I think that if we say that asserting you will defend yourself is itself a threat than it could be a serious blow to people who are legitimately defending themselves. Which is obviously not a good thing. We have to consider the ramifications.
If we classify what they said as being a threat, than someone who is defending their home from an intruder who yells out "I'll kill you if you come any closer" could be construed as making a death threat, which is illegal.
The difference lies, I think, in that these people have no right to defend themselves from people entering the property (as it isn't theirs) or to defend themselves from law enforcement officers arresting them legitimately.
So the context of the situation determines whether saying "I will kill you if you come near me" is a threat or not and that in this case it is a threat as the militia have no right to defend themselves from legal arrest or in order to prevent anybody from entering federally owned land as they are not federal law enforcement.
Since a group of around a dozen armed militants took over a federal building on a remote wildlife reserve in Oregon to protest government "tyranny" earlier this month, the public's response has been less than sympathetic.
The "militia" may well be a little peckish and cold, but at least they have now have plenty of lube to accompany all the dildos they've been sent in the post.
On Thursday, Max Temkin, a Chicago-based designer, posted to Twitter his order of a 55-gallon drum of person lubricant, which he kindly sent to the group many have claimed are domestic "terrorists".
It cost Max more than $1,000 and people have been very keen to show their support for the cause.
Sorry I had to post this. I hope this makes some people in this thread laugh.
I think that if we say that asserting you will defend yourself is itself a threat than it could be a serious blow to people who are legitimately defending themselves. Which is obviously not a good thing. We have to consider the ramifications.
If we classify what they said as being a threat, than someone who is defending their home from an intruder who yells out "I'll kill you if you come any closer" could be construed as making a death threat, which is illegal.
The difference lies, I think, in that these people have no right to defend themselves from people entering the property (as it isn't theirs) or to defend themselves from law enforcement officers arresting them legitimately.
So the context of the situation determines whether saying "I will kill you if you come near me" is a threat or not and that in this case it is a threat as the militia have no right to defend themselves from legal arrest or in order to prevent anybody from entering federally owned land as they are not federal law enforcement.
The issue here is that context doesn't always factor in when you are dealing with legal matters. That leaves too much grey area for things to wiggle around in.
These people have already broken a bunch of laws, no need to go after them for making threats. That would open up the possibilities for some unwanted loopholes for self-defense.
Police say Kenneth Medenbach drove the vehicle to town from the Malheur national wildlife refuge – and it’s not his first tangle with the law
Kenneth Medenbach spoke with the Guardian on 2 January at a public rally in support of the ranchers, held in the same Safeway car park where he was arrested.
Photograph: Jason Wilson for the Guardian Sam Levin in Burns, Oregon, and Nicky Woolf in San Francisco
The standoff with armed militia in Oregon escalated on Friday after police swooped in on one of the protesters to make the first arrest in connection with the two-week occupation of a federal wildlife refuge.
Kenneth Medenbach, who was arrested for unauthorized use of a government vehicle, is a chainsaw sculptor and longtime nemesis of the government with a history of previous entanglements with the courts over the occupation of federal lands.
He is the first militiaman connected to the armed occupation to be arrested since the bird sanctuary in rural Oregon was unexpectedly taken over on 2 January.
Medenbach, 62, was detained outside a Safeway supermarket in Burns, Oregon, some 30 miles from the Malheur national wildlife refuge, according to a statement from the Harney County sheriff’s office.
He appears to have driven from the occupied compound to a local supermarket in a vehicle allegedly stolen from the US Fish and Wildlife Service, which runs the refuge. The sheriff’s office statement said that law enforcement officers recovered “two vehicles stolen from the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge”.
Medenbach’s company, Chainsaw Creations, lists cabins, furniture, and signs for sale, as well as sculpted animals, with a specialty in bears and eagles. A biography on the website for a gallery that sells his woodwork says that Medenbach was born in Massachusetts, the second-youngest of five children, and that he spent 40 years in the construction trade.
This is not Medenbach’s first tangle with the law. He is currently out on bail, according to court documents, awaiting trial for a seven-month residential occupation of government land between May and November 2015.
Medenbach was tried and convicted of the same crime in 1996. According to a forest service officer who testified at that trial, Medenbach was living in “an eight-by-ten-foot tent with a metal flue and wood-burning stove, a nearby campfire, and various cooking and sleeping equipment”.
According to a court memorandum, the magistrate said that Medenbach posed a risk to public safety and said that he had referenced Ruby Ridge and Waco, two sieges that ended in violence. At a detention hearing, the government said that Medenbach had tried to protect his campsite with “50 to 100 pounds of the explosive ammonium sulfate, a pellet gun, and what appeared to be a hand grenade with trip wires.”
Convicted and given a six-month suspended sentence, Medenbach appealed the case to the federal ninth circuit court, where he argued that federal ownership of unappropriated public lands was unconstitutional. He also filed a civil suit to demand that federal judges no longer swear an oath of affirmation under the constitution, a position he defended in this blog post from January 2015.
According to one local report, the two vehicles, one a pickup truck and one a passenger van, bore door signs reading “Harney County Resource Center” – the new name occupiers have given to the sanctuary. The man police suspected of driving the second government vehicle into town already had gone into the grocery store before police arrived, the report said.
The arrest, which marks the first confrontation between law enforcement and the armed occupiers, came hours before Ammon Bundy, the leader of the militia, and the other armed men had planned to hold a meeting with the local community at which the occupiers said they planned to discuss ending the protest.
It is unclear how central a figure Medenbach was to the occupation at the refuge, or how long he had been staying there. However, his commitment to the extreme ideology of rightwing constitutionalists is not in doubt.
Medenbach spoke with The Guardian on the 2nd of January at the public rally in support of the Hammonds, held in the same Safeway car park where he was arrested. When asked why he was attending, he offered similar constitutional theories as those offered by other militia members. He claimed to have been involved in this stand-off as a member of the Oath Keepers militia.
He was extensively profiled in the 1999 book Terrorists Among Us: The Militia Threat, by retired Indiana police captain Robert L Snow. At the time, Snow wrote, Medenbach was building his own home on five acres of land in Crescent, Oregon, out of “discarded refrigerators, water heaters, and other such material.” Medenbach, according to Snow, subscribed to the legal theory that state bar associations are unconstitutional, and so courts have no authority over him.
“I’m willing to pay the price for my convictions,” Medenbach told Snow. “Someday, when the laws become too stringent, people will start waking up.”
Armed militia have been seen driving the government vehicles around the refuge ever since they took over the site in protest over federal land management policies earlier this month. Legal experts have told the Guardian that the occupiers could face hefty fines and more than 10 years of imprisonment.
A USFWS spokesperson Megan Nagel said: “The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is grateful for the quick actions from law enforcement. We will continue to work with law enforcement to recover vehicles bought and paid for by the American people to care for their national wildlife refuge.”
It was unclear Friday whether the scheduled 7pm meeting between the militia and local residents would go ahead. The militia leaders had said they planned to speak directly with residents and explain their plans to leave the federal land. Officials in rural Harney County, who have become increasingly outspoken against the militia, have denied them access to public buildings, saying they refuse to host a group that supports the illegal takeover of government property.
On Thursday, Bundy was expressing doubts about whether the meeting would happen at all if the militia couldn’t find a venue.
Harney County judge Steve Grasty said he was grateful that officials have made an arrest. “At some point, criminal actions become so blatant that they just can’t be ignored,” he said. “At some point, criminal actions become so blatant that they just can’t be ignored.”
He said law enforcement is trying to end this without violence, but must make every effort to hold people accountable for their crimes. “Perhaps that’ll give Bundy and his friends incentive not to be driving around these vehicles,” he added.
Corey Lequieu, a 45-year-old occupier who is still at the refuge, said he was reluctant to believe the reports of his fellow militiaman’s arrest. “It may not even be true. I’m hoping it’s not true,” he said. “I’m very leery about their press releases and press conferences. That sheriff has lied before.”
And when the gak hits the fan, these will be the types raiding people's homes to steal their supplies if the ones I knew are anything to go on.
It's their own fault for not being prepared to defend themselves when the government fails, survival of the fittest!
Yep the militia was brewing a plan to raid people's houses if anything ever happens.
So, let me get this straight, the militia wanted to bring down the government to stop the tyranny over the people. Then when that happened, they wanted to be able to be bandits for their own personal gain?
And when the gak hits the fan, these will be the types raiding people's homes to steal their supplies if the ones I knew are anything to go on.
It's their own fault for not being prepared to defend themselves when the government fails, survival of the fittest!
Yep the militia was brewing a plan to raid people's houses if anything ever happens.
So, let me get this straight, the militia wanted to bring down the government to stop the tyranny over the people. Then when that happened, they wanted to be able to be bandits for their own personal gain?
Yeah, patriots for sure.....
All the while telling me melodramatic reasons for being militia, with the best being they will fight so their children won't have to.
But once they take over as the government their children will need to form a new militia in order to ensure that the new government doesn't become a corrupt tyrany and, say, start stealing food from their neighbo... wait a second!
Since a group of around a dozen armed militants took over a federal building on a remote wildlife reserve in Oregon to protest government "tyranny" earlier this month, the public's response has been less than sympathetic.
The "militia" may well be a little peckish and cold, but at least they have now have plenty of lube to accompany all the dildos they've been sent in the post.
On Thursday, Max Temkin, a Chicago-based designer, posted to Twitter his order of a 55-gallon drum of person lubricant, which he kindly sent to the group many have claimed are domestic "terrorists".
It cost Max more than $1,000 and people have been very keen to show their support for the cause.
Sorry I had to post this. I hope this makes some people in this thread laugh.
SilverMK2 wrote: But once they take over as the government their children will need to form a new militia in order to ensure that the new government doesn't become a corrupt tyrany and, say, start stealing food from their neighbo... wait a second!
.......Exactly! Makes total sense.
It's ok though. All these extremists always reassure us that they will do a much better job than the guys in the black helicopters, so no worries!
The issue here is that context doesn't always factor in when you are dealing with legal matters. That leaves too much grey area for things to wiggle around in.
Context always matters when it comes to legal judgment.
These people have already broken a bunch of laws, no need to go after them for making threats. That would open up the possibilities for some unwanted loopholes for self-defense.
I disagree, they should face the full force of the law. I see no reason at all to avoid charging the relevant individuals with crimes they might be guilty of.
dogma wrote: I disagree, they should face the full force of the law. I see no reason at all to avoid charging the relevant individuals with crimes they might be guilty of.
If only there were someone we could send into Oregon who were an expert in dealing with armed crazies and creeps who don't uphold the Law...
SHARE UPDATE BURNS OREGON! CHRISTIANS THE BATTLE TRUMPET HAS BEEN SOUNDED TIME TO RISE! CALL TO ACTION SEND IN THE TROOPS TO STAND WITH US IN BURNS OREGON!
Best comment I've seen so far is : "Hey Clem! How's the Revolution and occupation going?""Shofar, shogood."
No, what is going on is a bunch of manly men in camo are sitting around in a loge putting large bones to their lips and blowing. After, they lift weights, play with their guns, and take turns choking down yet another can of condensed soup.
I am seriously surprised we haven't just hooked up giant speakers and started blasting "Barbie Girl" on a loop by now. Three days of that should do the trick.
lonestarr777 wrote: I am seriously surprised we haven't just hooked up giant speakers and started blasting "Barbie Girl" on a loop by now. Three days of that should do the trick.
no, beiber, endlessly. i fear it may be a crime against humanity though
Easy E wrote: You want to know what is going on? Nothing. That's what is going on there. Nothing.
This is why the government is also doing... nothing.
Which I'm very happy about, even though I feel that what these guys are doing is akin to terrorism, and it'd be treated very differently if it were a bunch of people wearing turbans. They're in the middle of nowhere, occupying something that nobody cares about. Better to let them cool off there than to spark another Waco.
Talys wrote: I feel that what these guys are doing is akin to terrorism, and it'd be treated very differently if it were a bunch of people wearing turbans. They're in the middle of nowhere, occupying something that nobody cares about.
Where are examples of 'people wearing turbans' who have done something similar (occupying something nobody cares about in the middle of nowhere in your words) being treated differently by the Feds?
Perhaps jihadis in the US wearing turbans (or not as is usually the case) have different targets and go about hitting those targets differently than these guys are, and the combination of target set and actions used to hit that target set are what the feds or local LEAs use to determine their courses of action? Treating the Tsarnaev brothers or Farook and Malik differently is brought on not by their religion, color, style of headgear, but instead by the fact they were actively blowing gak up and killing people (or had done so very recently) and when confronted by the cops actively engaged them.
Easy E wrote: You want to know what is going on? Nothing. That's what is going on there. Nothing.
This is why the government is also doing... nothing.
Which I'm very happy about, even though I feel that what these guys are doing is akin to terrorism, and it'd be treated very differently if it were a bunch of people wearing turbans. They're in the middle of nowhere, occupying something that nobody cares about. Better to let them cool off there than to spark another Waco.
Keep hands off approach. No point people dieing over s remote site miles from no where if not have to.
Just keep waiting till they slide out of medias care and break up.
lonestarr777 wrote: I am seriously surprised we haven't just hooked up giant speakers and started blasting "Barbie Girl" on a loop by now. Three days of that should do the trick.
I remember seeing huge loud speakers in Korea that they used to use on the DMZ. Maybe the U.S. should use the same trick.
Smooth jazz though. Those guys are locked up together with a ton of dildos and lube, so…
Talys wrote: I feel that what these guys are doing is akin to terrorism, and it'd be treated very differently if it were a bunch of people wearing turbans. They're in the middle of nowhere, occupying something that nobody cares about.
Where are examples of 'people wearing turbans' who have done something similar (occupying something nobody cares about in the middle of nowhere in your words) being treated differently by the Feds?
I think you're misunderstanding me. If people of middle-eastern descent were to occupy some building, even if it were in the middle of nowhere that nobody cares about, the public outrage from some people would force the government to take more action than, "well, let's just wait it out." That's in my opinion. Obviously, it's a hypothetical, since such a thing hasn't happened.
Just to be clear, I don't think people should be treated any differently whether they wear a turban, cross, or suit.
I *DO* feel that it's an act of terrorism when you occupy a federal building with weapons, even if nobody particularly cares about that building. Just practically speaking, an intelligent, calm observer would say, "it's not worth getting people killed over."
Keep hands off approach. No point people dieing over s remote site miles from no where if not have to.
Just keep waiting till they slide out of medias care and break up.
That's exactly it. They must get bored at some point... right? I wonder what these guys do all day, lol.
Talys wrote: I feel that what these guys are doing is akin to terrorism, and it'd be treated very differently if it were a bunch of people wearing turbans. They're in the middle of nowhere, occupying something that nobody cares about.
Where are examples of 'people wearing turbans' who have done something similar (occupying something nobody cares about in the middle of nowhere in your words) being treated differently by the Feds?
I think you're misunderstanding me. If people of middle-eastern descent were to occupy some building, even if it were in the middle of nowhere that nobody cares about, the public outrage from some people would force the government to take more action than, "well, let's just wait it out." That's in my opinion. Obviously, it's a hypothetical, since such a thing hasn't happened.
Just to be clear, I don't think people should be treated any differently whether they wear a turban, cross, or suit.
I *DO* feel that it's an act of terrorism when you occupy a federal building with weapons, even if nobody particularly cares about that building. Just practically speaking, an intelligent, calm observer would say, "it's not worth getting people killed over.".
I understood you. You claim pretty clearly if these were Muslims there would be a public outcry. I assume you mean one similar to the one the folks in this thread are making where they are advocating to 'drone' or otherwise assault and kill this group. The fact is, there has been public out cry calling to kill these guys. Another fact is, Jihadists in the US don't do what these guys are. Another fact is you can't show that if these guys were Jihadists they would be treated differently. In fact, Waco and Ruby Ridge seem to indicate white folks can can be treated pretty harshly by the feds even when they are isolated.
I guess I reject your 'feeling' that Jihadists would be treated differently, nothing but 'feeling' supports that.
Again the government is not doing anything here because it has no need to. After the disasters of the earlier siege situations where many innocent people were killed, Ruby Ridge and Waco being the two obvious ones, the FBI redid their playbook. In this situation when there is no need to assault the building and there are no unwilling hostages to rescue they will not attack. They will sit back at a distance in a nonaggressive stance to avoid the view that it is a siege in order to keep from escalading the situation. These guys are causing no real harm and are not threatening or in a position to threaten anyone.
- It is still unknown whether the guys who followed the officers home are actually from this group or are part of some of the other groups outside the wire not affiliated with them.
-Don't worry about the gov workers, whatever their job was inside the building, it isn't very hard for gov office types to pick up and move to another console.
-Nothing has been done to address the false charges that BLM made against the Hammonds. If anything the militia thing has actually detracted away from the injustice done to them by the uber corrupt BLM. You don't think they are corrupt and underhanded. "Hey the farmers wont sell, Bob, go close the dam, we will flood them out and buy it at half price."(Yes that happened as part of this for that exact reason.)
-Not all militias are bad or dumb rednecks. Some have good causes, but most of those are not represented at this location. Not all militias are anti-government, some are simply local defense for major disaster prep and so forth. But If you believe the government has the best of intentions for you, you need to get out more. Ask our allied indian tribes after our initial invasion of the continent how that worked out.
-Town is 50 50 on the whole thing. Local businesses are having a booming time for a normally small community out in BFE.
Col., I'm glad you seem to have found a militia that embodies good motives. The people in the one I knew here were mostly jackasses planning on stealing people's supplies in the event of disaster.
Those are an exception. I think with digging, you would find more with good intentions than with bad. That and those types are exactly the kind of thing amongst others these militias are for. The bad ones just get all the publicity because they make the news doing and saying stupid stuff. The good ones stay low and have no motive or reason to make the news. Why advertise? The community knows they are there and no one else needs to. Some that I know of grew out of CERT team members finding others and having more common interests and concerns aside from the official CERT mission. Especially in larger isolated neighborhoods, mine(neighborhood) for example which is 3000 homes, encompasses almost 22 square miles and 20 minutes from the closest grocery store and farther from the nearest police station and even farther from nearest hospital. Our CERT unit would be taxed out in a major emergency and we are very low on the county priority list for everything(except our taxes, they love that) thus the need for security in a situation requiring it is there as we are located along two major highways between two large population centers. This kind of situation is what the majority of US militias actually are, most simply do not call themselves militias because of the connotation it gives because of asshats like the Bundys.
Col. Dash wrote: Again the government is not doing anything here because it has no need to. After the disasters of the earlier siege situations where many innocent people were killed, Ruby Ridge and Waco being the two obvious ones, the FBI redid their playbook. In this situation when there is no need to assault the building and there are no unwilling hostages to rescue they will not attack. They will sit back at a distance in a nonaggressive stance to avoid the view that it is a siege in order to keep from escalading the situation. These guys are causing no real harm and are not threatening or in a position to threaten anyone. - It is still unknown whether the guys who followed the officers home are actually from this group or are part of some of the other groups outside the wire not affiliated with them.
-Don't worry about the gov workers, whatever their job was inside the building, it isn't very hard for gov office types to pick up and move to another console.
-Nothing has been done to address the false charges that BLM made against the Hammonds. If anything the militia thing has actually detracted away from the injustice done to them by the uber corrupt BLM. You don't think they are corrupt and underhanded. "Hey the farmers wont sell, Bob, go close the dam, we will flood them out and buy it at half price."(Yes that happened as part of this for that exact reason.)
-Not all militias are bad or dumb rednecks. Some have good causes, but most of those are not represented at this location. Not all militias are anti-government, some are simply local defense for major disaster prep and so forth. But If you believe the government has the best of intentions for you, you need to get out more. Ask our allied indian tribes after our initial invasion of the continent how that worked out.
-Town is 50 50 on the whole thing. Local businesses are having a booming time for a normally small community out in BFE.
Didn't you hear? They enforced the laws of the land as empowered by legislation passed by congress made up of elected officials to enact said legislation by the people of the United States of America!
edit: And how are they "über corrupt"?
Only a corrupt government owns land duly acquired in trade, treaty, and war and doesn't give it to the State legislatures who will promptly sell it out for condos, minimalls, and strip mining. It's not like protecting the environment can ever serve a legitimate purpose! It's just a bunch of bleeding heart liberals choking the life out of the fair capitalists... Who benefit overwhelmingly from cheap government provided services, subsidies, and tax breaks...
You know. I'm starting to think these guys might be living in some fantasy completely devoid of any resemblance to the real world...
Col. Dash wrote: Again the government is not doing anything here because it has no need to. After the disasters of the earlier siege situations where many innocent people were killed, Ruby Ridge and Waco being the two obvious ones, the FBI redid their playbook. In this situation when there is no need to assault the building and there are no unwilling hostages to rescue they will not attack. They will sit back at a distance in a nonaggressive stance to avoid the view that it is a siege in order to keep from escalading the situation. These guys are causing no real harm and are not threatening or in a position to threaten anyone.
- It is still unknown whether the guys who followed the officers home are actually from this group or are part of some of the other groups outside the wire not affiliated with them.
-Don't worry about the gov workers, whatever their job was inside the building, it isn't very hard for gov office types to pick up and move to another console.
-Nothing has been done to address the false charges that BLM made against the Hammonds. If anything the militia thing has actually detracted away from the injustice done to them by the uber corrupt BLM. You don't think they are corrupt and underhanded. "Hey the farmers wont sell, Bob, go close the dam, we will flood them out and buy it at half price."(Yes that happened as part of this for that exact reason.)
-Not all militias are bad or dumb rednecks. Some have good causes, but most of those are not represented at this location. Not all militias are anti-government, some are simply local defense for major disaster prep and so forth. But If you believe the government has the best of intentions for you, you need to get out more. Ask our allied indian tribes after our initial invasion of the continent how that worked out.
-Town is 50 50 on the whole thing. Local businesses are having a booming time for a normally small community out in BFE.
Question, what did the BLM do against them?
edit: And how are they "über corrupt"?
They dared to prosecute men who set fire to public land to cover up poaching and in the process almost killing some people.
They dared to prosecute men who set fire to public land to cover up poaching and in the process almost killing some people.
Arsonists who I might add are lucky as hell (or maybe the locals just play favorites) that this is what they're going to prison for. Not attempted murder, as happened in 1994, and 1997, Child Abuse, or all the other fires the BLM knows they've set over the past 20 years.
CptJake wrote: You claim pretty clearly if these were Muslims there would be a public outcry.
Well, in all honesty, do you think guys like Trump wouldn't be up there stirring the pot? I might draw your attention to his actions when an unarmed Muslim woman in a hijab turned up at one of his rallies and just stood there.
Imagine armed Muslims holding a Federal building. He'd be calling for a Crusade then and there.
Arsonists who I might add are lucky as hell (or maybe the locals just play favorites) that this is what they're going to prison for. Not attempted murder, as happened in 1994, and 1997, Child Abuse, or all the other fires the BLM knows they've set over the past 20 years.
Small matter of proof, but that's never stopped your lynchmob before, has it hats?
The issue was that the courts tried them, handed down a sentence, which was served, and then suddenly it was decided that they had not served enough time and had to go back to jail. I'm sure you'd be ranting and raring if you paid your parking fine and then got a note a month later that you now had to report to jail to do five to ten.
BaronIveagh wrote: Small matter of proof, but that's never stopped your lynchmob before, has it hats?
All other potential charges have evidence and witnesses, much of which was used against the Hammonds' trial when they tried to use their character as a defense (more than enough to bring charges at the least), which is why I expressed amazement a few pages ago that two counts of Arson is all they've ever been charged with. Somebody somewhere, was being very understanding/sympathetic with this family. The Hammonds seem to have delighted over the years in taunting the BLM with fires. Witnesses at their trial for the two fires they were convicted of even brought up that the Hammonds regularly started fires on and near the refuge during lightning storms.
The issue was that the courts tried them, handed down a sentence, which was served, and then suddenly it was decided that they had not served enough time and had to go back to jail.
And as I said pages ago; Another example of people being screwed over by mandatory minimums (though I think 5 years for arson is fair) and another reason why we should do away with them.
CptJake wrote: You claim pretty clearly if these were Muslims there would be a public outcry.
Well, in all honesty, do you think guys like Trump wouldn't be up there stirring the pot? I might draw your attention to his actions when an unarmed Muslim woman in a hijab turned up at one of his rallies and just stood there.
Imagine armed Muslims holding a Federal building. He'd be calling for a Crusade then and there.
Arsonists who I might add are lucky as hell (or maybe the locals just play favorites) that this is what they're going to prison for. Not attempted murder, as happened in 1994, and 1997, Child Abuse, or all the other fires the BLM knows they've set over the past 20 years.
Small matter of proof, but that's never stopped your lynchmob before, has it hats?
The issue was that the courts tried them, handed down a sentence, which was served, and then suddenly it was decided that they had not served enough time and had to go back to jail. I'm sure you'd be ranting and raring if you paid your parking fine and then got a note a month later that you now had to report to jail to do five to ten.
The issue is that the courts handed down an illegal sentence and a higher court had to come in and tell them they messed up. Also, your parking fine/jail time analogy does not fit.
BaronIveagh wrote: Small matter of proof, but that's never stopped your lynchmob before, has it hats?
The issue was that the courts tried them, handed down a sentence, which was served, and then suddenly it was decided that they had not served enough time and had to go back to jail. I'm sure you'd be ranting and raring if you paid your parking fine and then got a note a month later that you now had to report to jail to do five to ten.
It's actually kind of a catch-22 as the case both showcases why mandatory minimums are unfair, and why they were put into law in the first place XD
The original sentence of a few months for two arsons, one to cover up another crime, and both that put the lives of others in immediate risk is a travesty.
But then, convicted persons getting jerked around because the judge handed down a illegal sentence during sentencing and having to go back to prison after already being released is total donkey balls XD
I don't like the Hammonds and I think they got what they deserved but the law doesn't exist so people I don't like get their comeuppance. Unfortunately, I doubt anything good will come from that end of this story because the Refuge occupation will taint everything going into the future (and well... the Hammonds aren't very likable and it's easy to dismiss bad things when they happen to people who don't play well in Prime Time news).
What did BLM do? For starters they have been acquiring land now for several decades in this area. Doesnt sound bad until you notice the tactics they use. There are several posts on this thread that link abuses by BLM, you can find them, I am not going to go through all this and hunt it down.
Best one off hand was they tried to buy rancher land near the park from four or five ranchers who wouldn't sell so they closed up a dam down river from the ranchers on land they did own and flooded the ranchers out then purchased the land for pennies on the dollar, then they let the water out. If thats not screwed up to you, you have something wrong with you. They have also taken land down the middle of people's property and not permitted them to travel through it to get to their homes or fields.
Secondly it was not arson. It was a backfire, something commonly used by ranchers in these areas to burn off the fuel in front of a wildfire. They did not inform a distant fire department because they were in a hurry to defend their own home. And it worked. Its not like it was out of control or burned a lot of land. If anything the fire department should be thanking them and its good for the environment anyway.
So yes, while these militia guys are definately in the wrong, BLM is far worse and steal land from people all the time for whatever their end goal is. Oh and a 1975 report stated quite clearly that the environment that was privately owned had far better ecosystems than government land that was managed so saving the environment is not one of the goals.
Col. Dash wrote: What did BLM do? For starters they have been acquiring land now for several decades in this area. Doesnt sound bad until you notice the tactics they use. There are several posts on this thread that link abuses by BLM, you can find them, I am not going to go through all this and hunt it down.
Best one off hand was they tried to buy rancher land near the park from four or five ranchers who wouldn't sell so they closed up a dam down river from the ranchers on land they did own and flooded the ranchers out then purchased the land for pennies on the dollar, then they let the water out. If thats not screwed up to you, you have something wrong with you. They have also taken land down the middle of people's property and not permitted them to travel through it to get to their homes or fields.
Secondly it was not arson. It was a backfire, something commonly used by ranchers in these areas to burn off the fuel in front of a wildfire. They did not inform a distant fire department because they were in a hurry to defend their own home. And it worked. Its not like it was out of control or burned a lot of land. If anything the fire department should be thanking them and its good for the environment anyway.
So yes, while these militia guys are definately in the wrong, BLM is far worse and steal land from people all the time for whatever their end goal is. Oh and a 1975 report stated quite clearly that the environment that was privately owned had far better ecosystems than government land that was managed so saving the environment is not one of the goals.
Brave freedom fighters are often misunderstood in their time, but I'm sure history will redeem these guys.
Edit:
And maybe it's just the former firefighter side of me talking, but anybody who starts fires and knowingly endangers firefighters like that is someone on the same level as cop killers IMO.
d-usa wrote: And maybe it's just the former firefighter side of me talking, but anybody who starts fires and knowingly endangers firefighters like that is someone on the same level as cop killers IMO.
d-usa wrote: And maybe it's just the former firefighter side of me talking, but anybody who starts fires and knowingly endangers firefighters like that is someone on the same level as cop killers IMO.
Because that is how it has been done out there for over a century now to fight fire even up until modern times. BLM is taking exception with this this time because they want the last of the hold outs land. But it has been done on private land for years. And if you guys are so happy with the feds holding massive tracts of land, why are you ok with them taking even more? Do you not believe in private property?
Col. Dash wrote: Because that is how it has been done out there for over a century now to fight fire even up until modern times.
It's modern practice to set fires during red flag warnings/burn bans? Because that's what they did.
Col. Dash wrote: But it has been done on private land for years.
This is irrelevant to the fact that they burned 139 acres of public property, endangering several lives.
Col. Dash wrote: And if you guys are so happy with the feds holding massive tracts of land, why are you ok with them taking even more? Do you not believe in private property?
... wut?
Do you know what all of these "defenses" of these guys always feel like to me? That scene in Forrest Gump, where Wesley "apologizes" for slapping Jenny.
I mean, there are strawmen, and then that, you know?
Col. Dash wrote: Because that is how it has been done out there for over a century now to fight fire even up until modern times. BLM is taking exception with this this time because they want the last of the hold outs land.
Lighting fires to burn brush is a common practice and is still done in many parts of the world. However, they live in the United States where there are these things called laws about what you are allowed to do. To light fires, you need to pay a small fee to your local office for a permit and you need to notify them that you are going to burn land before you do so. They did neither of those things and burned land while they explicitly were told not to burn land, putting several people's lives at risk.
To play devil's advocate, the question of rights to public land have been a hot topic throughout history all the way back to documents such as the Magna Carta and the Charter of the Forest. People have been debating over what rights to public land should people have for a long time and it is complicated an nuanced issue that I feel could be readdressed today to meet the needs of modern farming practices and requirements for environmental protection. A balance has to be struck between requirements for grazing lands, irrigation, and not completely destroying the environment under herds of animals.
These people squatting in the cabin though are crazy and should be put away somewhere so that people can actually discuss this without looking like loons.
And if you guys are so happy with the feds holding massive tracts of land, why are you ok with them taking even more? Do you not believe in private property?
Excellent! My obligatory weekly attack on Communism. If I go to long without someone blaming Communism for all their problems, I begin to get the shakes. I begin to wonder if we lost our edge.
Actually they had a wildfire approaching their home. They didnt have time to apply for a permit and if burning a quick backfire to stop the main one to protect your house is required then yes anyone would do this.
Not everywhere requires you to have a permit besides. Here in the east we burn yard scraps and have bonfires quite often.
I am not blaming communism. The government owns more of the west than the people do. That is wrong. And they are trying to acquire more despite environmental reports saying the private ranchland is better managed.
They were under a burn ban on a high fire danger day and knowingly risked the lives of firefighters. There is really no good reason to defend those guys.
Col. Dash wrote: Actually they had a wildfire approaching their home. They didnt have time to apply for a permit and if burning a quick backfire to stop the main one to protect your house is required then yes anyone would do this.
You don't need to apply for a permit each time, you apply for it once and then its yours. As far as I could tell from my research into the region's laws, you have to call the office and tell the secretary that you are going to be burning land, which they definitely had time to do. They also ignored a warning put out not to burn land because there were already firefighters containing the fire. Their fire spread out of control and forced the firefighters to abandon their positions and flee for their lives.
While there are arguments that people should have more rights to public land, these people put lives in danger with their actions.
"In her first lengthy public comments on the armed occupation of a wildlife refuge in Oregon, Governor Kate Brown said Wednesday that the federal government had urged state officials to "limit" their public comments about the standoff.
"To avoid escalating the situation, I have complied," Brown said at the end of a roughly four-minute speech to introduce her 2016 policy agenda. "I would not want to say anything to compromise their efforts to resolve the situation."
But the situation in Burns, a town close to the refuge, is "absolutely intolerable," she said.
"The very fabric of this community is being ripped apart," Brown said, adding that she had "conveyed these very grave concerns directly" to the Department of Justice and the White House.
"Federal authorities must move quickly to end the occupation and hold all of the wrongdoers accountable," she said.
Brown also plans to seek funding during next month's legislative session to "offset" the cost of the response to the occupiers — about $100,000 per week, she said.
Brown has weighed in on the armed protest once before on Jan. 7, with a brief statement that called on the group to "decamp immediately."
So far, they have not.
The occupiers took over a federal building at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge on Jan. 2 with a stated goal of reversing the prison sentences of two men who were convicted of committing arson on federal land.
Two days later, the FBI announced that it was working with local and state officials to "bring a peaceful resolution to the situation" at the refuge.
"Due to safety considerations," the agency said in a Twitter post, "we will not be releasing any specifics with regard to the law enforcement response."
The Harney County sheriff has accused the protesters of intimidating and harassing local residents and federal employees, and two men were arrested last week for stealing a U.S. Fish and Wildlife vehicle and possessing a firearm as a felon.
At a Tuesday community meeting, with protest leader Ammon Bundy in attendance, residents tussled over the occupation. At one point, the crowd broke into applause and chanted for the group to go home.
But this comment became another applause line, NBC affiliate KTVZ reported: "Until changes come about, I'd rather see the Bundy's stay here."
$100,000 per week seems like a nice round number picked out of the air with no real meat behind it, like when some company annually estimates that the Final Four costs the nation eleventy bajillion dollars in lost productivity.
Also, previous reports quoted $70,000 so I'm not sure why the spike.
Ouze wrote: $100,000 per week seems like a nice round number picked out of the air with no real meat behind it, like when some company annually estimates that the Final Four costs the nation eleventy bajillion dollars in lost productivity.
Also, previous reports quoted $70,000 so I'm not sure why the spike.
They missed the coffee/donut line item on the previous report.
Ouze wrote: $100,000 per week seems like a nice round number picked out of the air with no real meat behind it, like when some company annually estimates that the Final Four costs the nation eleventy bajillion dollars in lost productivity.
Also, previous reports quoted $70,000 so I'm not sure why the spike.
It's probably an estimate based on man hours and resource consumption. Remember, you have to PAY those nice Mr Policeman to man check points, etc etc... 70k's the previous estimate, but real numbers are probably starting to trickle in.
Actually BLM can get pretty hinky when they want something. Right now a massive class action lawsuit is going on between local governments and land owners vs BLM after they made an effort to legally acquire without paying for something like 116 miles along the Red River by citing some blue laws going back to the Louisiana Purchase, the deeds issued by the State of Texas to the farmers along it be damned.
God help you if you own property between two properties owned by BLM. Their consolidation policy means that you either deal with harassment or sell, from what I've been reading.
BaronIveagh wrote: Remember, you have to PAY those nice Mr Policeman to man check points, etc etc...
Overtime. You forget these officers are most likely being paid OT, which might help the decision to do nothing. Local and State police that is, I have no idea on Federal agents. But you want to give a bunch of cops OT to literally do nothing with little real threat to themselves and they are gonna milk that sweet sweet overtime as long as they can. That will definitely raise prices. I think NY was spending a million a week on those prison escapees? 100 grand a week really isn't all that bad considered.
Oregon ranchers who sparked standoff threatened to wrap official’s son in barbed wire and drown him Arun Gupta
21 JAN 2016 AT 13:43 ET
With the occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge almost three weeks old and tempers fraying at a community meeting in the nearby town of Burns, Oregon, one voice has been absent from the drama: the Fish and Wildlife Service employees whose work has been disrupted and offices turned into an armed camp by anti-government militants.
In a Raw Story exclusive, former and current employees of the Malheur Refuge have provided new revelations on the conflict between Dwight and Steve Hammond, two local ranchers who have clashed with federal government agencies for decades. The employees claim the Hammonds illegal grazing was damaging the refuge that’s home to 320 bird and 58 mammal species. They allege the Hammonds lawbreaking ranged from aerial hunting of animals in the refuge to death threats against employees and their families to cattle grazing that was altering the entire species composition of critical ecosystems.
The Fish and Wildlife Service did not return a request for comment. Sources say there is a gag order on employees now that the FBI is in charge of monitoring the occupation by Ammon Bundy, son of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, and his supporters.
The beef the Hammonds currently have with the feds is over access to land under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management. More than 20 years ago the Hammonds also had a permit for grazing on the Malheur Wildlife Refuge. That was canceled in the mid-90s because of what officials say was the Hammonds’ constant violation of the permit’s terms. Today, the FWS is still caught in the middle because the Hammonds need to cross the 187,700 acres of the Malheur Wildlife Refuge to access the BLM land on which their cattle are allowed to graze.
Marvin Plenert, 80, who served as Northwest regional director for the Fish and Wildlife Service from 1986 to 1994, says the agency tried to accommodate the Hammonds. “We gave them a day to cross through the refuge and they took two or three weeks to do it. They were in your face about everything. They kept pushing the envelope, cut fences, cattle wound up in the refuge illegally.”
Plenert’s tenure overlapped with that of Forrest Cameron, 67, who served as the Fish and Wildlife Service manager of the Malheur Refuge from 1989 to 1999. Cameron, who now lives in Portland and is retired like Plenert, had numerous run-ins with the Hammonds.
In his first in-depth interview since the occupation began, Cameron says the conflict between the Hammonds and the Fish and Wildlife Service goes back to the 1980s when they leveled death threats against the previous refuge manager. Cameron says during his time “one way or another the Hammonds were violating their permit” for grazing cattle on refuge lands. He says it was an ongoing issue and, “They’ve done so many illegal activities that never got to a courtroom.”
“Some violations were not significant,” says Cameron, “and we figured we could correct it by talking to them.”
Once, however, a biologist employed at the refuge reported, “The Hammonds were aerial gunning coyotes on the Malheur Refuge, which is illegal.” Cameron claims the Hammonds had an airplane at the time. “They were flying to shoot coyotes on their (own) land, and we didn’t have a problem with that.” The biologist allegedly witnessed the Hammonds’ plane “flying low, turning tight corners, and shooting, and it was over refuge property.” The issue was raised with the Hammonds “and they claimed they were not over the refuge.” Cameron says, “There were so many other contentious things going on that was one incident we didn’t push.”
In the 1990s the conflict with the Hammonds stemmed from the Fish and Wildlife view that their cattle were damaging the Malheur refuge. It was the following decade that the Hammonds illegally torched BLM lands, landing them in the clink for five years each and sparking the takeover.
It’s now well-known that Malheur, an oasis in the arid Great Basin that spans six states, is called “one of the crown jewels of the National Wildlife Refuge System.” It’s a “crucial stop along the Pacific Flyway and offers resting, breeding and nesting habitat for hundreds of migratory birds and other wildlife.” But the little-known story is how years of uncontrolled grazing by Hammonds and other ranchers were sending shockwaves through the refuge.
Cameron says when he arrived at Malheur in 1989, relations were “fairly good” with local ranchers, and about 30 of them had permits for grazing and haying on refuge land. Prior to his arrival changes had been made to match grazing policies with enforcement. He says National Wildlife Refuges allow public recreation in any way feasible. “That can be hunting, fishing, birdwatching, hiking — as long as it’s compatible with the wildlife on the refuge.” Cattle had been grazing year-round on Malheur, but the policy has a higher threshold for economic uses like grazing. “It has to be beneficial to wildlife or otherwise we don’t allow it.”
Implementing the prescribed grazing practices led the Hammonds and Fish and Wildlife Service to butt heads in the early 1990s over the Bridge and Mud creeks and a watering hole for birds. Cameron says Hammonds’ cattle would get into Bridge Creek, a deep canyon, “until someone drove them out.” The cattle would devour woody plant species crucial to the ecosystem.
With the loss of the anchoring trees, the banks started eroding. Cameron says the creek would “become like a drainage ditch and the water table in the meadows around the creek would start dropping.” The effects rippled through the meadow, altering the entire species composition. Unable to reach water, grass would die off, sagebrush and other undesirable species would take root, and ground-nesting birds would lose breeding sites. He says, “Studies show 80 percent of the wildlife that lives in the Great Basin depends on a healthy riparian habitat, and that’s what was along Bridge Creek.”
Cameron oversaw the rebuilding of fences around the refuge that had been wiped out by floods in the 1980s, removing some corrals for cattle that were of little use under the new grazing guidelines, and restoring habitat. He claims corrals in areas where cattle grazed “enticed the Hammonds to leave them there and they would get into the riparian areas, rather than moving them through the refuge.” Both Cameron and Plenert, the former regional director, say the Hammonds would leave their cattle on the refuge for weeks at a time, damaging the land despite the clear rules.
Cameron says, “The cattle like to eat the young plants, willows, elderberries we were trying to introduce in the creek banks, it’s like candy for them.” An entire replanting was wiped out by the Hammonds’ cattle and “a year or two later we would go back and try to restore the habitat to stabilize the creek banks.”
The Fish and Wildlife Service built new corrals for ranchers. Cameron says, “It was on dry land, had a water supply, and trucks could get in and out to haul cattle if needed.” As for the 30 other permittees, “We were able to work with them very well. It was really mainly Dwight Hammond. We tried to work with Hammonds but they didn’t want to lose the free grazing they had for a long time. But the grazing was illegal to begin with because it’s wasn’t their property.”
In August 1994, the Fish and Wildlife Service tried to fence a waterhole used by the Hammonds cattle as well as by waterfowl. The family disabled a Caterpillar vehicle, blocking construction of the fence, and Dwight and Steve Hammond were arrested and charged with felonies for impeding, intimidating and interfering with federal officers.
The charges were lessened and eventually dropped after the Hammonds entered into an agreement with provisions including a halt to interfering with fence construction and moving their cattle through the refuge in one day, which Cameron says is doable.
Leading up to the 1994 incident were the death threats. Cameron says, “My wife would take these phone calls, it was terribly vulgar language. They said they were going to wrap my son in barbed wire and throw him down a well. They said they knew exactly which rooms my kids slept in, in Burns. There were death threats to my wife and two other staff members and their wives. My family went to Bend rather than be in the community because it was so volatile at the time. The families of my biologist and my deputy manager family had to relocate as well for a short time.”
“At the refuge headquarters, one of the Hammonds said they would tear my head off and gak down the hole. One of the Hammonds told my Deputy Manager, Dan Walsworth, they were going to ‘put a chain around his neck and drag him behind a pickup.’” Cameron says it became practice “never to meet with the Hammonds alone and usually to have a law enforcement officer present.”
Despite the mediated settlement the Hammonds continually violated the permit for the Malheur refuge, says Cameron, so he cancelled their permit. The Hammonds went through an appeals process with Plenert upholding the decision to revoke the permit.
By the time he left Malheur Refuge in 1999, Cameron says the “Bridge Creek canyon was slowly healing. But if the cattle got in there for a week, all the restoration would be lost.”
Cameron says he does not know the conditions of the habitat now, but the atmosphere in Burns and Malheur seems to have deteriorated.
One current employee at Malheur refuge, who asked to be identified as “Steven,” says, “It is a really frightening time for workers on the refuge. They are demoralized and afraid. Workers have asked to be transferred out of Harney County.”
Steven claims Malheur Refuge employees were told last year, “Pull Fish and Wildlife Service insignia off trucks. We were warned to keep our heads down and not get near the Hammonds property.”
The occupation by the Bundys and their armed supporters are also affecting wildlife. Steven says, “There are a pair of great horned owls that are nesting in the watchtower that the militia is occupying as a sniper tower. Last year the owls had five fledglings, which is outstanding, and they are supposed to be coming back in January to nest. This is about the habitat, not the Bundys.”
An open letter from the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge staff that appeared on its Facebook page on January 19, stated, “We believe many in the media (as well as those sympathetic to the illegal occupiers) were surprised to hear that the community—while frustrated with the Hammond situation—did not leap to the support of the militants. We are not surprised.” The unnamed writers said refuge employees had been part of Harney County for over 100 years, and “nearly 40% of working adults” were employed by the government. They concluded with the hope that “ this difficult situation will lead to even stronger bonds between the Refuge and the community that has supported us. We feel for you, because we are you.”
No one knows how it will end, particularly now that a militia spokesperson says they have “no plans to leave.”
Marvin Plenert says that worries him as it “sets a precedent for other wildlife refuges. There are about 500 refuges, and a lot are isolated refuges in rural areas. A group could take over any refuge, any BLM headquarters, like they did at Malheur. It’s a scary situation, I hope we can end this in a peaceful way.”
This is new information: If there were 31 local farmers involved with the BLM system, and ony 1 was a problem -- the Hammond family -- it does not make the Hammonds look like an upstanding community focussed bunch of people. But the fact they were convicted for arson might have been a clue anyway.
Body Camera recording of Oregon State Police Trooper speaking with subject at Hines Market.
Release from Harney County DA:
The following release has been authorized by the Harney County District Attorney’s Office:
On January 25, 2016 at about 11:45AM, the Harney County Sheriff’s Office received a report of an armed adult male at the Hines Market who made comments he wanted to join the militia at the refuge and help with killing federal agents.
Law enforcement personnel responded and made contact with the male, identified as Joseph A STETSON, age 54, of Woodburn. During the contact, it appeared STETSON was armed with a handgun (it turned out to be a pellet gun in a belt holster). STETSON told troopers he was intending on being the personal guard for the Bundys.
It was determined through the contact that STETSON was believed to be impaired and was arrested by troopers for Driving Under the Influence of Intoxicants (alcohol). During the arrest, he repeatedly made death threats towards the officers and resisted arrest prior to being placed into a patrol vehicle. After being placed in the patrol vehicle, STETSON kicked the vehicle door, damaging it.
STETSON was lodged at the Harney County Jail for DUII and Resisting Arrest
I just hope he is not Stolen Valor. He might get away with threatening to kill State Troopers, but God help him if vets find out that he is lying about his service!
He was deployed to Central America in 1979 (which would make him 17 at the time, although he adjusted it to 1980 later which makes sense), and he's a Green Beret, and a Colonel in the US Army, but his records were sealed by Ronald Reagan, huh?
This is such a farce by now. Ridiculous. But this makes me think the FBI was right to just let these guys be for a while, just so all these videos and wacky messages can come out so people can see who is "protesting tyranny" there.
One person is dead and several others, including Oregon occupation leader Ammon Bundy, were detained following a confrontation with the FBI and state police Tuesday night.
It all began with a traffic stop while Bundy and some of his followers were en route to a community meeting in John Day, about 70 miles away.
Shots were fired after FBI agents, Oregon State troopers and other law enforcement agencies made the stop.
Ammon Bundy, Ryan Bundy, Brian Cavalier, Shawna Cox and Ryan W. Payne were arrested during the stop. One person, who was the subject of a federal probable cause arrest died. It's unclear who fired first.
So we can probably guess they fired first seeing as all of their bluster about shooting people if they were to be arrested
“I have been raised in the country all my life,” Finicum said in a widely viewed television interview with a rifle on his lap. “I love dearly to feel the wind on my face. To see the sun rise, to see the moon. I have no intention of spending any of my days in a concrete box.”
So that quote alone and him being the dead one leads me to believe that he/the terrorists shot first.
I'm really glad these guys were arrested, but I'm much less happy that somebody got killed in the process. No matter what the circumstances of the death turn out to be, whether or not the shooting was entirely justified, the death of any of these goofballs at government hands will just feed into the "dystopian police state" delusion their supporters already have.
Meh. Arresting the Bundy's won't bring this to an end. Might make it worse, especially if one of the dead is one of the Militia guys, which seems probable since a local hospital has been put on lock down.
The issue now is the rest of the jokers protesting really will hunker down hard, considering that 'one of theirs' has been shot and killed by Federal Agents.
LordofHats wrote: Meh. Arresting the Bundy's won't bring this to an end. Might make it worse, especially if one of the dead is one of the Militia guys, which seems probable since a local hospital has been put on lock down.
Apparently two more guys were arrested unrelated to the shoot out pull over in Burns. Throw in the other arrests that have happened these past two-three weeks, seems the FBI and law enforcement have been picking these guys up whenever they leave the safety of the Refuge.
The dead guy/gal is definitely on the Militia side of things. Their name hasn't been given out but the update in the above article reads; "One person, who was the subject of a federal probable cause arrest and has not yet been identified, died during the confrontation." Not clear if the FBI/Law Enforcement were expecting the Bundy brothers to be present and still no word on who shot the first shots.
Well with the whole "we'll defend ourselves if you try to remove us' bit, it certainly seems probable that the Militia side would open up once a bunch of flashing red and blue lights came upon them.
Still. Might as well wait. There's gotta be dash cam footage of this.
d-usa wrote: I wouldn't be surprised if the FBI shot first in response to one of them raising their weapons towards the officers.
Waiting on footage of the event to be released before I rely on Fedcoat word.
And nobody is surprised.
I certainly hope not! It's reasonably to wait for the full account on what occurred rather than burn calories by jumping to conclusions. That's quite a funny position you're taking.
The basis of this kind of militia thinking is delusional. You can't expect expect them to behave like sensible people, and they haven't previously.
squidhills wrote: I'm really glad these guys were arrested, but I'm much less happy that somebody got killed in the process. No matter what the circumstances of the death turn out to be, whether or not the shooting was entirely justified, the death of any of these goofballs at government hands will just feed into the "dystopian police state" delusion their supporters already have.
Sadly such events are practically inevitable when you have a group of people who have committed arrestable acts driving around armed, having said they will use violence against the legal authorities, and they are stopped by armed police wanting to arrest them.
There really isn't a way to stop this feeding into goofball paranoia because, as noted previously, such people are delusional.
jhe90 wrote: still got 10 or so held up armed to the teeth, with food, ammo and now paranoia overloaded as all leaders taken away and one dead.
its got more dangerous.
Well all they have to do as the police is literally hunker down and siege the place, starving them of resources, turning off water, and power, cutting all areas around it off, and basically making the militia starve. By the time they surrendered they would of been weakened by it. Its brutal yes, but considering what these idiots have done......
Given the rhetoric I see from the right, pulling a gun on a federal agent or police officer, is all that is required for them to shoot to kill. Split second decisions and #bluelivesmatter and all that and a bag of potato chips.
I'd bet maybe a nickle (I'm a terrabad gambler) that they stepped out of their vehicle after being stopped with weapons in hand. Now I've been told that you should always cooperate with law enforcement even when innocent. Otherwise its your fault you get corpsed by an officer. I know it was advice for "thugs" to keep in mind but I assume it applies universally.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Somebody better wake up Kronk and tell him it's all over. He specifically asked for an alarm call!
On a more serious note, I hope this doesn't encourage other people to start shooting at government officials/law enforcement.
Get the feeling this incident might only add to the siege mentality of some people.
Weirdo delusional fabulists will make what they want out of any incident, so the forces of law and order will concentrate on carrying out matters in a way that makes sense to the general public.
BrotherGecko wrote: Given the rhetoric I see from the right, pulling a gun on a federal agent or police officer, is all that is required for them to shoot to kill. Split second decisions and #bluelivesmatter and all that and a bag of potato chips.
I'd bet maybe a nickle (I'm a terrabad gambler) that they stepped out of their vehicle after being stopped with weapons in hand. Now I've been told that you should always cooperate with law enforcement even when innocent. Otherwise its your fault you get corpsed by an officer. I know it was advice for "thugs" to keep in mind but I assume it applies universally.
The updates have basically carried the story that when they were pulled over, they all cooperated with law enforcement save Ryan Bundy and the guy who was killed (so basically the two guys who got injured/shot weren't cooperating). There's still been no word on who shot first or what prompted the shooting.
Slightly off topic - the first time I saw him, I thought his face looked odd, but I didn't want to mention it, but I'm seeing more and more pictures of ryan bundy and in every one it looks like someone slapped him in the face with a fish, and his face somehow froze that way.
Is that like a disease, or something? Or just really unfortunate (and repeated) photography? Sylvester Stallone's face is a little droopy because I read he had a minor stroke, or something, but this guy's face looks really weird.
On topic - if you're a crazed militiamen holed up in someone else's property, claiming you'd rather die than be captured, maybe don't give into that mcdonald's craving. And also probably don't resist arrest, given your stated intention to kill federal and local police officers.
Kap'n Krump wrote: Slightly off topic - the first time I saw him, I thought his face looked odd, but I didn't want to mention it, but I'm seeing more and more pictures of ryan bundy and in every one it looks like someone slapped him in the face with a fish, and his face somehow froze that way.
Is that like a disease, or something? Or just really unfortunate (and repeated) photography? Sylvester Stallone's face is a little droopy because I read he had a minor stroke, or something, but this guy's face looks really weird.
I just saw the mug shot of Ryan Bundy. My guess would be some kind of stroke might cause the drooping on the side of his face. I am not a doctor, though, so I may be completely wrong.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Saw this on Vox.
Eight members of the militia group that has occupied Malheur Wildlife Refuge in Burns, Oregon have been arrested, including leader Ammon Bundy.
Bundy and four others, including his brother Ryan Bundy, were arrested after a traffic stop, which resulted in a gunfight. It's not clear who shot first.
Militia member Robert "LaVoy" Finicum was killed in the gunfire, and Ryan Bundy was shot in the arm.
Two other militia leaders were arrested separately, and a third, Jon Eric Ritzheimer, turned himself in to authorities in Arizona, according to the Los Angeles Times.
The arrested militia members face charges of attempting to impede a law enforcement officer by force, which is a federal felony.
The Bundys have led an occupation of the federal wildlife reserve since January 2, in protest of federal land use laws and government ownership of grazing lands.
What happens next?
There are still an unknown number of militia members occupying the main building of the Malheur Wildlife Refuge. Oregon Public Broadcasting's John Sepulvado tweeted that they have decided to stay, and that the FBI has surrounded roads to the refuge.
Cliven Bundy, the Nevada rancher who is the father of arrested militia leaders Ammon and Ryan Bundy — and whose 2014 standoff with federal law enforcement agents was the precursor to the Oregon takeover — didn't seem to indicate that the occupation had come to an end with his son's arrest. In fact, he appeared to justify the death of the militia member who had been killed in the shootout.
Here's what Bundy said to the Los Angeles Times:
Cliven Bundy wrote:"We believe that those federal people shouldn’t even be there in that state, and be in that county and have anything to do with this issue. ... I have some sons and other people there trying to protect our rights and liberties and freedoms, and now we’ve got one killed, and all I can say is, he’s sacrificed for a good purpose."
While Cliven Bundy's comments imply that Finicum died defending the militia, however, the actual circumstances of his death are unclear. (Cliven Bundy is in Nevada and did not have direct knowledge of Finicum's death.)
According to supporters of the militia, Ammon Bundy said in a call to his wife that Finicum was killed after surrendering to police, and was shot while he was on the ground.
Early in the occupation, Finicum had made remarks that he would rather be killed than surrender: "There are things more important than your life and freedom is one of them," he told NBC News.
However, it's possible that over the course of the occupation he changed his mind. The last interview with Finicum, conducted with the Oregonian the day before his death, shows Finicum expressing concern about the ramped-up law enforcement presence around the refuge:
Robert Finicum wrote:"Have you felt the change of the tone and tenor of the FBI agents out there? We certainly have. We used to walk up to the feds and talk to agents in a friendly manner unarmed and stuff. But the tenor has changed. Now they have become more hardened. And when they step out of their vehicles, now they’re stepping out with their rifles and they’re not willing to engage in friendly dialogue.
And then I’m assuming you’re aware of all the extra vehicles that they’re bringing in and the increasing manpower that they’re ramping up. And we’re saying, why the rattling of sabers? Why, when we’re so far away from anybody out here in the middle of nowhere, why are you ramping it up? Why do you fly your planes above us nonstop?…They’re droning us now. And they’re flying their photographer planes.
They’re doing all the things that shows that they’re taking some kinetic action against us. And we’re saying, why be so unfriendly? Why are you so threatening? Why are you threatening lethal force when we’re so far away?"
How the mighty have fallen. This group started with such bluster, and now just yesterday Finicum was wondering why the Feds were being so unfriendly?
All things being considered, I feel as if the feds are being more than reasonable here. These guys have been squatting in property that does not belong to them for weeks now, and they're wondering why the police are being unfriendly?
If someone had been squatting in my home for 3+ weeks, I damn sure wouldn't be friendly with them.
I think that there are some stupid cops out there, but I'm more likely to believe that Obama is a lizardman than I am to believe that cops who know that all news/militias/freemen/whatever are watching their every move would just shoot a guy laying flat on the ground for no reason at all.
CptJake wrote: Opening fire first is not always wrong, it really will depend on 'why' they opened fire first (assuming they did).
They may have had an itchy trigger finger, that honestly wouldn't surprise me. Especially considering that they know for a fact that during the last standoff the same kind of folks had federal officers in their sights with rifles ready for a reason to pull the trigger, multiple accounts of these particular folks declaring that they will use their weapons if the police tried to take them, and the dead guy declaring that he was ready to go out guns blazing and dying for this cause. Even if they were unarmed (which the cops wouldn't know) it doesn't take a lot of wrong kinds of sudden movements from the "we are going to kill federal officers and go down dying as martyrs" folks to get a violent response.
I wonder if we'll ever get an accurate account of the event.
I would really be surprised if there weren't recordings. I would even be inclined to think it's more than body cams and that the FBI probably had folks assigned to the sole role of recording it with real cameras to back them up in court.
I would really be surprised if there weren't recordings. I would even be inclined to think it's more than body cams and that the FBI probably had folks assigned to the sole role of recording it with real cameras to back them up in court.
The Federal Government will have altered the recordings, planted agents inside the compound who hypnotized the dead guy, or drugged them all, made sure that they would resist so that they could shoot them, and that all weapons found were planted, and more long lines of government lies and deception to illegally rule over us all.
It won't matter what the camera shows to these guys. This will continue.
jhe90 wrote: still got 10 or so held up armed to the teeth, with food, ammo and now paranoia overloaded as all leaders taken away and one dead.
its got more dangerous.
Well all they have to do as the police is literally hunker down and siege the place, starving them of resources, turning off water, and power, cutting all areas around it off, and basically making the militia starve. By the time they surrendered they would of been weakened by it. Its brutal yes, but considering what these idiots have done......
True, a full siege cutting them off. Only thing weakened and wounded can be more dangerous. Feds would have to tread a careful line, but keeping a perimeter at 500+ metres can be done, keep officers out harms way if they go totally stupid.
The only people who said they had their hands in their air were the terrorists themselves, relayed by Cliven and the dead dudes foster child. But they both are paragons of truth so they would never lie to make a situations advantageous to themselves
Ouze wrote: He's drunkenly threatening cops so his children don't have to.
He's about the caliber of the militia guys that told me that gak, right to a "t". The solemn look on the face of the one that gave me that statement made me think he expected me to bow to the nobility of the words.
During a livestream from the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge on Wednesday morning, an armed occupier dressed in fatigues is seen holding a rifle. He spoke directly into the camera, seemingly addressing authorities in the aftermath of the arrests and the shooting that occurred on a highway close to the refuge on Tuesday night.
"You want some militiamen? Come get some," the man said, standing in front of what appeared to be a piece of heavy-duty excavating equipment. "It's what you been training for, preparing for.
"Media's been waiting for a bloodbath this whole time we've been here," he added. "Now there's going to be one."
The arrests on Tuesday angered anti-government protesters across the country, said Mike Vanderboegh, a gun-rights activist active in self-proclaimed militia circles.
"It's all I can do to keep people from going and shooting feds right now," he told Reuters.
So we now have them instead of dancing around the subject saying they will kill people and probably go and try and kill more people.
Clearly he wants everyone to take their guns to national parks, where his Islamic Lizardmen allies can leap out from behind the bushes and steal them...
“He’s like, just shoot me then, just shoot me — and they did, they shot him dead,” Sharp said. “They shot him right there, he was just walking — I saw it. I swear to God, he was just walking with his hands in the air.” supposed witness Victoria Sharp.
"“He was not on his knees, none of that,” McConnell said. “He was none of that nonsense. You know, that was a miscommunication on somebody else’s part. But he went after them. He charged them. " supposed witness McConnell.
“He’s like, just shoot me then, just shoot me — and they did, they shot him dead,” Sharp said. “They shot him right there, he was just walking — I saw it. I swear to God, he was just walking with his hands in the air.”
Conveniently ignores all of the other testimony but instead takes a 18 year old kids instead
Conveniently ignores all of the other testimony but instead takes a 18 year old kids instead
We got two people telling two different stories and both are supposed witnesses. Sharp was in the car with him, McConnell was not.
"Mark McConnell in his video, saying that McConnell and Bundy were in a vehicle traveling north up US 395 with a second bodyguard, Brian “Booda” Cavalier, when they were stopped by law enforcement officers serving an arrest warrant.
A second vehicle — which contained Ryan Bundy, Ryan Payne, Shawna Cox, Finicum and Victoria Sharp — went around their stopped comrades’ vehicle but ran into a blockade about a mile away."
So a guy who was stopped by cops a mile away was insisting he charged the cops, but the woman who was in the car with the guy is saying that is not what happened.
and you guys are seriously believing the guy who was a mile away from what happened by his own admission?
Conveniently ignores all of the other testimony but instead takes a 18 year old kids instead
We got two people telling two different stories and both are supposed witnesses.
We've got two people stating one story and one person saying another.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
He (McConnell) said Cox told him that Finicum crashed into the snowbank, jumped out of the manual transmission diesel pickup with the rear wheels still spinning and charged toward law enforcement officers.
The bodyguard said Cox and Payne each told him that Finicum charged toward officers before he was shot, and he explicitly denied that the rancher had surrendered or complied with law enforcement.
So once again two people in the same car vs a 18 year old kid
The two people in the car saying he charged them and a 18 year old kid who is lying
No, we don't, because they haven't said anything to anyone, they're in jail. We have a second hand report that someone heard from them that...
You may have heard of the term 'hearsay'?
So, atm, we have one witness. Is she the last word in testimony? Probably not. But an actual witness trumps two guys on face book saying their buddies told them that....
The two people in the car saying he charged them and a 18 year old kid who is lying
No, we don't, because they haven't said anything to anyone, they're in jail. We have a second hand report that someone heard from them that...
You may have heard of the term 'hearsay'?
So, atm, we have one witness.
Baron I get it you dislike the federal government, but seriously you are just kidding yourself right now. We literally have 4 witnesses, 2 are giving one story, one isn't talking and one is giving a radically different story than everyone else. I am pretty sure we can see the outlier here.
Also it is fairly ironic you are calling the majority testimony hearsay when the kids is literally hearsay also
Ustrello wrote: We literally have 4 witnesses, 2 are giving one story, one isn't talking and one is giving a radically different story than everyone else. I am pretty sure we can see the outlier here
No, we don't. You're missing the point. We have not heard anything from three of them. We have two guys that say they know them saying that they said that....
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ustrello wrote: Also it is fairly ironic you are calling the majority testimony hearsay when the kids is literally hearsay also
How so? She was in the car, she was the only one not arrested, and she gave an interview.
Baron I get it you dislike the federal government, but seriously you are just kidding yourself right now.
No, unlike you guys, I'm actually reading the articles. I just saw in the lot of your posts a sudden burst of cherry picking to fit a narrative that you want to hear.
Now, when we have testimony from someone else who was actually present, then we can have a discussion about who's lying. ATM we don't actually have that.
Ustrello wrote: We literally have 4 witnesses, 2 are giving one story, one isn't talking and one is giving a radically different story than everyone else. I am pretty sure we can see the outlier here
No, we don't. You're missing the point. We have not heard anything from three of them. We have two guys that say they know them saying that they said that....
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ustrello wrote: Also it is fairly ironic you are calling the majority testimony hearsay when the kids is literally hearsay also
How so? She was in the car, she was the only one not arrested, and she gave an interview.
Can you substantiate her testimony? Or is it just rumor? I'll save you the time and tell you it is rumor.
Everyone should just consider if it's worth their time to try and argue with someone who is seriously considering a reality where the FBI kills people in the street SS style as the truth.
Can you substantiate her testimony? Or is it just rumor?
You clearly do not understand what constitutes either rumor or hearsay.
A currently circulating story or report of uncertain or doubtful truth. Then again as D-usa said you actually believe that the waffen FBI are going around and executing people in the streets so this really isn't worth my time.
d-usa wrote: Everyone should just consider if it's worth their time to try and argue with someone who is seriously considering a reality where the FBI kills people in the street SS style as the truth.
Nice strawman. but no.
What I am arguing is that, rather than favor the eyewitness testimony of an actual witness, we're favoring 2nd and 3rd hand accounts, because they fit our preconceived notions better. We have no idea who actually shot him. I highly doubt the FBI would have, but a state trooper or local officer manning a roadblock? Oh yes.
But, as usual any effort to actually examine what's going on by examining witness accounts and evidence will be smothered with BS and self righteous hyperbole.
Both the accounts we've been given on how he died thus far strike me as fantastical. Either he was heartless gunned down by the man, or he fought to his last breath and was gunned down by the man.
Both versions seem like pandering to the notions of those telling it to me. I want confirmation. Video. An incident report (FBI does those right?). Crime scene photos. What we've been given so far feels like it belongs in a Hollywood movie (and lets face it, probably will be).
LordofHats wrote: Both the accounts we've been given on how he died thus far strike me as fantastical. Either he was heartless gunned down by the man, or he fought to his last breath and was gunned down by the man.
Both versions seem like pandering to the notions of those telling it to me. I want confirmation. Video. An incident report (FBI does those right?). Crime scene photos. What we've been given so far feels like it belongs in a Hollywood movie (and lets face it, probably will be).
Agreed. So far though, the FBI has been singularly lacking in it's forthcomingness with anything about the case, even to confirm the identity of the deceased. . I'd like to get a look at the corners report and a photo of the car. Those would almost be as good as a video. The 18 year old says that he was shot three more times on the ground. The corners report would show if that was the case.
One should keep in mind that this group has a staggering credibility problem with almost every major member having been outed for something, either lying about military service, federal loans/assistance, etc, and have pretty much every incentive to give a fairy-tale version of events, and that the man killed is on video telling people he's going to use force and violence to resist arrest if anyone tried to take him into custody and wrote a book about killing local officials and going to war against the federal government, while the authorities are still having to deal with people hunkered down at the refuge and probably want to deal with that before doing the full expose on the Finicum shooting.
I wouldn't expect any video or anything really about the shooting until the wildlife refuge has been cleared, but with a background like this dude had, it's not exactly hard to see how he'd end up dead like he did.
Hopefully everything will be over soon with no further casualties, but either way, it's difficult to see this as any sort of conspiracy or believe rumors of an execution style slaying of Finicum.
Vaktathi wrote: One should keep in mind that this group has a staggering credibility problem with almost every major member having been outed for something, either lying about military service, federal loans/assistance, etc, and have pretty much every incentive to give a fairy-tale version of events, and that the man killed is on video telling people he's going to use force and violence to resist arrest if anyone tried to take him into custody and wrote a book about killing local officials and going to war against the federal government, while the authorities are still having to deal with people hunkered down at the refuge and probably want to deal with that before doing the full expose on the Finicum shooting.
I wouldn't expect any video or anything really about the shooting until the wildlife refuge has been cleared, but with a background like this dude had, it's not exactly hard to see how he'd end up dead like he did.
Hopefully everything will be over soon with no further casualties, but either way, it's difficult to see this as any sort of conspiracy or believe rumors of an execution style slaying of Finicum.
This is why I assume they've been mum so far (that and wanting to get their ducks in a row). Anything they say will end up being used by these guys, no matter what, so why add fuel to the fire?
This is why I assume they've been mum so far (that and wanting to get their ducks in a row). Anything they say will end up being used by these guys, no matter what, so why add fuel to the fire?
The problem is that we have a man on the slab, and in lieu of facts, we have a lot of stories flying around. To say it has the potential to backfire is an understatement.
Yeah, it's rather rough. It's one of the things I think of when someone tells me that "the government/police/military would never do X.' or mocks someone for suggesting that it might happen, because there's a whole long, sordid history of exceptions where they did do X.
MrDwhitey wrote: I just read up on that and boy, that was one of the most disgusting things I've seen in awhile.*
*The Hampton thing
That's honestly part of the reason why the FBI might not be saying anything. The legacy of the Hampton killing isn't that he was killed, it's that his death is continually (and viciously) spun by pretty much everyone who talks and researches it. I've never seen an unbiased account of the death of Hampton. Either he was a radical guy murdered in the dead of night by law enforcement in bed, or he was a radical guy killed in a shoot out with the police. The worst part being that what little evidence remains of the incident supports both versions of the story.
I wouldn't be surprised if something similar happened here, and most certainly anyone who dies in this story is quickly going to cease being a person and more of a truthism.
d-usa wrote: who is seriously considering a reality where the FBI kills people in the street SS style as the truth.
BTW: If you think that's never happened, remember that the FBI was deeply involved in the assassination of Fred Hampton.
That was nearly 50 years ago, in a time when they could be nearly certain that no one would record what happened. In this case virtually every single person at the scene had a cell phone that could have been recording what happened, and you'd have to presume that either the state troopers assassinated a man in cold blood and the FBI covered it up, or the FBI assassinated a man in cold blood and covered it up despite neither organization being very likely to cover for each other.
Apparently this story is easier to believe than a guy who said repeatedly, on video, that he wouldn't be taken alive being a man of his word in the end.
d-usa wrote: Everyone should just consider if it's worth their time to try and argue with someone who is seriously considering a reality where the FBI kills people in the street SS style as the truth.
And that same organization not also shooting Ammon Bundy, or finishing the wounded Ryan Bundy, or shooting anyone else arrested or still at the compound. I agree that following this thread only works id you're the sort of person who calls federal agents fedcoats, believe in chemtrails, or uses the word "sheeple" non-ironically and without being followed by an XKCD comic.
Occam's razor tells me that a cop shooting a man kneeling with his hands in the air in front of literally dozens of witnesses with only one speaking up almost certainly didn't happen.
I'm surprised that they managed to make the other patriots turn so quickly to help them cover up the truth. Must have their children locked up in Gitmo already.
d-usa wrote: I'm surprised that they managed to make the other patriots turn so quickly to help them cover up the truth. Must have their children locked up in Gitmo already.
well they have taken away some foster kids over this, but I'm sure for a reduced sentence those guys would sell out their own mothers
But Finicum, with police in hot pursuit, attempted to leave the main road and drove into a snow bank. When he emerged from the vehicle, FBI and state police ordered him to surrender. That's when, authorities say, Finicum reached down toward his waistband where he had a gun.
The SWAT team opened fire. Finicum was killed. Ryan Bundy suffered a light wound on his arm.
The shooting was captured on camera by the SWAT team. FBI and Oregon police officials are discussing possibly releasing the video, in part to counter claims by supporters that Finicum was gunned down while trying to surrender.
I really don't want to be morbid, but if they have the footage, can they at least show it to reporters so they can offer their thoughts on it XD Even I, as someone who thinks these guys are complete jack asses, would like some outside confirmation of the contents.
During a livestream from the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge on Wednesday morning, an armed occupier dressed in fatigues is seen holding a rifle. He spoke directly into the camera, seemingly addressing authorities in the aftermath of the arrests and the shooting that occurred on a highway close to the refuge on Tuesday night.
"You want some militiamen? Come get some," the man said, standing in front of what appeared to be a piece of heavy-duty excavating equipment. "It's what you been training for, preparing for.
"Media's been waiting for a bloodbath this whole time we've been here," he added. "Now there's going to be one."
The arrests on Tuesday angered anti-government protesters across the country, said Mike Vanderboegh, a gun-rights activist active in self-proclaimed militia circles.
"It's all I can do to keep people from going and shooting feds right now," he told Reuters.
So we now have them instead of dancing around the subject saying they will kill people and probably go and try and kill more people.
They can mutter about about the feds and FEMA camps all they want to but so long as they can say it under active air con/heating with steaks broiling and frosty ones being passed around Their ideology has a as much substance as the current administrations red lines.
Taking an empty building was the safest thing their posturing allowed.
Outliers and the more radical may be moved to violence but the rest.. they'll just talk.
As best as I can piece together the various news reports, the only actual eye witness who has made any public statement is this Victoria Sharp. She says the dead man was essentially executed. You don't have to believe things people say, especially when they have obvious motives for lying.
Personally my inclination is to disbelieve the Sharp account.
Vinicum was armed, and had made statements that he would use violence to prevent being arrested. It seems likely he would follow through on that and thereby get shot by the police defending themselves. He was already in a situation of evading arrest by dangerous driving.
If the police wanted to kill the gang members, why would they execute a random gang member in front of witnesses and leave the rest of them alive?
The police could easily say several people jumped out of the car shooting, and in the ensuing firefight, everyone was killed including people who weren't armed but got hit by stray bullets in the cross-fire.
Update from the Dildopolis: Welfare Rancher Queen Cliven Bundy has called on the holdouts to disband and leave. 3 of the holdouts have since surrendered and were charged with the rest of the militants.
No word on the status of the 55 gallon drum of lube.
Additionally, word on one of the militia's facebooks is reinforcements are inbound!
Occam's razor tells me that a cop shooting a man kneeling with his hands in the air in front of literally dozens of witnesses with only one speaking up almost certainly didn't happen.
I don't think anyone said he was on his knees.
So far we have three stories:
One witness says he wrecked the car, had his hands up, and was shouting at them, and they fired.
One story says that he wrecked the car, and then charged at them, and they fired.
The police claim they have a video showing him try and pull a gun, and they fired, but have, thus far, not shown it to anyone.
So actual proof of anything is thin on the ground at the moment.
Remember that the best cons are mostly truth and one believable lie. When everyone is making different claims, proof is what's required. Thus far we do not have 'dozens of witnesses': we have one. Now, they have it on video, let's see it. That's pretty solid proof. But so far all we have is thier word that they have such a thing. After the last... twenty five police scandals involving shooting unarmed people this year, you might forgive me if I'm a bit leery of simply accepting what I'm told when witnesses seem to be contradicting them.
That story about ex-Navy SEALs parachuting in sounds like someone is already writing a hollywood movie about the whole thing. I wonder if some guys pretended to be Navy Seals and talked to them just for them to make these hilarious posts?
BaronIveagh wrote: After the last... twenty five police scandals involving shooting unarmed people this year, you might forgive me if I'm a bit leery of simply accepting what I'm told when witnesses seem to be contradicting them.
How many of those other scandals involved somebody declaring they would rather die than be arrested?
Witzkatz wrote: That story about ex-Navy SEALs parachuting in sounds like someone is already writing a hollywood movie about the whole thing. I wonder if some guys pretended to be Navy Seals and talked to them just for them to make these hilarious posts?
Oh come on, it not a cover story. He was posturing and died sad but true.
If they wanted a cover story it would not be hard to shoot them all and say the anti gov shot at then during a supply run where a attenpted arrest was made and they tried to fight the arrest. Some with out guns where killed sadly in the cross fire.
Remove cell phones and take all into evidence leave it as a open case so they never need to be released the phones and such. Then delete all cloud data.
Why no video because swat vans do not have cams to record. Followed by a report of sadness and sorrys to the familys and done.
If people ask why no bullets where on the swat van simply put we seen them reqch for a gun and fired which started a chain reaction which was out of our control.
P.s. The majourity of people will except it because either apathy or the people were bothering their way of life. Othes will reject but there is so many conspiracy theriest that no one will pay attention, fast forward 6 months no one cares.
Apparently there are videos. It has been reported that the police are considering whether to release them. It would not be allowed in the UK because of our laws about prejudicing the course of justice, but it's allowed in the USA so perhaps they will come out over the weekend.
d-usa wrote: Everyone should just consider if it's worth their time to try and argue with someone who is seriously considering a reality where the FBI kills people in the street SS style as the truth.
Nice strawman. but no.
If you're going to use high school debate terms, get it right. That wasn't a strawman. That was ad hominem.
#DoYouEvenDebateBro
Also, is what he said true? Do you believe that the FBI kills people in the street SS style?
Have you ever used the term FedShirt?
Have you ever uttered the phrase "What up, sheeple" in a non-ironic manner?
Given it happened so long ago that the children of the officers involved could have retired from the force by now, and it was a black victom in an era of significant racial tension, in a completely private location, and the evidence was inconclusive, I am not fully persuaded that the Fred Hampton case proves that the FBI shot this Bundy militia guy like a dog in a public location with three witnesses.
She clearly says someone crashed into a snowbank, and "...we all got down on the floorboards...", but the rest is freaked out gibberish. Definitely not a reliable narrator.
All they wanted to do was talk, sing, negotiate, wave their hands in the air like they just don't care, and in Finicum's case, shoot any policeman who tried to arrest him, yet sadly, for some unaccountable reason, instead of doing that they took off in a mile-long high-speed evasion move that ended with crashing off the road.
The police then decided to execute one of them and not the other four, and not to execute the other car load of people who didn't suffer a non-specific foot/accelerator over-pressure incident.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Also, rancher who loves nothing more than "God, family and freedom" left said family to go and sit in a hut with his militia buddies
I've gone gakky places and done gakky things, as has my wife (who is actually getting ready to go back to Afghanistan) in large part because we love freedom and our family and decided to serve in the military. 'Loving family' does not mean you are unwilling to sacrifice.
If these guys truly believe the stuff they claim to, they'll likely see time away from family as a sacrifice being made.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Also, rancher who loves nothing more than "God, family and freedom" left said family to go and sit in a hut with his militia buddies
I've gone gakky places and done gakky things, as has my wife (who is actually getting ready to go back to Afghanistan) in large part because we love freedom and our family and decided to serve in the military. 'Loving family' does not mean you are unwilling to sacrifice.
If these guys truly believe the stuff they claim to, they'll likely see time away from family as a sacrifice being made.
Difference being, you and your wife actually went and did something. These guys aren't going to do anything that will ever actually make a difference because they lack the kind of conviction required to accept the responsibility for the repercussions of those kind of actions.
Interestingly, only Ammon Bundy had his own lawyer. The other 6 were appointed public defenders. One of the big mysteries for me is how these people could afford to miss work for over a month to go camping when they are indigent.
As of now only 5 are left at the refuge; and they're trying to hold out until the FBI agrees not to hit one of them with the same felony charge the others have (there's already a warrant issued).
Ouze wrote: The original 7 arrested were in court today.
Interestingly, only Ammon Bundy had his own lawyer. The other 6 were appointed public defenders. One of the big mysteries for me is how these people could afford to miss work for over a month to go camping when they are indigent.
As of now only 5 are left at the refuge; and they're trying to hold out until the FBI agrees not to hit one of them with the same felony charge the others have (there's already a warrant issued).
Surely it's a bit of a mystery that other militias haven't rallied round with monetary contributions for the defence fund. Perhaps they don't believe in the government's tyrannical currency.
I'm delighted by possibility that in fact, the militants are flush with "money", but it's all Minuteman Dollars or bits of silver with eagles stamped into it, or cases of 5.56 ammunition that for some reason their freedom-hating lawyers won't accept.
I guess I don't know what the trade-in value is for a case of dildos.
Ouze wrote: One of the big mysteries for me is how these people could afford to miss work for over a month to go camping when they are indigent.
You know what I haven't seen? The memes on Facebook wondering why these "protesters" don't have jobs to go to or families to support. I mean, when the Black Lives Matter people were doing their thing, my Facebook feed was full with idiotic memes saying that they had no jobs and should have their welfare benefits rescinded (because, you know, all black people are jobless and on welfare, according to all of my right wing totally not racist acquaintances).
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: I mean, when the Black Lives Matter people were doing their thing, my Facebook feed was full with idiotic memes...
That says quite a bit more about your Facebook choices than it does about meme creation bias.
I'm not sure that's true. I mean, I browse imgur at work when it's slow, and so it's divorced of any bias I have in terms of Facebook friend selection. I see lots of left wing stuff, lots of right wing stuff. When the Ferguson riots were happening, there were no shortage of memes around the looting of shoe stores and the remainder of work boots, that sort of stuff, but I really haven't seen much on Imgur other than people sending them dick shaped candy and so on.
Ouze wrote: Update from the Dildopolis: Welfare Rancher Queen Cliven Bundy has called on the holdouts to disband and leave. 3 of the holdouts have since surrendered and were charged with the rest of the militants.
No word on the status of the 55 gallon drum of lube.
Additionally, word on one of the militia's facebooks is reinforcements are inbound!
Spoiler:
It's fun to pretend sometimes, isn't it?
LOL He'll be waiting a long time for the fake seals to show up and help. Retired navy seal, the goto pretend job of all those stealing valor. Don Shipley is going to have a field day with these clowns.
One of the big mysteries for me is how these people could afford to miss work for over a month to go camping when they are indigent.
At the risk of making unfair generalization, if you're the sort of person willing to do something crazy like squat in a government facility hoping to accomplish something as vague as 'restoring freedom to the American people', you probably don't exactly have a rewarding career.
Thats part of the scary bit though. The Brothers Bundy are both business owners (and as far as I know, they do okay for themselves). Several of the high profile guys in this mess are Vets and I think read somewhere one was still active duty.
A lot of them are basically welfare queens, free loaders, and squatters whose only real achievements are constant legal trouble, but it's not really feasible to write all of these yahoos off as people without jobs.
LordofHats wrote: Thats part of the scary bit though. The Brothers Bundy are both business owners (and as far as I know, they do okay for themselves). Several of the high profile guys in this mess are Vets and I think read somewhere one was still active duty.
A lot of them are basically welfare queens, free loaders, and squatters whose only real achievements are constant legal trouble, but it's not really feasible to write all of these yahoos off as people without jobs.
Fair enough, I didn't know the bundies were business owners.
You know, I hope someone interviews one of the more lucid ones, or writes a book about their story. I'm really interested to know exactly they thought would happen here. I think they were wanting to spark some kind of second American revolution, but it seems like any non-insane person could reasonably point out that squatting in a shuttered ranger's office would be unlikely to accomplish that.
And I'd be interested to know what was going on in the past couple weeks inside. I mean, did they have doubts about their plan? Did they think that maybe this wasn't going their way?
Well if the military finds out someone active duty was involved with these gakkers I imagine the key word is going to be was.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kap'n Krump wrote: And I'd be interested to know what was going on in the past couple weeks inside. I mean, did they have doubts about their plan? Did they think that maybe this wasn't going their way?
Breotan wrote: That says quite a bit more about your Facebook choices than it does about meme creation bias.
You're actually partially correct.
Unfortunately, I happen to know a lot of people who are racist as feth because unfortunately there's a lot of people in this country that are racist as feth.
Big tough guy yesterday, telling people to shoot the police and FBI at roadblocks and to come and join them, is today blubbing and crying, begging to be allowed to leave without the FBI bringing him in on a felony warrant, nor to search any of the people at the refuge, and basically pretend nothing actually happened at all.
They were just on a camping trip, honest!
Also, look at the state of mess they have made in the refuge. It's been turned into an absolute rubbish dump by these idiots.
The youtube channel "defendyourbase" is legit and is from one of the guys holed up there, David Fry. I think he has some actual mental health issues, and just wanted some people to actually acknowledge he exists. Thing is, the kinds of people he is holed up with wouldn't give a damn about him in any other circumstance. They are no real friends of his.
If I was one of the remaining people left, I would gather up all the dildos, the 55 gal drum of lube, and whatever other sex toys were sent through, and then leave. Get out of the roadblock, head home, and set myself up as a dildo mega-store. Could even make patriot dildo packs of dildo + freedom lube, signed and numbered, and use the money to get your new life as a dildo king started.
Also, this was posted on a gun enthusiast forum. Turns out they hate these guy too
Kap'n Krump wrote: And I'd be interested to know what was going on in the past couple weeks inside. I mean, did they have doubts about their plan? Did they think that maybe this wasn't going their way?
My guess is situational homosexuality.
Well, there probably wasn't much else to do with a cabin full of donated dildos and lube!
Ouze wrote: Update from the Dildopolis: Welfare Rancher Queen Cliven Bundy has called on the holdouts to disband and leave. 3 of the holdouts have since surrendered and were charged with the rest of the militants.
No word on the status of the 55 gallon drum of lube.
Additionally, word on one of the militia's facebooks is reinforcements are inbound!
It's fun to pretend sometimes, isn't it?
Well, gak. They already have a Green Beret Col. with "sealed" records. A group of honest to heavens, no gak folks, they really are, believe me, "SEALs" will add nicely to the mix.
Ouze wrote: Update from the Dildopolis: Welfare Rancher Queen Cliven Bundy has called on the holdouts to disband and leave. 3 of the holdouts have since surrendered and were charged with the rest of the militants.
No word on the status of the 55 gallon drum of lube.
Additionally, word on one of the militia's facebooks is reinforcements are inbound!
Spoiler:
It's fun to pretend sometimes, isn't it?
LOL He'll be waiting a long time for the fake seals to show up and help. Retired navy seal, the goto pretend job of all those stealing valor. Don Shipley is going to have a field day with these clowns.
Don Shipley is hilarious the way he tears these people down. Apparently someone photoshopped their face over a picture of one of his buds that had been killed in action. Do ya think Don was a lil' pissed?
Big tough guy yesterday, telling people to shoot the police and FBI at roadblocks and to come and join them, is today blubbing and crying, begging to be allowed to leave without the FBI bringing him in on a felony warrant, nor to search any of the people at the refuge, and basically pretend nothing actually happened at all.
They were just on a camping trip, honest!
Also, look at the state of mess they have made in the refuge. It's been turned into an absolute rubbish dump by these idiots.
The youtube channel "defendyourbase" is legit and is from one of the guys holed up there, David Fry. I think he has some actual mental health issues, and just wanted some people to actually acknowledge he exists. Thing is, the kinds of people he is holed up with wouldn't give a damn about him in any other circumstance. They are no real friends of his.
Melodramatic feth. I was just waiting for him to say he was fighting so his kids didn't have to. I swear, you could make a bingo card out the go to phrases militia members use.
Relapse wrote: Update from the Dildopolis: Welfare Rancher Queen Cliven Bundy has called on the holdouts to disband and leave. 3 of the holdouts have since surrendered and were charged with the rest of the militants.
No word on the status of the 55 gallon drum of lube.
Additionally, word on one of the militia's facebooks is reinforcements are inbound!
It's fun to pretend sometimes, isn't it?
Well, gak. They already have a Green Beret Col. with "sealed" records. A group of honest to heavens, no gak folks, they really are, believe me, "SEALs" will add nicely to the mix.
.
Thise is what terrify me, they think Navy Seals are gonna parachute in to save them. Where are these retired going to get a plane that can fly over?
these guys are lunatics
But Finicum, with police in hot pursuit, attempted to leave the main road and drove into a snow bank. When he emerged from the vehicle, FBI and state police ordered him to surrender. That's when, authorities say, Finicum reached down toward his waistband where he had a gun.
The SWAT team opened fire. Finicum was killed. Ryan Bundy suffered a light wound on his arm.
The shooting was captured on camera by the SWAT team. FBI and Oregon police officials are discussing possibly releasing the video, in part to counter claims by supporters that Finicum was gunned down while trying to surrender.
I really don't want to be morbid, but if they have the footage, can they at least show it to reporters so they can offer their thoughts on it XD Even I, as someone who thinks these guys are complete jack asses, would like some outside confirmation of the contents.
Ouze wrote: And, the FAA did issue a no fly zone. Not sure if it was just for that one night or what though.
I'm not surprised. They would want to keep media/press 'copters, planes and drones out of the AO.
From the above link it looks like they had their own birds in the air and probably also wanted to minimize interference there.
Automatically Appended Next Post: From the video it seems like he definitely left the truck with his hands in the air, and nobody was shooting him then. And then he made multiple quick reaches into his pocket before they opened fire.
Looks like he almost took out an agent driving into the snow bank.
From the video it seems like he definitely left the truck with his hands in the air, and nobody was shooting him then. And then he made multiple quick reaches into his pocket before they opened fire.
Looks like he almost took out an agent driving into the snow bank.
State trooper.
Unedited version.
Yeah, he gets out of his car, hands up, then it looks like he loses his footing in the snow, takes his hands down, and then gets shot by the guy behind him, the way he turns toward the sound before he drops.
Ehh.... I can't find fault with the officers here, they'd have been pretty keyed up the way he came at the roadblock with the truck and would be justified in assuming he was armed. I don't see the gun they claim he had, and I don't see him specifically reach for anything, so what the female witness said mostly pans out as the truth, probably as far as what she could see from inside the truck went. It's hard to tell when the shooting stops and starts with no audio.
So, yeah, the guy deserved it. He should have gotten out of the truck, laid on the snow and put his hands behind his head if he was surrendering. Can you blame the cops? with them hearing the Cop killing talk they kept bragging about?
hotsauceman1 wrote: So, yeah, the guy deserved it. He should have gotten out of the truck, laid on the snow and put his hands behind his head if he was surrendering. Can you blame the cops? with them hearing the Cop killing talk they kept bragging about?
....
I highly doubt that as keyed up as he was, he was thinking rationally any more than the officers were.
I find what you think of qualifying as 'deserved to be shot' a bit disturbing as well. I can understand why the officers did it, and don't find fault with them for it, but he did not 'deserve to be shot'. After all, if being an ignorant, loudmouthed, self righteous prick who threatens cops and other authority figures were a death sentence, the gas chambers and crematoria would have to run day and night to deal with 4chan alone.
Yeah, he gets out of his car, hands up, then it looks like he loses his footing in the snow, takes his hands down, and then gets shot by the guy behind him, the way he turns toward the sound before he drops.
Ehh.... I can't find fault with the officers here, they'd have been pretty keyed up the way he came at the roadblock with the truck and would be justified in assuming he was armed. I don't see the gun they claim he had, and I don't see him specifically reach for anything, so what the female witness said mostly pans out as the truth, probably as far as what she could see from inside the truck went. It's hard to tell when the shooting stops and starts with no audio.
He was clearly digging in his coat for something. CLEARLY. Even from the helicopter's vantage point you can tell.
d-usa wrote: Again, not surprised. It's almost like I imagined that releasing the video wouldn't really change much.
I'll admit I was hoping for better quality film. I've got this thing blown up pretty big, and I'm not seeing his hands disappear, and I'm not seeing the gun. It may be there, it may not be. As I said, the police were justified in shooting him, regardless.
But you won't read that last part as it does not fit the narrative you like to push on me.
Oh, and I'm still waiting, btw, for the 'I'm sorry, Baron, you were right, the video actually bares out most (thought not all) of what the female witness in the car said and we were wrong to embrace second and third hand reports that bore little resemblance at all to the events."
He was clearly digging in his coat for something. CLEARLY. Even from the helicopter's vantage point you can tell.
Admit this.
With this video quality we can't make out his HEAD clearly. I'm not gonna say what he was doing with his hands until we get something a little clearer. The way his legs and body move though on the snowbank, however, that's him losing his footing.
Hands up, they go back down and right hand goes to left side. The hands jerk back up a tiny bit, then the right goes back to the left side for a good second/second and a half and he is shot. I literally do not get how you don't see that Baron.
d-usa wrote: That snow really made the black SS uniforms pop though, lovely.
You know that SS field gear was actually feldgrau, right? Only the dress uniform was black.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ustrello wrote: I literally do not get how you don't see that Baron.
Because he turns away from the camera. All i can see are his elbows, though his left hand does reach for something on his left side, though we can't tell (no sound) if this is because he was just shot there, or if he was going for a gun. Without sound, we can't tell when the shooting starts, only see when he falls down. I'm reviewing the unedited film on a damn near seven foot screen, and not seeing the level of detail you're talking about.
Then your "seven foot screen" either has two pixels for the entire thing or you are being obtuse on purpose because you were wrong about the big bad federal government.
BaronIveagh wrote: ...so what the female witness said mostly pans out as the truth, probably as far as what she could see from inside the truck went. It's hard to tell when the shooting stops and starts with no audio.
No, it was utter bs. The guy wasn't on his knees, and clearly reached for his waist before being shot. If, as she said, she was down on the floorboards she couldn't have seen anything; any testimony she provides is what she was told to provide.
d-usa wrote:It won't matter what the camera shows to these guys. This will continue.
d-usa wrote:Everyone should just consider if it's worth their time to try and argue with someone who is seriously considering a reality where the FBI kills people in the street SS style as the truth.
Wise words.
You can't make someone see something they don't really want to.
Anyway, imo it was a righteous shoot. I think he was pretty clearly reaching in his waist/pocket for something, and that coupled with his many previous statements that he wouldn't be taken alive gives the police at least some leeway, in my opinion, to open up even before they see a gun. He had a lot of opportunity to surrender peacefully right up to the end there, even with the cop he nearly killed with his vehicle at the roadblock there.
Interestingly he clearly did have his arms in the air briefly, so witnesses may not have been lying per se, they may simply not have seen it all (or embellished the truth with a lie of omission)... What's with her being on the floorboards? I missed that.
Anyway, what's the saying? Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
dogma wrote: No, it was utter bs. The guy wasn't on his knees, and clearly reached for his waist before being shot. If, as she said, she was down on the floorboards she couldn't have seen anything; any testimony she provides is what she was told to provide.
BaronIveagh wrote: “He’s like, just shoot me then, just shoot me — and they did, they shot him dead,” Sharp said. “They shot him right there, he was just walking — I saw it. I swear to God, he was just walking with his hands in the air.” supposed witness Victoria Sharp.
Again, failure to actually read my posts in order to fit *your* narrative.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ustrello wrote: Then your "seven foot screen" either has two pixels for the entire thing or you are being obtuse on purpose because you were wrong about the big bad federal government.
Huh? I don't give a gak about the the US Fed beyond atm they sign my pay checks.
Well, gak. They already have a Green Beret Col. with "sealed" records. A group of honest to heavens, no gak folks, they really are, believe me, "SEALs" will add nicely to the mix.
I think it is important to note that "SEAL" is not capitalised in those tweets.
So they are not getting commandos but are actually getting some highly trained aquatic mammals from the US Navy's Marine Biology research division.
Now, this raises the question of where one of the militia members learned to speak seal...
hotsauceman1 wrote: So, yeah, the guy deserved it. He should have gotten out of the truck, laid on the snow and put his hands behind his head if he was surrendering. Can you blame the cops? with them hearing the Cop killing talk they kept bragging about?
....
I highly doubt that as keyed up as he was, he was thinking rationally any more than the officers were.
I find what you think of qualifying as 'deserved to be shot' a bit disturbing as well. I can understand why the officers did it, and don't find fault with them for it, but he did not 'deserve to be shot'. After all, if being an ignorant, loudmouthed, self righteous prick who threatens cops and other authority figures were a death sentence, the gas chambers and crematoria would have to run day and night to deal with 4chan alone.
He was going for a gun after claiming for weeks now that he'd rather die than go to jail and threatening to kill cops. The only way this shooting could have possibly been more justifiable is if he had actually managed to kill a cop or two before going down.
When it came to it, he really did prefer death to jail - at the least, he was a man of his word. I could probably respect that more if his dying act wasn't actively trying to kill police officers. Good riddance.
(full disclosure, my brother is a highway patrolman like the kind he almost ran over, so I'm probably a little biased).
Automatically Appended Next Post: I actually just watched the video of the shooting.
If I'm being honest, the trooper he almost ran over looks like that was on the trooper. He ran out from behind a car and got in front of the speeding truck.
But then, the stupid SOB obviously, OBVIOUSLY, reaches into his jacket no fewer than three separate times. The last one, where he's shot, it could not be more clear that he's reaching for something big. There's no audio, but I assume that the police officers warned him the first two times.
Protip: If you don't want to be shot by cops, don't reach into your jacket. Keep your hands visible at all times. If you do need something in your jacket or pants, like a wallet for ID, ask permission.
This goes double if you're a gun-crazed militiamen leader - who again, was confirmed to be holding a loaded, concealed pistol.
But then, the stupid SOB obviously, OBVIOUSLY, reaches into his jacket no fewer than three separate times. The last one, where he's shot, it could not be more clear that he's reaching for something big. There's no audio, but I assume that the police officers warned him the first two times.
Protip: If you don't want to be shot by cops, don't reach into your jacket. Keep your hands visible at all times. If you do need something in your jacket or pants, like a wallet for ID, ask permission.
This goes double if you're a gun-crazed militiamen leader - who again, was confirmed to be holding a loaded, concealed pistol.
But but... he's white! He should have been given every benefit of the doubt available!!! Hell, the FBI had bulletproof jackets, they should have waited for him to fire a shot to confirm his intentions before they executed him. "Comply or die" only applies to dangerous unarmed minorities...
The double standard from the militia people is staggering. This whole situation shows the disparity on how people are treated. These guys pushed every limit and kept pushing farther and farther and got away with it solely on the fact they were white. Eventually it had to end. I am surprised only one of them died in that whole situation. Everything I have seen it looks like this was probably the least destructive way to end this whole situation, and while it had a loss of life, I think they did a good job in trying to keep it from escalating into an all out firefight this way opposed to doing it at the occupied location.
Again, failure to actually read my posts in order to fit *your* narrative.
No, I read your post. It was wrong. Sharp's testimony was not consistent with it, it's pretty clear that she was coached and had her words heavily edited.
If I'm being honest, the trooper he almost ran over looks like that was on the trooper. He ran out from behind a car and got in front of the speeding truck.
Probably from the trooper's angle of view it looked like the approaching car would hit the vehicle he was hiding behind and ram it into him.
I don't remember any calls for nuclear strikes and drones against the Malheur Visitors Centre occupiers.
Perhaps it is the sort of comment that might bandied about by swivel-eyed froth-mouthed loopies that don't represent anything but the most extreme opinions.
Gerry Costa • 10 months ago
These jerkoffs are allowed to roam free in America ???? A B52 strike might disperse the marchers
regulus30 • 10 months ago
These pukes are not going to like what happens next. LOCK N LOAD American Patriots.
bee • 10 months ago
you black scumbags want a war. its time to wipe your asses off the face of the earth. count on it.
Robert • 10 months ago
If these thugs are openly carrying rifles and threatening? tTe National Guard ought to be called out. I'm sure the bunch are convicted felons that should not own/carry weapons in defiance of fed law
.
I'm sure I can find many, many, many more like that but honestly I feel like reading Inforwars comments might not be the best use of mine or anyone else's time.
If I'm being honest, the trooper he almost ran over looks like that was on the trooper. He ran out from behind a car and got in front of the speeding truck.
Probably from the trooper's angle of view it looked like the approaching car would hit the vehicle he was hiding behind and ram it into him.
malfred wrote: I think it can be argued that the light touch on the part of the feds was due to the presence of weapons.
It can be argued. I don't know if I believe it entirely.
If the minority protestors showed up anywhere armed to the teeth, the public would be calling for a nuclear strike.
Sure it would. Not like any minority groups have ever gunned up and called for killing cops.
I don't remember any calls for 'nuclear strikes' or 'droning them' or what ever to be honest. Maybe I missed it.
Oh? Really?
Because Fox News and the people who love them wanted the Black Panthers labeled as a terrorist group.
And? Several folks have labeled these militia crazies as terrorists too.
And called explicitly for killing them.
Do you want to share the videos of Fox and their lovers calling to 'drone' or other wise kill the NBP marchers who were armed?
Too many folks are making statements that minorities would have been killed if they did exactly what these militia are doing. Not folks would have 'called for their deaths' but flat out stating they WOULD have been killed. I continue to say that is BS. Because it is.
And? Several folks have labeled these militia crazies as terrorists too.
And called explicitly for killing them.
Do you want to share the videos of Fox and their lovers calling to 'drone' or other wise kill the NBP marchers who were armed?
Why bother? You've clearly got a case of persecution complex here.
Too many folks are making statements that minorities would have been killed if they did exactly what these militia are doing. Not folks would have 'called for their deaths' but flat out stating they WOULD have been killed. I continue to say that is BS. Because it is.
You can say it is BS, but the fact that you have an inordinate amount of minorities being killed in confrontations with police begs to differ with your statement.
hotsauceman1 wrote: So, yeah, the guy deserved it. He should have gotten out of the truck, laid on the snow and put his hands behind his head if he was surrendering. Can you blame the cops? with them hearing the Cop killing talk they kept bragging about?
....
I highly doubt that as keyed up as he was, he was thinking rationally any more than the officers were.
I find what you think of qualifying as 'deserved to be shot' a bit disturbing as well. I can understand why the officers did it, and don't find fault with them for it, but he did not 'deserve to be shot'. After all, if being an ignorant, loudmouthed, self righteous prick who threatens cops and other authority figures were a death sentence, the gas chambers and crematoria would have to run day and night to deal with 4chan alone.
There's a big difference between making a threat and almost running over a trooper while trying to run a roadblock and then reaching into your jacket where your gun is. .
If I'm being honest, the trooper he almost ran over looks like that was on the trooper. He ran out from behind a car and got in front of the speeding truck.
Probably from the trooper's angle of view it looked like the approaching car would hit the vehicle he was hiding behind and ram it into him.
That was my thought as well.
That's a good point - I guess a parked vehicle seems a whole lot less secure when a crazed gunman's truck is careening toward it. Guess he just picked the wrong way to dodge. Don't think he got hit, though, which is good.
nkelsch wrote: But but... he's white! He should have been given every benefit of the doubt available!!! Hell, the FBI had bulletproof jackets, they should have waited for him to fire a shot to confirm his intentions before they executed him.
We are definitely remiss when not considering the possibility he was simply reaching for a concealed dildo.
nkelsch wrote: But but... he's white! He should have been given every benefit of the doubt available!!! Hell, the FBI had bulletproof jackets, they should have waited for him to fire a shot to confirm his intentions before they executed him.
We are definitely remiss when not considering the possibility he was simply reaching for a concealed dildo.
nkelsch wrote: But but... he's white! He should have been given every benefit of the doubt available!!! Hell, the FBI had bulletproof jackets, they should have waited for him to fire a shot to confirm his intentions before they executed him.
We are definitely remiss when not considering the possibility he was simply reaching for a concealed dildo.
But he was reaching in to his jacket, not his pants.....
nkelsch wrote: But but... he's white! He should have been given every benefit of the doubt available!!! Hell, the FBI had bulletproof jackets, they should have waited for him to fire a shot to confirm his intentions before they executed him.
We are definitely remiss when not considering the possibility he was simply reaching for a concealed dildo.
But he was reaching in to his jacket, not his pants.....
I dunno, man. I drive and and deliver for a living, and when I slip on the ice in crappy parking lots I know I commonly thrust my right hand into the left side of my jacket at hip level for balance.
Must be what he was doing. It's just bad luck that location also happens to be where he kept a loaded firearm that he boasts about being happy to use, as well as almost just driving over an officer.
hotsauceman1 wrote: So, yeah, the guy deserved it. He should have gotten out of the truck, laid on the snow and put his hands behind his head if he was surrendering. Can you blame the cops? with them hearing the Cop killing talk they kept bragging about?
....
I highly doubt that as keyed up as he was, he was thinking rationally any more than the officers were.
I find what you think of qualifying as 'deserved to be shot' a bit disturbing as well. I can understand why the officers did it, and don't find fault with them for it, but he did not 'deserve to be shot'. After all, if being an ignorant, loudmouthed, self righteous prick who threatens cops and other authority figures were a death sentence, the gas chambers and crematoria would have to run day and night to deal with 4chan alone.
He was going for a gun after claiming for weeks now that he'd rather die than go to jail and threatening to kill cops. The only way this shooting could have possibly been more justifiable is if he had actually managed to kill a cop or two before going down.
When it came to it, he really did prefer death to jail - at the least, he was a man of his word. I could probably respect that more if his dying act wasn't actively trying to kill police officers. Good riddance.
(full disclosure, my brother is a highway patrolman like the kind he almost ran over, so I'm probably a little biased).
Automatically Appended Next Post: I actually just watched the video of the shooting.
If I'm being honest, the trooper he almost ran over looks like that was on the trooper. He ran out from behind a car and got in front of the speeding truck.
But then, the stupid SOB obviously, OBVIOUSLY, reaches into his jacket no fewer than three separate times. The last one, where he's shot, it could not be more clear that he's reaching for something big. There's no audio, but I assume that the police officers warned him the first two times.
Protip: If you don't want to be shot by cops, don't reach into your jacket. Keep your hands visible at all times. If you do need something in your jacket or pants, like a wallet for ID, ask permission.
This goes double if you're a gun-crazed militiamen leader - who again, was confirmed to be holding a loaded, concealed pistol.
A good example of how cops feel about people they are dealing with putting their hands in their pockets is well illustrated in the video posted earlier of the drunk moron who was arrested at the gas station.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
malfred wrote: I think it can be argued that the light touch on the part of the feds
was due to the presence of weapons.
It can be argued. I don't know if I believe it entirely.
If the minority protestors showed up anywhere armed to the teeth,
the public would be calling for a nuclear strike.
I think they learned some lessons with Waco and Ruby Ridge. As far as minority protestors remember that in Baltimore, they were given, "room to destroy".
nkelsch wrote: But but... he's white! He should have been given every benefit of the doubt available!!! Hell, the FBI had bulletproof jackets, they should have waited for him to fire a shot to confirm his intentions before they executed him.
We are definitely remiss when not considering the possibility he was simply reaching for a concealed dildo.
nkelsch wrote: But but... he's white! He should have been given every benefit of the doubt available!!! Hell, the FBI had bulletproof jackets, they should have waited for him to fire a shot to confirm his intentions before they executed him.
We are definitely remiss when not considering the possibility he was simply reaching for a concealed dildo.
I'll assume you're talking about the US Federal government. Thinking someone is full of gak is not the same as hating them. Thus, I hate neither the militia, nor the fed, nor certain posters on this board, despite the fact I know all of the above are full of gak.
No, but I cannot be trusted to correctly work electronics while under the influence of that foul being known as Al Cohol. (Party last night, I'm an uncle again). We reviewed it today at work and his reaching for something was a lot more obvious.
I'll assume you're talking about the US Federal government. Thinking someone is full of gak is not the same as hating them. Thus, I hate neither the militia, nor the fed, nor certain posters on this board, despite the fact I know all of the above are full of gak.
No, but I cannot be trusted to correctly work electronics while under the influence of that foul being known as Al Cohol. (Party last night, I'm an uncle again). We reviewed it today at work and his reaching for something was a lot more obvious.
Congrats on your niece/nephew! I have 3.
If I was a dick before, I apologize. I hope the rest of our discussion is dick (or dildo as it were...) free!
d-usa wrote:It won't matter what the camera shows to these guys. This will continue.
Yeah, only crazy, inbred, redneck militias would dare do such a thing. On a completely unrelated note, is "Hands up don't shoot" still a thing?
d-usa wrote:Everyone should just consider if it's worth their time to try and argue with someone who is seriously considering a reality where the FBI kills people in the street SS style as the truth.
You mean like the same people who just assume that LEOs kill people in the street SS style? **cough**MIchael Brown**cough**Tamir Rice**
Ouze wrote: Anyway, imo it was a righteous shoot. I think he was pretty clearly reaching in his waist/pocket for something
You mean like Tamir Rice?
Ouze wrote: Anyway, what's the saying? Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
Just like when Michael Brown was attacking a police officer, when Tamir Rice reached for a replica firearm when instructed not to by LEOs, and when Trayvon Martin was slamming someone's head into concrete? I remember certain posters in this thread sung a much different tune. And your sig morning a mother's loss of her son because of a strong arm robbery, no such courtesy for those left behind by the deceased?
I'm sure you'll think that there is no disparity in how you view these events. Just make sure your electron microscope is fully charged for your hair splitting, and you have some strong backs to move those goalposts. And no, I am not defending the militia members either.
Ustrello wrote: Because a 10 year old kid = a grown ass man who has threatened LEOs, tried to run one over. But keep trying.
Exactly. I don't see why this is so hard to understand. We're talking about someone who had openly declared his intent to kill police and fight to the death rather than allow himself to be arrested, and was known to be in possession of guns. So of course he's not going to get the benefit of the doubt when he does something that could be interpreted as reaching for a weapon to carry out that threat. In other cases no such prior threat of violence existed, and therefore there was not the same justification for immediate use of lethal force.
Just like when Michael Brown was attacking a police officer, when Tamir Rice reached for a replica firearm when instructed not to by LEOs, and when Trayvon Martin was slamming someone's head into concrete? I remember certain posters in this thread sung a much different tune. And your sig morning a mother's loss of her son because of a strong arm robbery, no such courtesy for those left behind by the deceased?
I know one poster that wanted race to be left out of such issues, but is clearly raising the matter here.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: I mean, when the Black Lives Matter people were doing their thing, my Facebook feed was full with idiotic memes...
That says quite a bit more about your Facebook choices than it does about meme creation bias.
Any cursory glance of "open" message boards like Facebook or Yahoo would support Scooty's stance. We can all argue the amount of actual belief in said arguments, but please don't pretend there weren't extremely active anti-Black online campaigns after Ferguson, and that they weren't predominately Right-Wingers producing them.
But then, the stupid SOB obviously, OBVIOUSLY, reaches into his jacket no fewer than three separate times.
Emphasis mine.
How many times did Tamir Rice have again?
I'm personally not the biggest fan of Black Americans due to the experiences I've had, but I even I can see a massive disparity in responses of police force.
kronk wrote: Are you a member of the Seneca Nation of Indians?
Bands have members, countries have citizens.
I don't think you know what the Seneca Nation of Indians is.....
Senecas (all Iroquois) have a complex relationship with the govt. While (and correct me if I'm wrong Baron) there almost no pure Senecas, almost all have European or are majority European blood, and they have been repeatedly fethed by the NY govt because they are still slightly native.
But then, the stupid SOB obviously, OBVIOUSLY, reaches into his jacket no fewer than three separate times.
Emphasis mine.
How many times did Tamir Rice have again?
I'm personally not the biggest fan of Black Americans due to the experiences I've had, but I even I can see a massive disparity in responses of police force.
I'm going to be the Optimist and say it took them that long to fire because there were cops on both sides of him and they wanted to make sure the shot hit the intended target, who while obviously reaching for a weapon, was kinda lurching and flailing about while he did it.
But then, the stupid SOB obviously, OBVIOUSLY, reaches into his jacket no fewer than three separate times.
Emphasis mine.
How many times did Tamir Rice have again?
I'm personally not the biggest fan of Black Americans due to the experiences I've had, but I even I can see a massive disparity in responses of police force.
I'm going to be the Optimist and say it took them that long to fire because there were cops on both sides of him and they wanted to make sure the shot hit the intended target, who while obviously reaching for a weapon, was kinda lurching and flailing about while he did it.
quid pro quo I'll say Tamir was Black and he was shot within seconds. The officer didn't intend to shoot a child, but he wanted to make sure that the target 6 feet away was dead, And Black. Hence why they drove up right next to (he was 12) the boy. And opened fire. Compared to an openly armed group of White males that had repeatedly threatened violence against LEA.
DutchWinsAll wrote: Senecas (all Iroquois) have a complex relationship with the govt. While (and correct me if I'm wrong Baron) there almost no pure Senecas, almost all have European or are majority European blood, and they have been repeatedly fethed by the NY govt because they are still slightly native.
Ok, this is a sticky area (and political hot potato within the Seneca Nation since Kinzua Dam was built) There are actually quite a few Seneca who are 'mostly' native in New York, (I get asked if I'm Mexican a lot...) There are three classes of Citizen in the Seneca nation: 1 is Registered Seneca. These are your 'in theory' 'pure' Seneca who can trace their mothers and grandmothers all the way back [because Fathers don't count] Then there is Class 2, which is Unregistered Seneca and other Natives. [this is where I am] because Father's don't count. then there's Class 3... which is pretty much anyone else.
The reality is that yes, most Seneca have some degree of non-native (because fathers don't count AND we were sort of stealing white women for a long time, who for some reason did not want to go back, and we also were inducting escaped slaves, who also did not want to go back).
The Seneca have never really been genetically homogeneous however. The practice of prisoner induction and the fact that someone could sponsor or adopt you led to a very mixed group.
Exactly how much this is can vary wildly however. We also have the issue that there are about 10k actually close to pure Seneca sitting in Oklahoma who can't come back to New York, because treaty.
Dreadwinter wrote: I don't think you know what the Seneca Nation of Indians is.....
*achem* We're a separate, sovereign, country, we have paper that says so. The United States Congress even ratified it.
And the bands thing was a pun, as the US refers to various groups of Seneca as this 'band' or that 'band'.
DutchWinsAll wrote: Senecas (all Iroquois) have a complex relationship with the govt. While (and correct me if I'm wrong Baron) there almost no pure Senecas, almost all have European or are majority European blood, and they have been repeatedly fethed by the NY govt because they are still slightly native.
Ok, this is a sticky area (and political hot potato within the Seneca Nation since Kinzua Dam was built) There are actually quite a few Seneca who are 'mostly' native in New York, (I get asked if I'm Mexican a lot...) There are three classes of Citizen in the Seneca nation: 1 is Registered Seneca. These are your 'in theory' 'pure' Seneca who can trace their mothers and grandmothers all the way back [because Fathers don't count] Then there is Class 2, which is Unregistered Seneca and other Natives. [this is where I am] because Father's don't count. then there's Class 3... which is pretty much anyone else.
The reality is that yes, most Seneca have some degree of non-native (because fathers don't count AND we were sort of stealing white women for a long time, who for some reason did not want to go back, and we also were inducting escaped slaves, who also did not want to go back).
The Seneca have never really been genetically homogeneous however. The practice of prisoner induction and the fact that someone could sponsor or adopt you led to a very mixed group.
Exactly how much this is can vary wildly however. We also have the issue that there are about 10k actually close to pure Seneca sitting in Oklahoma who can't come back to New York, because treaty.
Dreadwinter wrote: I don't think you know what the Seneca Nation of Indians is.....
*achem* We're a separate, sovereign, country, we have paper that says so. The United States Congress even ratified it.
And the bands thing was a pun, as the US refers to various groups of Seneca as this 'band' or that 'band'.
Really so you are not bound by US laws or the Constitution? Because that would make you a sovereign country, at most you are just a self governing region with the United States as a protectorate of sorts.
Oh it is, but the dead give away is that they cannot print their own currency and conduct foreign affairs. Both of which are hallmarks of a real sovereign country, and not of a dependent domestic nation.
It's "free, for a given value of free". In theory tribes are their own "nations". Not so much in reality. They operate relatively free from the USfedgov, and can dictate how/when the feds can operate within their territory (police forces come to mind as the obvious example), but cannot really become independent. They are free... up until the US governments doesn't want them to be.
It is a very fascinating subject, and I urge those who don't know much about it to look into it.
“On at least two occasions, Finicum reaches his right hand toward a pocket on the left inside portion of his jacket,” Greg Bretzing, special agent in charge for the FBI in Portland, said Thursday night. “He did have a loaded 9mm semi-automatic handgun in the pocket.”
Finicum’s family isn’t convinced by the aerial footage.
“At this point we will await the outcome of any investigation, but based on the information currently available to us, we do not believe that LaVoy's shooting death was justified,” they said in the statement.
Despite the early release of the video and the promise of an independent criminal investigation, the Pacific Patriots Network said they want all law enforcement present or involved in Finicum’s death be immediately jailed.
“A first-hand eyewitness account presents reasonable cause for arrest while the investigation takes place,” the statement reads.
The group, who claim some of the occupiers arrested have been lied to by federal agents, also wants the removal of all militarized FBI personnel from the county and the resignations of Harney County Judge Steve Grasty, Sheriff David Ward, and two commissioners.
Pretty much that. Tribes, at least the federally recognized ones, are their own country within a country subject to both countries and....it's just really really complicated and even tribes and the government often don't fully understand it.
It's probably a subject for a thread of it's own, to be truthful.
I've wondered about the relationship between the Indian tribes and the federal government. Now that I'm living in an area that has sections of Indian land I would like to see a thread on it.
Really so you are not bound by US laws or the Constitution?
Some laws are mirrored, but, no, if arrested by the Seneca Marshals, you do not have any rights except what you get under Seneca law. Weirdly, this has been upheld by US federal court as well.
That said, we're pretty laid back, and don't really HAVE a whole lot of laws, so following the rules is fairly easy.
Biggest one, and one that occasionally trips people up, is the one that used to be written on a 40 foot billboard at the boarder.
"TO BREAK THE TREATY IS TO BREAK THE LAW."
This probably should be another thread, you're right. The relationship varies tremendously depending on the terms of the treaty between the US and the native people in question. Ours is probably the best one, as far as the native side goes, just because unlike most other nations, we got them to put it in writing that we were a separate state from the US. We actually chose to keep the US dollar, when we could have made out own currency, as it simplifies things with US tourists.
Ok guys that's enough. If you want to keep discussing what seems to be a pretty interesting and deep topic it can have it's own thread and stop taking up this one. Thanks
Dreadclaw69 wrote: [I'm sure you'll think that there is no disparity in how you view these events. Just make sure your electron microscope is fully charged for your hair splitting, and you have some strong backs to move those goalposts.
I am absolute comfortable seeing a marked difference between how this guy was treated and how Tamir Rice was treated, sure. I absolutely see a totally fundamental difference which I won't bother explaining because A.) other people already have here and B.) You've already poisoned the well with the above phrasing.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: [I'm sure you'll think that there is no disparity in how you view these events. Just make sure your electron microscope is fully charged for your hair splitting, and you have some strong backs to move those goalposts.
I am absolute comfortable seeing a marked difference between how this guy was treated and how Tamir Rice was treated, sure. I absolutely see a totally fundamental difference which I won't bother explaining because A.) other people already have here and B.) You've already poisoned the well with the above phrasing.
Waiting to see the bullet wounds and what direction they came from.
What does Tamir Rice have to do with this anyway? Kid was straight murdered, much like Deven Guilford and John Crawford the III. This whole blockade was an ambush, and I can't blame Finicum for dying with his boots on because that's more than quite a few people can even do. While this man did reach for his waistline twice, it's unclear on if he was hit or simply panicking. Given the fact he said he didn't want to spend the rest of his days in a cement box (prison), it is reasonable to say that he was reaching for his sidearm.
It's unfortunate that the Bundy involvement turned the American public in favor of the BLM's actions, and also in favor of the unconstitutional sentencing of the Hammond family. As for the supposedly witty anti-militia folks here, keep in mind a majority of the militiamen did not help the Bundy's, and quite a few actually spoke out. I remain sympathetic to their cause, but I don't agree with all of their reasons for doing what they did -- unsurprisingly their involvement turned the public against them because a) white guys b) white guys with guns c) claiming divine inspiration d) militia. I'm honestly not surprised.
I didn't wait for anything. I had no opinion other than commenting on it once it was released. The Michael Brown case was pretty unclear right from the beginning, in my opinion - the initial reporting was awful. Literally my second post was "it could be a justified shoot", so Dreadclaws whole "point" is packed full of thick, fudgey BS. But hey, forge the narrative! Such as:
Dreadclaw69 wrote: [And your sig morning a mother's loss of her son because of a strong arm robbery, no such courtesy for those left behind by the deceased?
What strong-arm robbery? A kid shoplifted a mountain dew, a candy bar and a snack cake. There was no strong-arm robbery. You're literally making gak up in your head out of whole cloth to support your dishonesty-based narrative. He wasn't shot; he died in prison after being held for 4 months and starving to death because was mentally ill.
Tamir Rice is relevant only tangentially because Dreadclaw brought him up, thinking that it would take a hypocrite with a electron microscope for hair-splitting to point out the differences between him and Lavoy Finicum. It was a swing and a miss. Well, more like a swing, and a miss, and your pants fell down in front of everyone.
Ouze wrote: I didn't wait for anything. I had no opinion other than commenting on it once it was released. The Michael Brown case was pretty unclear right from the beginning, in my opinion - the initial reporting was awful. Literally my second post was "it could be a justified shoot", so Dreadclaws whole "point" is packed full of thick, fudgey BS. But hey, forge the narrative!
Tamir Rice is relevant only tangentially because Dreadclaw brought him up, thinking that it would take a hypocrite with a electron microscope for hair-splitting to point out the differences between him and Lavoy Finicum. It was a swing and a miss.
Just to slide off topic for a sliver of a moment, Micheal Brown reaped what he sowed by physically attacking an officer with evidence to support he was clearly in the wrong; a better case is love Devon Guilford who was straight up murdered by a power-fantasy toting LEO and was likely framed.
It's unfortunate that the Bundy involvement turned the American public in favor of the BLM's actions, and also in favor of the unconstitutional sentencing of the Hammond family. As for the supposedly witty anti-militia folks here, keep in mind a majority of the militiamen did not help the Bundy's, and quite a few actually spoke out. I remain sympathetic to their cause, but I don't agree with all of their reasons for doing what they did -- unsurprisingly their involvement turned the public against them because a) white guys b) white guys with guns c) claiming divine inspiration d) militia. I'm honestly not surprised.
No, it's because the Bundies are total knobheads.
Most Americans are pretty law abiding and respectful of the rules of law. Was the sentence on the Hammonds unconstitutional? Then challenge it in court.
Instead of doing that, a load of so-called militia turn up uninvited, unwanted and proceed to act like a bunch of bell-ends for weeks creating a media circus before they stupidly get themselves arrested by wandering around outside their safe zone.
It's not surprising this kind of behaviour has pissed people off.
Kilkrazy wrote: Most Americans are pretty law abiding and respectful of the rules of law. Was the sentence on the Hammonds unconstitutional? Then challenge it in court
And, although it's been said in this thread, I think it bears repeating. These guys had their day in court, way more than most do. They got all the way to the SCOTUS, and lost. The idea that their sentencing was unconstitutional simply is not factually accurate.
It's unfortunate that the Bundy involvement turned the American public in favor of the BLM's actions, and also in favor of the unconstitutional sentencing of the Hammond family. As for the supposedly witty anti-militia folks here, keep in mind a majority of the militiamen did not help the Bundy's, and quite a few actually spoke out. I remain sympathetic to their cause, but I don't agree with all of their reasons for doing what they did -- unsurprisingly their involvement turned the public against them because a) white guys b) white guys with guns c) claiming divine inspiration d) militia. I'm honestly not surprised.
No, it's because the Bundies are total knobheads.
Most Americans are pretty law abiding and respectful of the rules of law. Was the sentence on the Hammonds unconstitutional? Then challenge it in court.
Instead of doing that, a load of so-called militia turn up uninvited, unwanted and proceed to act like a bunch of bell-ends for weeks creating a media circus before they stupidly get themselves arrested by wandering around outside their safe zone.
It's not surprising this kind of behaviour has pissed people off.
They are currently challenging it and willfully went to their sentences after receiving them, I can't say I'm entirely sure what you're arguing there.
Kilkrazy wrote: Most Americans are pretty law abiding and respectful of the rules of law. Was the sentence on the Hammonds unconstitutional? Then challenge it in court
And, although it's been said in this thread, I think it bears repeating. These guys had their day in court, way more than most do. They got all the way to the SCOTUS, and lost. The idea that their sentencing was unconstitutional simply is not factually accurate.
The sentence some not fit the crime. Stephen Molyneux covered this quite well. The argument being displayed here is "We've gakked stuff up with our legal system before so it's alright if you gak it up again!". The precedents they list as a defense of the sentencing are stretches to the nth degree.
So maybe he is carrying airarms instead? 
