• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

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

 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.

This time, they’re fronting a paramilitary firearms organization in Texas.

(...)

Given its frontier reputation, Texas is surprisingly one of the few states that doesn’t allow concealed carry. However, it does allow the open carry of firearms, which the group uses to an alarming effect.

(...)

Another popular chant for the group is “I used to salute the f****** flag! Now I use it for a rag!”

Of course, said flag represents the Constitution that allows them to demonstrate with weapons to intimidate people, but shh ...
Discuss  >:D
 
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
 
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.
 
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.

 
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.

Now Ammon and his brother Ryan are holed up with other militia members at a federal wildlife refuge in eastern Oregon, ostensibly in protest of excessive jail sentences meted out to two area ranchers.

The Bundys’ grievances, however, are much broader. They see an overreaching federal government that dictates what ranchers can and can’t do. They view even the existence of federal land as an affront to the constitution. The militia movement of which they’re a part calls for the privatization of our natural resources and terrorizes marginalized people across the West.

But as Margaret Corvid — who also conducted the following interview — argued yesterday, an armed response will only end in tragedy and a strengthened right, producing bloodshed where there need not be any and lending credence to the militia movement’s feelings of aggrievement.

This brief interview improves our understanding of Ammon’s motivations, his plans, and his worrying belief that “the government has violence on its mind.”

You mentioned in an interview earlier today that you’ve been busy today. What have you and your group been doing?

We have been preparing the camp for a long standoff against federal agents for when they show up. Making sure everyone knows their job when the standoff begins.

Millions who have never heard of your movement are now watching your actions, and some say you’re a racist. How would you respond to them, and how do you feel about the Black Lives Matter protests and the police reaction to them?

In today’s society if someone doesn’t have the same views as you they consider you racist. That’s just how I see it. I don’t know a lot about the Black Lives Matter movement but I know their initial protest involved lots of looting and violence towards businesses and innocent citizens which I do not agree with. I do agree with them standing up for what they believe in. I just think during their protest they were unorganized and not well-planned.

I’m interested in your views on American politics. What figures in US history inspire your beliefs and this action? Do you feel that the federal government can play any positive role in society?

George Washington is inspiring to me for what he did to help found this country, and all of the founding fathers by how they took a stand against the British. I don’t have any faith in our government anymore. I don’t believe they can help at all and will only make things worse for our country in the years to come.

The Hammonds are in prison and calling for presidential pardon. Do you think your action will succeed in securing their release, and Bureau of Land Management ceding the land? Or, as many observers worry — remembering Ruby Ridge, Waco, and Wounded Knee — do you think violence from the authorities is a serious risk to your action?

I don’t think anything will get them released. The Hammonds are good people being poorly treated by the Bureau of Land Management and our government. They have been trying to secure their land for almost forty years and this is their way of doing it. If they can’t make payments on their land the government takes it over. With them both now serving five years it will be almost impossible for them to keep it in my opinion.

I do think the government has violence on its mind. That’s why they have taken so long to show up. I believe they are planning something for us to finally get rid of us once and for all. If they use force against us we will fight back to defend ourselves. I hope we don’t have to do that. I hope this all ends peacefully and the government does the right thing for once.

We hope it ends peacefully too. Is there anything else you would like to say to our readers? They are mostly an audience of socialists, who will disagree strongly with many of your beliefs.

I would like to add that we didn’t come here for violence and that we are not terrorists which I’ve seen us being called a lot. We are people taking a stand for our land rights.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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)
 
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)

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

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

 
Back
Top