Support NeoGAF

[MHWilliams]

I agree. It's nice that people see the hypocrisy in the way government treats these guys. But I don't understand why people on the left are rooting against them when they should be learning from their effective tactics.

Because others who use similar tactics would not be treated in the same way. I thought this was obvious, but I guess not?

 

[gutter_trash]

they should deport them to Waco, Texas

 

[Vicetrailia]

Learning these tactics would be a death sentence for some.

As to the feds wanting to tread lightly I get it. But there is treading lightly and then there is allowing a militia to set up roadblocks to dictate the flow of people and supplies to a building they are occupying.

They wouldn't get this respect and kid gloves treatment irregardless.

 

[Netherscourge]

It'll be interesting to see how these people are labeled by the Federal Government.

Because, if the Fed declares them terrorists, then they CAN'T negotiate with them by law and there are only two possible outcomes: 1.) They surrender 2.) They're .... well, let's not go there,

 

[Suikoguy]

It'll be interesting to see how these people are labeled by the Federal Government.

Because, if the Fed declares them terrorists, then they CAN'T negotiate with them by law and there are only two possible outcomes: 1.) They surrender 2.) They're .... well, let's not go there,

I'm not sure negotiating is an option either way. It encourages others to do the same if they get something out of it.

 

[NervousXtian]

"Middle of nowhere."

What a bs excuse. What, the national guard doesn't exist in Oregon? Are the cops (not just the city, but from surrounding areas) riding around on mules that they haven't reached the city/building? Been a day and nothing.

The surrounding counties aren't all that more populous, the biggest surrounding county has 33k people.. the other 3 don't even have that combined.

That said, cops could get out there if they wanted too. They don't want too as of yet, they are trying to not to escalate this.

For once, the top comment on youtube is apt:



The video struck me as very manufactured, but also very revealing. There is a sentiment in many rural communities out west that federal land management deprives them of a resource they need to sustain their economies. Ritzheimer is appealing directly to that line of thinking - it's the same rage that causes someone to, for instance, spew racist abuse at a group of anti-fracking protesters, or demand that a wall be built on the Mexican border. They are trying to tap into real anger, which is why the federal government wants to tread carefully here.

This is a really key point in all of this. The whackos have gotten on the back of a very real situation though, and there's a lot of dispute between ranchers and the BLM/USFW over the use of public lands and cattle grazing. The ranchers need this land use to survive, and it's always an uncertain future if they'll be able to use it. The thing is, it's always been a rural problem, with very few people effected.... the nutjobs just found a place with Bundy down in Nevada to latch unto.. and they found this situation to jump on as well.

Escalating this does nobody any good.. not the ranchers, not the feds and not the people in the building. Some of these folks are just complete anti-government nutjobs willing to die for a cause.

The situation sucks.. but honestly the approach to just let it play out for awhile makes sense.

Also keep in mind the feds own and manage half of the land in my state. It's a huge amount of land.. and there's disputes about how it's managed.

 

[newjeruse]

I'm not sure negotiating is an option either way. It encourages others to do the same if they get something out of it.

What would the protesters negotiate? The people whose cause they are championing want nothing to do with them.

Lenient sentencing for themselves if they peacefully cooperate and leave the premises. Fuck that. Make examples of them.

 

[Lil'DigiOp]

I agree. It's nice that people see the hypocrisy in the way government treats these guys. But I don't understand why people on the left are rooting against them when they should be learning from their effective tactics.

Because if I ever tried some shit like this with some friends, we'd be 6 feet under.

People need to get real.

The US Media is garbage.

 

[GaimeGuy]

I agree. It's nice that people see the hypocrisy in the way government treats these guys. But I don't understand why people on the left are rooting against them when they should be learning from their effective tactics.

Taking over a place with guns isn't a fucking act of protest.

 

[TAJ]

This is a really key point in all of this. The whackos have gotten on the back of a very real situation though, and there's a lot of dispute between ranchers and the BLM/USFW over the use of public lands and cattle grazing. The ranchers need this land use to survive, and it's always an uncertain future if they'll be able to use it. The thing is, it's always been a rural problem, with very few people effected.... the nutjobs just found a place with Bundy down in Nevada to latch unto.. and they found this situation to jump on as well.

Escalating this does nobody any good.. not the ranchers, not the feds and not the people in the building. Some of these folks are just complete anti-government nutjobs willing to die for a cause.

The situation sucks.. but honestly the approach to just let it play out for awhile makes sense.

Also keep in mind the feds own and manage half of the land in my state. It's a huge amount of land.. and there's disputes about how it's managed.

If they don't own their grazing land then they are not, by definition, ranchers. Cattle owners?

 

[j_k_redtail]

It's truly amazing how the right-wing media has managed to convince conservatives that tiny, innocuous agencies like the BLM and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service are existential threats that should be taken on and worth dying over.

To be fair, the communities do sometimes have legitimate gripes. See Klamath Falls in 2001:

The city made national headlines in 2001 when a court decision was made to shut off Klamath Project irrigation water on April 6 because of Endangered Species Act requirements. The Lost River sucker and shortnose sucker were listed on the Federal Endangered Species List in 1988, and when drought struck in 2001, a panel of scientists stated that further diversion of water for agriculture would be detrimental to these species, which reside in the Upper Klamath Lake, as well as to the protected Coho salmon which spawn in the Klamath River. Many protests by farmers and citizens culminated in a "Bucket Brigade"[21] on Main Street May 7, 2001, in Klamath Falls. The event was attended by 18,000 farmers, ranchers, citizens, and politicians. Two giant bucket monuments have since been constructed and erected in town to commemorate the event. Such universal criticism resulted in a new plan implemented in early 2002 to resume irrigation to farmers.

The water regulations cost the farmers quite a bit. I read somewhere that the federal government owns 75% of the land in this particular county. That isn't unusual in some parts of the country, so the BLM and the FWS have a larger footprint out there.

Of course, none of that would justify an armed takeover of federal property, but you can see where the anger comes from.

If they don't own their grazing land then they are not, by definition, ranchers. Cattle owners?

It's interesting that you mention this, because someone linked an NPR article a few pages back that touches on that very point.

The situation began, in some ways, in the decades following the Civil War. The 1862 Homestead Act granted 160 acres of land to the people willing to settle it. Ranchers in some regions needed far more land than that to be profitable. They eventually began to pay grazing fees for the right to lease federal land — if they agreed to federal oversight.

"When you are using somebody else's land for your livelihood, that puts you in a very dependent relationship," Paul Starrs, a geography professor at the University of Nevada-Reno, told NPR's Ted Robbins in 2014. "And livestock ranchers are, in my experience, pretty savvy people. And they don't like that uncertainty. Nobody really likes uncertainty."

The short answer is that often times the rancher's land just does grow enough grass to feed the herd. So they have to lease nearby land, and pay for it.

 

[danm999]

I agree. It's nice that people see the hypocrisy in the way government treats these guys. But I don't understand why people on the left are rooting against them when they should be learning from their effective tactics.

Just ask yourself what would happen if say, the Black Lives Matter movement, took over a Federal building with guns.

 

[NervousXtian]

If they don't own their grazing land then they are not, by definition, ranchers. Cattle owners?

They do own land, they also having grazing rights on BLM land nearby, the Hammond Ranch takes up 12,000 acres of their own. So yes, it is a ranch and they are ranchers.

If you are curious to what started all this, with actual info on the initial crimes, and yes there were crimes... personally the first in my eyes is worse than the second, but both were wrong. I also think the the initial sentences were fine, 5 years was/is too much for what took place.

Department of Justice
U.S. Attorney’s Office
District of Oregon
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Wednesday, October 7, 2015
Eastern Oregon Ranchers Convicted of Arson Resentenced to Five Years in Prison

EUGENE, Ore. – Dwight Lincoln Hammond, Jr., 73, and his son, Steven Dwight Hammond, 46, both residents of Diamond, Oregon in Harney County, were sentenced to five years in prison by Chief U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken for arsons they committed on federal lands.

A jury sitting in Pendleton, Oregon found the Hammonds guilty of the arsons after a two-week trial in June 2012. The trial involved allegations that the Hammonds, owners of Hammond Ranches, Inc., ignited a series of fires on lands managed by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM), on which the Hammonds had grazing rights leased to them for their cattle operation.

The jury convicted both of the Hammonds of using fire to destroy federal property for a 2001 arson known as the Hardie-Hammond Fire, located in the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area. Witnesses at trial, including a relative of the Hammonds, testified the arson occurred shortly after Steven Hammond and his hunting party illegally slaughtered several deer on BLM property. Jurors were told that Steven Hammond handed out “Strike Anywhere” matches with instructions that they be lit and dropped on the ground because they were going to “light up the whole country on fire.” One witness testified that he barely escaped the eight to ten foot high flames caused by the arson. The fire consumed 139 acres of public land and destroyed all evidence of the game violations. After committing the arson, Steven Hammond called the BLM office in Burns, Oregon and claimed the fire was started on Hammond property to burn off invasive species and had inadvertently burned onto public lands. Dwight and Steven Hammond told one of their relatives to keep his mouth shut and that nobody needed to know about the fire.

The jury also convicted Steven Hammond of using fire to destroy federal property regarding a 2006 arson known as the Krumbo Butte Fire located in the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge and Steen Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area. An August lightning storm started numerous fires and a burn ban was in effect while BLM firefighters fought those fires. Despite the ban, without permission or notification to BLM, Steven Hammond started several “back fires” in an attempt save the ranch’s winter feed. The fires burned onto public land and were seen by BLM firefighters camped nearby. The firefighters took steps to ensure their safety and reported the arsons.

By law, arson on federal land carries a five-year mandatory minimum sentence. When the Hammonds were originally sentenced, they argued that the five-year mandatory minimum terms were unconstitutional and the trial court agreed and imposed sentences well below what the law required based upon the jury’s verdicts. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, however, upheld the federal law, reasoning that “given the seriousness of arson, a five-year sentence is not grossly disproportionate to the offense.” The court vacated the original, unlawful sentences and ordered that the Hammonds be resentenced “in compliance with the law.” In March 2015, the Supreme Court rejected the Hammonds’ petitions for certiorari. Today, Chief Judge Aiken imposed five year prison terms on each of the Hammonds, with credit for time they already served.

“We all know the devastating effects that are caused by wildfires. Fires intentionally and illegally set on public lands, even those in a remote area, threaten property and residents and endanger firefighters called to battle the blaze” stated Acting U.S. Attorney Billy Williams.

“Congress sought to ensure that anyone who maliciously damages United States’ property by fire will serve at least 5 years in prison. These sentences are intended to be long enough to deter those like the Hammonds who disregard the law and place fire fighters and others in jeopardy.”

Assistant U.S. Attorneys Frank R Papagni, Jr., AnneMarie Sgarlata and Kelly Zusman handled the prosecution of this case.

 

[hydragonwarrior]

Can the feds just...lock the building form the outside?

They could just transform it into a temporary garbage dump. Once they're arrested, they'll have to clean up the garbage too.

 

[ISOM]

Why are people saying they don't want another Waco? Are these protestors holed up with any kids? If not then I don't care what happens to them as they are all adults and know the consequences of their actions.

 

[Herbs]

hmmm, terrorist sympathizers in here. interesting.

 

[NervousXtian]

Why are people saying they don't want another Waco? Are these protestors holed up with any kids? If not then I don't care what happens to them as they are all adults and know of the consequences of their actions.

yes, there are kids.

hmmm, terrorist sympathizers in here. interesting.

Who's sympathizing with the nutjobs who took over the refuge building?

 

[ISOM]

yes, there are kids.

Damn. These fuckers know what they were doing bringing kids to this then. I have no sympathy for them and hope the book gets thrown when it's over.

 

[gutter_trash]

yes, there are kids.

child abuse charges should be laid alongside treason and terrorism

 

[j_k_redtail]

Keep in mind, by the way, that Obama is set to announce some new executive action on guns tomorrow (today). Therefore any federal action at Malheur will be interpreted through that lens.

 

[NervousXtian]

Keep in mind, by the way, that Obama is set to announce some new executive action on guns tomorrow (today). Therefore any federal action at Malheur will be interpreted through that lens.

More than likely has to do with universal background checks, and would have zero to do with any of this.

 

[Freshmaker]

The thing is, if the feds went in there by force. Some of these guys will fight back. The losses on both sides, probably would be large. Nevermind the lightning storm it would cause with like minded folks across the country that loathe the feds with all their might. Pockets of violence could spark up everywhere.

THe lightning storm? The same one that Terry Nichols was supposed to set off? It'll just start up crackpot speculation and they'll do nothing but talk like they always do.

It'd be far easier to just bomb the compound. No LE loss of life. Charge Bundy's estate for the costs of rebuilding the compound. Everyone's happy.

 

[riotous]

These guys are arming themselves, breaking the law, and continuing to break the law.. they should be asked to lower their weapons and the shot like any other American. (I don't actually support LE violence like that, but that's the attitude of so many LE supporters in this country when they shoot "suspects")

 

[besada]

If you are curious to what started all this, with actual info on the initial crimes, and yes there were crimes... personally the first in my eyes is worse than the second, but both were wrong. I also think the the initial sentences were fine, 5 years was/is too much for what took place.

If you've read what you posted, and believe what he was convicted of, I'm baffled that you think the initial sentence was appropriate. He committed intentional arson. If he were being tried under Oregon state law, rather than federal law, first degree arson is a class A felony, with a maximum sentence of twenty years. Oregon's minimum mandatory for arson I is 7 years, six months.

By what criteria do you believe that five years for intentional arson on federal lands is too much?

 

[j_k_redtail]

More than likely has to do with universal background checks, and would have zero to do with any of this.

Of course it doesn't. The issue is optics. You don't want a siege on this compound to dominate the same news cycle as a gun control story, particularly since these are people who are literally invoking the battles at Lexington and Concord. Did you see the sticker in the back window of Ritzheimer's video? It's a 3-percenter symbol -- a reference to the claim that only three percent of all colonists fought in the Revolutionary War.

Further, they have supporters in a sympathetic media bubble which has shown itself to be more-than-willing to find conspiracies where there are none. I can see the headline now: "Feds send troops to disarm protesters while calling for increased gun regulations."

Yet another reason to tread lightly.

 

[Chichikov]

Why are people saying they don't want another Waco? Are these protestors holed up with any kids? If not then I don't care what happens to them as they are all adults and know the consequences of their actions.

I'd rather not have people killed if at all possible, even misguided idiots like those yallqeada fuckers.

Also, remember there were 4 federal agents killed in Waco.

 

[NervousXtian]

If you've read what you posted, and believe what he was convicted of, I'm baffled that you think the initial sentence was appropriate. He committed intentional arson. If he were being tried under Oregon state law, rather than federal law, first degree arson is a class A felony, with a maximum sentence of twenty years. Oregon's minimum mandatory for arson I is 7 years, six months.

By what criteria do you believe that five years for intentional arson on federal lands is too much?

I just feel a year was suffice in this case.. and I think it's BS that the feds challenged it and made it be 5 years so long after this all took place.

Keep in mind I find the initial offense pretty repugnant, poaching and covering it up with a fire is really shitty behavior... the back burning to save some of their own property at least I can understand the motivation. The son was the main person involved in all of this.

As to what criteria am I using.. the one that keeps the context of where this crime and what kind of crime it was, and the fact there was nobody was injured nor property truly damaged (well, that's debatable). They also were hit with $400,000 in fines to pay for the damage and cost of fighting the fires they caused. They've paid those already.

People are often given lesser sentences for crimes all the time, I think the initial judge was correct.

 

[Lonewolf_92]

THe lightning storm? The same one that Terry Nichols was supposed to set off? It'll just start up crackpot speculation and they'll do nothing but talk like they always do.

It'd be far easier to just bomb the compound. No LE loss of life. Charge Bundy's estate for the costs of rebuilding the compound. Everyone's happy.

Scramble CB communication and Wifi and take the ones at the roadblocks by ambush first, replace them with plainclothes officers with more in the woods to cut off any more supplies and manpower coming in via the roadways. Move in snipers to take out any armed resistance outside the building and set up a picket line around the site to prevent people from coming in/out through the forest. Then hit them with teargas and blast Hanson Brothers at them for a few days to break morale and force them to give up. Charge those left with the clean up and material costs. Put the kids into the care of CPS. Win-win.

 

[Jonm1010]

I just feel a year was suffice in this case.. and I think it's BS that the feds challenged it and made it be 5 years so long after this all took place.

Keep in mind I find the initial offense pretty repugnant, poaching and covering it up with a fire is really shitty behavior... the back burning to save some of their own property at least I can understand the motivation. The son was the main person involved in all of this.

As to what criteria am I using.. the one that keeps the context of where this crime and what kind of crime it was, and the fact there was nobody was injured nor property truly damaged (well, that's debatable). They also were hit with $400,000 in fines to pay for the damage and cost of fighting the fires they caused. They've paid those already.

People are often given lesser sentences for crimes all the time, I think the initial judge was correct.

You may disagree with the mandatory minimum sentence, that's fine. But the law is the law until it is changed through the legislative process. The judge gave an initial sentence that was below that minimum and on appeal it was overturned. Tough fucking tit. You do the crime, you do the time. Even the guilty party has come to accept that.

I am all for correcting biases and flaws in the law but in this case I'm not all that bent out of shape. They committed multiple crimes and one of the crimes was a cover up for the initial crime.

But really this is all a red herring because this illegal occupation is beyond that.

 

[Hellwarden]

I'd rather not have people killed if at all possible, even misguided idiots like those yallqeada fuckers.

Agreed.

I realize the justice system is fucked in this country, but hoping these idiots are killed isn't going to help anything.

In fact, if they are killed their like minded compatriots might be more motivated to carry out similar acts.

 

[besada]

I just feel a year was suffice in this case.. and I think it's BS that the feds challenged it and made it be 5 years so long after this all took place.

Keep in mind I find the initial offense pretty repugnant, poaching and covering it up with a fire is really shitty behavior... the back burning to save some of their own property at least I can understand the motivation. The son was the main person involved in all of this.

As to what criteria am I using.. the one that keeps the context of where this crime and what kind of crime it was, and the fact there was nobody was injured nor property truly damaged (well, that's debatable). They also were hit with $400,000 in fines to pay for the damage and cost of fighting the fires they caused. They've paid those already.

People are often given lesser sentences for crimes all the time, I think the initial judge was correct.

So you are using no criteria other than it feels wrong to you. If they'd been tried at the state level, they would have served more time, in virtually any state in the U.S. You mention no one was hurt, which is good, but a completely separate crime. If they'd injured someone, it would have been an additional charge. In a federal case it doubles the minimum to 10 years.

Arson is an incredibly dangerous crime, and this arson did endanger the lives of people, primarily those that fought the Hardie-Hammond fire. Luckily, no one was hurt or killed, but that doesn't erase the crime of arson itself, which, as I've pointed out, is pretty consistently treated as a serious crime with a range of punishment around five to seven years.

You also seem to be under the misapprehension that the feds waited years to appeal. They did not. It's taken this long for the appeals process to finish, in part because the Hammonds attempted to get to the Supreme Court. The reason this happened now is because the SC refused them. It would have happened two years go if they'd a accepted the Ninth's ruling.

As for the local judge being right, that's just objectively wrong. He was overruled by a higher court. By definition, he is wrong, unless you just don't believe in due process.

 

[DrForester]

As for the local judge being right, that's just objectively wrong. He was overruled by a higher court. By definition, he is wrong, unless you just don't believe in due process.

Technically he's wrong, but given the decision was based on minimum sentencing guidelines, I would say that the local judge was morally right, the higher court was legally right.

And since these two ranchers apparently are accepting their new punishment, unfair as it may be, and are distancing themselves from these extremists, I'm kind of inclined to have some sympathy for them.

 

[Brakke]

Just ask yourself what would happen if say, the Black Lives Matter movement, took over a Federal building with guns.

Who can answer this question? What precedent would you appeal to?

 

[HP_Wuvcraft]

These guys are arming themselves, breaking the law, and continuing to break the law.. they should be asked to lower their weapons and the shot like any other American. (I don't actually support LE violence like that, but that's the attitude of so many LE supporters in this country when they shoot "suspects")

Make no mistake, they all have the shared wet dream of getting killed over this.

Hell, they've said numerous times they expect to get killed.

 

[Lonewolf_92]

Not to mention arson is extremely dangerous in Oregon, and for good reason. Outside of a couple, short, times per year it's extremely likely for even a small yard fire to spread to catastrophic proportions if not stopped quickly. Which is why these guys aren't getting much sympathy in the state itself.

 

[danm999]

What precedent would you appeal to?

That's why it's a hypothetical.

 

[PhoenixDark]

And if they do nothing, they run the risk of encouraging other groups to engage in similar actions. I don't want to see a violent shoot out, but I would like to see my government doing something to make it clear they're in control of the situation. There are dangers in both too hard and too soft a response.

Like what. What exactly do you want to see happen. Any type of aggressive move could spark a shoot out where innocent people, including kids, get killed. It's very obvious the government does not want that to happen, and has attempted to avoid situations like that since Waco.

The Feds got there last night and set up. The FBI is involved, I'd imagine the White House has discussed this too.

Militias spend a lot of time training for this. They're smart enough not to provoke a shootout by firing first. They're going to dare the Feds to commit a massacre.

 

[besada]

Like what. What exactly do you want to see happen. Any type of aggressive move could spark a shoot out where innocent people, including kids, get killed. It's very obvious the government does not want that to happen, and has attempted to avoid situations like that since Waco.

The Feds got there last night and set up. The FBI is involved, I'd imagine the White House has discussed this too.

Militias spend a lot of time training for this. They're smart enough not to provoke a shootout by firing first. They're going to dare the Feds to commit a massacre.

Could you provide a citation showing me the feds got set up last night, since they announced today they'd be setting up a task force tomorrow and publicly announced they'd left the Sheriff's department in charge. Also, if you'd like to know what I'd like to see happen, feel free to read my posts where I've already detailed it.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Could you provide a citation showing me the feds got set up last night, since they announced today they'd be setting up a task force tomorrow and publicly announced they'd left the Sheriff's department in charge. Also, if you'd like to know what I'd like to see happen, feel free to read my posts where I've already detailed it.

Federal officials flew into Oregon on Sunday to take control of the situation in Burns where around 20 armed militants seized control of a building at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.

Sources tell KOIN 6 News federal officials are working with local deputies to try to bring an end to the situation. The FBI will reportedly be the lead agency in dealing with the armed militants.

http://wspa.com/2016/01/03/fbi-to-deal-with-militia-group-at-oregon-wildlife-refuge/

There are multiple reports the FBI is setting up joint command with local officials but they will be leading the effort.

This is ultimately a waiting game. I'd imagine the FBI will block off the building of ensure more militias cannot enter, but I'm not sure I see a scenario in which they simply get these people to leave without bloodshed. I'm not saying I'm opposed to that, I'm saying the FBI and other organizations are, and will do everything they can to prevent a repeat of past events where militias were attacked.

 

[besada]

http://wspa.com/2016/01/03/fbi-to-deal-with-militia-group-at-oregon-wildlife-refuge/

There are multiple reports the FBI is setting up joint command with local officials but they will be leading the effort.

This is ultimately a waiting game. I'd imagine the FBI will block off the building of ensure more militias cannot enter, but I'm not sure I see a scenario in which they simply get these people to leave without bloodshed. I'm not saying I'm opposed to that, I'm saying the FBI and other organizations are, and will do everything they can to prevent a repeat of past events where militias were attacked.

Yes, and the joint command task force is scheduled to start tomorrow. My problem, as you might have read, is that they allowed them an entire day of free access in and out, and are still allowing it. The blockade should have been up much sooner. As I've pointed out, I have no interest in a showdown or shootout. Freedom martyrs are the last thing we need. But I would have liked to see the feds or locals not wait more than a day before blockading the place.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Yes, and the joint command task force is scheduled to start tomorrow. My problem, as you might have read, is that they allowed them an entire day of free access in and out, and are still allowing it. The blockade should have been up much sooner. As I've pointed out, I have no interest in a showdown or shootout. Freedom martyrs are the last thing we need. But I would have liked to see the feds or locals not wait more than a day before blockading the place.

This doesn't strike me as out of the norm. They arrived today, are setting up, and will start the process tomorrow. Local law enforcement was involved first, and admittedly seem inept or slow (hence no blockade).

 

[kame-sennin]

Learning these tactics would be a death sentence for some.

As to the feds wanting to tread lightly I get it. But there is treading lightly and then there is allowing a militia to set up roadblocks to dictate the flow of people and supplies to a building they are occupying.

Because others who use similar tactics would not be treated in the same way. I thought this was obvious, but I guess not?

Because if I ever tried some shit like this with some friends, we'd be 6 feet under.

Just ask yourself what would happen if say, the Black Lives Matter movement, took over a Federal building with guns.

According to Hill, this is the true resistance that enforced civil rights in areas of the Deep South. Often it was local (armed) communities that laid the foundation for equal opportunities to be attained by African Americans. National organizations played their role, exposing the problems, but it was local organizations and individuals who implemented these rights and were not fearful of reactionary Whites who wanted to keep segregation alive. Without these local organizations pushing for their rights and, many times, using self-defense tactics, not much would have changed, according to Hill.

An example of the need for self-defense to enable substantial change in the Deep South took place in early 1965. Black students picketing the local high school were confronted by hostile police and fire trucks with hoses. A car of four Deacons emerged and, in view of the police, calmly loaded their shotguns. The police ordered the fire truck to withdraw. This was the first time in the 20th century, as Lance Hill observes, “an armed black organization had successfully used weapons to defend a lawful protest against an attack by law enforcement.”[4] Hill gives as another example: “In Jonesboro, the Deacons made history when they compelled Louisiana governor John McKeithen to intervene in the city’s civil rights crisis and require a compromise with city leaders — the first capitulation to the civil rights movement by a Deep South governor.”​

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deacons_for_Defense_and_Justice

The black community of Richmond, California, wanted protection against police brutality.[46] With only three main streets for entering and exiting the neighborhood, it was easy for police to control, contain, and suppress the majority African-American community.[47] On April 1, 1967, a black, unarmed twenty-two-year-old construction worker named Denzil Dowell was shot dead by police in North Richmond.[48] Dowell's family contacted the Black Panther Party for assistance after county officials refused to investigate the case.[49] The Party held rallies in North Richmond that educated the community on armed self-defense and the Denzil Dowell incident.[50] Police seldom interfered at these rallies because every Panther was armed and no laws were broken.[51] The Party's ideals resonated with several community members, who then brought their own guns to the next rallies.

Awareness of the Black Panther Party for Self-Defense grew rapidly after their May 2, 1967, protest at the California State Assembly. On May 2, 1967, the California State Assembly Committee on Criminal Procedure was scheduled to convene to discuss what was known as the "Mulford Act", which would make the public carrying of loaded firearms illegal. Eldridge Cleaver and Newton put together a plan to send a group of 26 armed Panthers led by Seale from Oakland to Sacramento to protest the bill. The group entered the assembly carrying their weapons, an incident which was widely publicized, and which prompted police to arrest Seale and five others. The group pleaded guilty to misdemeanor charges of disrupting a legislative session.​

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Panther_Party

This is what happens when the contributions made by non-pacifist black activists are ignored and slowly erased from history. People have no idea why they have the rights that they do or how they got them. There's a reason why people like prosecutor McGinty quote Martin Luther King Jr. so frequently.

 

[besada]

This doesn't strike me as out of the norm. They arrived today, are setting up, and will start the process tomorrow. Local law enforcement was involved first, and admittedly seem inept or slow (hence no blockade).

It does me. I can't find a historical situation where a federal building was taken and they didn't cordon the site nearly immediately, if for no,other reason than to stop random people from wandering in. But there's been no one to stop the press, random youtubers, or further militia from rolling up to the blockade the militia has set up at the entrance.

If you can find an example, I'd be fascinated to see it. I already looked at the BIA (cordon around the building within hours) and Wounded Knee occupations (every road for fifteen miles blocked on the first day) as well as multiple draft office occupations, all of which fit the mold of a nearly immediate cordon, so yeah, it seems a little unusual to me.

 

[PhoenixDark]

According to Hill, this is the true resistance that enforced civil rights in areas of the Deep South. Often it was local (armed) communities that laid the foundation for equal opportunities to be attained by African Americans. National organizations played their role, exposing the problems, but it was local organizations and individuals who implemented these rights and were not fearful of reactionary Whites who wanted to keep segregation alive. Without these local organizations pushing for their rights and, many times, using self-defense tactics, not much would have changed, according to Hill.

An example of the need for self-defense to enable substantial change in the Deep South took place in early 1965. Black students picketing the local high school were confronted by hostile police and fire trucks with hoses. A car of four Deacons emerged and, in view of the police, calmly loaded their shotguns. The police ordered the fire truck to withdraw. This was the first time in the 20th century, as Lance Hill observes, “an armed black organization had successfully used weapons to defend a lawful protest against an attack by law enforcement.”[4] Hill gives as another example: “In Jonesboro, the Deacons made history when they compelled Louisiana governor John McKeithen to intervene in the city’s civil rights crisis and require a compromise with city leaders — the first capitulation to the civil rights movement by a Deep South governor.”​

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deacons_for_Defense_and_Justice

The black community of Richmond, California, wanted protection against police brutality.[46] With only three main streets for entering and exiting the neighborhood, it was easy for police to control, contain, and suppress the majority African-American community.[47] On April 1, 1967, a black, unarmed twenty-two-year-old construction worker named Denzil Dowell was shot dead by police in North Richmond.[48] Dowell's family contacted the Black Panther Party for assistance after county officials refused to investigate the case.[49] The Party held rallies in North Richmond that educated the community on armed self-defense and the Denzil Dowell incident.[50] Police seldom interfered at these rallies because every Panther was armed and no laws were broken.[51] The Party's ideals resonated with several community members, who then brought their own guns to the next rallies.

Awareness of the Black Panther Party for Self-Defense grew rapidly after their May 2, 1967, protest at the California State Assembly. On May 2, 1967, the California State Assembly Committee on Criminal Procedure was scheduled to convene to discuss what was known as the "Mulford Act", which would make the public carrying of loaded firearms illegal. Eldridge Cleaver and Newton put together a plan to send a group of 26 armed Panthers led by Seale from Oakland to Sacramento to protest the bill. The group entered the assembly carrying their weapons, an incident which was widely publicized, and which prompted police to arrest Seale and five others. The group pleaded guilty to misdemeanor charges of disrupting a legislative session.​

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Panther_Party

This is what happens when the contributions made by non-pacifist black activists are ignored and slowly erased from history. People have no idea why they have the rights that they do or how they got them. There's a reason why people like prosecutor McGinty quote Martin Luther King Jr. so frequently.

Thank you. And this is well before Rudy Ridge and Waco led to changes in police/fed handling of armed militias/groups. It's also worth noting the Panthers were relatively well trained and, like white militias today, actively recruited war vets to increase their effectiveness. They weren't pointing their guns at random people or committing crimes. They organized and were largely effective at avoiding major police confrontations (at least at the beginning and peak of their operation).

I see no reason why similar groups shouldn't arm themselves today, as long as they're disciplined.

 

[Hellwarden]

People have no idea why they have the rights that they do or how they got them.

 

[Cake Boss]

This country is so fucking weird.

 

[Oblivion]

To be fair, the communities do sometimes have legitimate gripes. See Klamath Falls in 2001:



The water regulations cost the farmers quite a bit. I read somewhere that the federal government owns 75% of the land in this particular county. That isn't unusual in some parts of the country, so the BLM and the FWS have a larger footprint out there.

Of course, none of that would justify an armed takeover of federal property, but you can see where the anger comes from.

Sure I can offer some level of sympathy, but is that really something worth literally risking your life over?

 

[Prototype Viktor]

I suggest the entire Wu Tang ouvre on rotation at high volume.

they might actually like it, play some Iggy and when they get mad at that dam jungle music, you tell em it's from a corrupted white woman

 

[Roc]

It's interesting to say the least to learn about the conflict between ranchers and the federal government. Upon reading the article above, the Hammond's most certainly deserve a stricter punishment for what happened in 2001. Besada made a good point about the difference in sentencing between the state and the the federal government; as it stands, they're really getting off easy.

As for the issue of the militia, I'm surprised at how many people in this thread are demanding what would certainly lead to high levels of bloodshed. These people are stupid, and I would definitely consider them terrorists (there have been direct threats of violence if the government tries removing them). However, violence should only be resorted to in the most dire of circumstances, and considering that people have apparently brought their families, I think it's out of the question.

 

[Jonm1010]

Thank you. And this is well before Rudy Ridge and Waco led to changes in police/fed handling of armed militias/groups. It's also worth noting the Panthers were relatively well trained and, like white militias today, actively recruited war vets to increase their effectiveness. They weren't pointing their guns at random people or committing crimes. They organized and were largely effective at avoiding major police confrontations (at least at the beginning and peak of their operation).

I see no reason why similar groups shouldn't arm themselves today, as long as they're disciplined.

Well there is the gun control argument for starters. Also the "well regulated" aspect. But my biggest contention is the whole "similar" angle.

The panthers may share similarities in tactics with this group but their moral legitimacy and justification is leagues apart. Taking that into account and these two groups are more dissimilar then similar.