Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Jihadin wrote:
I back the Bundy in this. Till they make dumb racist remarks then I drop them em like a pesky Insurgent

So far they were sentenced, served, and release. Now they're going back in for the mandatory due to 9th Circuit decision.

They aren't going on trial again they are simply being put back in jail for the correct amount of time. So no they did not serve their time

 Ustrello wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
I back the Bundy in this. Till they make dumb racist remarks then I drop them em like a pesky Insurgent

So far they were sentenced, served, and release. Now they're going back in for the mandatory due to 9th Circuit decision.

They aren't going on trial again they are simply being put back in jail for the correct amount of time. So no they did not serve their time

If that's the case, then it need to be declared a mistrial and re-tried.

That's for a defect in the conviction, which there isn't.

It wasn't a mistrial, there is no question about their guilt and even the guys admit that. The mandatory minimum wasn't followed and that was fixed by the upper court.

 Ouze wrote:
That's for a defect in the conviction, which there isn't.

Ah... I thought mistrial was for anything that wasn't kosher.

I'm sure the families of firejumpers would be ok if their little fire hadn't been caught before it burned a few hundred thousand acres. Sure, let's just give them a light slap on the wrist rather than the mandatory minimum.

I will say one thing:

In a week where Obama is threatening to executive order his way to gun control, I do feel sorry for sensible, law abiding, gun owners, particularly my fellow dakka members, who must be tearing their hair out at these idiots parading around with guns, and giving responsible gun owners a bad name...

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I will say one thing:

In a week where Obama is threatening to executive order his way to gun control, I do feel sorry for sensible, law abiding, gun owners, particularly my fellow dakka members, who must be tearing their hair out at these idiots parading around with guns, and giving responsible gun owners a bad name...

That's what I was thinking. These idiots could be a windfall for Obama's move against guns. If only they didn't have those damned pistol grips on their rifles!

I doubt that'll happen. Most people have the sense to be scared to death of people like this but also know that they don't represent most gun owners. EDIT: Not that I don't expect someone to try and make more of it there than there is.

Relapse wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I will say one thing:

In a week where Obama is threatening to executive order his way to gun control, I do feel sorry for sensible, law abiding, gun owners, particularly my fellow dakka members, who must be tearing their hair out at these idiots parading around with guns, and giving responsible gun owners a bad name...

That's what I was thinking. These idiots could be a windfall for Obama's move against guns. If only they didn't have those damned pistol grips on their rifles!

I'm not a gun owner (well, I'm an air gun owner) but I can tell the difference between a responsible owner and a bunch of wound-up, weirded-out paranoid anti-gov windbags.

Do people think this is part of the fairly wide-spread general disillusionment with ineffective and unprepresentative democracy that we see in many western countries, or a group of "individualists" who don't want to be accountable to anyone except their own selves?

Or maybe they are just stupid and ignorant? It is not unknown.

So the right wing was just criticizing Obama for not following through with mandatory minimums for non violent drug offenders, but are also critical of mandatory minimums being enforced as in this case? That's not hypocritical at all.

It's almost as if mandatory minimums are a horrible law.

For a good laugh I recommend perusing the comments section on Yahoo about this situation.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I will say one thing:

In a week where Obama is threatening to executive order his way to gun control, I do feel sorry for sensible, law abiding, gun owners, particularly my fellow dakka members, who must be tearing their hair out at these idiots parading around with guns, and giving responsible gun owners a bad name...

That's what I was thinking. These idiots could be a windfall for Obama's move against guns. If only they didn't have those damned pistol grips on their rifles!

I'm not a gun owner (well, I'm an air gun owner) but I can tell the difference between a responsible owner and a bunch of wound-up, weirded-out paranoid anti-gov windbags.

Do people think this is part of the fairly wide-spread general disillusionment with ineffective and unprepresentative democracy that we see in many western countries, or a group of "individualists" who don't want to be accountable to anyone except their own selves?

Or maybe they are just stupid and ignorant? It is not unknown.

I've known enough militia members around here to know they're a fairly ignorant bunch sprinkled with a few higher functioning members. The higher functioning ones either quit once they've heard and seen enough bs, or wind up manipulating the others. A couple friends of mine were in one and they tried to get me to join, but the offer held no interest. Their militia tried to legitimize itself with the governor by saying it was available if needed.
They ended up quitting after the leaders began talking about going to people's houses to take their food storage in the event of disaster.

This link is being shared on Facebook with the heading "Major terrorist attack in the USA".

DutchWinsAll wrote:
So the right wing was just criticizing Obama for not following through with mandatory minimums for non violent drug offenders, but are also critical of mandatory minimums being enforced as in this case? That's not hypocritical at all.

It's almost as if mandatory minimums are a horrible law.

For a good laugh I recommend perusing the comments section on Yahoo about this situation.

Mandatory mins *is* a horrible law, as it feeds into the beast that is for-profit-prison systems.

beast_gts wrote:
This link is being shared on Facebook with the heading "Major terrorist attack in the USA".

t

It looks like even other militias are disavowing the one holed up in the building. Bundy needs to be in jail for a good long while, inciting violence as he is. This is a case where there is no cause to defend on his part.

Its funny how people are equating these Chuckleheads to the San Barnidino pair.

Is not the Federal Government releasing non violent offenders out early from incarceration?

I think calling them domestic terrorists is a little extreme. They haven't killed anyone, and quite frankly they're not that scary. Who is really being terrorized by them? They're idiots.

Now if they actually initiate some violent action, I'll reassess my opinion at that time, but so far they haven't done anything that plenty of other peaceful protest groups have done. They just happen to have weapons on them while they are doing it.

Don't get me wrong, I think they're idiots and I have concerns related to what Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote, but referring to these morons as domestic terrorists really seems like sensationalism to me.

That said, mandatory minimum sentencing laws are one of the worst problems of the American justice system currently, and need to be addressed. I find the situation in which two men who served their sentences and then are made to serve more time to be rather problematic.

Why not serve the remainder of their sentence parole status? Cheaper. Throwing them back in jail because their "Bundy's" to serve the remainder of their time is a bit stupid (after serving the original verdict). Seems like a personnel issue the Government have with these two.

 Hordini wrote:
I think calling them domestic terrorists is a little extreme. They haven't killed anyone, and quite frankly they're not that scary. Who is really being terrorized by them? They're idiots.

Because NEWS, Inc. needs there to be white protestants who are terrorists. There is an activist mindset in journalism today that just can't tolerate the idea of terrorism being an Islam-only phenomenon.

Relapse wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 greatbigtree wrote:
To the best of my knowledge, the Occupy movement was non-violent. These people are specifically threatening violence against anyone that tries to remove them.

So that would be the difference. Specific, armed threats, compared to non-violence. Yes, they are expected to abide by the legal decisions of the courts. It's kind of what the rule of law implies. That you don't get to say, "Go feth yourself. I gots a gun, so you can't make me." It's part of the package when you live in a society.

Okay, aside form the fact that the Occupy was not all nonviolent (hurting folks livelihoods is not peaceful by any means), didn't they basically tell the gov't 'Go feth yourself?" What is the difference? They did it in a bigger and much much more disruptive way than this group.


And of course I could have used the obvious examples of the Black Lives Matter associated crowds that burned Ferguson and other places as groups that DID commit openly violent acts as well as call for the killing of cops country wide.

where do you find this nonsense? faux news?

occupy protested the bail out of the banks, that is all. they didn't disrupt anything, nor hurt any ones livelihood. hell I bet the local pizza place had record profits while it was going on.

Wrong.


http://www.ibtimes.com/occupy-wall-street-has-cost-local-businesses-nearly-500000-369174

The occupy movement shut down three west coast ports. A single day of that fethed over a lot more people than occupying a building in the woods will do in the course of a year.

 Breotan wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
I think calling them domestic terrorists is a little extreme. They haven't killed anyone, and quite frankly they're not that scary. Who is really being terrorized by them? They're idiots.

Because NEWS, Inc. needs there to be white protestants who are terrorists. There is an activist mindset in journalism today that just can't tolerate the idea of terrorism being an Islam-only phenomenon.

You know there's this place called "Northern Ireland" right? EDIT: Or have I just fallen for a Poe again?

The KKK, IRA, Shining Path, Aum Shinrikyo, and dozens of other terrorist organizations that most definitely are/were not in any way related with Islam, would seem to suggest that terrorism is only an Islam-only phenomenon for people with very narrow world knowledge (and/or axes to grind)

 LordofHats wrote:
The KKK, IRA, Shining Path, Aum Shinrikyo, and dozens of other terrorist organizations that most definitely are/were not in any way related with Islam, would seem to suggest that terrorism is only an Islam-only phenomenon for people with very narrow world knowledge (and/or axes to grind)

Exactly. All of whom have committed terrorist acts domestically (and some abroad). Something that this group has not done yet and doesn't seem to be planning to do. They are currently occupying a building, which is the same tactic that many peaceful protesters have used in the past. The only difference is that these guys have weapons. They haven't used them or conducted a kinetic attack of any sort. Like I said, if they do, or appear that they intend to conduct some form of attack, I'll gladly change my opinion. But currently referring to them as domestic terrorists is sensationalizing the issue.

Why do people ITT keep stating that they aren't terrorists because they haven't killed anyone? Is it because people ITT are dumb?

Can someone point out to me in the definition of "terrorism" where killing people is a requirement? Because I'm pretty sure the definition of terrorism is using fear or threats to make political demands or express a political ideology. Which... taking a federal building hostage with guns and threatening violence if the police try to make them leave soundly fits into.

 Hordini wrote:
They are currently occupying a building, which is the same tactic that many peaceful protesters have used in the past. The only difference is that these guys have weapons.

costanzabattingcage.png

 Hordini wrote:
But currently referring to them as domestic terrorists is sensationalizing the issue.

Acts of violence is not solely how terrorism is defined. It also includes threats of violence and intimidation.

Then again, now we're just debating what the word terrorism means and I doubt that discussion is gonna go anywhere good.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Why do people ITT keep stating that they aren't terrorists because they haven't killed anyone? Is it because people ITT are dumb?

Can someone point out to me in the definition of "terrorism" where killing people is a requirement? Because I'm pretty sure the definition of terrorism is using fear or threats to make political demands or express a political ideology. Which... taking a federal building hostage with guns and threatening violence if the police try to make them leave soundly fits into.

 Hordini wrote:
They are currently occupying a building, which is the same tactic that many peaceful protesters have used in the past. The only difference is that these guys have weapons.

costanzabattingcage.png

To be a terrorist they have to cause terror. Most terrorists, whether they succeed in actually killing people or not, conduct some form of kinetic attack in which people are killed or injured. That is, it goes above fear and threats. Otherwise anyone who makes a potentially threatening post on the internet in pursuit of a political ideology becomes a domestic terrorist. Who are they terrorizing by occupying a building in the middle of the woods? Just because they have the means to defend themselves, they become terrorists? Do all protesters who protest while armed become domestic terrorists? Are random white people who open carry during a demonstration domestic terrorists? What about Black Panthers?

Again, I'm not supporting these guys. I think they're idiots. But calling them domestic terrorists is an incredible stretch. Timothy McVeigh is a domestic terrorist. The Unabomber is a domestic terrorist. That's not what these guys are, unless you consider the occupy movement to be domestic terrorists as well, or open-carry activists. Again, if they initiate further action or show that they intend to, I'll gladly change my opinion, but that hasn't happened yet.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
But currently referring to them as domestic terrorists is sensationalizing the issue.

Acts of violence is not solely how terrorism is defined. It also includes threats of violence and intimidation.

Then again, now we're just debating what the word terrorism means and I doubt that discussion is gonna go anywhere good.

Yes, that's true, but not everyone who makes a threat or uses intimidation tactics is a terrorist.

Here is a quote from the CNN article:

After the march Saturday, the armed protesters broke into the refuge's unoccupied building and refused to leave. Officials have said there are no government employees in the building.

"We will be here as long as it takes," Bundy said. "We have no intentions of using force upon anyone, (but) if force is used against us, we would defend ourselves."

They are occupiers and protesters who have the means to defend themselves. That is not the same as domestic terrorism.

 Hordini wrote:
To be a terrorist they have to cause terror. Most terrorists, whether they succeed in actually killing people or not, conduct some form of kinetic attack in which people are killed or injured. That is, it goes above fear and threats. Otherwise anyone who makes a potentially threatening post on the internet in pursuit of a political ideology becomes a domestic terrorist. Who are they terrorizing by occupying a building in the middle of the woods? Just because they have the means to defend themselves, they become terrorists? Do all protesters who protest while armed become domestic terrorists? Are random white people who open carry during a demonstration domestic terrorists? What about Black Panthers?

Again, I'm not supporting these guys. I think they're idiots. But calling them domestic terrorists is an incredible stretch. Timothy McVeigh is a domestic terrorist. The Unabomber is a domestic terrorist. That's not what these guys are, unless you consider the occupy movement to be domestic terrorists as well, or open-carry activists. Again, if they initiate further action or show that they intend to, I'll gladly change my opinion, but that hasn't happened yet.

https://www.google.com/search?q=definition+of+terrorism&rlz=1C1GIVB_enUS648US648&oq=definition+of+terrorism&aqs=chrome..69i57.3527j0j4&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8

And yes, actually. Anonymous is considered a terrorist organization by the Federal government, as were the Black Panthers.

Anyone who uses the threat of violence to further a political goal is a terrorist.

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
They are currently occupying a building, which is the same tactic that many peaceful protesters have used in the past. The only difference is that these guys have weapons.

costanzabattingcage.png

Do you have a point you are trying to make?

What?

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
To be a terrorist they have to cause terror. Most terrorists, whether they succeed in actually killing people or not, conduct some form of kinetic attack in which people are killed or injured. That is, it goes above fear and threats. Otherwise anyone who makes a potentially threatening post on the internet in pursuit of a political ideology becomes a domestic terrorist. Who are they terrorizing by occupying a building in the middle of the woods? Just because they have the means to defend themselves, they become terrorists? Do all protesters who protest while armed become domestic terrorists? Are random white people who open carry during a demonstration domestic terrorists? What about Black Panthers?

Again, I'm not supporting these guys. I think they're idiots. But calling them domestic terrorists is an incredible stretch. Timothy McVeigh is a domestic terrorist. The Unabomber is a domestic terrorist. That's not what these guys are, unless you consider the occupy movement to be domestic terrorists as well, or open-carry activists. Again, if they initiate further action or show that they intend to, I'll gladly change my opinion, but that hasn't happened yet.

https://www.google.com/search?q=definition+of+terrorism&rlz=1C1GIVB_enUS648US648&oq=definition+of+terrorism&aqs=chrome..69i57.3527j0j4&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8

And yes, actually. Anonymous is considered a terrorist organization by the Federal government, as were the Black Panthers.

Anyone who uses the threat of violence to further a political goal is a terrorist.

How is saying "We have no intentions of using force upon anyone, (but) if force is used against us, we would defend ourselves," a threat of violence?