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.

 kronk wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

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 can only exalt this once, and I am sad.

I got your back bro.

 kronk wrote:
Are you a member of the Seneca Nation of Indians?

Bands have members, countries have citizens.

 kronk wrote:

Is that where your FedCoat hatred comes from?

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.

 kronk wrote:
Are you vision impaired?

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.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 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.....

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 kronk wrote:
Are you a member of the Seneca Nation of Indians?

Bands have members, countries have citizens.

 kronk wrote:

Is that where your FedCoat hatred comes from?

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.

 kronk wrote:
Are you vision impaired?

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.

Because a 10 year old kid = a grown ass man who has threatened LEOs, tried to run one over. But keep trying.

And no, I am not defending the militia members either.

No but you are being a bit rude, so tone it down

 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.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

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.

 Breotan wrote:

 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.

 Kap'n Krump wrote:

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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 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.

DutchWinsAll wrote:
[

 Kap'n Krump wrote:

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.

 Iur_tae_mont wrote:

DutchWinsAll wrote:
[

 Kap'n Krump wrote:

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'.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

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.

Tribal Sovereignty is totally complicated. Don't ask Hats to explain it cause Hats doesn't get it

 LordofHats wrote:
Tribal Sovereignty is totally complicated. Don't ask Hats to explain it cause Hats doesn't get it

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.

That was also a point I was trying to get at (with the nations being a protectorate of sorts).

Anyways putting the train back on the rails, we all knew this was going to happen.

http://news.yahoo.com/patriots-summon-protesters-to-oregon-seek-arrests-of-fbi-and-others-213941892.html

“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.

 LordofHats wrote:
Tribal Sovereignty is totally complicated. Don't ask Hats to explain it cause Hats doesn't get it

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.

 Ustrello wrote:

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.


Also, you seem to think I made some defense of Mike Brown that I never did. Here's every comment I made in the Ferguson thread. Guess what I never said that you're pretending I said?

 Ouze wrote:

 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.


Also, you seem to think I made some defense of Mike Brown that I never did. Here's every comment I made in the Ferguson thread. Guess what I never said that you're pretending I said?

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.

That aside, rest in peace Finicum.

 The Airman wrote:
...
...

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.

Unless you are a militia man, of course.

But there you go, the Bundies are even worse knobheads than I thought.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 The Airman wrote:
...
...

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.

Secondly, that's my point exactly. Wrong place and the wrong time. However being white gun owners on the right persuasion is not helping their case. You'll see plenty of back in forth on this topic of their skin color alone and questions as to what would happen if, say, a <other race/other religious group> took over instead:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/03/why-arent-we-calling-the-oregon-militia-terrorists/
http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/04/us/oregon-wildlife-refuge-protest/
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/01/09/462370384/those-men-in-oregon-troublemakers-terrorists-or-something-else


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:

 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.