terrorists occupy gov't office in Oregon

[Argus]

Well, it's one way or the other. These guys are good, and the pipeline guys are good. Or they both aren't.

Maybe you're right, maybe it is just me that doesn't differentiate between lawbreakers.

I differentiate between lawbreakers with guns threatening to kill people, and unarmed lawbreakers who do not.

Edited January 5, 2016 by Argus

[Boges]

It's hard to call them terrorist when no one is being killed.

Who are they terrorizing? The wild life?

[Guest]

I differentiate between lawbreakers with guns threatening to kill people, and unarmed lawbreakers who do not.

In that sense, so do I, but only by degree. And one would assume that degree would be reflected in the sentencing.

I'm not willing to turn a blind eye to lawbreakers because I sympathise with their cause.

[Guest]

What should happen to you? I'm curious.

Let's say you were a native woman, upset at the lack of a public enquiry into the missing indigenous women for instance, and you vowed not to leave until someone committed to hold one.

How long before the police should open fire?

Like Argus and the police and most of us, I also differentiate between peaceful activists and those with weapons threatening to use force. The native woman in your example is trespassing in the office of a public official. If she was unarmed and not threatening violence, I would listen to her message, allow a little bit of time for a news crew to cover her story and then have her removed from the office and charged with trespassing.

If she happened to be armed and/or threatening violence, I expect it would be treated similar to a hostage negotiation situation. I would have trained negotiators talk her down and encourage her to leave. If she complies she would be slapped with all applicable charges. If she refused to comply with negotiators within a reasonable time frame, she would be forcibly extracted however law enforcement officials deem necessary for the situation. That might mean tear gas, tasers, bullets, etc.

I think the same should apply to the terrorists in Oregon who believe that land and wildlife should not be protected. They are armed, trespassing in a wildlife preserve, occupying government buildings, killing protected animals and vowing to use force if law enforcement attempts to remove them. Negotiators should attempt to remove them without violence, but if that fails they should be removed by force; deadly force if necessary to protect the lives of officers.

Additionally, I am suggesting that these armed, white, Christian terrorists will be given far more time and leeway than any other minority racial or religious group. I would also like to suggest that there is no such thing as a good guy with a gun in public. Civilian gun use should be limited to target shooting and hunting, and only with weapons designed for that purpose. Special permits should be available for rare cases like individuals who work in remote areas and are at risk for animal attacks. Good guys don't carry guns in public, whether it's legal or not. The culture surrounding weapons in the US has to change. Politicians pandering to the NRA lobby and gun nut voters are a disgrace and need to shamed out of existence.

[Boges]

The Caledonia dispute comes to mind when people were violently and unlawfully protesting and the police did nothing.

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/christie-blatchford-caledonia-natives-still-calling-the-shots

This was four months after protesters from the nearby Six Nations reserve first marched onto the land, then under development as a residential subdivision, with a dozen or so homes in various stages of construction.

During the worst of the occupation, non-native residents were issued “passports” by protesters and had to show them to return to their homes, a wooden bridge was torched, a transformer was set ablaze and the surrounding area plunged into darkness, four law-enforcement officers were attacked and their vehicle stolen, and an elderly couple terrorized — and that was in addition to more ordinary harassment and vandalism.

But in the intervening years, absolutely nothing has happened to the land itself, which abuts main street in the small town south of Hamilton and sits as an infamous eyesore, even with a vandalized Hydro tower, once used to block the road, still on the property.

Just like with Bundy's initial "protest". What's the point of authorities to confront armed protesters if they aren't actually hurting anyone?

Edited January 5, 2016 by Boges

[Guest]

Other than your last paragraph that's pretty much what I suggested should happen. Where's the argument?

Your contention about different groups being given preference is nonsense, in my opinion. But I suppose we have to disagree about something.

[Derek 2.0]

Civil disobedience is a an entirely different concept when it's accompanied by firearms.

Americans have a right to protest, to carry firearms openly(In Oregon) and to protest................

[Derek 2.0]

That was a fiasco. If I'd been in charge every one of those armed protesters would be dead or in jail now. You set up on a bridge with a sniper scope aimed at police and you die. It's that simple. I don't give a damn what your issue is. You die or you surrender and go to jail.

Like it was for Janet Reno, the end result would be as palatable.........

[Argus]

Americans have a right to protest, to carry firearms openly(In Oregon) and to protest................

And the police have a right to shoot them dead when feeling endangered as they confront them about their illegality.

[Argus]

Like it was for Janet Reno, the end result would be as palatable.........

Are you suggesting fear of retaliation and terrorism should cause us to ignore violent, lawbreaking groups?

The only way to deal with scum like this is to break up their groups, put them in prison, or kill them all. End of story.

[Boges]

Are you suggesting fear of retaliation and terrorism should cause us to ignore violent, lawbreaking groups?

The only way to deal with scum like this is to break up their groups, put them in prison, or kill them all. End of story.

If they aren't causing violence then . . . yeah.

[Derek 2.0]

And the police have a right to shoot them dead when feeling endangered as they confront them about their illegality.

Sure, without a doubt.

[Derek 2.0]

Are you suggesting fear of retaliation and terrorism should cause us to ignore violent, lawbreaking groups?

The only way to deal with scum like this is to break up their groups, put them in prison, or kill them all. End of story.

I'm stating that the overbearing use of force used in Ruby Ridge and Waco led a disturbed man (with the help of several others) to blow up a Federal building 20 years ago.

How are you going to "break up their groups" when their members and supporters inundate your Federal/State/County law enforcement agencies and State and Federal military?

[Derek 2.0]

If they aren't causing violence then . . . yeah.

And are in the middle of nowhere....yeah waiting them out, or ignoring them, is the prudent move

[Guest]

Surely power and water can be cut off to them. Then when the food runs out, they can either starve or come out.

Then they can be shot as they surrender.

[Big Guy]

The pro-gun groups tell us that rifles are only being used for target practice, self defence or hunting (or perhaps collecting). Those folks in Oregon who are flashing their rifles are not target praticing, defending themselves from bodily harm or hunting.

The fact that they are armed indicates that they are warning that they are ready and willing to kill people to get what they want.

I say play the same game and shoot first. Blow them away and send a message.

Flash a gun and pay the price.

[Boges]

The pro-gun groups tell us that rifles are only being used for target practice, self defence or hunting (or perhaps collecting). Those folks in Oregon who are flashing their rifles are not target praticing, defending themselves from bodily harm or hunting.

The fact that they are armed indicates that they are warning that they are ready and willing to kill people to get what they want.

I say play the same game and shoot first. Blow them away and send a message.

Flash a gun and pay the price.

Would you say the same thing if a First Nations group did that? See Caledonia.

Edited January 5, 2016 by Boges

[Derek 2.0]

Would you say the same thing if an First Nations group did that? See Caledonia.

Or the Black Panthers that marched armed across US cities in protest of Mike Brown's death......

[Guest]

Would you say the same thing if an First Nations group did that? See Caledonia.

I would. That group of natives should have been removed. Unfortunately, we had two governments, federal and provincial, attempting to pass the buck to avoid presiding over a contentious situation.

Threatening to use weapons if authorities attempt to end the trespassing of the militia is not a peaceful protest. Just like threatening the use of a weapon, even if one was not used, during a robbery makes it armed robbery.

[Derek 2.0]

Threatening to use weapons if authorities attempt to end the trespassing of the militia is not a peaceful protest. Just like threatening the use of a weapon, even if one was not used, during a robbery makes it armed robbery.

Is threatening to use a weapon in an armed robbery, if no robbery is committed, a crime?

What laws have these protesters currently broken?

[Guest]

Is threatening to use a weapon in an armed robbery, if no robbery is committed, a crime?

What laws have these protesters currently broken?

They are trespassing, occupying a government building and apparently hunting on a wildlife preserve.

[Derek 2.0]

They are trespassing, occupying a government building and apparently hunting on a wildlife preserve.

How can one trespass on public land? Occupying a Government building? Was it even locked? How is that different then a homeless person sleeping in a public park? I haven't heard anything about them hunting, do you have a source? None the less, if they are, and conforming with the hunting regulations, its perfectly legal to hunt deer, ducks, upland birds and migratory birds etc at said refuge........The US Fish and Wildlife service even advertises it a popular for hunters.

[Guest]

The last article I read they were angry at a couple of peers being sent to jail for five years for burning about a 1/4 section of public land. The sentence was in addition to a previous sentence for the same crime.

That seems fairly excessive to me, and I'd be mad too. But they are obviously going about expressing their disapproval the wrong way, because someone is probably going to die over it.

[Guest]

The last article I read they were angry at a couple of peers being sent to jail for five years for burning about a 1/4 section of public land. The sentence was in addition to a previous sentence for the same crime.

That seems fairly excessive to me, and I'd be mad too. But they are obviously going about expressing their disapproval the wrong way, because someone is probably going to die over it.

The ranchers who were poaching on federal land and then burned over 100 acres have even rebuffed the support of Bundy Clan. They are protesting the idea that the government can own and protect land, animals, minerals, water, etc.

[Derek 2.0]

The last article I read they were angry at a couple of peers being sent to jail for five years for burning about a 1/4 section of public land. The sentence was in addition to a previous sentence for the same crime.

I've read that too, in addition to a decades long dispute with the Federal Government over its ownership and control over land in the Western United States:

Which leads to the Federal Government, as opposed to State and local Government, having the control over land management and the final say of awarding of leases for Oil/mining/logging/farming/ranching etc on said land.

That seems fairly excessive to me, and I'd be mad too. But they are obviously going about expressing their disapproval the wrong way, because someone is probably going to die over it.

I doubt anyone will be killed, AFAIK, law enforcement doesn't even have a presence at the refuge. I don't see how this is anymore excessive than other protests (including ones in Canada) over land/resource usage.