# 2016 Oregon Standoff/Occupation & related (split fm US Election: 2016)



## Kilo_302 (3 Jan 2016)

It will be interesting to see how the Republican candidates deal with this situation. This definitely meets the FBI's own definition of terrorism. More results of the dangerous game that the right plays in the US. Combine a hatred of all things government, a well armed citizenry, and throw in some dog-whistle racist politics about Obama here and there and you get situations like this. The inflammatory rhetoric on the Republican side for the last few years should be reigned in.

Interesting to note too how the media covers this. Again, this is straight up treason and terrorism.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/03/us/oregon-wildlife-refuge-protest/index.html



> Armed protesters have taken over a building in a federal wildlife refuge in Oregon, accusing officials of unfairly punishing ranchers who refused to sell their land.
> 
> One them is Ammon Bundy, the 40-year-old son of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, who is well-known for anti-government action.
> 
> ...


----------



## The Bread Guy (3 Jan 2016)

I'm intrigued by the range of names being used by various media headline writers for the group in question ...

_"Militia members occupy US building in Oregon after protest"_ (Associated Press - U.S. wire service)
_"Oregon federal building occupied by group protesting prison sentence of ranchers"_ (CBC.ca)
_"Militia Group Takes Over US Federal Wildlife Refuge in Oregon"_ (Voice of America - U.S. government media)
_"Armed protesters have occupied a US government building in Oregon to support father and son ranchers who have been ordered to return to jail ..."_ (BBC)
_"Armed protestors occupying national wildlife refuge building vow long stay"_ (FOX News)
_"Armed anti-government militiamen seize federal wildlife refuge in Oregon"_ (Deutsche Welle, German-government-funded news agency)
_"Militiamen occupy U.S. national parks building in Oregon"_ (Reuters - U.K. wire service)


----------



## thehare (3 Jan 2016)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Interesting to note too how the media covers this. Again, this is straight up treason and terrorism.



You're joking right? Treason? How about we take a closer look at that. In the US, the legal definition of Treason is as follows:



> _"Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."_



Nowhere are these individuals waging war against the US, nor are they giving assistance to its enemies. End of discussion.

And you say the media is covering this up? Lets take a look at some popular American news sites:

*Fox News*: It is currently on their front page (sure, it isnt in big bold letters, but it is indeed there) - http://puu.sh/miCV0.jpg  (these are screenshots of their sites at the time I made this post). Note, I'm referencing the video + the article above it
*CNN*: While it is not on their front page, there are multiple articles listed if I use their search function, along with the article you posted. 
*CNBC*: It is currently under their top news coverage - http://puu.sh/miDhi.png

This is hardly a media cover up, it just isn't as "news breaking" as you would like it to be. 

And please tell me how "_some dog-whistle racist politics about Obama_" falls into *any* of this?


----------



## Altair (4 Jan 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> I'm intrigued by the range of names being used by various media headline writers for the group in question ...
> 
> _"Militia members occupy US building in Oregon after protest"_ (Associated Press - U.S. wire service)
> _"Oregon federal building occupied by group protesting prison sentence of ranchers"_ (CBC.ca)
> ...


#YallQueda is now trending world wide on Twitter. 

#YeeHawd

#YokelHaram

#VanillaISIS are also trending.


----------



## Kirkhill (4 Jan 2016)

Long on artistry.

Short on logic.

Par for the course.


----------



## Kilo_302 (4 Jan 2016)

thehare said:
			
		

> You're joking right? Treason? How about we take a closer look at that. In the US, the legal definition of Treason is as follows:
> 
> Nowhere are these individuals waging war against the US, nor are they giving assistance to its enemies. End of discussion.
> 
> ...



I never said the media is covering this up. I said it would be interesting to see how they cover it. We're quick to apply the term "terrorism" to many crimes that don't fit the bill. This situation hasn't devolved into violence yet, but if it does, it should be considered terrorism, as terrorism is politically motivated violence. And if it does result in violence against local, state and federal authorities, I think that treason could be applied. If you're occupying a federal building with arms, what is it but an attack on the government?

I also don't think it's a coincidence that right-wing militias and the like are seeing a resurgence under Obama. Elected Republican officials have openly questioned where he was born, his religion etc. This is beyond simple policy disagreements. They know they can raise the ire of a certain segment of the population by using what are thinly veiled racial attacks.

This creates an atmosphere where these people are far more likely to feel their actions are justified, even sanctioned by certain Republican politicians. The outrage over anything and everything Obama has done is at times, I think, related to race. Again, certain politicians on the right leave little to the imagination with some of their comments. They know what they're doing, and they're playing a dangerous game that could blow up in their faces.


----------



## Kirkhill (4 Jan 2016)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> .... terrorism is politically motivated violence....



No. Terrorism is the creation of terror for political purposes.  It may or may not include violence.  It may include creating a climate of fear to inspire a hope of change.  Or of maintaining the status quo.

Violence, if politically motivated, and if externally generated, is an act of war.  If internally generated it is an act of insurgency.  The US is in the unique position of having a body of laws that actually support the concept of legitimate insurgency arising from the need to legitimate their own insurgency.  (Not sure that the consequences of that were fully appreciated at the time).

But the oath of allegiance demands:

"....I will *support and defend the Constitution* and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, *foreign and domestic*"


----------



## Kilo_302 (4 Jan 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> No. Terrorism is the creation of terror for political purposes.  It may or may not include violence.  It may include creating a climate of fear to inspire a hope of change.  Or of maintaining the status quo.
> 
> Violence, if politically motivated, and if externally generated, is an act of war.  If internally generated it is an act of insurgency.  The US is in the unique position of having a body of laws that actually support the concept of legitimate insurgency arising from the need to legitimate their own insurgency.  (Not sure that the consequences of that were fully appreciated at the time).
> 
> ...



Are you of the opinion then that this is a legitimate insurgency? If it is illegitimate, would you agree that it is terrorism or an act of war?


----------



## thehare (4 Jan 2016)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> I never said the media is covering this up. I said it would be interesting to see how they cover it. We're quick to apply the term "terrorism" to many crimes that don't fit the bill. This situation hasn't devolved into violence yet, but if it does, it should be considered terrorism, as terrorism is politically motivated violence. And if it does result in violence against local, state and federal authorities, I think that treason could be applied. If you're occupying a federal building with arms, what is it but an attack on the government?
> 
> I also don't think it's a coincidence that right-wing militias and the like are seeing a resurgence under Obama. Elected Republican officials have openly questioned where he was born, his religion etc. This is beyond simple policy disagreements. They know they can raise the ire of a certain segment of the population by using what are thinly veiled racial attacks.
> 
> This creates an atmosphere where these people are far more likely to feel their actions are justified, even sanctioned by certain Republican politicians. The outrage over anything and everything Obama has done is at times, I think, related to race. Again, certain politicians on the right leave little to the imagination with some of their comments. They know what they're doing, and they're playing a dangerous game that could blow up in their faces.



1) My apologies, I misread what you posted about the media coverage.

2) I think even if this devolves into violence it would be too quick to call it terrorism. Many politically motivated protests turn violent, and I have yet to see terrorism charges be laid there either. 

3) Oregon is an open carry state. While I know what I am going to say is a bit of a stretch, they didn't shoot their way into the building and barricade themselves indoors, they occupied an empty building, while exercising their right to open carry. Besides, as Chris pointed out, there is a massive difference between what these individuals have done (and may do), to waging war against the US.

4) It may also have to do with the fact that Obama is attempting to circumvent Congress by passing an executive order on firearms, a right guaranteed under their constitution. Not everything is a result of slander in the media, some groups have serious qualms with how the POTUS has acted while in office. Again, his actions have nothing to do with his race, and trying to create a strawman where people who disagree with him have racist tendencies fails to progress this conversation anywhere meaningful.


----------



## thehare (4 Jan 2016)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Are you of the opinion then that this is a legitimate insurgency? If it is illegitimate, would you agree that it is terrorism or an act of war?



I would say it is too soon to say.

There are some reports that these are outsiders from the county who are just trying to trigger a wider action across the US, but I am unsure where these reports came from nor do I know the motive behind the reports. It wouldn't be the first time the media has lopsidedly covered an event for their own political agenda.


----------



## The Bread Guy (4 Jan 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> No. Terrorism is the creation of terror for political purposes.  It may or may not include violence.  It may include creating a climate of fear to inspire a hope of change.  Or of maintaining the status quo.


Good points - here's how the FBI defines it ...


> ... "Domestic terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:
> 
> Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
> Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping; and
> ...


From the outside looking in, it looks like there _may_ be a lot of fit with these definitions.  That said, this hasn't been tried in a court of law yet, we don't know what we're not hearing, and all are presumed innocent until tried.


			
				thehare said:
			
		

> ... While I know what I am going to say is a bit of a stretch, they didn't shoot their way into the building and barricade themselves indoors, they occupied an empty building, while exercising their right to open carry ...


That may be true in a word-by-word sense, but it's still a _federal government_ facility that they're not leaving peacefully.  How many would say the same thing if these guys occupied a government office that was empty for the weekend or a stat holiday?


			
				thehare said:
			
		

> ... some groups have serious qualms with how the POTUS has acted while in office ...


Fair ball - it's the form of that opposition that's in question here.


----------



## PuckChaser (4 Jan 2016)

Are these guys actually willing to use deadly force to advance their cause? They seem pissed off and armed, but likely not to shoot at anyone unless they're fired on. You need 3 things for something to be a deadly force thread: Opportunity (check), capability (check), intent (not so sure).


----------



## Rocky Mountains (4 Jan 2016)

These people should be granted at least the same level of tolerance as the Occupy Wall Street crew - months of toleration.  Sure they are armed, as it is their constitutional right.  I just hope the federal cops can control themselves.  They love mass butchery.


----------



## Journeyman (4 Jan 2016)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> I just hope the federal cops can control themselves. They love mass butchery.


            :not-again:


----------



## PuckChaser (4 Jan 2016)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> These people should be granted at least the same level of tolerance as the Occupy Wall Street crew - months of toleration.  Sure they are armed, as it is their constitutional right.  I just hope the federal cops can control themselves.  They love mass butchery.


Completely agree here. We didn't clean up the Occupy camps, guns blazing, even when assaults, rapes, and drug overdoses were rampant.


----------



## thehare (4 Jan 2016)

> That may be true in a word-by-word sense, but it's still a _federal government_ facility that they're not leaving peacefully.  How many would say the same thing if these guys occupied a government office that was empty for the weekend or a stat holiday?



While I cannot speak for others, for me as long as the reasons for the action are legitimate then I do not care who is carrying it out.



> Fair ball - it's the form of that opposition that's in question here.



This leads into the debate of what is a "legitimate" reason for armed resistance against your government. In the US, as brought up by Chris, their pledge of allegiance states:

"[...]I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic [...]"

So, would an over reaching government that is intending on circumventing Congress to limit Constitutional rights fall into this category? It should be noted that the intent of this group is not entirely known yet, and trying to have a discussion when this is the case isn't exactly possible (as I would likely just be making this up as I go), but I am just trying to make the argument that there are scenarios where it is necessary for armed resistance against your government.

This isn't even the first case of such an event occurring in the US, one only has to look up the  Battle of Athens for a precedence. 

Of course, I would also make the case that before armed resistance takes place, all forms of peaceful diplomacy should have been tried first, and only when those have failed should armed insurrection occur.


----------



## Kilo_302 (4 Jan 2016)

Whatever their motivation is, there's no questions we're seeing a double standard in terms of response. Now this could be just reflection of the strategic/tactical situation.

The site is far from populated areas, so it's easier to wait them out.
The militia have called for others across the country to rise up, being cognizant of Waco etc, the Feds don't want slain "heroes of the Republic" all over the news again.
These guys are well armed, and probably know how to use their weapons to a certain extent. 

However, the National Guard was called out in Baltimore and Ferguson. A situation where an armed force has openly called for resistance to the Federal government is a bit more serious in my opinion. The government response has been noticeably muted. Again, this could be for good reason, but it's not good as far as optics are concerned. There are some choice tweets at this link ridiculing the initial media coverage as well as the militia themselves.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/oregon-under-attack-anger-as-armed-white-militia-takes-control-of-a-us-government-building-to-a6794421.html

On another note, members of the militia are posting "goodbye videos." People are comparing these guys to a Western jihadi movement which goes a bit far, but there's no question there are parallels. One almost hopes the FBI makes this guy's wishes come true.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/1/3/1465762/-No-Fed-Action-Planned-but-Oregon-Militia-Loons-Post-Hilarious-Goodbye-Videos


----------



## Kilo_302 (4 Jan 2016)

Excellent piece from (yes a Socialist magazine) Jacobin underlining that no one should be calling for the state to use violence in this situation (I myself am guilty of this). Firstly, because it helps the militia cause, but more importantly, because the US state itself is not legitimate at this juncture.

Through the prism of the US election, it's clear that there are SOME overlaps in terms of grievances on the socialist left and the far right. 

Incidentally, there's also a quote from Cliven Bundy that shows just how racist many of these movements are, as well as the white supremacist roots of their specific interpretation of the US Constitution.

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/01/malheur-militia-movement-oregon-hammond-bundy-waco/



> A group of armed men are holed up today in the tiny headquarters of the Malheur Federal Wildlife Refuge in rural Oregon, camping with their food and guns in a handful of government buildings.
> 
> They are right-wing militiamen from across the country. They say they stand for liberty, property rights, and the state of Oregon, and that they are protesting against the mighty injustice that has been done to the Hammonds, a father, Dwight, and his son, Steven: ranchers who face a five-year sentence for setting illegal fires on Bureau of Land Management land. In their eyes, the militiamen have occupied buildings that are the seat of illegal federal domination of area ranchers.
> 
> ...


----------



## FSTO (4 Jan 2016)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Whatever their motivation is, there's no questions we're seeing a double standard in terms of response. Now this could be just reflection of the strategic/tactical situation.
> 
> The site is far from populated areas, so it's easier to wait them out.
> The militia have called for others across the country to rise up, being cognizant of Waco etc, the Feds don't want slain "heroes of the Republic" all over the news again.
> ...



Baltimore and Ferguson are built up urban areas where riots were happening and it is extremely hard to control people's actions.
Eastern Oregon is high country desert without many people. Federal forces surround the building, nobody gets in or out and you starve them out and nobody gets hurt. 
Why does the limousine Liberals want to turn this into a race thing?


----------



## Kirkhill (4 Jan 2016)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Are you of the opinion then that this is a legitimate insurgency? If it is illegitimate, would you agree that it is terrorism or an act of war?



I have no idea what constitutes a legitimate insurgency.  You would have to ask a Yank.

On the other hand maybe I do have an idea.  Any insurgency that results in killing politicians I don't like is legitimate.  Any insurgency that results in killing politicians I do like is illegitimate.


----------



## PuckChaser (4 Jan 2016)

This has all the hallmarks over another Waco, and Kilo would love to see them shoot the place up (from what I gather with the quotes). These guys will get bored eventually, they're highly unlikely to start shooting people or taking hostages. Media coverage to get their opinions out is enough.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (4 Jan 2016)

They are armed, as is their right (open carry). They are in an empty building. The Feds are the caretakers of that building, but it belongs to the people, including those that occupy it. I see no insurgency, terrorist action, overthrow of the government, etc. It is a bunch of ranchers pissed at the way their elected officials are conducting themselves. It is their right, to hold the politicians to account. If they need to expedite that process, within the bounds of civil society, through a small show of civil disobedience, no big deal. They needed to shine a light on a problem that the government was intent on making disappear.

I don't know how, but I'm sure the Canadian leftards are trying to figure out a way to blame Harper for this.


----------



## cupper (4 Jan 2016)

It may be time to split the Oregon protest and perhaps merge it with the Bundy standoff thread. This really has nothing to do with the US Election.


----------



## Kilo_302 (4 Jan 2016)

FSTO said:
			
		

> Baltimore and Ferguson are built up urban areas where riots were happening and it is extremely hard to control people's actions.
> Eastern Oregon is high country desert without many people. Federal forces surround the building, nobody gets in or out and you starve them out and nobody gets hurt.
> Why does the limousine Liberals want to turn this into a race thing?



Right, I make this exact point in the same post just above the part you quoted. My main point however, is that even the reason for a limited response is for tactical purposes, it's not playing well in the media given what we saw in Baltimore and Ferguson. Optics are important here, because a case can be made that the over-policed African-American communities we're talking about have just as much of a grievance if not more than these guys. Remember, the protest is in support of two people who burned 130 acres of public land to the ground.



			
				PuckChaser said:
			
		

> This has all the hallmarks over another Waco, and Kilo would love to see them shoot the place up (from what I gather with the quotes). These guys will get bored eventually, they're highly unlikely to start shooting people or taking hostages. Media coverage to get their opinions out is enough.



My initial reaction was yes, send in the tanks. The Bundy protesters were actually drawing down on law enforcement. Whatever the geographic area, we've seen dozens of cases recently where police shot innocent people or used far too much force. So when you see a group that's well armed, openly saying they're willing to fight and die in position my reaction was "let's help them do that." However, for reasons in the Jacobin article I posted above, this reaction was wrongheaded and I admit that. 

For posterity's sake though, let's all remember the reactions many had to the protests in Ferguson or Baltimore. I didn't see this level of empathy here for those people. So the question is, why? What makes this grievance more legitimate than a community who has seen police wrongfully kill or murder their fellow citizens on a regular basis?

This situation could be useful, if we use it to address what we have in common, and what we agree upon (we being the right and left in the US who don't think either party is going address real issues). I would imagine that many of us agree that the State in this case is illegitimate. Now, personally I think the State _(in this specific case_) is behaving appropriately, because two people committed arson, and mandatory minimums demand they see more time (funny that mandatory minimums are usually supported in most cases by those who lean to the right, but not this time...). 

But this doesn't mean the State as it exists in the US is by definition legitimate, and it's perfectly ok to question its power. I'm coming at this from a socialist perspective, but I suspect I would agree with some of the concepts that the militia are citing to limit state power. However, if this is the case, and many of you agree with them, you must also accept that the State acted illegitimately in Baltimore and Ferguson. First by protecting the officers involved, attempting to cover up facts, and then deploying military force to face off with mostly peaceful protesters.

I agree with cupper, that this should probably be split off. I would reiterate however, that the left and right can find some common ground here. Trump and Sanders are front runners for a reason. There is a large swathe of the populace that isn't satisfied with the Dems OR the Republicans and this situation underlines that.


----------



## Journeyman (5 Jan 2016)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> ...what we have in common, and what we agree upon (*we* being the right and left *in the US ** who don't think *....)


Yellow:  :facepalm: ...again

Orange: You're convincing us more and more.


----------



## a_majoor (5 Jan 2016)

Kilo is also overlooking the fact that Fersuon was inflamed by a false narrative, the man was shot after robbing a store and assaulting a police officer (to the point that facial bones were broken), and Baltimore was inflamed by constantly repeating the false narrative of Ferguson.

The other protest is also against government maleficence, but in this case the actions of the government are well documented. While I don't think the ranchers are protesting in the bet way to make their point, they are also not attacking local business, Korean grocers and looting stores either.

In terms of the election, it is interesting to examine how the media have played these stories. The false narrative has been recycled constantly by Democrat politicians and played up by much of the Legacy media (until the debunking had received too much traction to ignore, then it was quietly dropped), and neither media nor politicians dig deeper into the root causes of the destabilization of the black communities in the US, many of which are ill considered or counterproductive government programs.


----------



## The Bread Guy (5 Jan 2016)

cupper said:
			
		

> It may be time to split the Oregon protest and perhaps merge it with the Bundy standoff thread. This really has nothing to do with the US Election.


Good idea - done.

In the words of someone way smarter than me, "I thought armed militias of patriots securing their rights from an overzealous government was a GOOD thing?"
_*"Armed Gangs of Black Panthers Are Openly Patrolling Neighborhoods"*_


> Ah, finally. A gun club President Barack Obama can support.
> 
> The New Black Panther Party has been suspiciously silent since their unfortunate part in the Ferguson debacle. Thankfully, for those of you following the zany antics of Eric Holder’s favorite group of  militants, they’ve popped up again.
> 
> ...


Discuss  >


----------



## Kilo_302 (5 Jan 2016)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Kilo is also overlooking the fact that Fersuon was inflamed by a false narrative, the man was shot after robbing a store and assaulting a police officer (to the point that facial bones were broken), and Baltimore was inflamed by constantly repeating the false narrative of Ferguson.
> 
> The other protest is also against government maleficence, but in this case the actions of the government are well documented. While I don't think the ranchers are protesting in the bet way to make their point, they are also not attacking local business, Korean grocers and looting stores either.
> 
> In terms of the election, it is interesting to examine how the media have played these stories. The false narrative has been recycled constantly by Democrat politicians and played up by much of the Legacy media (until the debunking had received too much traction to ignore, then it was quietly dropped), and neither media nor politicians dig deeper into the root causes of the destabilization of the black communities in the US, many of which are ill considered or counterproductive government programs.



Facial bones broken? Absolutely false. Either way, he was unarmed and fleeing when he was shot. African-Americans are killed by police at higher rate than any other ethnic group in the US. 

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/08/13/us/ferguson-missouri-town-under-siege-after-police-shooting.html?_r=0


----------



## midget-boyd91 (5 Jan 2016)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Facial bones broken? Absolutely false. Either way, he was unarmed and fleeing when he was shot. African-Americans are killed by police at higher rate than any other ethnic group in the US.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/08/13/us/ferguson-missouri-town-under-siege-after-police-shooting.html?_r=0



Even the link you provided says that he was not fleeing when he was shot.  After an altercation in the patrol vehicle the suspect had started to run before turning to face the officer,  and then moving toward the officer before he was fatally shot. 

On topic to the current standoff:
To me it sounds more like they had no idea what they were demanding until a matter of hours ago. 
They were angry about a situation, and the protest evolved from being just a protest to taking over the building.  Claiming tyranny in the government etc.. 
They seemed to be in over their heads when it came to having no demands because they didn't have any.  They didn't plan to take over the building from my understanding,  the tempers just boiled over during the protest and things happened that way. 

Only after a day or two of sitting there and realizing they needed to have an end-game plan did they finally state demands and conditions. 

The dog finally caught the car and had to come up with a plan of what to do with it once it had.


----------



## George Wallace (5 Jan 2016)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Facial bones broken? Absolutely false. Either way, he was unarmed and fleeing when he was shot. African-Americans are killed by police at higher rate than any other ethnic group in the US.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/08/13/us/ferguson-missouri-town-under-siege-after-police-shooting.html?_r=0



So? You provide links, but apparantly do what you accuse so many of us of not doing, you do not read them:



> Mr. Brown runs east. Officer Wilson pursues him on foot. Mr. Brown stops and turns toward Officer Wilson, who also stops. Mr. Brown moves toward Officer Wilson, who fires several more shots. Mr. Brown is fatally wounded.



As well:



> Most of the witnesses said the shots were fired as he moved toward Officer Wilson. The St. Louis County prosecutor said the most credible witnesses reported that Mr. Brown charged toward the officer. Officer Wilson also said that Mr. Brown charged at him, making “a grunting, like aggravated sound.”



Maybe not a broken jaw, but:


> A medical examination indicated that Officer Wilson had some swelling and redness on his face.


----------



## Kilo_302 (5 Jan 2016)

So turning to face someone justifies a further 10 rounds, one of them hitting him on the top of this head, which suggests he was facing the ground?

Anyways, here's a quick interview with Ammon Bundy, from Jacobin:

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/01/ammon-cliven-bundy-bureau-land-management-oregon-standoff-militia-occupation/



> We spoke to Ammon Bundy around 5:30 PST last night, not in support of him but in the hopes of further understanding the roots of his armed action.
> 
> Ammon is the son of Cliven, the Nevada rancher whose longstanding disputes with the federal government grew to an armed standoff last year. The federal government stood down in that confrontation, and the Bundys declared victory over their hated adversary, the Bureau of Land Management.
> 
> ...


----------



## midget-boyd91 (5 Jan 2016)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> So turning to face someone justifies a further 10 rounds, one of them hitting him on the top of this head, which suggests he was facing the ground?



I guess the first 9 rounds were effective and that one caught him in the head on the way down.  How do I know that?  I don't.  Same as you don't know the circumstances of the shooting.  There were enough witnesses who did however. 

If you have a gun and after you and I have a physical altercation,  I turn and start charging at you. ... are you going to risk me wrestling the gun from you and making your insides spill onto your outsides?  
You may decide to turn or back off or run back to the patrol car,  but if you did shoot, would you expect to be charged and sent to prison?


----------



## midget-boyd91 (5 Jan 2016)

After reading the interview with Bundy,  my personal opinion is that he's watched the movie TAPS  one too many times. 

Time will tell if he's going to get anyone killed,  or one of his subordinates gets an itchy trigger finger in hopes of going down in a blaze of glory.


----------



## Jarnhamar (5 Jan 2016)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> African-Americans are killed by police at higher rate than any other ethnic group in the US.



African Americans are also responsible for the most gun homicides per year in the US, which primarily the victims are fellow African Americans.


----------



## George Wallace (5 Jan 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> African Americans are also responsible for the most gun homicides per year in the US, which primarily the victims are fellow African Americans.



As well, there is the fact that not all those police officers involved in shooting are "White".  Many are BLACK.  Some are Asian.  Some may even be Native American.  But the "Woe is Me, the poor Blackman" will never accept those facts, or any facts for that matter.


----------



## CountDC (5 Jan 2016)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> So turning to face someone justifies a further 10 rounds, one of them hitting him on the top of this head, which suggests he was facing the ground?



Yes.

Hitting him on top of head also suggests he was charging madly at the officer with his head down like a bull or like some people I have played football with just before they cream you.  Other words - he was apparently agressively attacking the officer after realizing he could not out run him and the officer fearing the outcome shot in defence.  Considering the military has a spray and pray mentality these days should we really expect the police to stop shooting while still being attacked?  I know if it was me I would shoot until he dropped rather than let him get to me, possibly disarm and use it against me and others.

As for this militia occupation - I find it telling that the gentlemen they are supposedly there in support of want nothing to do with them.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (5 Jan 2016)

Quote from: Kilo_302 on Today at 12:36:33





> So turning to face someone justifies a further 10 rounds, one of them hitting him on the top of this head, which suggests he was facing the ground?




You keep shooting until the threat is neutralized. That means down on the ground and not moving. If that takes 10 rounds, guess what, it takes 10 rounds. There is nothing untoward, no conspiracy, no fault and no foul. The attacker was a bull, hyped on adrenaline and very likely, drugs. He had already assaulted the officer who was, no doubt, under a great deal of stress and more than a little physical distress. Wilson was also cleared by a State Grand jury and the feds at the Dept of Justice. Even Eric Holder, the US attorney general, said at a press conference in Washington: “Michael Brown’s death, though a tragedy, did not involve prosecutable conduct on the part of officer Wilson."

This is why people that don't know what they are talking about should not make assumptions as to the actions of others, when they are not fully qualified to do so.


----------



## Kat Stevens (5 Jan 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Good points - here's how the FBI defines it ...From the outside looking in, it looks like there _may_ be a lot of fit with these definitions.  That said, this hasn't been tried in a court of law yet, we don't know what we're not hearing, and all are presumed innocent until tried.That may be true in a word-by-word sense, but it's still a _federal government_ facility that they're not leaving peacefully.  How many would say the same thing if these guys occupied a government office that was empty for the weekend or a stat holiday?Fair ball - it's the form of that opposition that's in question here.



I dunno, hopefully the same amount if these guys  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohawk_Warrior_Society  did it?  (Sorry, I don't know how to do sexylinks)


----------



## PuckChaser (5 Jan 2016)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> I dunno, hopefully the same amount if these guys  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohawk_Warrior_Society  did it?  (Sorry, I don't know how to do sexylinks)




```
[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohawk_Warrior_Society]these guys[/url]
```

Gotta type it in yourself, forum won't do it for you.


----------



## muskrat89 (6 Jan 2016)

So as someone who is decidedly right of center, and living in the "wild west" - I can tell you that in my circles, this is getting mixed reactions. The most common reaction (for the most part in the hunting community" is typified by a friend's Facebook post:



> The thugs in Oregon are domestic terrorists, radicalized by a century of welfare ranching policies, isolation, and an apparent lack of access to history books. Moreover, their leader does his namesake and his faith a disservice by failing to honor the 12th Article of Faith. They are not patriots. They do not act out of love for their country. They love their welfare grazing, their ideology, and the spotlight. They don’t deserve our attention or our sympathy. If you love having access to public lands…if you love the North American Model of Wildlife Management…if you have any sense of history and the true legal status of western lands, then you’ll reject these terrorists out of hand.



On the other hand, here is a real interesting (opposing) take - see point "L"

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/01/03/full-story-on-whats-going-on-in-oregon-militia-take-over-malheur-national-wildlife-refuge-in-protest-to-hammond-family-persecution/


----------



## The Bread Guy (6 Jan 2016)

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> So as someone who is decidedly right of center, and living in the "wild west" - I can tell you that in my circles, this is getting mixed reactions. The most common reaction (for the most part in the hunting community" is typified by a friend's Facebook post:
> 
> On the other hand, here is a real interesting (opposing) take - see point "L"
> 
> http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/01/03/full-story-on-whats-going-on-in-oregon-militia-take-over-malheur-national-wildlife-refuge-in-protest-to-hammond-family-persecution/


Thanks very much for sharing some of the shades of grey on this issue - they sometimes get lost in the black vs. white.


			
				Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> I dunno, hopefully the same amount if these guys  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohawk_Warrior_Society  did it?  (Sorry, I don't know how to do sexylinks)


Interesting - at least one other online outlet highlights this one, too.  

Big difference, though, was that one side wasn't carrying arms _legally_.  It appears, so far anyway, that in  this situation in Texas and this one in Oregon, no firearms laws have been broken - just members of the public weilding arms legally in publicly-owned spaces.


----------



## Kat Stevens (6 Jan 2016)

Not really where I was going, but interesting how time can skew a story and turn those guys into heroes.  I was sort of thinking about how if the MW were doing this, we'd just stand around and watch with our hands in our pockets and let them do whatever they want for fear of being labelled as some kind if "...ist".  I must say though, "Canadian tyranny" got my day started with a chuckle.


----------



## Jarnhamar (6 Jan 2016)

I've read BLM is already giving the ranchers a 93% discount on the grazing fees.


----------



## The Bread Guy (6 Jan 2016)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Not really where I was going, but interesting how time can skew a story and turn those guys into heroes.  I was sort of thinking about how if the MW were doing this, we'd just stand around and watch with our hands in our pockets and let them do whatever they want for fear of being labelled as some kind if "...ist".


Ah, seen.



			
				Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> I must say though, "Canadian tyranny" got my day started with a chuckle.


Thought that would make you & some others giggle - sometimes hard to remember that in spite of how much we whinge about government, we could do a WHOLE lot worse than Canada.


----------



## The Bread Guy (7 Jan 2016)

It looks like at least one element of the public wants the occupiers out - this via the Associated Press ...


> Cheers erupted at a packed community meeting in rural Oregon when a sheriff said it was time for a small, armed group occupying a national wildlife refuge to “pick up and go home.”
> 
> The group objecting to federal land policy seized buildings at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge on Saturday. Authorities have not yet moved to remove the group of roughly two dozen people, some from as far away as Arizona and Michigan. The group also objects to a lengthy prison sentence for two local ranchers convicted of arson.
> 
> ...


A bit more nuance from the same meeting, via the Huffington Post:


> ... Ward asked people at Wednesday night's meeting to raise their hands if they wanted the occupiers to peacefully leave. The vast majority did, with a rogue shout of "Let them stay!" Some attendees asked the sheriff to personally pass the message to the occupiers.
> 
> "I heard a rancher come in today and say, 'We'll send a hundred guys on horseback,'" said one man.
> 
> ...


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (7 Jan 2016)

Who do you consider the occupier here, Milnews? The Bundy bunch ... or the Federal government  [


----------



## The Bread Guy (7 Jan 2016)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Who do you consider the occupier here, Mildews? The Bundy bunch ... or the Federal government  [


Discuss  ;D

I'm just leaning away from the "militia" narrative for the moment.


----------



## Kat Stevens (7 Jan 2016)

I'm noticing the TERROR word being tossed around a lot in regard to these chuckleheads.  Who exactly have they terrorized?  So far it looks like Burning Man for rednecks to me.


----------



## Journeyman (7 Jan 2016)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> So far it looks like Burning Man for rednecks to me.


    :rofl:


----------



## Old Sweat (7 Jan 2016)

I wonder if the media and public approach would be different if the occupiers were indigenous?


----------



## FSTO (7 Jan 2016)

I think that a lot of the Limousine Liberals are pissed that the government hasn't yet gone in guns ablazing to wipe out the white guys. Because you know for certain that if some brown, black or native people did that they would be all dead by now. At least that is the narrative from the left.

There are some legitimate issues between ranchers and BLM but the Bundy crowd are not the route to be used to solve it.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (7 Jan 2016)

Ridicule is already working and Bundy is looking for a fig leaf to wrap it up. Odd that the people that are against police brutality are suggesting that there should be brutality to level the playing field.


----------



## Kilo_302 (7 Jan 2016)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Ridicule is already working and Bundy is looking for a fig leaf to wrap it up. Odd that the people that are against police brutality are suggesting that there should be brutality to level the playing field.



Agreed. I was guilty of that when this situation first unfolded, as it IS very frustrating to see what appears to be a double standard. However, the answer is not more State violence.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (7 Jan 2016)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> African-Americans are killed by police at higher rate than any other ethnic group in the US.



That statistic is a red herring to try and persuade people who know nothing about the demographics for crime in the US to there side. 

Yes the rate is higher by percentage of population, however less black people are shot by police than white people in total. And when you consider that black people in the states making up roughly 13% of the population commit roughly 50% of the violent crime, you are actually safer being arrested as a black person than a white person.


----------



## Kilo_302 (8 Jan 2016)

Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> That statistic is a red herring to try and persuade people who know nothing about the demographics for crime in the US to there side.
> 
> Yes the rate is higher by percentage of population, however less black people are shot by police than white people in total. And when you consider that black people in the states making up roughly 13% of the population commit roughly 50% of the violent crime, you are actually safer being arrested as a black person than a white person.



Nope.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/10/the-counted-500-people-killed-by-police-2015



> While the number of African Americans killed by police so far in 2015 has been disproportionately high, both white and Hispanic/Latino Americans now make up proportions of those killed that are smaller than their shares of the general US public.
> 
> Among the first 500 deaths, 49.6% of people were white, 28.2% were black and 14.8% were Hispanic/Latino. According to the 2013 census, the US population is 62.6% white, 13.2% black and 17.1% Hispanic/Latino.


----------



## George Wallace (8 Jan 2016)

Nope?   ???

You seem to be providing information to agree with Eaglelord17.   ???


----------



## PuckChaser (8 Jan 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Nope?   ???
> 
> You seem to be providing information to agree with Eaglelord17.   ???


The CIA hasn't called him on the tooth filling radio yet to get a rebuttal.


----------



## Kilo_302 (8 Jan 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Nope?   ???
> 
> You seem to be providing information to agree with Eaglelord17.   ???



You're right, I misread his post. 



			
				PuckChaser said:
			
		

> The CIA hasn't called him on the tooth filling radio yet to get a rebuttal.



I was on the other line.


----------



## McG (26 Jan 2016)

Arrests made, and one dead.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/oregon-standoff-ammon-bundy-1.3421438


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (26 Jan 2016)

That was weeks too long in the making.


----------



## McG (27 Jan 2016)

... But it's not over yet.


----------



## The Bread Guy (27 Jan 2016)

MCG said:
			
		

> ... But it's not over yet.


For sure ...

_"FBI sets up checkpoints around Oregon refuge after deadly confrontation"_
_"Oregon standoff: Will Bundy's arrest prompt remaining occupiers to leave? "_
_"Not Over Yet: Refuge Still Occupied, Feds Establish New Ground Rules"_


----------



## FSTO (27 Jan 2016)

Well everybody should be happy now.
The Sagebrush Rebellion folks have their martyr.
The lefties have their white dude killed by cops.
 :sarcasm:


----------



## Colin Parkinson (27 Jan 2016)

I note that Bundy had publicly turned down help by several of the militias that offered armed support.


----------



## garb811 (28 Jan 2016)

Video of the take down released by FBI.

Complete, Unedited Video of Joint FBI and OSP Operation 01/26/2016


----------



## The Bread Guy (11 Feb 2016)

Some of the latest ...


> Cliven Bundy, the leader of a 2014 Nevada ranch stand-off with federal agents, was arrested on Wednesday at the same time the remaining four anti-government militants still holed up at a national wildlife refuge in Oregon decided they would finally turn themselves in.
> 
> Bundy, who is the father of the jailed leader of the Oregon stand-off, Ammon Bundy, was arrested on Wednesday when he arrived at Portland International Airport on his way to the wildlife refuge to support the militants, according to the Oregonian newspaper.
> 
> ...


----------



## cupper (11 Feb 2016)

Saw on the national news tonight that the final 4 have surrendered. It wasn't for lack of last minute posturing though. All 4 agreed to give themselves up, then one douche decided he wanted to die a free man than live live known as a surrender monkey. After a brief discussion about the stupidity of his stance, he agreed to give up if everyone cried "Hallelujah!".

I'm surprised these guys are able to tie their own shoe laces, let alone properly handle firearms without hurting themselves.

 :facepalm:


----------



## The Bread Guy (14 Feb 2016)

And a little something from DHS/FBI on the fracas (source):


> This Joint Intelligence Bulletin (JIB) is intended to provide information on the recent arrest of 11 domestic extremists for conspiracy to impede officers of the United States from discharging their official duties through force, intimidation, or threats, in violation of 18 USC §372.* This JIB is provided by the FBI and DHS to support their respective activities and to assist federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial government counterterrorism and law enforcement officials in deterring, preventing, or disrupting terrorist attacks against the United States. As in any criminal case, defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law ...


----------



## Rocky Mountains (14 Feb 2016)

"All 11 individuals face federal felony charges of conspiracy to impede officers of the United States from discharging their official duties through force, intimidation, or threats"

I can't see why they are guilty of anything other than civil disobedience.  Wasn't the building closed for the winter?  I suspect someone had to do a lot of digging to come up with such bizarre charges and a felony to boot.


----------



## PuckChaser (14 Feb 2016)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> I can't see why they are guilty of anything other than civil disobedience.
> 
> "All 11 individuals face federal felony charges of conspiracy to impede officers of the United States from discharging their official duties through force, intimidation, or threats"
> 
> I can't see why they are guilty of anything other than civil disobedience.  Wasn't the building closed for the winter?  I suspect someone had to do a lot of digging to come up with such bizarre charges and a felony to boot.



And if they stretched the charges, they might all walk away scot-free because beyond a reasonable doubt, what they did won't fit what they're charged with.


----------



## Kat Stevens (14 Feb 2016)

So more than a month of "gun toting loonies" headlines, the only person shot was one of the protesters, or whatever they were called.


----------



## The Bread Guy (15 Feb 2016)

Some interesting, nuanced coverage from one of the reporters who dropped by:


> What more can be said? I was one of the hundreds of journalists who went to the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge during the Ammon Bundy occupation, and I saw the same things that all the rest of them did. If there was any difference between myself and those hundreds of other journalists, maybe it was that I went there looking for kindred spirits.
> 
> I am a self-employed, American-born writer with a wife and two teenage children living in a tiny town on the plains of Montana. I’m a reader of the U.S. Constitution, one who truly believes that the Second Amendment guarantees the survival of the rest of the Bill of Rights. I came of age reading Edward Abbey’s The Brave Cowboy, Orwell’s 1984, and a laundry-list of anarchists, from Tolstoy and Kropotkin to Bakunin and Proudhon, who gave me the maxim that defined my early twenties: “Whoever lays his hand on me to govern me is a usurper and a tyrant: I declare him my enemy.” ...


----------



## cupper (18 Feb 2016)

I think the Devil may object.  :facepalm:

*Oregon Occupier Countersues For $666 Billion, Citing 'Works Of The Devil'*

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/02/18/467204403/oregon-occupier-countersues-for-666-billion-citing-works-of-the-devil?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20160218



> Shawna Cox, one of the last militants to be arrested for occupying an Oregon wildlife refuge last month, has filed a countersuit against the U.S. government and others in which she alleges "damages from the works of the devil in excess of 666,666,666,666.66."
> 
> While she invoked the number of the beast in her request for damages, Cox listed a wide array of people she plans to subpoena, including: ranchers in the western U.S.; judges and prosecutors; Oregon's current and former governor; local and state police officers; FBI agents; and "various law professors."
> 
> ...



Yeah, that was it, guilt.  :facepalm:


----------



## RangerRay (19 Feb 2016)

Sounds like these asshats deserve to get the book thrown at them...

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/world/oregon-occupiers-left-behind-guns-explosives-and-significant-amounts-of-human-feces-fbi



> *Oregon occupiers left behind guns, explosives and ‘significant amounts of human feces’: FBI*
> 
> Nearly a week after the Oregon wildlife refuge occupation ended, federal authorities poring over the site say they have found firearms and explosives as well as “significant amounts of human feces” around an area that’s home to cultural artifacts.
> 
> ...



As well, I do believe there are staff working at the refuge year round, and I recall reading elsewhere that these staffs' families were being intimidated in town by these yahoos.


----------

