Support NeoGAF

[PhoenixDark]

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.

I don't think an example from 1890 that involved the military is applicable here. In terms of the BIA sure. Yet at the same time that was a violent takeover that included a mini riot, burnings, etc - none of which is happening right now. I don't think it's surprising that the response to that type of scene in Washington D.C. warranted a different response than this event in rural Oregon.

 

[besada]

I don't think an example from 1890 that involved the military is applicable here. In terms of the BIA sure. Yet at the same time that was a violent takeover that included a mini riot, burnings, etc - none of which is happening right now. I don't think it's surprising that the response to that type of scene in Washington D.C. warranted a different response than this event in rural Oregon.

The town of Wounded Knee was seized by Native Americans in 1973. I wasn't talking about the original Native American massacre. In that case I think governmental agents could be forgiven for not rapidly placing roadblocks, given they were on horseback.

I'll take the rest of your answer as confirmation that you know of no historical precedence for allowing occupiers to inhabit a federal building for a day with no visible response.

 

[perineumlick]

Yeah, let's just wait it out. After all, there was no rush for justice when so called "militias" were burning black churches in the South recently trying to send a message. They ain't hurting anybody....yet.

 

[PhoenixDark]

The town of Wounded Knee was seized by Native Americans in 1973. I wasn't talking about the original Native American massacre. In that case I think governmental agents could be forgiven for not rapidly placing roadblocks, given they were on horseback.

I'll take the rest of your answer as confirmation that you know of no historical precedence for allowing occupiers to inhabit a federal building for a day with no visible response.

I can't find one, no. But this feels like a semantics debate. The militia took over on January 2nd, in the afternoon/evening. The FBI began arriving on January 3rd, yesterday. Is this such a noteworthy deviation that it stands out significantly? Does it matter? Regardless I think the more pressing matter is what happens now. Specifically blockades. After that? Who knows.

 

[TAJ]

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.

They should feel lucky that there is federal land available nearby to rent. It sounds like they'd be fucked if their land was surrounded by other ranches.

 

[besada]

Shots from this afternoon, taken at the press conference, by Amanda Peacher, local reporter(@amandapeacher).

 

[Dixon's Jet]

I don't see how this will lead to the downfall of the federal government. These people are insane.

 

[JaggedSac]

Why are they saying BLM is a government entity?

 

[besada]

Looking at their stores, I see they have their priorities in order: They brought the pale ale.

And their lone towel.

Why are they saying BLM is a government entity?

Bureau of Land Management

 

[Durante]

Let's repeat history
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/mcveigh/mcveighwaco.html

So you actually propose not using overwhelming force against terrorists because of a fear of engendering more terrorist attacks in the future?

I actually think that's a very valid concern, how about applying it more broadly and generally?

 

[Slayven]

 

[GaimeGuy]

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.

The original sentence they were given was lower than the minimum permitted by law for the crimes they were convicted of. They have to serve the remainder unless their sentence is commutted or their crimes are pardoned, and as federal crimes, only the president has that authority

 

[Volimar]

If this were Belgium the cops could just sex them until they're exhausted and then arrest them when they wake up.

This is rural Ohio in a nutshell. So many people here on some sort of government assistance talking about how bad big government is. People really go against their own interests.

 

[JaggedSac]

And their lone towel.

Bureau of Land Management

Oh. That makes them at least less racist in my mind.

 

[The Jackdog]

dat disconnect

 

[PBY]

Sounds about right.

 

[BSsBrolly]

Fuck these people. The Bundy's are a special kind of turd.

 

[NervousXtian]

The original sentence they were given was lower than the minimum permitted by law for the crimes they were convicted of. They have to serve the remainder unless their sentence is commutted or their crimes are pardoned, and as federal crimes, only the president has that authority

I know what the min sentence was supposed to be. I'm against mandatory min sentences in general. I am also aware of what took so long for the sentence to be handed down, and the fact it was appealed quickly.

The law in place wasn't meant for prosecuting a case like this one, it just applied because of the way it was written.

Hopefully they just turn themselves in today like they are supposed to, and the other side of this dies down.

 

[The Jackdog]

so can someone catch me up here?

we're just....letting them do this?

 

[DragonSworne]

Any parallels that people are making with civil rights are disingenuous since this case has already been heard by Federal courts. His claims are completely asinine and selfish.

Just pay the damn fees like you used to.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

Robert F. Williams is a hero of mine.

Any parallels that people are making with civil rights are disingenuous since this case has already been heard by Federal courts. His claims are completely asinine and selfish.

Just pay the damn fees like you used to.

But this is pretty much all there is to say. Be responsible for your actions and handle that.

 

[AnotherNils]

That guy is totally fishing for a donation.

 

[fixedpoint]

you're probably right. if you want to label them terrorists, fine. i can see the argument. just semantics to me. they are armed gunmen occupying a government building, they should be dealt with the same way that a terrorist group would be. that is, removed immediately.

It's not semantics - it's the law. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2331

 

[RPGCrazied]

That guy is totally fishing for a donation.

Yeah, I can just see a gofundme page being brought online any moment now.

 

[lawnchair]

we're just....letting them do this?

yes.

It's not semantics - it's the law. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2331

you're right, I was wrong. even some CNN security analyst said they're terrorists ..

..
CNN national security analyst Juliette Kayyem said there's no doubt the armed protesters in Oregon are "domestic terrorists."

"Simply because they are not Muslim jihadists does not mean they are authorized to threaten or use violence to support their political cause," she wrote in an opinion piece.
..

so we've got an ongoing domestic terrorism situation and we aren't doing anything. there you have it. why isn't this the biggest news story everywhere?

 

[RPGCrazied]

Still not a peep on the news about this. Has this died down, are they still there?

 

[lawnchair]

Still not a peep on the news about this. Has this died down, are they still there?

they're still there, still refusing to leave.

 

[RPGCrazied]

Looks like someone over at CNN other than Cooper has a functioning brain.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/03/opinions/kayyem-oregon-building-takeover-terrorism/index.html

 

[Slayven]

Lets not forget Oregon was going to be an antigovernment utopia free from minorities.

 

[tbm24]

Still not a peep on the news about this. Has this died down, are they still there?

Trump has used Twitter, so CNN is busy.

 

[radios shipping overview]

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/oregon-ranchers-reject-cliven-bundy-family-occupation/

BURNS, Ore. - A group of angry anti-government protesters have occupied a building at a national wildlife refuge in Oregon in what they say is an act of solidarity for a pair of ranchers facing jail time for burning government land.

However, the Hammond family, the Oregon ranchers at the center of the dispute, say they don't want them there, reports CBS affiliate KOIN in Portland, Ore.

[snip]

The Hammonds said they have not welcomed the Bundy's help.

"Neither Ammon Bundy nor anyone within his group/organization speak for the Hammond Family," the Hammonds' lawyer W. Alan Schroeder wrote to Sheriff David Ward.

The Bundys are opportunist slimeballs who are agitating the situation for their own personal and political gain.

 

[Ziltoidia 9]

I swear, so much of the country isn't self aware. I think people's view of what government really is goes into play here. They feel entitled to their government check because of their disability, and they give the government the acknowledgement that the government "can" give them that entitlement because they feel its warranted, but then are selective when other people want the same treatment for various reasons. I also think that they fear they will start losing their checks, and the fear of that stims from the narrative of lazy poor people not working/mooching off the government for untruthful reasons ultimately being a catalyst for "ruining it" for them in the future and having budgets slashed.

 

[dankir]

#YallQuaeda

lol

 

[andycapps]

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/oregon-ranchers-reject-cliven-bundy-family-occupation/



The Bundys are opportunist slimeballs who are agitating the situation for their own personal and political gain.

Two sets of assholes with the same goals, yet the Hammonds don't want to be associated with this because I'm sure they'd like to get a reduced sentence.

 

[DragonSworne]

yes.



you're right, I was wrong. even some CNN security analyst said they're terrorists ..

..
CNN national security analyst Juliette Kayyem said there's no doubt the armed protesters in Oregon are "domestic terrorists."

"Simply because they are not Muslim jihadists does not mean they are authorized to threaten or use violence to support their political cause," she wrote in an opinion piece.
..

so we've got an ongoing domestic terrorism situation and we aren't doing anything. there you have it. why isn't this the biggest news story everywhere?

Have they threatened to use violence?

 

[PBY]

Have they threatened to use violence?

They're an armed militia, so.....

 

[RPGCrazied]

Have they threatened to use violence?

Um, they have already said they would be willing to kill or be killed if they are removed by anyone.

 

[andycapps]

Have they threatened to use violence?

If the government tries to get them out of there, yes.

 

[Kinitari]

Have they threatened to use violence?

Something about killing anyone who comes in and tries to remove them. I think that counts

 

[lawnchair]

Have they threatened to use violence?

they've said they're prepared to fight. they've said they're staying there forever. they've said if acted upon they'll fight back. their very presence there is a threat of violence.

 

[The Kree]

They can't possibly have better training than federal operatives. They'd lose very badly.

 

[Oblivion]

Have they threatened to use violence?

Why do you think this was a big deal to begin with?

 

[DrForester]

Have they threatened to use violence?

Yes. They said if the Government tried to stop them from performing their illegal acts they'll "defend themselves".

 

[dave is ok]

Most of the interviews I heard with the occupiers on the radio this morning were peaceful.

I think they're trying to walk back some of the 'fight to the death' rhetoric

 

[andycapps]

Most of the interviews I heard with the occupiers on the radio this morning were peaceful.

I think they're trying to walk back some of the 'fight to the death' rhetoric

Probably so, they know they're all going to prison at this point. Trying to reduce their sentences from felonies to misdemeanors.

 

[Ziltoidia 9]

Why do you think this was a big deal to begin with?

That, and the fact that they did this take over with guns. Its defacto violence. Armed robbery is much worse than just burglary.

 

[Yawnier]

Kind of confused by all this... is what is going on something like what happened with the Freemen back in the mid 90s or at Ruby Ridge?

 

[Fuchsdh]

I'll take the rest of your answer as confirmation that you know of no historical precedence for allowing occupiers to inhabit a federal building for a day with no visible response.

I can't think of a single federal building ever occupied that mattered *less* than this one. It makes Alcatraz look like some massive operation. For all their rhetoric and "patriot" banner-dressing, these guys basically picked the target the least people care about, presumably because they thought it wouldn't immediately trigger a response that could land them in some very hot water very quickly. Certainly going in when it was abandoned was a smart idea if they didn't want to get popped.

As it is, they still have bought some tickets to prison for at least the ringleaders, and there's likely no walking back from that. Certainly isn't going to do jack for their grievances (and the stupid thing is that there are plenty of issues with how much of the land within the western states is federal, and the misuse of federal lands for private and public interests. And these guys are utterly the wrong people to even try and turn that into a galvanizing issue.)

 

[DrForester]

hahahahahaha...

Just thought of something. What they're doing is a federal crime, right? So when they're convicted they lose the legal right to own guns, right?

 

[RPGCrazied]

hahahahahaha...

Just thought of something. What they're doing is a federal crime, right? So when they're convicted they lose the legal right to own guns, right?

They did break the law as soon as they brought guns inside a federal building.

I think more punishment is needed other than taking their guns away.