Author Topic: Oregon Refuge Standoff  (Read 18442 times)

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Oregon Refuge Standoff
« Reply #100 on: January 28, 2016, 12:45:54 AM »
  But your viewpoint that eyewitness accounts should be weighted the same as people who have zero knowledge of the event is....uh, weird.

I hold no such viewpoint.

Telecaster

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 843
Re: Oregon Refuge Standoff
« Reply #101 on: January 28, 2016, 01:10:24 AM »
  But your viewpoint that eyewitness accounts should be weighted the same as people who have zero knowledge of the event is....uh, weird.

I hold no such viewpoint.

Well, throw us a bone here.  If you believe that "early reports" by people  literally over a thousand miles away from the events are equally as credible as eyewitness accounts, then stop waffling and come out and say it.  Let's hear your evidence that the guy had his hands up and was unarmed.  I am all ears. Seriously. 

I personally think that people a thousand miles away from the even have no special knowledge that you or I don't have.   I also think that eyewitnesses do have special knowledge.

You think the opposite.  I have no problem with that.  I just don't understand how a rational person would come to that conclusion.  I'm all ears.

Radagast

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 592
  • Location: West of the Mountains, East of the Sea
Re: Oregon Refuge Standoff
« Reply #102 on: January 28, 2016, 01:19:26 AM »
Showing up after the fact a little here. I am from a place near Burns geographically, politically (not personally), and climatically, with similar land ownership. Here's my long-ass take on OP.

1. There are a lot of different agencies that people seem to confuse, and they don't generally have anything to do with each other. BLM, Forest Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, etc.  Additionally each different field office and employee has different attitudes. For example, where I am from the local BLM has a reputation for working with ranchers and seeking win-win situations. However an adjacent field office is apparently regarded as more confrontational.

2. Government agencies are generally biased towards the communities they live in, and many of them lived and worked in ranches or mines they now regulate. Far away environmentalists see this correctly as bias, however I see the bias as a good thing and generally dislike the distant whimsy of people who like to mandate outcomes on others while themselves remaining unaffected (yet at the same time I consider myself an environmentalist). Many policies regarding public lands are also biased towards aloof urban environmentalists, which rural residents are correct about. To some extent this may be good as well, as it keeps corruption in check.

3. The result of the above is a stultifying bureaucracy which is constantly growing. I don't have direct experience, however my relative works for the BLM and complained about a long list of things which now take twice as long as they did in the 90's. The crazy bureaucracy makes things worse for all sides. It places a burden on small locals who depend on the land around them when they cannot get a needed permit for months or years. It has also kept out entrepreneurs and small businesses who can't afford the wait. Big oil companies who can afford politicians are virtually unaffected, and I am astounded at the things they can get away with. Mines are generally held to stricter requirements than oil companies. Large mines tend to engage in widespread multi-decade ass kissing and are generally able to get things done, while small mines may have a hard time finding the capital to pay for the various consultants and especially time. In general I feel the current system favors larger entities with more capital and less need for entrepreneurship.

4. Ranching on public land is not something you do to get rich, but you can make a living if you enjoy that life.

5. Ranchers, miners, and loggers who use public lands are a vanishingly small fraction of the population, even though they are the majority in vast swaths of the land. It is very easy for their voices to get lost in the crowd, and it can be very hard to find a statistic that accurately represents them.  As an example, in Nevada (7th largest state by area) 87% of the land is owned by the federal government. 70% of the population is highly concentrated in the Las Vegas area with no knowledge or care for the rest of the state, and 20% lives in the greater Reno area with not much more. The remaining 10% are biased towards a few towns, leaving most of the state deserted. Take Nye county as an example. Nye is the third largest county in the nation by area, and over 80% of 44,000 population lives in the strange settlement Pahrump in the extreme southern tip. Much of the rest lives in Tonopah, which is mostly known as a stop between Reno and Vegas. 90-ish % of land is owned by federal government. A rancher in northeastern Nye county is virtually disenfranchised, and by numbers would barely be able to impact the county commission, much less impact a race for state assembly, and could never hope to be heard in a race for the US House of Representatives. A handful of ranch houses are the only human occupancy for hundreds of square miles, and yet they have barely any say in how the surrounding land is managed. They can scream and yell all they want, but no one will ever hear.

6. Tired of writing... I like wilderness. There should be a constitutional mandate that every state must cede 25% of its land to the Union as a federally protected wilderness area. Ideally 25% of the area of every sitting member of the US House of Representatives should become wilderness (any supporters? come on people wilderness is important...). Until that happens it will be very hard for the whole country to have a rational discussion on this topic, seeing as how 99% have no reason to care. Many will feel entitled to have their opinions become actions though, and only a tiny portion of the population will be significantly impacted by these feelings of opinionated entitlement.

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Oregon Refuge Standoff
« Reply #103 on: January 28, 2016, 08:10:00 AM »
The whole idea that the FBI just killed the one fellow without provocation makes no sense whatsoever for the following reasons:

1. It is entirely inconsistent with their very patient methodology to keep the situation as peaceful as possible and not escalate hostilities.
2. They knew that the arrest would be very high profile with every single action and decision reported on and second guessed. Any shooting, much less a death, would be a problem.
3. One way or the other, recordings of the incident will become public either sooner or later.

On the other hand, the idea that the fellow who was killed acted irrationally and actually provoked getting shot is quite reasonable given his public actions and statements preferring death to going to jail.

Thus, given conflicting statements and no physical evidence one way or the other, I have every reason to believe those who claim that the shooting was reasonable given the actions of the fellow being shot. My only regret is that the wacko died like he wanted and is now a martyr to his fellow wackos as opposed to being stuck behind bars.

Zamboni

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1777
Re: Oregon Refuge Standoff
« Reply #104 on: January 28, 2016, 08:15:46 AM »
Quote
every state must cede 25% of its land to the Union as a federally protected wilderness area.

While I like this idea from a theoretical viewpoint, some of the northeastern states would probably have trouble carving out this much territory. There are population densities and distributions much different than in the western states. That would leave states trying to buy very expensive land or declare eminent domain in more poverty stricken areas. The latter is already unfortunately abused for the benefit of businesses and developers in many areas. So, it's complicated and may not be a realistic goal. 

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Oregon Refuge Standoff
« Reply #105 on: January 28, 2016, 12:03:18 PM »
  But your viewpoint that eyewitness accounts should be weighted the same as people who have zero knowledge of the event is....uh, weird.

I hold no such viewpoint.

Well, throw us a bone here.  If you believe that "early reports" by people  literally over a thousand miles away from the events are equally as credible as eyewitness accounts, then stop waffling and come out and say it.  Let's hear your evidence that the guy had his hands up and was unarmed.  I am all ears. Seriously. 

I personally think that people a thousand miles away from the even have no special knowledge that you or I don't have.   I also think that eyewitnesses do have special knowledge.

You think the opposite.  I have no problem with that.  I just don't understand how a rational person would come to that conclusion.  I'm all ears.


That's not what I think, and you don't believe that eyewitnesses have special knowledge.  You believe that the eyewitnesses agree with your original assumptions, and this may prove correct.  But it still doesn't change the fact that a great many of you here felt vindicated the instant that you learned that a protestor had died, even before you learned any news about the details.  You felt it, and then you felt embarrassed about it, and immediately began to rationalize your views with how you believe he brought it upon himself.  Maybe he did, I honestly don't know.  Again, I saw conflicting reports early yesterday; and have not learned anything more definitive since.  I know that is how you think, because it is how everyone thinks.  Human beings are not nearly as rational and evolved from our tribal roots as we like to pretend we are.  And that sense of anger that you are feeling right now, that's cognitive dissonance.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Oregon Refuge Standoff
« Reply #106 on: January 28, 2016, 12:11:34 PM »
The whole idea that the FBI just killed the one fellow without provocation makes no sense whatsoever for the following reasons:

1. It is entirely inconsistent with their very patient methodology to keep the situation as peaceful as possible and not escalate hostilities.


Is that so?  Apparently you haven't been following too closely...

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/oregon-fire-marshall-resigns-exposing-undercover-fbi-agents-posing-militia/

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Oregon Refuge Standoff
« Reply #107 on: January 28, 2016, 12:27:57 PM »
The whole idea that the FBI just killed the one fellow without provocation makes no sense whatsoever for the following reasons:

1. It is entirely inconsistent with their very patient methodology to keep the situation as peaceful as possible and not escalate hostilities.


Is that so?  Apparently you haven't been following too closely...

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/oregon-fire-marshall-resigns-exposing-undercover-fbi-agents-posing-militia/

Your idea of following something closely is a link to an FBI conspiracy article on an anti-government website. You know, considering all your other posts on other subjects, that really explains a lot. ;)

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Oregon Refuge Standoff
« Reply #108 on: January 28, 2016, 12:48:37 PM »
Amazing what a little google-fu can bring up...

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-01-14/fbi-agents-werent-posing-as-militia-ex-fire-chief-clarifies

Quote
Briels tells U.S. News he did indeed catch undercover FBI agents in small-town Burns, near where armed protesters are occupying a federal wildlife refuge, but that they were not posing as militia.

So the FBI had undercover agents in a town that was adjacent to an area being illegally held by anti-government, armed, nut job whackos looking to start a revolution. Shocking!

The fact that the FBI let this go on as long as they did is certainly testament to their patience and interest in preventing loss of life. But you can't let something like this go on forever as it just encourages more whackos to do the same thing.

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1382
  • Age: 185
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2024 (maybe?)
Re: Oregon Refuge Standoff
« Reply #109 on: January 28, 2016, 12:54:49 PM »
Amazing what a little google-fu can bring up...

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-01-14/fbi-agents-werent-posing-as-militia-ex-fire-chief-clarifies

Quote
Briels tells U.S. News he did indeed catch undercover FBI agents in small-town Burns, near where armed protesters are occupying a federal wildlife refuge, but that they were not posing as militia.

So the FBI had undercover agents in a town that was adjacent to an area being illegally held by anti-government, armed, nut job whackos looking to start a revolution. Shocking!

The fact that the FBI let this go on as long as they did is certainly testament to their patience and interest in preventing loss of life. But you can't let something like this go on forever as it just encourages more whackos to do the same thing.

One thing that seems to be consistently true is that things said by Michele Fiore fall on the spectrum from exaggerated to fabricated.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Oregon Refuge Standoff
« Reply #110 on: January 28, 2016, 03:07:54 PM »
Amazing what a little google-fu can bring up...

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-01-14/fbi-agents-werent-posing-as-militia-ex-fire-chief-clarifies

Quote
Briels tells U.S. News he did indeed catch undercover FBI agents in small-town Burns, near where armed protesters are occupying a federal wildlife refuge, but that they were not posing as militia.

So the FBI had undercover agents in a town that was adjacent to an area being illegally held by anti-government, armed, nut job whackos looking to start a revolution. Shocking!

The fact that the FBI let this go on as long as they did is certainly testament to their patience and interest in preventing loss of life. But you can't let something like this go on forever as it just encourages more whackos to do the same thing.

From the article you cited...

Quote
“They weren’t posing as anything other than dishonest people,” he says. “They were perceived as militia by the locals, but they weren’t posing out there with a shirt that said ‘I’m militia.’”

I suppose we will just have to disagree about what that actually means they were trying to do.

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Oregon Refuge Standoff
« Reply #111 on: January 28, 2016, 08:22:14 PM »
Amazing what a little google-fu can bring up...

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-01-14/fbi-agents-werent-posing-as-militia-ex-fire-chief-clarifies

Quote
Briels tells U.S. News he did indeed catch undercover FBI agents in small-town Burns, near where armed protesters are occupying a federal wildlife refuge, but that they were not posing as militia.

So the FBI had undercover agents in a town that was adjacent to an area being illegally held by anti-government, armed, nut job whackos looking to start a revolution. Shocking!

The fact that the FBI let this go on as long as they did is certainly testament to their patience and interest in preventing loss of life. But you can't let something like this go on forever as it just encourages more whackos to do the same thing.

From the article you cited...

Quote
“They weren’t posing as anything other than dishonest people,” he says. “They were perceived as militia by the locals, but they weren’t posing out there with a shirt that said ‘I’m militia.’”

I suppose we will just have to disagree about what that actually means they were trying to do.

Yeah, I guess we'll just have to disagree. But for anyone who doesn't see an evil government conspiracy under every rock, I would suppose it means, they were like... oh, I don't know... maybe...UNDERCOVER? Oh wow, the FBI going undercover. You mean these undercover agents weren't wearing "FBI" t-shirts and telling everyone they were with the FBI. Those dishonest cads! That has got to stop. From now on, all undercover FBI agents will be required to wear "FBI" baseball caps and go around saying "Greetings, I'm an undercover agent with the FBI." to everyone that meet. Is that honest enough for you?

Taran Wanderer

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 470
Re: Oregon Refuge Standoff
« Reply #112 on: January 28, 2016, 08:41:27 PM »
The unedited video is up on YouTube from the FBI.

http://youtu.be/aAGxDWKrjPQ

The interesting part starts about 8 minutes in when the white truck flees from the traffic stop.  In any other country, the truck would have been fired upon as it raced toward the roadblock.  Or it would have been riddled with bullets after the driver was shot while acting erratically and grabbing at his waist band while being held at gunpoint by armed federal officers.

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Oregon Refuge Standoff
« Reply #113 on: January 28, 2016, 08:50:10 PM »
The unedited video is up on YouTube from the FBI.

http://youtu.be/aAGxDWKrjPQ

The interesting part starts about 8 minutes in when the white truck flees from the traffic stop.  In any other country, the truck would have been fired upon as it raced toward the roadblock.  Or it would have been riddled with bullets after the driver was shot while acting erratically and grabbing at his waist band while being held at gunpoint by armed federal officers.

I'm sure tomorrow someone will post a link to an 'insightful' article on thedumbthoughtproject.com about how the video is faked and even if it isn't the FBI are dishonest, blood thirsty monsters for not letting themselves get attacked when the fellow rushed at them. And if you think otherwise, we'll just have to disagree on what it means.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Oregon Refuge Standoff
« Reply #114 on: January 28, 2016, 09:22:26 PM »
The unedited video is up on YouTube from the FBI.

http://youtu.be/aAGxDWKrjPQ

The interesting part starts about 8 minutes in when the white truck flees from the traffic stop.  In any other country, the truck would have been fired upon as it raced toward the roadblock.  Or it would have been riddled with bullets after the driver was shot while acting erratically and grabbing at his waist band while being held at gunpoint by armed federal officers.

I watched the entire thing, and then went back and watched the takedown to make sure I caught it right, and I have a few take-aways.

1) It is not an entirely unedited video, there were a couple of shifts, but they were likely switching back and forth between two cameras on the same helicopter, one that could zoom in and out, the other that was just a wide shot of what the zoomed camera could see.  There was no lost time as far as I could tell.

2) He was driving very fast, I'd say that the other (3?) people in the car were upset that he was going to get them killed by his driving.

3) He attempted to drive around the left side of the roadblock, and buried the truck into a snow bank.  It looked like it was almost possible, but at the last second you can see a Fed very near the best path, pop out into view from behind a truck.  It kinda looks like he jerked the wheel left at that moment.

4) He was out of the truck immediately, running for the woods.  He must have seen the Fed near the treeline, and he definately had his hands up on camera.  For about 3 seconds.  Then he dropped his hands and, even from the helicopter view, he was going for something near his right hip.  He was shot at least twice from two different directions pretty much the instant he went for that hip.  I can't fault the Feds here.  This is a weird case that the conflicting reports I heard (that he had his hands up, that he was going for a handgun) were both correct.

5) But then, why did they toss flash-bangs at the truck and shoot at it?  I saw at least 3 flash-bangs through the trees, and at least two Feds shoot the truck.  Audio from one of the dash-cams might help here.

6) There is not likely another camera worth considering, because all the action was behind and to the right of the Feds' vehicles, so it's unlikely any dash cams caught anything of note.  Maybe audio.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5340
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Oregon Refuge Standoff
« Reply #115 on: January 28, 2016, 09:27:02 PM »
The unedited video is up on YouTube from the FBI.

http://youtu.be/aAGxDWKrjPQ

The interesting part starts about 8 minutes in when the white truck flees from the traffic stop.  In any other country, the truck would have been fired upon as it raced toward the roadblock.  Or it would have been riddled with bullets after the driver was shot while acting erratically and grabbing at his waist band while being held at gunpoint by armed federal officers.

Ugh.  I mean it's good the video is released, I guess, but who really wants to watch a man die?

Without any sound it's hard to tell exactly what was going on, but he clearly ran from a traffic stop, crashed, and then exited the vehicle.  I don't know if he thought he was going to be able to run away, or if he was hoping to get shot, but you definitely aren't suppose to run OR exit your vehicle when you get pulled over.  Especially if you're visibly armed.  Looks like suicide by cop.

It looks to me like he has his hands out (sort of like up, but more like a "hold on there partner" gesture than a "I give up" gesture) and then he reaches for his weapon several times.  Without the audio it's had to say if he was saying "fuck the po-po!" or "I have a sidearm on my left hip and I'm going to lay it down on the ground slowly, please don't shoot me" and I think that context probably also matters.  It's also not clear to me which officer(s) shot him, or where, or how many times.

What bothers me about this video, though is that the dude then lays there on the snow for 10 minutes before getting any medical attention, and that may have cost him his life.  I mean I understand that there were other armed suspects in the vehicle and no safe way for a federal agent to offer first aid without making himself entirely vulnerable to hostile perps who just witnessed a friend get shot, but it still bothers me.  I don't know what the protocol is for tending to enemy wounded is in situations like this, but the man clearly wasn't killed instantly.  He died in the snow, or on the way to the hospital, it's hard to say. 

It seems the feds didn't bring an ambulance with them, just a prisoner transport van.  On the one hand, that's maybe a sign that they were expecting or hoping for a peaceful resolution, but given that there were like 25 armed angry people out there it seems clear that a team of trained medical personnel should have been on standby no more than a few minutes away.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Oregon Refuge Standoff
« Reply #116 on: January 28, 2016, 09:30:01 PM »
The unedited video is up on YouTube from the FBI.

http://youtu.be/aAGxDWKrjPQ

The interesting part starts about 8 minutes in when the white truck flees from the traffic stop.  In any other country, the truck would have been fired upon as it raced toward the roadblock.  Or it would have been riddled with bullets after the driver was shot while acting erratically and grabbing at his waist band while being held at gunpoint by armed federal officers.

I'm sure tomorrow someone will post a link to an 'insightful' article on thedumbthoughtproject.com about how the video is faked and even if it isn't the FBI are dishonest, blood thirsty monsters for not letting themselves get attacked when the fellow rushed at them. And if you think otherwise, we'll just have to disagree on what it means.

Drama, I worked for them at one time.  I can say with perfect honesty, they are just as flawed and prone to prejudice as anyone else.  And just as honest as the next guy, whether that is good or bad.  You have your prejudices as well, and in this case, they favor the cops.  I suspect that is not always the case.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Oregon Refuge Standoff
« Reply #117 on: January 28, 2016, 09:35:02 PM »

What bothers me about this video, though is that the dude then lays there on the snow for 10 minutes before getting any medical attention, and that may have cost him his life.  I mean I understand that there were other armed suspects in the vehicle and no safe way for a federal agent to offer first aid without making himself entirely vulnerable to hostile perps who just witnessed a friend get shot, but it still bothers me.  I don't know what the protocol is for tending to enemy wounded is in situations like this, but the man clearly wasn't killed instantly.  He died in the snow, or on the way to the hospital, it's hard to say. 

He was alive for at least another minute, as you can see his hand move a couple times.  Sadly, he was not going to get any attention until they knew that there was no one still hiding in the truck.  Officer safety does come first, and I can't fault them for that either.  I'd say that you are right, once it became obvious he wasn't going to make it into the woods, he chose suicide-by-cop.

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Oregon Refuge Standoff
« Reply #118 on: January 29, 2016, 06:20:07 AM »
The unedited video is up on YouTube from the FBI.

http://youtu.be/aAGxDWKrjPQ

The interesting part starts about 8 minutes in when the white truck flees from the traffic stop.  In any other country, the truck would have been fired upon as it raced toward the roadblock.  Or it would have been riddled with bullets after the driver was shot while acting erratically and grabbing at his waist band while being held at gunpoint by armed federal officers.

I'm sure tomorrow someone will post a link to an 'insightful' article on thedumbthoughtproject.com about how the video is faked and even if it isn't the FBI are dishonest, blood thirsty monsters for not letting themselves get attacked when the fellow rushed at them. And if you think otherwise, we'll just have to disagree on what it means.

Drama, I worked for them at one time.  I can say with perfect honesty, they are just as flawed and prone to prejudice as anyone else.  And just as honest as the next guy, whether that is good or bad.  You have your prejudices as well, and in this case, they favor the cops.  I suspect that is not always the case.

Yes, I agree that agents of law enforcement are not perfect and I generally try to apply some basic reason when trying to assess their actions when things go badly.

As I wrote earlier, the FBI had shown an enormous amount of patience with these wackos to resolve the situation peacefully. There is no evidence (even taking into account silly conspiracy articles) whatsoever that they (the leadership in charge) wanted the situation to escalate into a gun fight. Could there be a rogue agent who didn't care if all the wackos died. Possible. On the other hand, going rogue on such a high profile situation would be extremely stupid and counterproductive for one's career. I think it reasonable to assume that in most cases, people will behave in a way that favors their best interest. So in this case, I see very little reason to expect malicious behavior on the part of the FBI agents themselves. Stupidity on the other hand... one can never discount that possibility, which was why I only gave the FBI the benefit of the doubt and withheld final judgement when more concrete information about the shooting became available.

I'm not always a fan of the FBI, but in this case I think they deserve a lot of credit. We've seen what it looks like when they come in heavy handed and this wasn't it. Instead of escalating, they hung back, monitoring, gathering evidence, letting the militants come and go. It was frustrating for those of us who couldn't stand the arrogant wackos acting with impunity for several weeks, but it appears the strategy was effective in that it lulled the militants into a sense of complacency such that the leadership was able to be apprehended away from the main group and civilians with ALMOST no lives lost. The loss of life is unfortunate, but all in all I think this appears like it will go down as a success for the FBI, something I'm sure government officials really wanted after previous debacles like Waco and Ruby Ridge.

I just have to add. The militants and other wackos hate this government and act like we live in some kind of oppressive, totalitarian regime. We've seen what that looks like elsewhere in the world. Government agents would have simply steamrolled their way in with no real concern for loss of life. This wasn't it. I'm not always happy regarding what our government does and how authorities respond when challenged, but this is one instance where they got it right.

Jack

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4745
  • Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: Oregon Refuge Standoff
« Reply #119 on: January 29, 2016, 10:33:11 AM »
What bothers me about this video, though is that the dude then lays there on the snow for 10 minutes before getting any medical attention, and that may have cost him his life.  I mean I understand that there were other armed suspects in the vehicle and no safe way for a federal agent to offer first aid without making himself entirely vulnerable to hostile perps who just witnessed a friend get shot, but it still bothers me.  I don't know what the protocol is for tending to enemy wounded is in situations like this, but the man clearly wasn't killed instantly.  He died in the snow, or on the way to the hospital, it's hard to say. 

I agree with everything you wrote except for the part I bolded. I find it troubling that even people concerned about the correctness of police actions too easily slip into incorrectly characterizing citizens -- even ones accused of crimes -- as the "enemy" of the police. (To be clear: I'm not blaming sol for it; I'm commenting on the mood of society in general.) The objective of police should never be to defeat an enemy; it should be to correct unlawful behavior. Losing clear sight of that distinction is a problem in and of itself.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5340
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Oregon Refuge Standoff
« Reply #120 on: January 29, 2016, 11:16:23 AM »
troubling that even people concerned about the correctness of police actions too easily slip into incorrectly characterizing citizens -- even ones accused of crimes -- as the "enemy" of the police.

A fair point and duly noted.  I used the phrase somewhat flippantly in place of l active shooter or armed perpetrator, but I think the distinction is worth making.

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1382
  • Age: 185
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2024 (maybe?)
Re: Oregon Refuge Standoff
« Reply #121 on: February 01, 2016, 07:03:02 PM »
It continues.
https://news.vice.com/article/fbi-negotiates-as-defiant-holdouts-in-oregon-militia-standoff-demand-immunity

A few key points:
1. Regardless of what happened when Finicum died, it appears that the conspiracy theorists will find a way to make it more or different than it was. I think the discussion above represents a reasoned view of what happened. No winners in that one-sided gunfight.
2. The remaining occupiers seem to have a less than media-savvy spokesperson at this point.
Quote
"The objective was to see if the cops would really come and just kill everybody," he said. "If the feds knew that everybody was armed, and they want a peaceful resolution as they admit, they wouldn't ever come in charging with their guns blazing."
3. The FBI appears to have a more formal siege approach for the final four based on the comments of the lead negotiator. Also, it appears that cell service, power, etc have been disconnected over the weekend.

I wonder how long their snacks will last, and how they will respond to actual isolation and dwindling supplies. Will it make them up their crazy game, or weaken and tap out?

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Oregon Refuge Standoff
« Reply #122 on: February 01, 2016, 08:29:25 PM »
Jason Stapleton had much to say about all of this on his radio show today. 

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Oregon Refuge Standoff
« Reply #123 on: February 11, 2016, 07:28:14 AM »
Looks like this may be coming to an end, unless the arrest of Cliven Bundy puts a spanner in the works. I'm personally glad ole Clive is now seeing the inside of a cell, but it may cause the remaining four at the refuge to freak out and do something stupid.

Telecaster

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 843
Re: Oregon Refuge Standoff
« Reply #124 on: February 11, 2016, 10:27:09 AM »
It was smart of the cops to nab Cliven as he walked off a plane.  That way they knew he would be unarmed and unlikely to get the shoot out he wanted so much.   

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Oregon Refuge Standoff
« Reply #125 on: February 11, 2016, 11:40:50 AM »
It was smart of the cops to nab Cliven as he walked off a plane.  That way they knew he would be unarmed and unlikely to get the shoot out he wanted so much.

In retrospect, it was awfully stupid of Bundy to make a big deal about going there to protest. Even assuming he wasn't on some kind of watchlist, he basically announced to the FBI that he would be easy pickings. I think all the Bundys got overconfident and started to believe they were untouchable and the government has proven otherwise.

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1382
  • Age: 185
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2024 (maybe?)
Re: Oregon Refuge Standoff
« Reply #126 on: February 11, 2016, 12:20:42 PM »
Last holdouts now in custody. Cliven Bundy's charges apparently came out of Nevada, so the feds are likely taking advantage of an absurdly easy and low-risk time to take him in following up on the ranch fiasco. Hopefully the court cases will be quiet affairs.

Mostly, Harney County residents can start moving back towards a normal life.

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1382
  • Age: 185
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2024 (maybe?)
Re: Oregon Refuge Standoff
« Reply #127 on: February 16, 2016, 11:19:23 PM »
One of the best pieces I've read on this, and worth a read before the next round from Bundy-ites, the American Lands Council, or whatever guise they put on next.
https://www.hcn.org/articles/malheur-occupation-oregon-ammon-bundy-public-lands-essay

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Oregon Refuge Standoff
« Reply #128 on: February 17, 2016, 10:41:20 AM »
One of the best pieces I've read on this, and worth a read before the next round from Bundy-ites, the American Lands Council, or whatever guise they put on next.
https://www.hcn.org/articles/malheur-occupation-oregon-ammon-bundy-public-lands-essay

That was a very insightful article. Thanks for sharing.

Scandium

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1970
  • Location: EastCoast
Re: Oregon Refuge Standoff
« Reply #129 on: February 17, 2016, 11:57:24 AM »
I don't understand why this thing lasted so long?! If I went and "occupied" some federal building down in DC I'm pretty sure I'd have a bullet in my skull in an hour..

Cut the power, swat with night vision. This thing could have ended in a day.

Telecaster

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 843
Re: Oregon Refuge Standoff
« Reply #130 on: February 17, 2016, 12:41:11 PM »
I don't understand why this thing lasted so long?! If I went and "occupied" some federal building down in DC I'm pretty sure I'd have a bullet in my skull in an hour..

Cut the power, swat with night vision. This thing could have ended in a day.

It could have, but I believe the Feds did just right, for two reasons--really just one reason.   Namely, these guys wanted a shootout with the Feds.  If SWAT charges in, people were going to die, and very possibly some of them would have been the officers.   Not good.  Also, there was a lot of blowback after Waco from the conspiracy nutters.  Mcviegh blew up the Murrah Building in order to get "revenge" for Waco.  You don't want to give the crazies more ammunition.   And as a subset of all that, these guys were denied the shootout they wanted.  They went through all that trouble and didn't get anything they wanted at all.  Maybe some publicity.  But a lot of the publicity was mocking. 

Excellent article too, by the way. 

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1382
  • Age: 185
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2024 (maybe?)
Re: Oregon Refuge Standoff
« Reply #131 on: February 17, 2016, 07:18:54 PM »
So, this happened courtesy of Shawna Cox, one of the occupants of Finicum's vehicle during arrest. The court apparently threw it out in record time (apparently the basis was that it was civil issues being submitted to  a criminal court).
http://www.seditionists.com/shawna1.pdf

I expect this should be an interesting trial. Linking back to the previous article, it is easy to see how people with an obviously flimsy grasp of law and history (and grammar and math) can be looped into participating in these types of fringe movements by convincing personalities. The whole misguided adventure makes me sad.

Taran Wanderer

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 470
Re: Oregon Refuge Standoff
« Reply #132 on: February 17, 2016, 10:17:35 PM »
So she's saying that lawyers have made laws that are too complicated, thus elevating the position and power of lawyers and bar associations to the detriment of others?  She has a point.  But how does occupying a federal wildlife refuge constructively change that?

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Oregon Refuge Standoff
« Reply #133 on: February 18, 2016, 06:49:31 AM »
So she's saying that lawyers have made laws that are too complicated, thus elevating the position and power of lawyers and bar associations to the detriment of others?  She has a point.  But how does occupying a federal wildlife refuge constructively change that?

It doesn't. I kind of compare this to the nuclear weapon test site protests in the 80's and 90's. The only difference being that those people were exhibiting true civil disobedience and expected and wanted to get arrested to draw attention to their concerns. The yahoos in Oregon, however, seemed to want to get in a gunfight with the FBI and/or simply cause lots of trouble and then be held unaccountable for their illegal actions.

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1382
  • Age: 185
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2024 (maybe?)
Re: Oregon Refuge Standoff
« Reply #134 on: September 13, 2016, 04:45:14 PM »
So... the Bundy's are about to get their day in court, and I thought I'd bring this thread back from the dead.

An update on the latest and greatest:
https://www.hcn.org/articles/the-bundys-go-to-court

As a related topic, it is worth noting that the GOP platform this election cycle includes language supporting transfer of federal lands to local control. If you are not aware of this push, it is well worth reading up on. Other's opinions may vary on this, but I am personally very strongly against it for a number of practical and philosophical reasons. That is a tangent that would deserve its own thread, but is broader context for the Bundy trial if you are not already aware of it.
https://www.hcn.org/articles/2016-gop-platform-pushes-federal-land-transfers

Northwestie

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1224
Re: Oregon Refuge Standoff
« Reply #135 on: September 13, 2016, 05:14:47 PM »
Thanks.  I hope these clowns get the full range of felony convictions they deserve.  Papa Bundy owes over $1M in grazing fees - just using public property and refusing to pay the below market grazing fees that he signed a contract for.

His asshat son and their followers threatened federal workers, going as far as following them around town and to their houses, rummaging through files, destroying public property, and digging a trench through a known Indian burial area.  Real class act. 

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1382
  • Age: 185
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2024 (maybe?)
Re: Oregon Refuge Standoff
« Reply #136 on: October 27, 2016, 06:22:42 PM »
This is an unexpected court decision.
http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/10/oregon_standoff_verdicts_annou.html

Off on all charges. This is unexpected because the prosecution had video of stealing the federal cameras that they took themselves and posted for the world to see. Theft of federal property should have been a slam dunk. Sounds like a sympathetic jury. I'm very interested to read an amicus on this once the dust has settled.

wenchsenior

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1153
Re: Oregon Refuge Standoff
« Reply #137 on: October 27, 2016, 06:28:21 PM »
This is an unexpected court decision.
http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/10/oregon_standoff_verdicts_annou.html

Off on all charges. This is unexpected because the prosecution had video of stealing the federal cameras that they took themselves and posted for the world to see. Theft of federal property should have been a slam dunk. Sounds like a sympathetic jury. I'm very interested to read an amicus on this once the dust has settled.

What a revolting result.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5340
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Oregon Refuge Standoff
« Reply #138 on: October 27, 2016, 06:31:08 PM »
It sounds like it's only some of the folks, and only some of the charges.

And that the defense lawyer got tased for arguing they should be free to walk out of the courtroom, since they had just been acquitted of the charges for which they had been arrrested, and not specifically arrested for any of the other charges that have been brought but not tried.

edit: 
The jury was apparently not unanimous on the guilty verdict, which means they go free.  The specific charge above about stealing cameras, they admit they did it but are not guilty.  Stealing a federal pickup truck, they admit they did it but are not guilty.  Carrying firearms in a federal facility, they admit they did but are not guilty.

Why are they not guilty?  It seems the defense argued they weren't trying to take over the wildlife refuge, they just showed up in order to have a peaceful protest and suddenly everyone else left.  They had to be armed so they wouldn't be unlawfully arrested, they claim.  They weren't trying to prevent federal employees from doing their jobs by standing over them with guns, the employees just misinterpreted their intent.

The judge previously dismissed one juror because he seemed to think they were guilty.  I'm not sure how that works.  Isn't that your job when you're on a jury?

Two more trials are upcoming.  Hopefully they will not be a farce.
« Last Edit: October 27, 2016, 06:51:56 PM by sol »

Radagast

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 592
  • Location: West of the Mountains, East of the Sea
Re: Oregon Refuge Standoff
« Reply #139 on: October 27, 2016, 07:09:06 PM »
Honestly, I was not surprised by this result. For one thing, the conspiracy charge was pretty vague. For another, the prosecution seemed to assume the jury would be shocked and outraged by events and that would be sufficient to get a guilty verdict. My own skimming of the case did not find the hard evidence in the prosecution's argument very convincing, and I was biased toward guilty. Also I think the group prosecution probably made it harder to get a guilty verdict.

In the future the feds will probably have to go to greater lengths and show clear damages involving personal interaction with these types of protesters. For example, employees assaulted showing up to work, notices of trespass served in person, etc. Either way the not guilty verdict is a little concerning. If any group of armed yahoos can show up and shut down a government office indefinitely and be acquitted the government will cease to function.

Anyhow, they still have to make it through Nevada which will be harder. Having a gun is one thing, but pointing it at a law enforcement officer to prevent him doing his duty is a whole different thing.


Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Oregon Refuge Standoff
« Reply #140 on: October 27, 2016, 07:12:19 PM »
It sounds like it's only some of the folks, and only some of the charges.

And that the defense lawyer got tased for arguing they should be free to walk out of the courtroom, since they had just been acquitted of the charges for which they had been arrrested, and not specifically arrested for any of the other charges that have been brought but not tried.

edit: 
The jury was apparently not unanimous on the guilty verdict, which means they go free.  The specific charge above about stealing cameras, they admit they did it but are not guilty.  Stealing a federal pickup truck, they admit they did it but are not guilty.  Carrying firearms in a federal facility, they admit they did but are not guilty.

Why are they not guilty?  It seems the defense argued they weren't trying to take over the wildlife refuge, they just showed up in order to have a peaceful protest and suddenly everyone else left.  They had to be armed so they wouldn't be unlawfully arrested, they claim.  They weren't trying to prevent federal employees from doing their jobs by standing over them with guns, the employees just misinterpreted their intent.

The judge previously dismissed one juror because he seemed to think they were guilty.  I'm not sure how that works.  Isn't that your job when you're on a jury?

Two more trials are upcoming.  Hopefully they will not be a farce.

I think (one of) the reason(s) the lawyer may have been arguing that they should be let go is that they have been held without bail for months for basically property crimes.

Fascinating that the Jury basically nullified the government's charges.  Be a case to study, for sure.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5340
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Oregon Refuge Standoff
« Reply #141 on: October 27, 2016, 07:16:12 PM »
In the future the feds will probably have to go to greater lengths and show clear damages involving personal interaction with these types of protesters.

Right, that's exactly the problem.  The feds too effectively de-escalated this situation.

They're already talking about how to handle the coming wave of federal facility "peaceful occupations" by armed Trump supporters after the election, and they're not saying "well we should wait it out and try to avoid conflict like we did at Malheur."  They're saying "next time we send in the SWAT team and record video of them shooting at federal officers."  Since that's the only way to get convictions out of them, apparently.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5340
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Oregon Refuge Standoff
« Reply #142 on: October 28, 2016, 12:25:52 PM »
Today's official communications to federal employees about the verdict are depressing.  Basically, they're saying that armed invasions of federal workplaces are likely to be a recurring problem in the coming years, and they don't yet have any solutions for protecting the safety of federal employees my safety.
« Last Edit: October 28, 2016, 02:19:51 PM by sol »

wenchsenior

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1153
Re: Oregon Refuge Standoff
« Reply #143 on: October 28, 2016, 12:42:47 PM »
Today's official communications to federal employees about the verdict are depressing.  Basically, they're saying that armed invasions of federal workplaces are likely to be a recurring problem in the coming years, and they don't yet have any solutions for protecting the safety of federal employees.

:braces self for DH's epic foulness of mood when he gets home:

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1382
  • Age: 185
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2024 (maybe?)
Re: Oregon Refuge Standoff
« Reply #144 on: October 28, 2016, 01:00:43 PM »
Today's official communications to federal employees about the verdict are depressing.  Basically, they're saying that armed invasions of federal workplaces are likely to be a recurring problem in the coming years, and they don't yet have any solutions for protecting the safety of federal employees.

Ugh. Should maybe ask the NRA for assistance and see if they recommend arming every federal employee to protect against armed people entering and taking over their buildings. It would be fun seeing the NRA recommend arming the government.

(joke, maybe too soon. I don't think that would be a good solution.).

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5340
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Oregon Refuge Standoff
« Reply #145 on: October 28, 2016, 01:10:53 PM »
ask the NRA for assistance and see if they recommend arming every federal employee to protect against armed people entering and taking over their buildings.

With exceptions for law enforcement and some outdoorsy jobs, federal employees are expressly forbidden from carrying open or concealed firearms at work.  It came up in a series of memos, back when those yahoos invaded the wildlife refuge.

Is your workplace any different?  Lots of places prohibit on-duty employees from arming themselves.

NoStacheOhio

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1565
  • Location: Cleveland
Re: Oregon Refuge Standoff
« Reply #146 on: October 28, 2016, 01:42:39 PM »
ask the NRA for assistance and see if they recommend arming every federal employee to protect against armed people entering and taking over their buildings.

With exceptions for law enforcement and some outdoorsy jobs, federal employees are expressly forbidden from carrying open or concealed firearms at work.  It came up in a series of memos, back when those yahoos invaded the wildlife refuge.

Is your workplace any different?  Lots of places prohibit on-duty employees from arming themselves.

Depending on the state, any protesters may run afoul gun-free zone laws. In Ohio, it's unlawful to carry a gun in a government building, presumably many other states as well. At the very least, they would have very clear probable cause for arrest, and conviction should be a slam dunk.
The first step is acknowledging you have a problem, right?

https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/journals/digging-out-of-a-hole/

Mississippi Mudstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1523
  • Age: 33
  • Location: Danielsville, GA
    • A Riving Home - Ramblings of a Recusant Woodworker
Re: Oregon Refuge Standoff
« Reply #147 on: October 28, 2016, 01:48:34 PM »
ask the NRA for assistance and see if they recommend arming every federal employee to protect against armed people entering and taking over their buildings.

With exceptions for law enforcement and some outdoorsy jobs, federal employees are expressly forbidden from carrying open or concealed firearms at work.  It came up in a series of memos, back when those yahoos invaded the wildlife refuge.

Is your workplace any different?  Lots of places prohibit on-duty employees from arming themselves.

Data point: I've worked for one state government and three companies. The state government and two of the three companies had weapons-free policies for employees on the job. The company that had no policy (at least, not that I was aware of) was a small outfit and it probably just hadn't ever come up as an issue. By the way, the companies I've worked for are forestry companies - the employees spend much of their time out in the woods, not in an office.

Back to the topic at hand: I'm beyond baffled that these nitwits were acquitted. I do not like where this judgment will lead.
Never. Give up.

My Woodworking Blog

zephyr911

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3576
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Northern Alabama
  • I'm just happy to be here. \m/ ^_^ \m/
Re: Oregon Refuge Standoff
« Reply #148 on: October 28, 2016, 01:51:08 PM »
Today's official communications to federal employees about the verdict are depressing.  Basically, they're saying that armed invasions of federal workplaces are likely to be a recurring problem in the coming years, and they don't yet have any solutions for protecting the safety of federal employees.
How about ensuring legal consequences for those who do it? I'm so fucking pissed right now. This is like the DoD investing millions in "culture change" to help bystanders prevent rape, but no effort at all to actually increase convictions....
I am not a cog. I am an organizational lubricant.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Oregon Refuge Standoff
« Reply #149 on: October 28, 2016, 10:31:58 PM »
Today's official communications to federal employees about the verdict are depressing.  Basically, they're saying that armed invasions of federal workplaces are likely to be a recurring problem in the coming years, and they don't yet have any solutions for protecting the safety of federal employees.

Ugh. Should maybe ask the NRA for assistance and see if they recommend arming every federal employee to protect against armed people entering and taking over their buildings. It would be fun seeing the NRA recommend arming the government.

(joke, maybe too soon. I don't think that would be a good solution.).

Seems like the de-escalation worked to keep everyone safe. The only person who was injured was an occupier. If you have a better suggestion than gun free zones, I'm sure people would like to hear them.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM