Its probably NSFW but items 18, 31, 32, 33, 44, 45, 47, 49, 81, 98, 100 are pretty enlightening about the behavior of Bill Nguyen (I guess I should add 'if true')... very sad.
#33 seems pretty plausible: http://techcrunch.com/2011/09/21/color-targets-new-facebook-....
EDIT: added clarification. If you read the parent post, the parent post claims that the points are "not safe for work." I was merely saying that reading the thing would probably be safe for work. Snark is really not necessary.
I'm going to guess that you feel this is an infringement on "Dunphy's" right to carry that gun. It's not. The right to bear arms doesn't extend to the unrestricted ability to use them as a means of intimidation.
This is the part I would have qualms with. The problem is that the presentation of context in the filing isn't great. I saw a one-liner that mention Nguyen telling somebody else about Dunphy having a Glock or something.
>I'm going to guess that you feel this is an infringement on "Dunphy's" right to carry that gun.
Please no. Not what I was getting at. I'm mostly concerned with the dissonance in what the filing is trying to convey versus how it might be perceived.
Mentioning that somebody carries a firearm in itself isn't a threat, it's heavily contextual. I have little trouble imagining that Nguyen was mentioning it in a threatening manner from what's provided in the filing though.
It is very much a relevant issue to determine the context in which a gun is mentioned. Connecting a firearm mention to an otherwise unrelated statement is quite reasonable interpreted as an implied threat to use the firearm.
This is my point, it's a non-sequitur. Being armed is irrelevant. Millions of American citizens carry firearms everyday. Everything you mentioned has nothing to do with the firearm. Mentioning it is just a way of scaring people with irrationality.
That aside, that Nguyen mentioned (from what I can tell) that Dunphy owned a weapon in a context where it seemed like he was making a threat is the real problem. Mentioning that a buddy/colleague owns a weapon as if they're going to go shoot somebody for you is...immature to the point of being psychotic...
That's the more relevant part here, I just found the placement, phrasing, and framing of it in the filing to be pretty poor.
I see a postal dispute: https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:TRTRSY2PM0kJ:...
He's a US Postal Service Office of the Inspector General Special Agent.
Which is interesting because 1) the USPS Postal Inspectors are no joke when it comes to the mails, but have exceedingly limited jurisdiction otherwise -- I assume this extends to their OIG as well, if not more so and 2) they are one of the least internally corrupt USG agencies (DEA is probably the worst; FBI and USSS are also pretty bad; various OIGs vary wildly down to HHS OIG; US Army CID and USAF OSI are probably the best).
So maybe this claim is totally baseless, but I'd probably not brag about my post office friend's ability to put people on no fly lists or brandish his Glock.