.

If you like to shoot, your probably going to have a lot of guns. Just like if you like books you have a lot of books, or if you like troll dolls you have a lot of troll dolls.

And if you have a lot of guns, you are probably going to bring them shooting with you, for variety, just like one who enjoys video games would have a variety of video games and if they were taking their system somewhere bring a variety of them.

I sympathize with the poster your referring to. As someone who is a fan of knives, among other Hand to hand weaponry, i get the same question constantly. And the answer is " Because i like it. And they are all different and serve different functions for my enjoyment. ".

I mean, i am due for another round of buying ( throwing knives tend to die on you after a while.), but at the moment, i have no less than 9 different throwing knives alone. Ranging from home made to much too high quality for the uses i put them to. And once my tax cash comes in, i will probably have at least another dozen or so.

You might not understand the difference between the flight patterns, damage ability, and balance between a kunai, a ka-bar , and throwing spike ( or in the posters case, a tarus-92, a colt 380, or a .45 beretta. ) , but i do. And because of this i have them all ( okay, that is a lie, my kunai were given to a friend to see if he enjoyed the sport. ) , i do not intend to go all " ninja scroll" on a group of people, i do not intend to become a mercenary, i just like knives.

Not that i agree that the person in the article has clean hands. But i could imagine it being at least a mentioned event if i was ever stopped by police on the way back from a flea market or knife show. Even with completely legal weaponry.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I have to jump on this one.

I am guessing his hobby, is shooting. Call it a wild guess, but i think i am on the right track.

If you like to shoot, your probably going to have a lot of guns. Just like if you like books you have a lot of books, or if you like troll dolls you have a lot of troll dolls.

And if you have a lot of guns, you are probably going to bring them shooting with you, for variety, just like one who enjoys video games would have a variety of video games and if they were taking their system somewhere bring a variety of them.

I sympathize with the poster your referring to. As someone who is a fan of knives, among other Hand to hand weaponry, i get the same question constantly. And the answer is " Because i like it. And they are all different and serve different functions for my enjoyment. ".

I mean, i am due for another round of buying ( throwing knives tend to die on you after a while.), but at the moment, i have no less than 9 different throwing knives alone. Ranging from home made to much too high quality for the uses i put them to. And once my tax cash comes in, i will probably have at least another dozen or so.

You might not understand the difference between the flight patterns, damage ability, and balance between a kunai, a ka-bar , and throwing spike ( or in the posters case, a tarus-92, a colt 380, or a .45 beretta. ) , but i do. And because of this i have them all ( okay, that is a lie, my kunai were given to a friend to see if he enjoyed the sport. ) , i do not intend to go all " ninja scroll" on a group of people, i do not intend to become a mercenary, i just like knives.

Not that i agree that the person in the article has clean hands. But i could imagine it being at least a mentioned event if i was ever stopped by police on the way back from a flea market or knife show. Even with completely legal weaponry.

If one brings up one's gun hobby as evidence the woman could have been similarly just a gun hobbyist, that's fine.

But in this case gun hobbyist fails to explain all the details in this case.

I have no doubt some people are just what they say, gun hobbyists. Genovese appears not to fit that category.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I ask my question again, who in the thread thinks they know what Beck's paranoid rantings have been but admit to not really having heard the guy's rantings recently? Because I think it goes to one's conclusions about this woman's intent.

 

[fromdownunder]

I just reread the Blog which started this thread, and noted the following:

All of the alleged facts discussed in this article have been taken directly from the court documents filed in this case.

In other words, all of the claims made in the Blog are based solely on what Ms Genovese has filed in Court.

I think that the 10/90 posted earlier on this thread is looking more and more likely.

Norm

 

[LTC8K6]

If one brings up one's gun hobby as evidence the woman could have been similarly just a gun hobbyist, that's fine.

But in this case gun hobbyist fails to explain all the details in this case.

I have no doubt some people are just what they say, gun hobbyists. Genovese appears not to fit that category.

I think other posters have already covered what I'd have said in response.

The guns and ammo pictured, if they are indeed what the woman had, certainly do not constitute an arsenal and I'm really not sure how the heck "cache" applies at all. The words were used to bias the reader. Something that is often done when guns are part of a news story, imo.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I think other posters have already covered what I'd have said in response.

The guns and ammo pictured, if they are indeed what the woman had, certainly do not constitute an arsenal and I'm really not sure how the heck "cache" applies at all. The words were used to bias the reader. Something that is often done when guns are part of a news story, imo.

500 rounds of ammo qualifies as a cache.

Getting back to the topic rather than your pet peeves about gun biases, what do you think about this woman's less than credible excuses, 'didn't know she wasn't supposed to take pictures', 'no one told her not to come back', 'the guard really just chatted up her sports car', 'she was going to the shooting range but didn't shoot because of an existing ankle injury'?

And are you aware of Beck's paranoid ramblings that go to this action being related to the woman's being a nut job?

 

[LTC8K6]

500 rounds of ammo qualifies as a cache.

Getting back to the topic rather than your pet peeves about gun biases, what do you think about this woman's less than credible excuses, 'didn't know she wasn't supposed to take pictures', 'no one told her not to come back', 'the guard really just chatted up her sports car', 'she was going to the shooting range but didn't shoot because of an existing ankle injury'?

And are you aware of Beck's paranoid ramblings that go to this action being related to the woman's being a nut job?

I don't have any pet peeves about gun biases.

Link to 500 rounds being a cache? I thought "cache" denoted a hidden or emergency supply, not an amount of something. That is, 50 rounds could be a cache, if I cache it.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cache

Why are her excuses less than credible in your mind?

How much of this have you done? At which airports do you spot? What guns do you shoot and where? Ever fired a 12 gauge standing with a bad ankle?

If you had read my posts, you'd know I don't watch Beck.

 

[tyr_13]

I don't have any pet peeves about gun biases.

Link to 500 rounds being a cache? I thought "cache" denoted a hidden or emergency supply, not an amount of something. That is, 50 rounds could be a cache, if I cache it.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cache

Why are her excuses less than credible in your mind?

How much of this have you done? At which airports do you spot? What guns do you shoot and where? Ever fired a 12 gauge standing with a bad ankle?

If you had read my posts, you'd know I don't watch Beck.

And it's difficult to fire the Bushmaster with a bad ankle? From prone? From bag? Why would you even load up to go shooting if you know you have a bad ankle?

Besides that, what about all the other non-gun related suspicious stuff? The warnings from the guards? The fact they were told to be on the lookout for her? The money?

Her story might be true, but it's very, very suspicious. The more I read about this, the more it looks like she was up to something nefarious. However, that doesn't mean the law enforcement officials et all behaved correctly either.

 

[fromdownunder]

Her story might be true, but it's very, very suspicious. The more I read about this, the more it looks like she was up to something nefarious. However, that doesn't mean the law enforcement officials et all behaved correctly either.

And this is what I am looking for. Is there any evidence, apart from her own statement, that the law enforcement officers did what she said they did?

I can accept that it is possible that she did not lie about the entire event, but the story on the Blog I posted in the OP strikes me as somewhat over the top. I really cannot accept that the events flowed in the way that her Court Appeal actually claims they did.

Norm

 

[Yalius]

Does anyone but me find it slightly odd that a county sheriff's department would allegedly taunt someone as being a right-winger or teabagger? In my experience, county sheriff's departments are pretty solidly right-leaning in and of themselves.

 

[Meadmaker]

What hobby, pray tell, involves taking pictures at airports and carrying around such an arsenal, let alone owning one. Are you afraid some one is going to attack you or take away your freedom?

It seems to me that there are two different hobbies involved, photography and rifle shooting.

I haven't read anything about this case except the article linked in the OP, but unless that article left out something very, very, important, that town is about to lose a lawsuit, and although I am generally anti-litigious, in this case I would say it is a good thing.

I don't care if she is a right winger, a gun toter, an evangelist, a tea-bagger, or a KKK supporter or Muslim fanatic. There's nothing illegal about taking pictures, and there is nothing illegal about target practice, nor about transporting a gun to and from target practice, so long as it is done in the manner required by local laws.

Did she do anything wrong, at all?

 

[tyr_13]

And this is what I am looking for. Is there any evidence, apart from her own statement, that the law enforcement officers did what she said they did?

I can accept that it is possible that she did not lie about the entire event, but the story on the Blog I posted in the OP strikes me as somewhat over the top. I really cannot accept that the events flowed in the way that her Court Appeal actually claims they did.

Norm

It does seem to be a pretty one sided flow of information, and I wouldn't be surprised if we don't find out more details latter when the country actually defends the lawsuit.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I listed the reasons the woman's story is less credible than the police story. But the post was long and at least 2 follow up posts say they want to know what evidence supports the conclusion the woman is lying. So here's a summary of the key points I made:

She claimed to have been target shooting buy made an excuse why she wasn't target shooting. That suggests she was aware if someone checked, there would not be any record she had been to the gun range.

She claimed the first time she had visited the same location, the guard who approached her never said anything about not coming back or taking pictures. She claimed the guard made small talk about her sports car.

Yet there was a sign at the gate saying no photos. And the guard had recorded the woman as suspicious and the Lt recognized the car. Someone certainly made an issue of this woman's previous visit besides just chatting about a sports car.

And one of Glenn Beck's paranoid claims (which none of you who find this woman's behavior normal have yet said they really know what Beck tells his audience) happened to coincide with the woman's behavior. Back in 2009 when this happened, Beck was telling his audience that FEMA death and prison camps existed. Genovese, according to the link I posted,

posted remarks that are critical of President Barack Obama and the Federal Emergency Management Agency on her blog and Twitter account. On her blog, she had speculated that FEMA would be conducting military drills with foreign troops from July 27 to 31 on American soil.

And when was she visiting this particular National Guard camp?

last week [article dated Aug 5th]

Where is the evidence this was just an innocent picture taking event on the way home from target practice?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It seems to me that there are two different hobbies involved, photography and rifle shooting.

I haven't read anything about this case except the article linked in the OP, but unless that article left out something very, very, important, that town is about to lose a lawsuit, and although I am generally anti-litigious, in this case I would say it is a good thing.

I don't care if she is a right winger, a gun toter, an evangelist, a tea-bagger, or a KKK supporter or Muslim fanatic. There's nothing illegal about taking pictures, and there is nothing illegal about target practice, nor about transporting a gun to and from target practice, so long as it is done in the manner required by local laws.

Did she do anything wrong, at all?

You need to read my posts. Start with the last one.

And for the record, it was posted, no photography allowed, where she was taking pictures so it was illegal.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Does anyone but me find it slightly odd that a county sheriff's department would allegedly taunt someone as being a right-winger or teabagger? In my experience, county sheriff's departments are pretty solidly right-leaning in and of themselves.

Police also tend to be pro-gun rights to some extent. But when dealing with armed suspects, they are not so understanding.

With all the terrorism, most of which has fortunately been thwarted, I for one am glad the police investigated this woman.

 

[jmcvann]

Well, the guns are never left unattended in the car.

So you never drive your car anywhere and then leave the presence of your car? Perhaps I missed something.

 

[Finn McR]

So, Skeptic Ginger appears to be really worried about people with un-loaded firearms. You know, basically...clubs.

Maybe this woman is a Beck-o-phile; heck, maybe she is a total right-wing, conspiracy theorist, gun-loving wing-nut. But what is the big deal about a person taking photos at an airport. If she were some kind of uber-terrorist, she probably would have had a loaded weapon (or even something more likely to cause serious damage).

How about we arrest people for crimes that they actually commit, or that we have good evidence that they intend to commit, rather than for crimes we *think* they *might* commit?