• 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.

Extremist Militia Occupies Federal Building In Oregon

Status
Not open for further replies.
E

eu pfhor ia

Neo Member
aspiegamer said:
My father tried to ask me about this story and I told him to search for #YeeHawd instead because it would be simpler than actually trying to explain it.
Click to expand...

It really is pretty simple, though, if you ask me. A group of (angry rednecks/mormon terrorists/what ever you want to call them) think they deserve preferential use of public lands because they are special snowflakes. The fact that the BLM, representing the US government, disagrees, is seen by them as "tyranny" and makes them think the current situation is the way to resolve that.



aspiegamer said:
Even the infamous Taiwanese Animators crew has a sense of irony about racism and Islamophobia in America? Damn. It is THAT well known these days? I love on the FBI agent celebrating actually just won the game of Connect Four. Side note, their YouTube hits are depressingly low.
Click to expand...

I'm also pretty impressed how spot on of satire they pulled off here. The affluenza kid one was great too. Who exactly are the Taiwanese Animators, if anybody can tell me? (I mean, I get they make bizarre youtube satire, but is that the best explanation there is?)
 
L

LiveFromKyoto

Member
Amibguous Cad said:
They're in armed insurrection against the government. What else do you call them?
Click to expand...

How about "an armed insurrection against the government"? This Bush-era thing where the term "terrorist" has been made absolutely meaningless and just thrown at anyone against [insert status-quo government here] should probably go away. Terrorists are violent opposition groups who specifically employ tactics to intimidate the populace to change government policy through fear. These dudes are just having a sit-in with guns.
 
fixedpoint

fixedpoint

Member
Oblivion said:
Was just about to post that, Ghal.

Best part:
What are the protesters’ demands?

$5 million in cash and safe passage to 1874.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
So close - more like $10 million and 1776
nKm0qWD.jpg
Click to expand...
4l7RYfQ.jpg


edit: to be clear, this dude is out there in OR, but these shots were taken prior to this event
 
entremet

entremet

Member
besada said:
It's really not a good article on the mess, which isn't surprising, as it's from the Cato Institute. It plays fast and loose with the facts, acting as if the Hammonds hadn't been convicted of arson, and continuing to assert that both fires were accidents.

It's a shitty, propaganda filled article that essentially carries water for the sorts of crazies who think the government shouldn't exist. Again, not surprising given it came from a think tank created by the Koch Brothers.
Click to expand...

FyreWulff said:
Cato Institute is a propaganda wing of the far right/ultra conservative .
Click to expand...
Isn't that the AEI?

Oh well.

I got the article from a progressive writer on Twitter of all places lol.
 
A

AngryNapkin

Banned
FyreWulff said:
Cato Institute is a propaganda wing of the far right/ultra conservatives.
Click to expand...

True, but that doesn't discredit the actual point being made. The guys who took the building are taking advantage of the Hammonds situation and quite frankly made a very poor choice. But being charged with terrorism for this is a bad call. Same with mandatory sentencing for drugs.
 
A

andycapps

Member
obin_gam said:
If they don't believe in the government, how can they be oppose it?
Click to expand...

Something something tyranny, patriots, and defending the Constitution.

That video posted before by that guy that's there is terrifying. Dude is seriously talking like he's going to not be taken alive. Hopefully he has a change of heart and then goes to prison. Course then he'll just meet up with some Aryan Brotherhood guys and the transformation will be complete, if it wasn't already.
 
Amibguous Cad

Amibguous Cad

Member
LiveFromKyoto said:
How about "an armed insurrection against the government"? This Bush-era thing where the term "terrorist" has been made absolutely meaningless and just thrown at anyone against [insert status-quo government here] should probably go away. Terrorists are violent opposition groups who specifically employ tactics to intimidate the populace to change government policy through fear. These dudes are just having a sit-in with guns.
Click to expand...

"With guns" being the operative descriptor there. If the feds try to reclaim the building, they will be violent, they have said as much. They're armed to the teeth, they're sure fricking intimidating me, they're inciting fear, and they're trying to change government policy. They fit every part of your definition.

Sub-Zero at a Starbucks said:
wut
Click to expand...

Right, this conclusion seems super unreasonable to me.

Cato said:
Property rights advocates who want to change public views need to find ranchers more appealing than the Bundys, who want to overgraze other people’s land without paying for the right to do so, or the Hammonds, whose unauthorized fire on federal lands threatened firefighters’ lives. Without better representatives–preferably ones willing to pay their own way and not rely on taxpayer subsidies–they won’t be able to capture the hearts and minds of the American people, which means the future of ranchers who depend on federal lands is dim.
Click to expand...

besada said:
It's really not a good article on the mess, which isn't surprising, as it's from the Cato Institute. It plays fast and loose with the facts, acting as if the Hammonds hadn't been convicted of arson, and continuing to assert that both fires were accidents.

It's a shitty, propaganda filled article that essentially carries water for the sorts of crazies who think the government shouldn't exist. Again, not surprising given it came from a think tank created by the Koch Brothers.
Click to expand...

What in the world are you talking about?

article said:
The arson fires lit by the Hammonds in 2001 and 2006 may have actually represented sensible land management, but the Hammonds lost the high ground by their failure to coordinate with the government agency managing the land they burned.
....
The 2006 fire was more questionable. A wildfire was burning on BLM land near the Hammond’s ranch, so to defend their land they lit a backfire on their own land.
....
For these actions, they were sentenced to a year in jail, which possibly was appropriate considering they endangered people’s lives. But the federal government, citing an anti-terrorism law that sets a mandatory minimum sentence of five years for arson on federal land, demanded that they be re-sentenced.
Click to expand...

Nowhere in the article do they imply that the fires were accidents. They specifically mention that they were convicted of arson.

I mean, seriously, is people's bias against Cato that bad that they can have such a spectacularly wrong reading of an article? Did the words mutate on the screen or something? If you actually did open the article and read it I'm shocked that political bias can warp your perception of reality that hard. Am I possibly missing some context? Is there another Cato article that got linked that was much more egregious?
 
L

Lonewolf_92

Member
Amibguous Cad said:
Nowhere in the article do they imply that the fires were accidents. They specifically mention that they were convicted of arson.

I mean, seriously, is people's bias against Cato that bad that they can have such a spectacularly wrong reading of an article? Did the words mutate on the screen or something? If you actually did open the article and read it I'm shocked that political bias can warp your perception of reality that hard. Am I possibly missing some context? Is there another Cato article that got linked that was much more egregious?
Click to expand...



The arson fires lit by the Hammonds in 2001 and 2006 may have actually represented sensible land management, but the Hammonds lost the high ground by their failure to coordinate with the government agency managing the land they burned.
Click to expand...

Except that it wasn't their land to manage, even the author can't help but point out that it was arson in the very same sentence making it's entire point null and void. They had no right to light those fires, therefore it was a crime. Full stop. No more needs to be said.

The 2006 fire was more questionable. A wildfire was burning on BLM land near the Hammond’s ranch, so to defend their land they lit a backfire on their own land.
Click to expand...

No, that was their claim. They were given a trial and convicted of arson, they even had a relative give evidence against them, so there is nothing to question here, it was a lie given in an attempt to cover up their crimes. They had their day in court.

For these actions, they were sentenced to a year in jail, which possibly was appropriate considering they endangered people’s lives. But the federal government, citing an anti-terrorism law that sets a mandatory minimum sentence of five years for arson on federal land, demanded that they be re-sentenced.
Click to expand...

It was decided by the appeals courts that it was not appropriate, considering they endangered probably around a hundred people’s lives (including their own nephew/grandson), cost the state millions when you add up the damages and costs to fight the blaze, and drew away important firefighting resources in a state known for wildfires during wildfire season, all to hide their poaching. The court also didn't demand "that they be re-sentenced" it extended their sentence to the mandatory minimum for the crime they committed, because it had that power as the higher court. Why repeat offenders who caused so many acres of damage got a sentence better suited to a Misdemeanor charge of arson when they were facing Felony counts is beyond me, they could have gotten up to 20 years plus the fines, they should be happy that they're only getting the minimum, especially given that they're repeat offenders.

The Devil's in the details, as they say. They spend the entire article trying to downplay the facts behind the case in order to make it fit the narrative they want, instead of finding a case that actually fits instead.

If the Hammonds had almost ran their nephew over with their car because they were drunk driving, and this was the second DUI in five years, and they lied about what happened, and they were just given a few nights in the drunk tank and a fine and their sentence was extended this way we wouldn't even be having this conversation.
 
N

NervousXtian

Thought Emoji Movie was good. Take that as you will.
Amibguous Cad said:
Nowhere in the article do they imply that the fires were accidents. They specifically mention that they were convicted of arson.

I mean, seriously, is people's bias against Cato that bad that they can have such a spectacularly wrong reading of an article? Did the words mutate on the screen or something? If you actually did open the article and read it I'm shocked that political bias can warp your perception of reality that hard. Am I possibly missing some context? Is there another Cato article that got linked that was much more egregious?
Click to expand...

The first fire was at least partially meant to cover up a illegal deer poaching, and there's quotes from family and friends that Steven said something to the extent of "set this country on fire" as he handed out matches and lit the fire... almost burned some of his friends and family doing it.

The second was during a no-burn high fire time where wildfires were already being fought, even nearby to where they set the backburns to protect their winter food supply.

Both were on BLM land.. but the article implies the first fire was something other than what it was.
 
B

besada

Banned
Amibguous Cad said:
What in the world are you talking about?
Click to expand...

Let's break it down, since you can't seem to understand the article is an apologia.

The arson fires lit by the Hammonds in 2001 and 2006 may have actually represented sensible land management, but the Hammonds lost the high ground by their failure to coordinate with the government agency managing the land they burned.
Click to expand...
They didn't represent sensible land management, particularly not the Hardie-Hammond fire, because it wasn't about land management, it was about covering the bodies of dead animals they had killed on federal land. Ignoring this, and ignoring that they were found guilty of intentionally starting the fires on federal land, is a distortion at best. The problem with the Hardie-Hammond fire wasn't coordination with the BLM, it was that they were committing arson to hide another crime.

The article acknowledges they were found guilty of arson, while discarding the facts of the case, and relegating it to an accident of starting a fire on their own lands and it getting out of control. But that's not what they were found guilty of -- they were found guilty of intentionally starting a fire on federal land.

For these actions, they were sentenced to a year in jail, which possibly was appropriate considering they endangered people’s lives. But the federal government, citing an anti-terrorism law that sets a mandatory minimum sentence of five years for arson on federal land, demanded that they be re-sentenced.
Click to expand...

The law in question isn't just an "anti-terrorism" law, it's the default law -- since 1996 -- for trying arson on federal lands. At no time did the government suggest they were terrorists, nor did they pick a special law with which to try the Hammonds. The law regarding arson on public lands was changed in 1996 because of terrorism (Oklahoma Federal Building) but it still demands a shorter mandatory sentence than if they had been tried under any other law. So, again, disingenuous at best.

The Hammonds shouldn’t have lit the 2006 fire without coordinating with the BLM. The federal government shouldn’t have prosecuted them for prescribed burning using an anti-terrorist law. The Bundys shouldn’t have occupied the Fish & Wildlife Service office.
Click to expand...

This is their own summation of the article, and it's completely wrong and dishonest. If you can't see that, either you don't know enough about the situation, or you can't read. The entire article is an attempt to draw a moral equivalence between the state enforcing its laws and criminals breaking those laws.

So no, the fact that it came from the Cato Institute wasn't the only problem with it, but I certainly wasn't surprised to see the Cato Institute trying to carry water for anti-government extremists, given they were created by anti-government extremists.
 
C

commedieu

Banned
Is it wrong for me to be totally pissed off at this? Knowing that blacks are gunned down for looking at people funny. That this is just allowed to happen, with actual threats, actual weapons, it just really makes me feel like shit. As a citizen of this country. Now, No, they shouldn't all be gunned down, I just wish the same fucking logic or empathy for these insane fucks applied to people trying to raise awareness over getting gunned down like animals every hour.

Even peaceful rallys had a god damned Bear Cat and a Sniper training guns on people. Sick of this shit. Some how I am(at any age) more threatening than a band of militia guys.

Don't mean to derail, just for fucks sake its crazy to just realize how much of a 10th class citizen you are.
 
A

AngryNapkin

Banned
http://www.jasonstapleton.com

Most recent episode has an interview with someone who grew up in the area. Interviewer is a libertarian, disagrees with the occupiers. Goes into some detail on BLM, the day it happened, how the Bundys decided to occupy the federal building, his thoughts on them, etc.

First 10 mins of the show, next segment is his own thoughts.
 
R

Rebel Leader

THE POWER OF BUTTERSCOTCH BOTTOMS
commedieu said:
Is it wrong for me to be totally pissed off at this? Knowing that blacks are gunned down for looking at people funny. That this is just allowed to happen, with actual threats, actual weapons, it just really makes me feel like shit. As a citizen of this country. Now, No, they shouldn't all be gunned down, I just wish the same fucking logic or empathy for these insane fucks applied to people trying to raise awareness over getting gunned down like animals every hour.

Even peaceful rallys had a god damned Bear Cat and a Sniper training guns on people. Sick of this shit. Some how I am(at any age) more threatening than a band of militia guys.

Don't mean to derail, just for fucks sake its crazy to just realize how much of a 10th class citizen you are.
Click to expand...

You should be totally pissed that turning off power is still in discussion
 
R

Retromelon

Member
MikeDown said:
I think terrorist is a little bit of a stretch.
Click to expand...

How would you describe a pack of self important fucks occupying federal territory by force?

"terrorist - a person who uses terrorism in the pursuit of political aims." whether you or anyone thinks the situation doesn't fit the media's appropriation of the term is irrelevant.
 
C

Cybit

FGC Waterboy
Regarding the "double standard" people in this thread have incorrectly been complaining about.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...n_t_evidence_of_a_racial_double_standard.html

If there’s a broad issue to come out of the Oregon standoff, it’s around the use of force. As with Cliven Bundy, local and federal law enforcement has taken a wait-and-see approach to Ammon Bundy and his militia supporters. The FBI has called for a “peaceful resolution” to the confrontation, and announced its concern for the safety of “both those inside the refuge as well as the law enforcement officers involved.”
Oregon standoff race.

To observers on Twitter, this caution was galling, especially after a year of highly visible police violence against unarmed black Americans and political fear-mongering over Muslim refugees to the United States. “Let’s be clear,” said columnist Cenk Uygur, “If Muslims had seized a federal building, they’d all be dead by now #whiteprivilege #OregonUnderAttack.” Likewise, thousands of people retweeted an image of an armed militiaman captioned “150 armed white men take over a federal building and threaten violence if removed—Not a single shot is fired at them” followed by a photo of Tamir Rice with the caption, “12-year-old black boy plays with a toy gun—is gunned down in less than two seconds without as much as a warning.”

It’s easy to see why both tweets struck a chord. But it’s also worth noting the extent to which the Rice shooting—and many others—are fundamentally different from that of a standoff between armed fanatics and federal law enforcement. It’s not just that these are different organizations—local and city police forces versus the FBI and other federal agencies—and different kinds of confrontations with different procedures, but that there’s also a different history involved. Confrontations at Ruby Ridge and in Waco, Texas, ended with scores of dead (white) civilians, and inspired the Oklahoma City bombing—the deadliest terrorist attack on American soil prior to Sept. 11, 2001.

Law enforcement has been willing to use lethal violence against armed white protesters and the results were catastrophic. It’s no surprise federal agents are cautious; they walk with the hard-learned lessons of the 1990s. Even if the Bundys are paper tigers, no one wants to relive the past. In that, law enforcement officials are correct.

In any case, why won’t they shoot at armed white fanatics isn’t just the wrong question; it’s a bad one. Not only does it hold lethal violence as a fair response to the Bundy militia, but it opens a path to legitimizing the same violence against more marginalized groups. As long as the government is an equal opportunity killer, goes the argument, violence is acceptable.
Click to expand...
 
C

commedieu

Banned
Cybit said:
Regarding the "double standard" people in this thread have incorrectly been complaining about.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...n_t_evidence_of_a_racial_double_standard.html
Click to expand...

You talking to me? Because I know there is a double standard with how media/police deal with black people in this country. And I know full well this wouldn't even be on the news after everyone was arrested/sprayed/dogged/and shot if some black people tried to pull this.

Again the double standard is that this is the way things should be. Where as Americans, like myself, witness the double standard when the media/police/feds are applied to my people. Don't want to derail but linking something and putting"double standard" in quotes in an attempt to dispel this fact is lunacy. I know police deal with me differently than my white friends, Thats the double standard. I know that I'll be demonized if I ever do anything wrong, while if I were white, I'd be taken to burger king and the media would wonder where I went wrong.

This is a reminder that procedures are used for people, just not my people. This is the way it should be, for all of us that have problems with our government.

People are killed for nothing, and black lives are of no value in the USA. So to see an actual issue that police could jump all over, yet show restraint, shows that it is possible. Its just not possible for some americans.

The FBI aren't buddies of the black community either..

edit:

Last I'll say about it as Don't want to derail this thread as fiction pointed out. But who cares really.. back to work.
 
Ploid 3.0

Ploid 3.0

Member
commedieu said:
Is it wrong for me to be totally pissed off at this? Knowing that blacks are gunned down for looking at people funny. That this is just allowed to happen, with actual threats, actual weapons, it just really makes me feel like shit. As a citizen of this country. Now, No, they shouldn't all be gunned down, I just wish the same fucking logic or empathy for these insane fucks applied to people trying to raise awareness over getting gunned down like animals every hour.

Even peaceful rallys had a god damned Bear Cat and a Sniper training guns on people. Sick of this shit. Some how I am(at any age) more threatening than a band of militia guys.

Don't mean to derail, just for fucks sake its crazy to just realize how much of a 10th class citizen you are.
Click to expand...

Yeah it sucks, I'd think snipers would be positioned, and a call be made to surrender. If not they will clear the property of the terrorists. Heck how could they stand there if tear gas was thrown in there. They can get them out non violently. They can't shoot back if their eyes are burning.
 
G

GloriousBagel

Banned
Retromelon said:
How would you describe a pack of self important fucks occupying federal territory by force?

"terrorist - a person who uses terrorism in the pursuit of political aims." whether you or anyone thinks the situation doesn't fit the media's appropriation of the term is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Well you if you stick to that definition, then the riots in Baltimore and Ferguson were terrorist acts.
 
C

Cybit

FGC Waterboy
commedieu said:
You talking to me? Because I know there is a double standard with how media/police deal with black people in this country. And I know full well this wouldn't even be on the news after everyone was arrested/sprayed/dogged/and shot if some black people tried to pull this.

Again the double standard is that this is the way things should be. Where as Americans, like myself, witness the double standard when the media/police/feds are applied to my people. Don't want to derail but linking something and putting"double standard" in quotes in an attempt to dispel this fact is lunacy. I know police deal with me differently than my white friends, Thats the double standard. I know that I'll be demonized if I ever do anything wrong, while if I were white, I'd be taken to burger king and the media would wonder where I went wrong.

This is a reminder that procedures are used for people, just not my people. This is the way it should be, for all of us that have problems with our government.

People are killed for nothing, and black lives are of no value in the USA. So to see an actual issue that police could jump all over, yet show restraint, shows that it is possible. Its just not possible for some americans.

The FBI aren't buddies of the black community either..
Click to expand...

I thought about quoting you - but it's come up a lot in the thread as a whole so it didn't feel right to just quote you.

The issue isn't whether the city / state police treat white people differently rather than black people when it comes to crime. We know that's the case. But that has absolutely nothing to do with this situation.

These are FEDERAL AGENTS, not freaking cops. The police have nothing to do with any of this besides just listen to the FBI. Nothing. Zippo. Nada. Zilch.

This is an armed standoff in a federal building; not police trying to throw some black guy in jail for shit he didn't do or overreacting for stupid shit. You are taking two things that have no bearing to each other and trying to conflate them when they shouldn't be. If this was random white people being accused of walking into a park with a toy gun; then the comparison would be apt. But this is a standoff between federal agents - who use a completely different (and consistent, mind you) set of procedures than cops. A procedure, mind you, that was set when they did go in guns ablazing and kill a bunch of people (on accident, to boot).

That's my issue with this. Everyone's trying to conflate two things that have nothing to do with each other besides happening in the same time period (non-indictment on Tamir Rice vs this). They're conflating the Obama administration's procedures on dealing with armed standoffs in federal buildings with how shitty police departments treat black people. They're not the same thing. If an armed group of 10-12 #BLM protestors had taken over a federal building in the middle of nowhere and the FBI had promptly shown up and shot them all - then you could have this conversation about a double standard. But saying the FBI and the local police are the same people is bullshit; and I wish people would stop wrecking their own legitimate gripes by making false comparisons between two situations that have nothing in common between "crime is being committed" (and even then, #BLM doesn't usually commit actual crimes or are armed, they just practice civil disobedience).
 
Guileless

Guileless

Temp Banned for Remedial Purposes
Ploid 3.0 said:
Yeah it sucks, I'd think snipers would be positioned, and a call be made to surrender. If not they will clear the property of the terrorists.
Click to expand...

They took over a deserted building in the middle of frontier wilderness and it's life-threateningly cold. There is no reason to do this after a few days. They didn't seize Nakatomi Plaza or the mall.
 
C

commedieu

Banned
Cybit said:
I thought about quoting you - but it's come up a lot in the thread as a whole so it didn't feel right to just quote you.

The issue isn't whether the city / state police treat white people differently rather than black people when it comes to crime. We know that's the case. But that has absolutely nothing to do with this situation.

These are FEDERAL AGENTS, not freaking cops. This is an armed standoff in a federal building; not police trying to throw some black guy in jail for shit he didn't do or overreacting for stupid shit. You are taking two things that have no bearing to each other and trying to conflate them when they shouldn't be. If this was random white people being accused of walking into a park with a toy gun; then the comparison would be apt. But this is a standoff between federal agents - who use a completely different (and consistent, mind you) set of procedures than cops. A procedure, mind you, that was set when they did go in guns ablazing and kill a bunch of people (on accident, to boot).

That's my issue with this. Everyone's trying to conflate two things that have nothing to do with each other besides happening in the same time period (non-indictment on Tamir Rice vs this). They're conflating the Obama administration's procedures on dealing with armed standoffs in federal buildings with how shitty police departments treat black people. They're not the same thing. If an armed group of 10-12 #BLM protestors had taken over a federal building in the middle of nowhere and the FBI had promptly shown up and shot them all - then you could have this conversation about a double standard. But saying the FBI and the local police are the same people is bullshit; and I wish people would stop wrecking their own legitimate gripes by making false comparisons between two situations that have nothing in common between "crime is being committed" (and even then, #BLM doesn't usually commit actual crimes or are armed, they just practice civil disobedience).

The argument being made is basically saying Obama (who's ultimately in charge of the FBI) treats black people the same way that the Ferguson police treat black people. I think we can all say that's probably not true.
Click to expand...

As said earlier, the FBI aren't friends of blacks either, historically.

But you're rushing to say theres nothing to see anywhere, so again, Who cares really? You don't. I do because my folks are killed over that double standard. Not just being miffed on an online forum. I know the entire justice system is shown to be biased towards the minority population. This includes the FBI and the CIA. Its not a "NOT ALL COPS!" the FBI is different - situation, its the fact that I know the system is biased towards me. By data.

Police,FBI/CIA/Justice system has a double standard for blacks in this country. The standard procedure, as data shows, is to incarcerate and kill blacks at higher rates than everyone else.

What issue do you really have? What matters to your life? Because arguing about whether or not its police that have a known double standard, or the FBI having a double standard really results in one thing, folks like me getting gunned down and the media supporting it. Where as in this instance, you have Americans at least divided seeing where these gentlemen are coming from, they aren't being demonized to middle earth and back. Which is what I also said is part of the double standard, the media, as well as Law enforcement. Which you're ignoring.

Sorry that theres a bee in your bonnet about this, but I hope it clears it up that the entire justice system is biased and has a double standard.

You said what you had to say:

1. Its the fbi, and thats way different than police. the FBI has different procedures! (which result in the same double standard)

I'm not going to save you from being bothered about me knowing that there is a double standard in America with law enforcement. So, I'll have to leave it at that. I mentioned earlier, I don't want to derail, so perhaps you could quote someone else and continue, but I dont wanna mess up the thread.
 
I

Ignatz Mouse

Banned
The fact that these aren't cops, and that they had time to prepare a response rather than it being an immediate incident make the two things not directly comparable. However, I still think it's fair to bring up how black people are treated by the police pretty much on any occasion even if the situations aren't parallel. Because it's fucking appalling.
 
C

Chie Satonaka

Member
I'm not sure why, exactly, people keep yelling "FEDERAL AGENTS" and "WACO AND RUBY RIDGE" to try and downplay the idea that this would be different if it were black and brown folks, as if the government and federal agencies have somehow been staunch allies of black and brown people throughout the history of this country.
 
C

Cybit

FGC Waterboy
commedieu said:
As said earlier, the FBI aren't friends of blacks either, historically.

But you're rushing to say there's nothing to see anywhere, so again, Who cares really? You don't. I do. I know the entire justice system is shown to be biased towards the minority population. This includes the FBI and the CIA. Its not a "NOT ALL COPS!" the FBI is different - situation, its the fact that I know the system is biased towards me. By data.

Police,FBI/CIA/Justice system has a double standard for blacks in this country. The standard procedure, as data shows, is to incarcerate and kill blacks at higher rates than everyone else.

What issue do you really have? What matters to your life? Because arguing about whether or not its police that have a known double standard, or the FBI having a double standard really results in one thing, folks like me getting gunned down and the media supporting it. Where as in this instance, you have Americans at least divided seeing where these gentlemen are coming from, they aren't being demonized to middle earth and back. Which is what I also said is part of the double standard, the media, as well as Law enforcement. Sorry that there's a bee in your bonnet about this, but I hope it clears it up that the entire justice system is biased and has a double standard.
Click to expand...

...are you even reading my posts?

The issue isn't whether the city / state police treat white people differently rather than black people when it comes to crime. We know that's the case. But that has absolutely nothing to do with this situation.
Click to expand...

That's like the second thing I say.

So when you say stuff like

But you're rushing to say there's nothing to see anywhere, so again, Who cares really?
Click to expand...

You are lying. Period. Full Stop.

Stop it. Stop this "either you agree with me 100% or you see nothing wrong" bullshit.

The reason it matters to me is two fold.

1) I see how when these terrible comparisons are made, people who already want a reason to not believe in the racism inherent in the justice system are getting the validation they need. Every time we have to try to free someone who got screwed by the justice system because they're poor, or black, or hispanic, or because the prosecutor was running for election soon and needed to close out the case quickly - those who put them there point to bullshit arguments like this as their justification for ignoring us. That because one bad argument was put out, they use it to ignore the rest of the legitimate arguments.

2) Because as a brown dude with a beard growing up in post 9/11; I can see the system change as the populace's view of us changes (which leads to a bigger issue of whether the police are the actual issue, or just a symptom of the population as a whole - but that's a different thread for a different day). I care because it may not be my folks yet on a local level - but as the Irish can tell you - doesn't mean it can't happen to me later on.

Or as joked at some of the #BLM meetings / protests I've been at after San Bernandino - we wonder who is going to get shot first - the brown people with beards or the black people. Though to be fair, where I currently live has some sseeeerious fucking issues w/r/t racism against black people that they are desperately trying to ignore. I feel like Seattle's done everything it can to segregate all the black people in the city into one area. As a city known for progressive-ism...it's kind of messed up to me.

When you have an airtight fucking argument about how badly you are treated by the police - why make an unnecessary bullshit argument? They're already looking for reasons to ignore y'all - why hand them one on a silver platter?

As for the Feds - they were absolutely terrible in the past. But when you have the FBI director candidly talking about how entrenched racism in the system is causing a vicious cycle (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbx4HAm6Rc8) with respect to the treatment of black people in this country - I think there's legitimate room for optimism on the federal side. When the Feds are investigating police departments and blasting them for systemic racism (Holder the Boss) and putting everyone on goddamn notice - I have a little bit of freaking hope that the Feds aren't nearly as bad as they were in the 60s. (Does not apply if you are from the Middle East / Middle Eastern looking, though.)

I also haven't seen FBI stats - I've seen local police stats, and everyone we've worked with at the Innocence Project has been screwed by local police - so I can't comment to modern FBI bias against blacks.

Ignatz Mouse said:
The fact that these aren't cops, and that they had time to prepare a response rather than it being an immediate incident make the two things not directly comparable. However, I still think it's fair to bring up how black people are treated by the police pretty much on any occasion even if the situations aren't parallel. Because it's fucking appalling.
Click to expand...

Which is fine. If you want to bring it up because it's appalling as fuck and that body cameras and the current "solutions" are probably just going to shift the racism into another avenue (much like how everything else has in the past) - that's fine. But no point in making inaccurate comparisons to try to shoehorn in something you want to talk about. Just talk about it.

Chie Satonaka said:
I'm not sure why, exactly, people keep yelling "FEDERAL AGENTS" and "WACO AND RUBY RIDGE" to try and downplay the idea that this would be different if it were black and brown folks, as if the government and federal agencies have somehow been staunch allies of black and brown people throughout the history of this country.
Click to expand...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...one-in-oregon-most-of-which-ended-peacefully/

When they treat the single most shitted on group in the history of this country (Native Americans) the same as white people - I feel like there's a decent argument to be made that the Feds specifically wouldn't overreact in a similar situation of folks of a different race.

Some more interesting reading about the situation

http://www.vox.com/2016/1/5/10714746/waco-ruby-ridge-oregon

Also - there's absolutely a point to be made that the media coverage is far different due to race. But that's not the same as how the Feds are responding.

http://www.vox.com/2016/1/3/10705610/oregon-terrorists-racism-race
 
O

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
Guileless said:
They took over a deserted building in the middle of frontier wilderness and it's life-threateningly cold. There is no reason to do this after a few days. They didn't seize Nakatomi Plaza or the mall.
Click to expand...

I keep seeing this excuse being trotted around. Even if that's the case, why is it okay? Can I go ahead and invade somebody's Summer house if the family who owns it doesn't happen to be using it for most of the year?
 
E

ehretreue.m.h

Banned
So I don't understand; why exactly did they seize this building? What's a good news source for this?

And what exactly are they hoping to prove here?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
Elon Musk vs Brazil’s Federal Supreme Court
Social Opinion News
12
3K
AJUMP23 replied
Reuters: Bundy follower gets 68 years for role in armed Nevada standoff
3
1K
finowns replied
  • Locked
Oregon standoff leader allegedly tried to escape jail with rope made of sheets
3
1K
xxracerxx replied
  • Locked
AP: In Turnaround, Ammon Bundy Denies Leading Refuge Occupiers
12
2K
Ducarmel replied
  • Locked
Cliven Bundy (led 2014 armed standoff at ranch) arrested by FBI in Portland, Oregon
2 3
105
16K
DrForester replied
Top Bottom