-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Dakota Access Security Guard infiltrates protestors wielding an AR-15 rifle
- Thread starter Boney
- Start date
- Status
Frozenprince
Banned
But minorities
Team Filler
Member
Shocking and not shocking at the same time, but fucking gross nonetheless. The whole situation here continues to sadden and anger me. I don't imagine that I could function daily were I to more self-identify with my native ancestry, so I can't even pretend to imagine how full-blooded natives are able to keep their cool when facing this latest injustice.
CapitalismSucks DonkeyBalls
Banned
The older I get, the more and more I come to see just how profoundly mistreated Native Americans have been.
This is like some third-world country shit.
This is like some third-world country shit.
We're a week away from possibly electing a tyrant.
(hoohoo which one did I mean hoo hoo
trump
Dr. Jill Stein will rule fairly and with grace you pleb!
Have you seen people dressing up as native americans for halloween? Its SO fucking outrage inducing. I'm not sure of society has the capacity to be outraged on the behalf of a speculative Nana Windclaw, and human rights violations/ crimes being committed against them today, as we type. Sorry, Pick one or the other.
Little Old Man
Member
Is there any more general reading I can do on this? Briefing articles? I keep hearing snippets but it feels like there's loads of details I've missed out on.
You mean like some European shit, given that's who started the trend of stealing lands and oppressing the people who live in them.
LiquidSword
Member
Yeah this story should be huge. Sent another donation the other day. All I can really do from where I am.
bootsthecat
Banned
If this is accurate, it's unfortunate. The pipeline corp has the courts on their side, no need to resort to dumb shit like this.
Overall though...now that I've read into the reason for the protests a bit, I am inclined to be on the side of getting the pipeline built. Lesser of two evils, and all.
Overall though...now that I've read into the reason for the protests a bit, I am inclined to be on the side of getting the pipeline built. Lesser of two evils, and all.
Jon Arbuckle
Neo Member
I'm curious, what exactly makes you believe that building the pipeline is the lesser of two evils in this situation?
Also, just as a quick aside here. The state and local courts were heavily in favor of Washington State and the non-native fishermen during the Fish Wars in the 1960s-70s. Turns out that the state was acting totally against the law in that situation though, so I'm not sure that having the courts on their side is a great or even valid argument.
I haven't been following the story very closely. Anyone want to give me the TL;DR?
Alligatorjandro
Banned
America cares more for animals than it does for people of color.
jakonovski
Member
Not giving a shit about this is one of the rare things that the presidential candidates agree on.
Cow Mengde
Banned
If you have facebook, you can also try doing this.
http://aplus.com/a/dakota-access-pi...4&tse_id=INF_8447ff709fa511e6bd3ee3ca348530db
This will confuse the people trying to arrest those people by going through social media.
http://aplus.com/a/dakota-access-pi...4&tse_id=INF_8447ff709fa511e6bd3ee3ca348530db
This will confuse the people trying to arrest those people by going through social media.
Jon Arbuckle
Neo Member
Very TL;DR explanation: Big evil oil company wants to build pipeline crossing through drinking water for tribes (and also wiping out archaeologically/spiritually significant sites). People protest, EPA says it's a bad idea, etc. Lots of arrests, more protests, investigations. Company (possibly other organizations too) start working to remove protestors by any means necessary. Cycle of average Americans not caring about Indian issues continues.
If I missed something (or misrepresented something) feel free to correct me GAF. Tough to give a short explanation of such a complex issue.
ClosingADoor
Member
Can't they pick a different route for the pipeline that won't have these issues? It's more expensive then maybe, but damn, aren't the Native American tribes owed that at least for the stuff they have and still are being put through.
Shao Kahn Brewing a Stew
Banned
I hope Clinton brings this up the first chance she gets.
Cow Mengde
Banned
I hope this is a joke post.
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/hi...broadest-public-interest/#DsikbrkqDwK5Yf1S.01
They tried. White folks said they didn't want their water supply poisoned.
bootsthecat
Banned
I'll readily admit that I am by no means an authority on the subject, but I took the following from what I've read online, and by other posters here on GAF in a related thread:
1.) A modern pipeline has less of an overall environmental impact, vs the current transportation of the crude oil via road and rail, even taking into account the potential for a spill. Less trains and trucks moving, and related pollution=good.
2.) There are other oil pipelines running underneath the Missouri river, and we haven't heard about major contamination to water supply that have 'crippled' communities to date. Add to that, it's fair to assume that newer pipes are more reliable, and thus less prone to issues, like anything else.
3.) Economic impact- thousands of jobs (however short-term, that's the nature of the industry) will be created to build said pipeline. Reduced shipments using existing methods will open up capacity/traffic, reducing costs across the board for other goods that need to be transported via this method.
4.) Many of the local Natives support the pipeline. Regardless if the opposing locals felt it futile, they did sign papers giving up land, and they did choose to ignore earlier invitations to forums on the topic in the past. It seems a large amount of protesters are from other areas, preaching Native American rights, that ultimately have no personal stake in the pipeline, other than it is further trampling NA rights (a noble cause, admittedly, but it feels like protesting just to protest to me)
Supporters- Feel free to tear me apart, I may have gotten my understanding of the facts completely wrong, and I have no issues with being educated further on the topic...but this is where I stand.
jakonovski
Member
Man, LRADs being used. Inflicting permanent hearing loss on your citizens seems particularly cruel.
Jon Arbuckle
Neo Member
I'm not here to tear you apart but I will point out that pipelines do fail despite modern safety inventions/regulations. Just look at the incredible feat of engineering called the Trans-Alaska Pipeline. It was pretty much the gold standard in modern pipeline engineering when it was constructed, yet it has occasional problems some of which are fairly serious and caused deaths. Also, a quick google search on pipeline contaminations reveals a host of problems across the U.S. and Canada in which pipelines ruptured (for a variety of reasons) and leaked oil into rivers and streams. You can say that it's a maintenance issue rather than some inherent problem with pipelines, but I would counter with the propensity of corporations to constantly seek for ways to save money. My point being, no matter how "modern" something is, it is still subject to problems.
However, I do agree that pipelines are better than moving oil by truck/train. That said, if the goal is to begin moving away from oil consumption why invest so heavily in new infrastructure?
I cannot dispute the economic gains, but I will point out that in my county we faced a similar decision back in the 70s. A nuclear reactor was going to be built and was actually basically completed but never brought online because of the community backlash at the thought of having to deal with such a potential hazard in our back yard. It would have brought a lot of high paying jobs to a county with rampant unemployment. But it just wasn't worth the risks. It created a large divide at the time between those being employed by the energy company and those seeking to halt the construction, but now when I hear people talk about it it's with relief that the thing never went into operation. I would hazard a guess that this is roughly how things are playing out over there.
I will also just say that our (Indian) communities are notorious for division. You would be hard-pressed to find a tribe that can 100% agree on any issue so of course you are going to find Indians in favor of the pipeline. And while I know that most of the tribes here in Washington have sent representatives to the protest in solidarity (mine included), it's because there has been an enhanced sense of solidarity in the wake of the American Indian Movement. We realized that the only way to stop affronts to sovereignty is to ensure that any local issue becomes a nation-wide issue.
Sorry for the lengthy reply. I guess I had more to say on it than I thought.
TheLaughingStock
Member
This is happening under Pres. Obama. What is he doing about it?
bishopcruz
Member
Ok, figured this would show up and the stories on this never quite seem to say what they think they do. I first found out about this via Mother Jones:
Now here is the description of what happened:
So basically the man was driving with an AR-15 in his car, on a state highway which is legal, and was driven off of the road by the protesters, who then chased him out of his car, which they later set on fire.
Oh I forgot another point from a different article:
What was they guy doing there you may ask? well he was there to take pictures of the company vehicles that protesters had burned and among other things, used to block the road. (This is according to him, but it makes sense, it was posted on his facebook account of what happened, he appears to no longer be in custody.)
So again, the man had a rifle, and possible a handgun in his car, both legal under North Dakota law, he was on a public highway, dressed as a protester, someone reached into his car to take his rifle, so he speeds off... he is then physically run off of the road by one of the vehicles ramming into him. you can see the dent here:
The protesters then surround his vehicle and he gets out, holding his rifle, and continues retreating into the pond. All the while some of the protesters are armed, and one of them points a flare gun at him from time to time, then fires. He doesn't fire a shot from what we know, and surrenders himself immediately when police show up.
From all the facts we have I think it is safe to say that he is not the bad guy here.
I repeat he is not the bad guy here. He was the one assaulted.
If I have any of my facts wrong let me know. I do think it was likely poor communication and assumptions made in a highly volatile situation, but there is no excuse for running a man off the road and advancing on him.
Now here is the description of what happened:
So basically the man was driving with an AR-15 in his car, on a state highway which is legal, and was driven off of the road by the protesters, who then chased him out of his car, which they later set on fire.
Oh I forgot another point from a different article:
What was they guy doing there you may ask? well he was there to take pictures of the company vehicles that protesters had burned and among other things, used to block the road. (This is according to him, but it makes sense, it was posted on his facebook account of what happened, he appears to no longer be in custody.)
So again, the man had a rifle, and possible a handgun in his car, both legal under North Dakota law, he was on a public highway, dressed as a protester, someone reached into his car to take his rifle, so he speeds off... he is then physically run off of the road by one of the vehicles ramming into him. you can see the dent here:
The protesters then surround his vehicle and he gets out, holding his rifle, and continues retreating into the pond. All the while some of the protesters are armed, and one of them points a flare gun at him from time to time, then fires. He doesn't fire a shot from what we know, and surrenders himself immediately when police show up.
From all the facts we have I think it is safe to say that he is not the bad guy here.
I repeat he is not the bad guy here. He was the one assaulted.
If I have any of my facts wrong let me know. I do think it was likely poor communication and assumptions made in a highly volatile situation, but there is no excuse for running a man off the road and advancing on him.
Jon Arbuckle
Neo Member
Hey Bishop, I feel like you left out a few details from the second article you linked to:
Why was he taking firearms into such a volatile situation anyways? And is it legal to carry firearms in a company vehicle? That's an honest question, I have no idea. It just seems like a bad idea to go armed into a situation like that if you're just there to take pictures. Especially considering he was dressed as a protestor. The whole thing seems either really stupid on his and the company's part, or malicious.
Either way, a very volatile situation ended kind of well. At least no one was killed or seriously injured. Why they burned the truck? Who knows. Maybe retaliation for the brush fire the protestors believe was intentionally set to drive them out. It certainly doesn't help their notion of a peaceful protest though. We'll have to wait for the BIA report to get the full story I guess.
Why was he taking firearms into such a volatile situation anyways? And is it legal to carry firearms in a company vehicle? That's an honest question, I have no idea. It just seems like a bad idea to go armed into a situation like that if you're just there to take pictures. Especially considering he was dressed as a protestor. The whole thing seems either really stupid on his and the company's part, or malicious.
Either way, a very volatile situation ended kind of well. At least no one was killed or seriously injured. Why they burned the truck? Who knows. Maybe retaliation for the brush fire the protestors believe was intentionally set to drive them out. It certainly doesn't help their notion of a peaceful protest though. We'll have to wait for the BIA report to get the full story I guess.
bishopcruz
Member
Well, I left out some of that because I wasn't trying to go too long, and secondly because, and I admit this may be my own lack of knowledge, but holding an AR-15 out a window while speeding off is just unlikely. It's not a one handed weapon, and you're more likely to drop it trying to drive than anything else. This isn't like GTA, the weapon would have kick and there is no good way to fire it from that position. The man is former military, so I assume he would know that. Now, I could be wrong, but I find it unlikely. If it wasn't out the window, then driving would have been nearly impossible. And none of the reports mention the supposed 9mm being confiscated.
Him being dressed as a protester is the thing that gives me the most pause, but it makes sense. First off, if he was there to take pictures of the burnt out vehicles as he said he was, he would want to blend in, and not cause a fuss. If I had to guess the reason that he was armed was because well, it is a dangerous volatile situation, even things like the original Democracy Now! video that started real awareness of the whole affair shows protesters breaking down a fence, and advancing on the security guards. One of them ended up in the emergency room after that altercation, and there have been multiple reports of people throwing rocks and molotov cocktails at police.
Unless he was planning to go in and just start shooting at people, I don't have any other ideas. I mean if he was there to kill people, he had EVERY opportunity and once he was driven off the road, full legal justification. So, his story makes the most sense.
As for the legality, yes, having a gun in any car in ND is legal so long as it is empty. The witness says that he saw the clip next to the gun so it was most likely not loaded. ND is an open carry state, but you cannot have a loaded weapon in the car. Also if they had evidence that he was illegally concealing his loaded gun in the car, he would have been charged.
diablos991
Can’t stump the diablos
Ok, figured this would show up and the stories on this never quite seem to say what they think they do. I first found out about this via Mother Jones:
Now here is the description of what happened:
So basically the man was driving with an AR-15 in his car, on a state highway which is legal, and was driven off of the road by the protesters, who then chased him out of his car, which they later set on fire.
Oh I forgot another point from a different article:
What was they guy doing there you may ask? well he was there to take pictures of the company vehicles that protesters had burned and among other things, used to block the road. (This is according to him, but it makes sense, it was posted on his facebook account of what happened, he appears to no longer be in custody.)
So again, the man had a rifle, and possible a handgun in his car, both legal under North Dakota law, he was on a public highway, dressed as a protester, someone reached into his car to take his rifle, so he speeds off... he is then physically run off of the road by one of the vehicles ramming into him. you can see the dent here:
The protesters then surround his vehicle and he gets out, holding his rifle, and continues retreating into the pond. All the while some of the protesters are armed, and one of them points a flare gun at him from time to time, then fires. He doesn't fire a shot from what we know, and surrenders himself immediately when police show up.
From all the facts we have I think it is safe to say that he is not the bad guy here.
I repeat he is not the bad guy here. He was the one assaulted.
If I have any of my facts wrong let me know. I do think it was likely poor communication and assumptions made in a highly volatile situation, but there is no excuse for running a man off the road and advancing on him.
Damn I feel bad for the guy if this is true.
This makes it sound like the dude was given a job and was terrified to do it so he brought weapons.
Then he was assaulted and he still had the fortitude to not fire a bullet.
This could have been a lot more ugly if that man didn't have the willpower to control that trigger finger.
This kind of stuff needs more coverage. I feel like the we aren't getting the whole story and people could easily be killed.
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
This situation just keeps getting worse and worse
I've seen this bullshit argument that presupposes people can only have one thought in their heads at a time and it's really annoying. You can care about multiple things simultaneously and in part it's the apathy around things like people treating the Native American people/culture like a costume that keeps people from thinking about how they're being treated in real time, or at all for that matter.
I've seen this bullshit argument that presupposes people can only have one thought in their heads at a time and it's really annoying. You can care about multiple things simultaneously and in part it's the apathy around things like people treating the Native American people/culture like a costume that keeps people from thinking about how they're being treated in real time, or at all for that matter.
They already did: the pipeline was originally going to cross some majority white town backyard and got moved to a native backyard.
FreedomFighter
Member
This is blatant discrimination by someone who was hired as private security for a private corporation.
The police themselves show they give no fuck about citizens and are only interested in protecting corporations/big banks (e.g. their brutal crackdown of Occupy Wall Street).
This nation is a mess, but can't wait to hear POTUS next lecture on human rights to whomever leader becomes the freak of the week next.
The police themselves show they give no fuck about citizens and are only interested in protecting corporations/big banks (e.g. their brutal crackdown of Occupy Wall Street).
This nation is a mess, but can't wait to hear POTUS next lecture on human rights to whomever leader becomes the freak of the week next.
Hexa
Member
Good lord. I would hate to have this guys job. This entire situation is a complete mess.
bishopcruz
Member
Something tells me you didn't read what actually happened. Scroll up a bit.
Yep. It's awful all around. You seem to have the local protesters, bolstered by a lot of out of towners that are very much riling things up. Most of the people arrested on Friday were from out of town.
In other news the protester who fire shots at the police, Red Fawn Falls is being charged with attempted murder.
Definitely on the side of the protesters. We have a similar pipeline proposed up here in BC (Kinder Morgan) and the same "pipelines are safer" argument keeps coming up. Our First Nations are still fighting on the font lines, and basically every municipality along the route has vehemently opposed the pipeline. For me, safer-than-train is not the issue. We should not be expanding petroleum extraction, and especially not at the expense of the people who live on that land. It's time to move on from petroleum. Canada has had its bandaid ripped off, and the rest of the world can do it too.
This goes way way further back than these protests. Decades of selling out to the oil companies has led us here, and I think it's high-time that we stand up to them. The first nations have a right to be on their land and protect it.
This goes way way further back than these protests. Decades of selling out to the oil companies has led us here, and I think it's high-time that we stand up to them. The first nations have a right to be on their land and protect it.
Jon Arbuckle
Neo Member
They didn't mention him actually trying to fire the rifle, likely because it was unloaded as you mentioned. I surmised that he probably had it in his hand from when the guy tried to grab it through the window. Not necessarily in a firing position, but more of just keeping a grip on it (as in, the gun is pointed at the ceiling with the butt resting on the seat). That might also explain the erratic driving described, maybe he was struggling with the positioning of the rifle. Probably just held on to it because he was freaked out by the situation and thereby demonstrating how bad of a decision bringing the gun was. Obviously that's a lot of surmising on my part though.
And while it is perfectly legal for a private citizen to open carry, if he was on the clock he wasn't a private citizen but a part of the security division of his company in a work vehicle. A very different situation from a legal standpoint. If he doesn't have a license to be an armed security personnel, he will be in deep legal trouble. If he is, then he will likely be internally investigated by the company and that will be the end of that.
Though why these guys would be hiring armed security personnel in this situation is an interesting question. With local law enforcement clearly on their side, it seems like it would just raise tensions higher without furthering the aims of the company. What good would it do them to start shooting the protestors? They would be far better served by letting the protestors do something stupid (like burning company vehicles) and suing them for damages and thereby undermining the peaceful nature of the protestors.
Why he wasn't held by the BIA is interesting. I'm guessing that it is because he isn't Indian. Basically, non-Indians exist outside of the tribal court system. They can be tried, but the findings aren't binding (unless we're talking special instances of civil trials like divorce, child custody, etc.). He was arrested by BIA officers, but they cannot prosecute the case since it a) didn't occur on "Indian Country" and b) involved a non-Indian. Judging by the way both sides have been acting in recent weeks it seems highly unlikely that the local jurisdiction will move forward with the case - if there is a case at all.
As for that lady that is facing charges, I like how many other charges they tacked on. Really throwing the book at her there. But, when you starting firing at officers like that what do you expect? This whole situation seems to be moving past the point of no return as far as a peaceful resolution is concerned.
FreedomFighter
Member
Jon Arbuckle, there seems to be some ambiguity in terms of that woman actually having a gun and shooting at cops. Cops are saying that and no one else.
We'll see if we can get to the bottom of it.
I read your account, not sure I buy it though. We'll see, because there is a lot of disinformation going around about the protestors to justify the actions by law enforcement ever since media was finally forced to cover this.
We'll see if we can get to the bottom of it.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked