Been following this for a few days. I don't think it was just a felony either last I looked and the feds were involved.
I will wait for the judge to issue the sentence, however were I inclined to bet then there would be a fairly large chunk of change on guilty from everything I have seen, and I doubt even the Chicago police would make a move like that if they did not have serious evidence.
Especially with the views of the general public towards law enforcement specifically regarding matters of race at this point, I'd say that the case must have some sort of cut and dry element to it. The media/public backlash that could potentially result were it to not be relatively airtight is more of a consideration now than it really should be (which is more an issue of the US police force's misuse and abuse of power over the years, don't get me wrong, but still a shame that it has to be a consideration even if it is primarily their own fault). I guess point is, I hate to sound like a fence-sitter on it, the police have definitely gotten away with murder in the past (literally and figuratively) in matters of race; that much is true. But laws are still laws, even if they seemingly only apply to those who are not above it. It's not black and white (heh) but a far more complex discussion now unfortunately.
The real shame is, for the type of person that already has a certain mindset: this particular scenario, should the allegations be true and probably even if they're not, does little to bolster any sympathy whatsoever towards actual victims of hate crimes, and probably just reinforces a pre-existing belief system of bigotry. Innocent or guilty, the bigots become more entrenched and actual victims are left in the rain again.
I'm guessing that something he posted online or something he bought online automatically flagged him as a potential threat. Then law enforcement started watching him a little closer after that, and eventually gathered enough evidence for arrest.
No, we're not in the Minority Report yet. It's more like the 'Idiocracy Report,' because people publicly post stuff online that gets them fired or arrested all the time.
To be fair, the purchases of bulk Tramadol (which is a prescription drug, whether or not it should be is debatable but it is) illegally online is enough to warrant an investigation. The justification for that warrant begins with the paper trail that that transaction happened in the first place. Additional ones can be obtained based on information turned up via that particular investigation that could be 'justified' to require further investigation. Whether you agree or not with that system, or the 'justifications' required past that point which could be subjectively a stretch (who knows really), or could be construed into being 'justified' based on circumstances that legally shouldn't be taken in to account (such as the race of the perpetrator), is subject to your own opinions or viewpoints and beliefs.
But the system is in place for that series of events to occur, like it or not, and it was utilized in this particular case. I'd certainly be interested in the definition of 'bulk' amounts of Tramadol, which I'm sure amounts to little more than 'more than can be allotted in one 30 day time period by a physician', should it need to be, but it's kind of the least of the worries at this point. Tramadol is not much fun to abuse, and it really doesn't take super large quantities of illegally obtained drugs to be labeled as 'intent to distribute' which is what they're going after in the first place with an argument like that.