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.

 whembly wrote:
I wasn't implying that there were no arrest.

Just that the whole ordeal were whitewashed to OWS' favor by the media.

You appear to be supporting the idea that OWS was somehow favored by the media with a link to a CNN op-ed whose first 3 paragraphs are dedicated to showing how OWS is being unfairly treated by the media.

ITT: "Reasonable" people drawing comparisons between rednecks in an empty building in the Oregon wilderness, and an international terrorist organization that murders women and children by the thousands, and then calling for said rednecks to be killed by the government.

Very classy!

These guys are not terrorists-they are slack-jawed donkey caves, who are grabbing the spotlight for their 15 minutes, while posturing like anyone with your average Napoleon complex. Starve them out, and sigh while giving them their attention.

However....they cannot be seen as harmless. They are armed and made a legitimate threat. The moment they fire the first shot- then all bets are off and they become domestic terrorists, and should be dealt with as such. Too bad, they gave the warning themselves.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 agnosto wrote:
The difference here, Kan, is that I don't believe anyone thinks this is more than a show. Low-profile building, out of the way location, lots of big talk and that's it. They'll stay a while to prove their point and then quietly leave.

Right, but at the same time it emboldens them for the future.

Nip that crap in the bud. I can almost guarantee that if the Bundy ranch standoff had gone differently? We wouldn't be having this right here.

The notes and whatnot to family are just being made because they want people to believe that "the government" doesn't want them to be heard and will kill them to shut them up.

Of course that's the point--but hey, what is it that a large number of the Dakka ex-military types say whenever it's Islamic terrorism?
"If they want to be martyrs, why not let them be"?

If these people think that they have a tyrannical government--hey, let's give them one!

Big mistake if they kill these guys. I have friends that used to be in a
militia and I would have them tell me how the government was scared of them and it was only a matter of time before they started getting killed by agents of the government. I was told they were willing to fight and die against the loss of their rights so their kids didn't have to. They carried around a pocket version of the Constitution and would quote the Fedralist Papers to me. Their group of about 100 or so had grey urban camaflauge BDU's, ID cards that closely mimicked Army ID cards. They would receive copies of some kind of national militia news magazine, and were excited to show me their group featured in one. They would do drills with their group like a regular Guard unit, all the while saying it was for the defense of the Constitution. Granted, most of them couldn't find their own butt with both hands and a map, and they told me about an incident where, during one of their night exericises, 5 of them got lost and ended up on some farmer's land. The farmer noticed them, and put a gun on them, taking their weapons and calling police to collect the group. One of these guys was a goofy looking moron who liked to think of himself in the mold of Mac Bolan, and I would always piss him off by calling him the court jester or Mac Jester. It got to the point that the other militia began calling him that, making for me, a real special place in his heart.
We had a taster of what militias are like with the Bundy Ranch debacle. The government didn't do itself any favors there, either, pissing off and scaring the locals with the way they handled the situation.
I think they're doing this one just right. Wait them out in the Wilie whacks and avoid shooting to keep other militia out of the affair.

I'm going to side with terrorist for Bundy...or whoever the spokeman is for Citizen for Constitution.....mental hardship listening to the guy who is totally unprepared to speak to a group of people...let along have a chain of thought viewpoint. I've trained SPC and below who can conduct classes to senior leadership and not be intimidated by them....even coining them for ballsy moves....this guy....eesshhh

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The Bundy guys didn't use force to occupy the building, which was empty. They say they are prepared to use force to defend themselves if attacked while in it, but at the moment they are no threat to anyone.

Whether the building was empty or not, it was likely locked up. In order to have gotten in--they would have needed to use force. Additionally, them claiming that they are "prepared to use force to defend themselves if attacked or threatened with forcible removal" is using force to occupy the building.

Force in the legal context of robbery and terrorism is violently attacking people, not breaking a lock.

Actually, "forced entry" is considered part of the category of unlawful violence.

Yes, but it isn't what a typical member of the public considers to be violence. They didn't fight their way into a defended building.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The Bundy guys didn't use force to occupy the building, which was empty. They say they are prepared to use force to defend themselves if attacked while in it, but at the moment they are no threat to anyone.

Whether the building was empty or not, it was likely locked up. In order to have gotten in--they would have needed to use force. Additionally, them claiming that they are "prepared to use force to defend themselves if attacked or threatened with forcible removal" is using force to occupy the building.

Force in the legal context of robbery and terrorism is violently attacking people, not breaking a lock.

Actually, "forced entry" is considered part of the category of unlawful violence.

Yes, but it isn't what a typical member of the public considers to be violence. They didn't fight their way into a defended building.

Not fun. So not fun.

Currently they have done nothing more than Civil Obedience. No worse than BLM taking and holding an interstate and holding the people trapped on it hostage. BLM even attacked people who decided to say screw the blockade. Its the same as any other protest group that occupies a government building in protest. Media makes a circus of it but for the most part, the general population labels them as crazy and ignores them. No one has been injured or threatened, and no saying you will defend your self if attacked isn't giving a threat. Its a federal facility on federal park land. I know you can have a weapon on park land elsewhere and even in federal buildings on park land. I have had classes before on sites like this.

They cannot be compared to ISIS since being in ISIS is enough to get you arrested. They are a declared terrorist group who actually does go and kill people. The worst being in a militia will cause(provided they don't actually do anything) is keep you from getting a Secret Clearance or getting fired from a government job.

Col. Dash wrote:
No one has been injured or threatened, and no saying you will defend your self if attacked isn't giving a threat

If you're doing something illegal, and the people you are "defending yourself" against are the police who are enforcing the law, it's not a valid application of self defense. Does this really need to be said?

Well actually, that depends. There are some jurisdictions and lots of case law that PoPo actions cannot be disproportionate to what is happening. For example, if the police are enforcing a parking issue and they attempt to shoot you, you had/have the right to self defense at that point. In Texas it was even codified for decades, being written as a way to protect against carpetbaggers.

of course the defense under the law was not allowed when certain groups tried it when they were being oppressed (aka being lynched).

But of course in this instance you are completely correct. Even using normal self defense doctrine they cannot use deadly force to resist entrance when that party itself is not using deadly force or the reasonable threat therein. Legal traditions and case law are such that a criminal defendant would get laughed right to the needle room for such a defense.

I do believe I just went full circle there didn't I. (to be clear Ouze I'm agreeing with you, just noting there's always the never say never rule when it comes to law). I need some more coffee.

Only a Sith deals in absolutes


Anyway, they are cutting the power today. I'm sure these guys have generators, but I'm equally sure they don't have a enormous amount of gas with which to run them...



Also, that doesn't look like a few months worth of food for a substantial number of people.

Never said it was self defense. If they shoot someone during this standoff then they are as guilty of the crime as anyone else. But declaring you will defend yourself if attacked does not constitute a threat. Anyone can say this about themselves and it is not a threat. If they said they were going to go bomb some place or go on a shooting spree at the mall, that would constitute an actionable threat, and from what I have read, they have been careful not to say that type of thing.

I think if no one gets hurt and this is resolved peacefully along with an unbiased judge unlike the one who dealt with the Hammonds, then this will result in no more than a slap on the wrist for them for unlawful assembly and civil disorder. BLM physically assaulted and caused damage to people breaking their blockade with the police standing there watching and after the fact they spent a few hours in jail and went home. If BLM isn't labeled terrorists than neither should these guys.

.. I'm assuming the weights/gym equipment etc was already there.


.. odd sense of priorities otherwise.


.. then again :

http://newsthump.com/2016/01/05/oregon-ranchers-stage-huge-brokeback-mountain-flash-mob/

 Ouze wrote:
Only a Sith deals in absolutes


Anyway, they are cutting the power today. I'm sure these guys have generators, but I'm equally sure they don't have a enormous amount of gas with which to run them...

Spoiler:

Also, that doesn't look like a few months worth of food for a substantial number of people.

Is it me, or besides a case of canned soup or something, their biggest meal looks like a 50 lb bag of dog food in the back. Rusty the wonder dog approves of their planning.

I'm no Lawyer or Judge, but if I served time. Then was released and later ordered back to jail because someone felt I didn't do enough time, well then I tell them to feth off, too. Bundy however is using this to serve his own needs not the Hammonds.

At one point the Oath Keepers were planning on providing guns and rifles to the Ferguson protesters for open carry so that they could protest and "defend themselves" from police aggression in a similar manner. Someone realized that was a bad idea.

honestly, safest way is to leave leave them alone, don't give them a spotlight and they will walk out peacefully in the end.

it may take time but its better than people getting killed. just wait them out.

 jhe90 wrote:
honestly, safest way is to leave leave them alone, don't give them a spotlight and they will walk out peacefully in the end.

it may take time but its better than people getting killed. just wait them out.

Judging from their vast horde of food stocks, looks like it will take about three days.

 Frazzled wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:
honestly, safest way is to leave leave them alone, don't give them a spotlight and they will walk out peacefully in the end.

it may take time but its better than people getting killed. just wait them out.

Judging from their vast horde of food stocks, looks like it will take about three days.

Easy then. keep them isolated for 3-4 days and all is done. let them walk out and offer them pizza if they do so. just stop supplies or people going in.

People are overlooking the symbolic value of taking over a federal building. Doesn't America have a NATO style article that states: an attack on any federal building is considered an attack on every federal building?

No man left behind, no building left unguarded

 jhe90 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:
honestly, safest way is to leave leave them alone, don't give them a spotlight and they will walk out peacefully in the end.

it may take time but its better than people getting killed. just wait them out.

Judging from their vast horde of food stocks, looks like it will take about three days.

Easy then. keep them isolated for 3-4 days and all is done. let them walk out and offer them pizza if they do so. just stop supplies or people going in.

Set up an ongoing barbque, where the smell of the food continually wafts toward the building they've taken over.

The main problem with calling what they are doing "civil disobedience" is their threat against law enforcement IMO.

One of the main points of civil disobedience is that the folks committing acts of it are prepared for the reality that they will be arrested and that they are willing to be arrested. It's a mindset of: "this law isn't just and I'm not going to follow it. I know that it is on the books, I know that it will be enforced, but I'm not going to follow it. I know that I will be arrested and I won't resist when they arrest me so that my arrest can serve as an example of the unjust laws." The whole non-violence thing is what puts the "civil" in "civil disobedience".

The problem with a lot of "civil disobedience" activists nowadays is that a lot of them are no longer willing to accept the whole "You will be arrested for this, and that is the point of doing it" thing. And at no point does civil disobedience include a threat of violence against the police.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
Only a Sith deals in absolutes


Anyway, they are cutting the power today. I'm sure these guys have generators, but I'm equally sure they don't have a enormous amount of gas with which to run them...

Spoiler:

Also, that doesn't look like a few months worth of food for a substantial number of people.

Is it me, or besides a case of canned soup or something, their biggest meal looks like a 50 lb bag of dog food in the back. Rusty the wonder dog approves of their planning.

They can always go poach more Elk

This is interesting to watch and contrast with Black Lives Matter protests that are currently going on.

 Frazzled wrote:
In Texas it was even codified for decades, being written as a way to protect against carpetbaggers.

Texas has a law that allows people to shoot at northeastern Republicans looking to run in local elections? O.o

 Breotan wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
In Texas it was even codified for decades, being written as a way to protect against carpetbaggers.

Texas has a law that allows people to shoot at northeastern Republicans looking to run in local elections? O.o

Why was this law now in use in 2010

Relapse wrote:
Set up an ongoing barbque, where the smell of the food continually wafts toward the building they've taken over.

That's truly horrible - a siege with loud Guns N' Roses is one thing, but that's the next level.

 Ouze wrote:

Relapse wrote:
Set up an ongoing barbque, where the smell of the food continually wafts toward the building they've taken over.

That's truly horrible - a siege with loud Guns N' Roses is one thing, but that's the next level.

Mercy is for the weak.

Relapse wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

Relapse wrote:
Set up an ongoing barbque, where the smell of the food continually wafts toward the building they've taken over.

That's truly horrible - a siege with loud Guns N' Roses is one thing, but that's the next level.

Mercy is for the weak.

This is a federal issue. Which means that after the fact there will be hearings by senators and congressmen about why they didn't use Texas/KC/Memphis Style BBQ, special select committees about why they used beef instead of pork, attack ads by the beef and pork lobbies.

Is this worth all this???

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
People are overlooking the symbolic value of taking over a federal building. Doesn't America have a NATO style article that states: an attack on any federal building is considered an attack on every federal building?

No man left behind, no building left unguarded

Send in leathernecks to "secure" the building. I am sure at least two bricks will remain standing.