Author Topic: Oregon Refuge Standoff  (Read 16845 times)

Taran Wanderer

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 464
Re: Oregon Refuge Standoff
« Reply #50 on: January 15, 2016, 06:58:29 PM »
For the record, I was actually at the site of this occupation less than a year ago, and I can verify that it is not a garage. It is a bona fide, though small, visitor center, offices, and other buildings that serve as the headquarters of the disputed wildlife refuge.

MoonShadow, I feel like you have gone on the attack toward me, beltim, and others, accusing or implying that we have political leanings that may be opposite of yours, and doing so without a solid basis. If I were to generalize, I would say that this is typical of the right on today's political climate - not able to even engage in a discussion without throwing around accusations. But I don't want to generalize, and I don't know what your political leanings are, so I'm willing to let it all be water under the bridge.

My two main points remain:
1.  Threatening violence is not acceptable.
2.  We need a civil conversation about what to do with public lands to preserve the viability of rural communities while sustaining ecosystem benefits, as those ecosystems ultimately support us and enhance our quality of life. And economics are important too because I live in a rural community and rural poverty pisses me off.

Sorry if that last comment pisses off anyone who likes rural poverty...

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Oregon Refuge Standoff
« Reply #51 on: January 15, 2016, 07:26:50 PM »

MoonShadow, I feel like you have gone on the attack toward me, beltim, and others, accusing or implying that we have political leanings that may be opposite of yours, and doing so without a solid basis.
Your persecption is incorrect. I have attacked no one. 

Quote
If I were to generalize, I would say that this is typical of the right on today's political climate - not able to even engage in a discussion without throwing around accusations.
I would have to agree with this perspective, and that habit seems to be particularly prevalent among members of this particular forum.  Something that intrigues me, since it's not even a political forum.
Quote

 But I don't want to generalize,

You still did, despite your declaration of contrary desires.

Quote
and I don't know what your political leanings are, so I'm willing to let it all be water under the bridge.
I have actually made my own political leanings well known on this forum, actually.  I'm a libertarian, so I'm quite used to being in a minority.

Quote

My two main points remain:
1.  Threatening violence is not acceptable.

Wait, in what context?  Are we still talking about the Oregon stand-off, or something else?  Because at it's root, all political activity is, ultimately, supported by a credible threat of violence.  That is why the word for police action is enforcement.  You can say nice things like "threatening violence is not acceptable", but you cannot remove the gun from the politics.
Quote
2.  We need a civil conversation about what to do with public lands to preserve the viability of rural communities while sustaining ecosystem benefits, as those ecosystems ultimately support us and enhance our quality of life. And economics are important too because I live in a rural community and rural poverty pisses me off.
Okay, but that has exactly zero to do with this event in Oregon.  This is, at root, about who "owns" public wilderness; the states or the federal government.  If we were to dive into the history of the lands in question, we would discover that those who have an original claim to the property isn't either the state or the federal government, but a collection of homesteading ranchers who agreed amongst themselves that these lands were a common grazing area.  Those claims predate the statehood of Oregon.  Even the idea that it was an Indian reservation is bullshit, because they never actually lived on the land, as far as can be determined.  It might have been intended as an Indian reservation, but that never happened either.


Taran Wanderer

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 464
Re: Oregon Refuge Standoff
« Reply #52 on: January 15, 2016, 07:46:01 PM »
Well, I tried to lighten it up with a little tongue in cheek joking, but apparently you didn't get it. Relax, dude.

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1326
  • Age: 185
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2024 (maybe?)
Re: Oregon Refuge Standoff
« Reply #53 on: January 15, 2016, 08:03:59 PM »
Quote
2.  We need a civil conversation about what to do with public lands to preserve the viability of rural communities while sustaining ecosystem benefits, as those ecosystems ultimately support us and enhance our quality of life. And economics are important too because I live in a rural community and rural poverty pisses me off.
Okay, but that has exactly zero to do with this event in Oregon.  This is, at root, about who "owns" public wilderness; the states or the federal government.  If we were to dive into the history of the lands in question, we would discover that those who have an original claim to the property isn't either the state or the federal government, but a collection of homesteading ranchers who agreed amongst themselves that these lands were a common grazing area.  Those claims predate the statehood of Oregon.  Even the idea that it was an Indian reservation is bullshit, because they never actually lived on the land, as far as can be determined.  It might have been intended as an Indian reservation, but that never happened either.

Is has to do about both topics. The first is something that takes collaboration and discussion to move forward. Efforts such as the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement are good examples of the workable agreements for multiple stakeholders that can come out of working together in earnest (and then be foiled by politics, which is another issue).
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-leslie-klamath-river-agreement-20151218-story.html

I think trying to claim Native Americans didn't live on this land and surrounding lands is an uphill battle, starting with the petroglyphs to be found on the refuge itself. The mistreatment of the Native Americans in this area is shameful for our country. The deep heritage of this area is not really a part of the current issue, but we can at least respect history.

Territory ownership between pre-Territory, territory, and statehood were negotiated at the time of statehood. That water is long under the bridge (except that last 5000 acres currently being allotted based on the original statehood negotiations). 

The homesteading act was a massive Federal handout. That it attracted many who generations later hate the Federal Government for still owning land strikes me as strange.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Oregon Refuge Standoff
« Reply #54 on: January 15, 2016, 09:32:24 PM »

I think trying to claim Native Americans didn't live on this land and surrounding lands is an uphill battle, starting with the petroglyphs to be found on the refuge itself.


Perhaps I wasn't clear.  There is no evidence that natives were inhabiting the area when settlers arrived, nor was the property occupied when it was considered an Indian reservation.

Quote
The mistreatment of the Native Americans in this area is shameful for our country.
If you mean, regarding the topic of land ownership and access rights, I'd agree. Personally, I'm not familiar with specifics regarding the history in the region in Oregon.

Quote
The deep heritage of this area is not really a part of the current issue, but we can at least respect history.

I'm not sure that I agree that the history of the area isn't part of this conflict.  If the native tribes have a legitimate claim to the land, then they should assert it.  If so, then whether or not the land is currently a nature preserve, or rightly should be property of the state, county or individual families; would be entirely immaterial.  If it's native land, it's native land; and they can do with it what they please.

Quote
Territory ownership between pre-Territory, territory, and statehood were negotiated at the time of statehood. That water is long under the bridge (except that last 5000 acres currently being allotted based on the original statehood negotiations). 
Negotiated between which parties?  Did they represent the true owners of the property?  That, also, is in contest.
Quote

The homesteading act was a massive Federal handout. That it attracted many who generations later hate the Federal Government for still owning land strikes me as strange.

I was not referring to the homesteading act, but the actual act of homesteading.  That is, to be the first person known to assert first claim to an unimproved wilderness, without contest from others.  It's my understanding that the original homesteaders, whether or not they had the support of Congress at the time, did not encounter native tribes living in the area.

bacchi

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1938
Re: Oregon Refuge Standoff
« Reply #55 on: January 15, 2016, 09:36:42 PM »
The Hammonds knowingly committed arson in 2001 to cover up another crime (illegal hunting). There were several witnesses.

The only witness of note was a nephew who testified that they did the poaching at that time.

There were several witnesses, including a hunting guide and the guide's clients. Whether they were witnesses "of note" hardly matters, since they convinced the jury in Pendleton, OR.

Quote

Honestly, if you had several hundred acres of land, why would you poach on government land? 

Honestly, I don't know. Honestly, I doubt you know either.

Quote
The details matter, not what-ifs.

Yep, the details do matter. In this case, they set fire to land that wasn't theirs to burn. That's why they're in prison for arson.

Quote
The Hammonds were not charged with terrorism because they make poor decisions about fire control. 

The Hammonds weren't charged with terrorism.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Oregon Refuge Standoff
« Reply #56 on: January 15, 2016, 10:08:21 PM »

Quote
The details matter, not what-ifs.

Yep, the details do matter. In this case, they set fire to land that wasn't theirs to burn. That's why they're in prison for arson.


They are not, nor would they be, in prison for arson alone.  Even if they were poaching.  Arson requires a deliberate attempt to cause harm to property and/or life.  Simply burning a wild area would likely only incur a fine, which the Hammonds did actually pay. 

Quote
Quote
The Hammonds were not charged with terrorism because they make poor decisions about fire control. 

The Hammonds weren't charged with terrorism.

Um, yes they were, because the BLM wanted to make an example out of them, buy using the 5 year minimum sentence as a bludgeon.  The original judge balked at the idea of charging them with terrorism, and refused to impose the 5 year minimum even after conviction.  He was quoted as saying that 5 years would be cruel and unusual punishment, and a gross misuse of the federal statute.  He sentenced one to 3 months and the other to one year, both of whom served.  Only after they were released, and the original federal judge retired from the bench, did the BLM file an appeal to have the minimum sentences imposed.

http://www.capitalpress.com/Oregon/20151007/judge-sends-oregon-ranchers-back-to-prison

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Oregon Refuge Standoff
« Reply #57 on: January 15, 2016, 10:10:11 PM »
The Hammonds knowingly committed arson in 2001 to cover up another crime (illegal hunting). There were several witnesses.

The only witness of note was a nephew who testified that they did the poaching at that time.

There were several witnesses, including a hunting guide and the guide's clients. Whether they were witnesses "of note" hardly matters, since they convinced the jury in Pendleton, OR.


I'm going to have to ask you to support that statement with references, because that doesn't jive with what I know of the case.  My understanding is that there likely would not have been a case without the nephew.

bacchi

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1938
Re: Oregon Refuge Standoff
« Reply #58 on: January 15, 2016, 10:22:14 PM »
Quote
The Hammonds weren't charged with terrorism.

Um, yes they were, because the BLM wanted to make an example out of them, buy using the 5 year minimum sentence as a bludgeon.

No, dude, they weren't. Look at the original court papers. They were charged under 18 US 844f. That statute does not mention terrorism. It does, however, mention 5 years as a minimum for destroying federal property with fire. They were not charged with terrorism, period.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/844

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1656649.html

Eta: Reading the court transcript, there is some interesting conversation between the judges and lawyers about the mandatory minimum and terrorism. While they weren't charged with terrorism, some terrorism law (1996) might have created mandatory sentences for destroying government property.

« Last Edit: January 15, 2016, 10:44:53 PM by bacchi »

bacchi

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1938
Re: Oregon Refuge Standoff
« Reply #59 on: January 15, 2016, 10:35:13 PM »
The Hammonds knowingly committed arson in 2001 to cover up another crime (illegal hunting). There were several witnesses.

The only witness of note was a nephew who testified that they did the poaching at that time.

There were several witnesses, including a hunting guide and the guide's clients. Whether they were witnesses "of note" hardly matters, since they convinced the jury in Pendleton, OR.


I'm going to have to ask you to support that statement with references, because that doesn't jive with what I know of the case.  My understanding is that there likely would not have been a case without the nephew.

Gordon Choate, Dennis Nelson, and Dustin Nelson all testified at the trial. They had to flee the fire that the Hammonds set.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Oregon Refuge Standoff
« Reply #60 on: January 15, 2016, 10:42:11 PM »
The Hammonds knowingly committed arson in 2001 to cover up another crime (illegal hunting). There were several witnesses.

The only witness of note was a nephew who testified that they did the poaching at that time.

There were several witnesses, including a hunting guide and the guide's clients. Whether they were witnesses "of note" hardly matters, since they convinced the jury in Pendleton, OR.


I'm going to have to ask you to support that statement with references, because that doesn't jive with what I know of the case.  My understanding is that there likely would not have been a case without the nephew.

Gordon Choate, Dennis Nelson, and Dustin Nelson all testified at the trial. They had to flee the fire that the Hammonds set.

I'm not surprised that they had to flee it.  The Hammonds never denied that they set it, or that it got away from them, or that it left their property.  This statement doesn't contradict their version of events, nor is it a reference. 

bacchi

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1938
Re: Oregon Refuge Standoff
« Reply #61 on: January 15, 2016, 10:48:31 PM »
I'm going to have to ask you to support that statement with references, because that doesn't jive with what I know of the case.  My understanding is that there likely would not have been a case without the nephew.

Gordon Choate, Dennis Nelson, and Dustin Nelson all testified at the trial. They had to flee the fire that the Hammonds set.

I'm not surprised that they had to flee it.  The Hammonds never denied that they set it, or that it got away from them, or that it left their property.  This statement doesn't contradict their version of events, nor is it a reference.

Their testimony does.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=choate+nelson+hammond+oregon

You can also google case 6:10-cr-60066 and read up.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Oregon Refuge Standoff
« Reply #62 on: January 15, 2016, 10:54:54 PM »
Quote
The Hammonds weren't charged with terrorism.

Um, yes they were, because the BLM wanted to make an example out of them, buy using the 5 year minimum sentence as a bludgeon.

No, dude, they weren't. Look at the original court papers. They were charged under 18 US 844f. That statute does not mention terrorism. It does, however, mention 5 years as a minimum for destroying federal property with fire. They were not charged with terrorism, period.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/844

Um, did you actually read that?  That is a terrorism statute, dude.  Malicious intent is a specific assumption of the statute.  Just because the word "terrorism" isn't in there, you claim that they were not charged with using arson as a weapon for malicious intent.  Do you really believe that wasn't intended as an anti-terrorism statute?  Do we have to argue over what the meaning of "is" is as well?  This sounds like Clinton saying, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman!"

Sometimes I think some of you guys really go out of your way to pretend that your argument hasn't already been undercut.  I reiterate, the motives of the Bundys, and the Hammonds, matter a great deal.  Just as the motives of Occupy mattered a great deal.  Keep trying to make distinctions between the movements, I find the flailing somewhat entertaining.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Oregon Refuge Standoff
« Reply #63 on: January 15, 2016, 10:55:29 PM »
I'm going to have to ask you to support that statement with references, because that doesn't jive with what I know of the case.  My understanding is that there likely would not have been a case without the nephew.

Gordon Choate, Dennis Nelson, and Dustin Nelson all testified at the trial. They had to flee the fire that the Hammonds set.

I'm not surprised that they had to flee it.  The Hammonds never denied that they set it, or that it got away from them, or that it left their property.  This statement doesn't contradict their version of events, nor is it a reference.

Their testimony does.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=choate+nelson+hammond+oregon

You can also google case 6:10-cr-60066 and read up.

I'll have to do that next week.

bacchi

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1938
Re: Oregon Refuge Standoff
« Reply #64 on: January 15, 2016, 11:05:16 PM »
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/844

Um, did you actually read that?  That is a terrorism statute, dude.  Malicious intent is a specific assumption of the statute.  Just because the word "terrorism" isn't in there, you claim that they were not charged with using arson as a weapon for malicious intent.  Do you really believe that wasn't intended as an anti-terrorism statute?

Title 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

It's about setting fire to (and using explosives on) government property. Terrorism is chapter 113b, among others.

I know it fits your narrative but they weren't charged with terrorism. Sorry.
« Last Edit: January 15, 2016, 11:16:01 PM by bacchi »

bacchi

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1938
Re: Oregon Refuge Standoff
« Reply #65 on: January 15, 2016, 11:57:51 PM »
I reiterate, the motives of the Bundys, and the Hammonds, matter a great deal.  Just as the motives of Occupy mattered a great deal.

I think there's some truth to this. There are some underlying themes, though their methods are obviously different. Both groups feel aggrieved -- one side blames the uber-rich and the other blames the government. Ultimately, it's about a declining standard of living.

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1326
  • Age: 185
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2024 (maybe?)
Re: Oregon Refuge Standoff
« Reply #66 on: January 16, 2016, 11:50:14 AM »
Posting videos like this (and with journalists as witnesses) should make the damage of public property charges pretty easy for the prosecution if/when that time comes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvCAxGmDq9k

These cameras were apparently about 6 miles from the refuge. They have apparently never used a highway webcam to check road conditions. If their only goal was to disable the cameras (as indicated by their offer to give them back to the FBI who almost certainly did not install them), simply putting a sticker over the window would have been far simpler, faster and safer... but not as good a show for the cameras clicking away.

As to the FDLS roots: That likely plays a role for the Bundys and some of their compatriots. However, I think this issue is not a Mormon issue so much as a control of land issue that happens to overlap with areas that tend to be conservative (and include more than just Mormons). The more conservative modes of culture and thought may influence how things play out, but are unlikely to actually be the cause.

Changes in our understanding of land stewardship and environmental impacts has changed concurrent with urbanization in our nation. It is unfortunate that those parallel trends are being conflated. We have a responsibility to manage land properly especially our public lands. Things like riparian buffers and evaluation of impacts prior to changes in land use (logging, large construction, etc) are absolute no-brainers from a technical perspective. However, changing best practices also changes what should be done with a given parcel of land. That can be the number of cattle grazing in a quarter quarter section of public land, it can be how close a private citizen can log net to a stream so that they do not adversely impact their downstream neighbors or a shared resource (salmon is the big one here in the PNW). This plays out across many scenarios from landslide hazards to climate change. Times change and those changes will cause people to chafe where it impacts their way of life. In parallel to that, we have a system of laws and a constitution that are the rules our society has agreed to play by (and a process to change them). Some of the issues raised in previous thread come down to a conflict between different portions of the law related to public and private property rights vs public trust doctrine and environmental regulations. I expect the Bundys would chafe just as much if the laws impacting them were locally generated, but would feel less powerless if there was someone behind a desk they could yell at about it in the next town over instead of a large bureaucracy in some distant locale. But that doesn't make the policy right or wrong, or necessarily mean that Federal control of some lands is incorrect.

Jack

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4745
  • Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: Oregon Refuge Standoff
« Reply #67 on: January 19, 2016, 04:36:28 PM »
I'm not sure that I agree that the history of the area isn't part of this conflict.  If the native tribes have a legitimate claim to the land, then they should assert it.

Native tribes have been asserting it, continuously, for literally hundreds of years. In the best case scenario, their claims get disregarded by the racist US court system and Bureau of Indian Affairs.

And the worst case? Well, the worst case is genocide.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Oregon Refuge Standoff
« Reply #68 on: January 19, 2016, 07:11:34 PM »
I'm not sure that I agree that the history of the area isn't part of this conflict.  If the native tribes have a legitimate claim to the land, then they should assert it.

Native tribes have been asserting it, continuously, for literally hundreds of years. In the best case scenario, their claims get disregarded by the racist US court system and Bureau of Indian Affairs.

And the worst case? Well, the worst case is genocide.

Yes, this is true enough in general.  I was speaking about this particular portion of land specifically.  Do any native tribes lay claim to that land today, and what evidence do they provide to support their position?  I'm not a tribe member myself, and neither was my mother, grandfather or great-grandmother at least.  My great-grandmother was (supposedly, there is not actual evidence) raised & educated in a Christan mission orphanage in the Appalachian mountains.  Another problem with establishing a claim in the Western states is that native tribes were mostly nomadic west of the Mississippi River, while they were mostly agricultural East of the Mississippi River.  It's more than a bit difficult to establish ownership of a portion of land when the concept of land ownership was foreign to your forefathers a century ago; just proving that your great-great-grandfather spent a summer camping in the area doesn't really count as homesteading under any legal standard that I know of.  I have very little native in my background, but the idea of land ownership was not foreign to them, nor was the concept of national identity by conquest; so they owned farms of their own, and called themselves Americans a century ago.

This is the most likely tribe my great-grandmother would have come from...

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

...but records of orphaned Indian girls, circa 1870, being what they are; none of this can be certain.  I'd say that any claim that a Western tribe could have in Oregon would need to be quite a bit stronger than what my great-grandmother could produce in order to have any chance to trump the claims following the Homesteading Act; the systemic racism of the  Bureau of Indian Affairs notwithstanding.  Did you know that the BIA was a test case for the welfare method of subjugation?  The book, The Starfish & the Spider: The Unstoppable Power of Leaderless Organizations has a couple chapters dedicated to the BIA & how they brought the Apache to eventual defeat with this method.  I highly recommend it, even though it's largely not about Apache indians nor the BIA.


Jack

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4745
  • Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: Oregon Refuge Standoff
« Reply #69 on: January 20, 2016, 07:08:14 AM »
I was speaking about this particular portion of land specifically.  Do any native tribes lay claim to that land today, and what evidence do they provide to support their position?

Yes, the Paiutes, as I mentioned before.

Another problem with establishing a claim in the Western states is that native tribes were mostly nomadic west of the Mississippi River, while they were mostly agricultural East of the Mississippi River.

That's not a problem; they simply own the entire extent of their range. And if said range overlaps with other tribes, they own it collectively.

Furthermore, even if it's complicated to hash out ownership between tribes, it's crystal clear that any or all of them have a claim that precedes any Europeans.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Oregon Refuge Standoff
« Reply #70 on: January 20, 2016, 12:03:11 PM »

Another problem with establishing a claim in the Western states is that native tribes were mostly nomadic west of the Mississippi River, while they were mostly agricultural East of the Mississippi River.

That's not a problem; they simply own the entire extent of their range. And if said range overlaps with other tribes, they own it collectively.

Furthermore, even if it's complicated to hash out ownership between tribes, it's crystal clear that any or all of them have a claim that precedes any Europeans.

I'm afraid that claim doesn't fly.  Nomadic tribes don't typically improve or work the land, and that is a requirement for a homesteading claim.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8344
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Oregon Refuge Standoff
« Reply #71 on: January 20, 2016, 12:49:01 PM »
One could argue that most human occupation doesn't improve the land.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Oregon Refuge Standoff
« Reply #72 on: January 20, 2016, 01:12:43 PM »
One could argue that most human occupation doesn't improve the land.

Well, you could make that argument, but "improvement" in this context has a well defined legal meaning.  I.E., that your nomadic campers built something with their time, resources & labor that was intended to stay at that locale for their eventual return.  A non-tent-like home, a tool shed, a road,  even a cleared area for public gatherings.  But if they never made anything not portable while there, they didn't homestead the property in any real sense, nor under any legal system the world has ever known.  And yes, homesteading of wilderness was a principle that Eastern native tribes recognized well before the arrival of Europeans, and has a lot to do with why the  Wampanoags did not object to the arrival of the pilgrims, for they were homesteading a town that had been wiped out by disease, so there wasn't any living claims.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8344
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Oregon Refuge Standoff
« Reply #73 on: January 20, 2016, 01:18:24 PM »
One could argue that some people on this board are too argumentative to enjoy a joke, however small.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Oregon Refuge Standoff
« Reply #74 on: January 20, 2016, 02:09:32 PM »
One could argue that some people on this board are too argumentative to enjoy a joke, however small.

:p

This isn't that thread, jokes are off topic!

Telecaster

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 821
Re: Oregon Refuge Standoff
« Reply #75 on: January 20, 2016, 03:14:20 PM »
Papa bear,

No, they don't take the land... they just dictate that certain areas are to only be used in certain ways. you still 'own' the land, so they have determined no compensation is due, they just get to tell you what you can do with it. I don't have an issue with eminent domain, as it is an important thing for society as a whole to install infastructure, etc. What's happening with the DFW and such is a different thing.

Alot of those leases are older than the federal govt's handling of that land. The people who were leasing it have priory on that land, but as long as you qualify I think anyone can.

They are still leases.   My family has ranched the Colorado river area of Arizona for longer than the Bundys, so I fully understand the issues there.  If your lively hood is dependent upon a certain usage I think that has to hold higher weight in the conversation than if someone wants to use the same land for bird watching.  And there are complicated issues like capital improvements, the range rights belong to the estate, etc, etc.  There is a lot when you unpack it.  There are not many easy dividing lines. 

That said, they are still leases.  If you own a restaurant the the landlord wants to do something else with the building and doesn't renew the lease then you are out of luck, even if you paid for the the tenant improvements.  That's the nature of leases.   Sometimes leases change and the leasholder has to adapt.  The difference is, in the case the lessor (the government) has to accept input from the lessee.  That's how democracy works. 

 And both the Bundys and Hammonds have been shitty tenants.   The Bundys have been ranching on public land far beyond their leases, and the Hammonds have done similar things, not even including the arson and the poaching.  If you stick your finger in your landlord's eye long enough they will want you gone.  Idiots like the Bundys and the Hammonds hurt the legitimate operators.   They do have some legit points, but by being assholes they drown out the rational voices.  If the Bundys and Hammonds had acted in some way vaguely resembling adult behavior everybody would be better off--especially ranchers and other people who need access to public lands for their livelihood.   

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1326
  • Age: 185
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2024 (maybe?)
Re: Oregon Refuge Standoff
« Reply #76 on: January 20, 2016, 04:50:18 PM »
Papa bear,

No, they don't take the land... they just dictate that certain areas are to only be used in certain ways. you still 'own' the land, so they have determined no compensation is due, they just get to tell you what you can do with it. I don't have an issue with eminent domain, as it is an important thing for society as a whole to install infastructure, etc. What's happening with the DFW and such is a different thing.

Alot of those leases are older than the federal govt's handling of that land. The people who were leasing it have priory on that land, but as long as you qualify I think anyone can.

They are still leases.   My family has ranched the Colorado river area of Arizona for longer than the Bundys, so I fully understand the issues there.  If your lively hood is dependent upon a certain usage I think that has to hold higher weight in the conversation than if someone wants to use the same land for bird watching.  And there are complicated issues like capital improvements, the range rights belong to the estate, etc, etc.  There is a lot when you unpack it.  There are not many easy dividing lines. 

That said, they are still leases.  If you own a restaurant the the landlord wants to do something else with the building and doesn't renew the lease then you are out of luck, even if you paid for the the tenant improvements.  That's the nature of leases.   Sometimes leases change and the leasholder has to adapt.  The difference is, in the case the lessor (the government) has to accept input from the lessee.  That's how democracy works. 

 And both the Bundys and Hammonds have been shitty tenants.   The Bundys have been ranching on public land far beyond their leases, and the Hammonds have done similar things, not even including the arson and the poaching.  If you stick your finger in your landlord's eye long enough they will want you gone.  Idiots like the Bundys and the Hammonds hurt the legitimate operators.   They do have some legit points, but by being assholes they drown out the rational voices.  If the Bundys and Hammonds had acted in some way vaguely resembling adult behavior everybody would be better off--especially ranchers and other people who need access to public lands for their livelihood.   

Thanks for this point of view.

One of the things I've been having a hard time getting my head around in a specific way is if the changes in land management coming down from the federal level, and as as second issue how those are being implemented as the staff level are reasonable. I think our understanding of sustainable land management has evolved significantly over time, and does not always agree with prior standards of practice. Issues such as cross-species impacts on bighorn sheep in arid regions, impacts on riparian habitat, sustainable herd sizes for vegetation, and management of the fire cycle and invasive species are all areas where our understanding has evolved over time. That said, I can understand how a technically defensible "new" management concept could meet friction at the implementation level simply because it is change, because the way in which it is implemented is cumbersome, chews away at thin profit margins, seems unreasonable becauase the cause-effect relationship is indirect, or because the local land manager (or rancher) is simply an asshole. I've also seen land use changes in implemented successfully with parties coming together to find solutions to problems.

Telecaster- can you provide insight into any of that? I understand there is widespread frustration with the Federal gov't, even among those who are currently good stewards interested in working together. I'm trying to understand that better.

Jack

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4745
  • Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: Oregon Refuge Standoff
« Reply #77 on: January 21, 2016, 05:39:16 AM »
I'm afraid that claim doesn't fly.  Nomadic tribes don't typically improve or work the land, and that is a requirement for a homesteading claim.

Well, you could make that argument, but "improvement" in this context has a well defined legal meaning.

You keep talking in the context of "legal meanings," but I could argue that the US Government has no legitimate jurisdiction in tribal lands (i.e., the entire continent of North America), thus "legal meanings" are moot.

And yes, homesteading of wilderness was a principle that Eastern native tribes recognized well before the arrival of Europeans, and has a lot to do with why the  Wampanoags did not object to the arrival of the pilgrims, for they were homesteading a town that had been wiped out by disease, so there wasn't any living claims.

Even if what you say about some tribes recognizing homesteading were true, that would have nothing to do with anything in Oregon.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Oregon Refuge Standoff
« Reply #78 on: January 21, 2016, 03:17:33 PM »
I'm afraid that claim doesn't fly.  Nomadic tribes don't typically improve or work the land, and that is a requirement for a homesteading claim.

Well, you could make that argument, but "improvement" in this context has a well defined legal meaning.

You keep talking in the context of "legal meanings," but I could argue that the US Government has no legitimate jurisdiction in tribal lands (i.e., the entire continent of North America), thus "legal meanings" are moot.

You could make that argument, but considering that you would be making that argument in front of a US court, I doubt contesting the jurisdiction of an established US court will get you any concessions from that same court.  For good or for ill, jurisdiction by conquest is one of the oldest principles in international law, since most civil codes are decedent from the Roman civil law; which most certainly didn't recognize the legitimacy of land ownership claims from a conquered client state.  I'm not sure if Oregon is a civil law state, or a common law state; but the federal government certainly leans towards the civil law tradition.
Quote
And yes, homesteading of wilderness was a principle that Eastern native tribes recognized well before the arrival of Europeans, and has a lot to do with why the  Wampanoags did not object to the arrival of the pilgrims, for they were homesteading a town that had been wiped out by disease, so there wasn't any living claims.

Even if what you say about some tribes recognizing homesteading were true, that would have nothing to do with anything in Oregon.

Perhaps, perhaps not.  I was using that as an example of what 'homesteading' meant to the people of the age, and that objections to homesteading raised by nomadic tribes would still put them in the minority, even among native American tribes.

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1326
  • Age: 185
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2024 (maybe?)
Re: Oregon Refuge Standoff
« Reply #79 on: January 24, 2016, 08:14:29 AM »
An interesting view from the ground:
https://www.facebook.com/peter.walker.31542/posts/1039941086069281

Many of his other posts are interesting as well.

Zamboni

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1750
Re: Oregon Refuge Standoff
« Reply #80 on: January 24, 2016, 09:21:30 AM »
Quote
Of course, if they (or anybody non-white) tried the sorts of tactics Bundy and his accomplices are using, they'd have been shot dead already.

I'm with Sol and GuitarStv . . . why aren't these idiots dead already? Regardless of how you feel about their complaints, they should be either dead or rotting in jail at this point because of the highly illegal way that they chose to exert their opinions by waving guns around like terrorists. Honestly it would be fine with me if the govt had a drone drop bombs on these assholes.

And I have immediate family in rural Washington . . . very acquainted with the issues ranchers face. No sympathy for these guys, nonetheless. They are criminals, bullies, and now terrorists.

I, too, miss Janet Reno.


Jack

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4745
  • Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: Oregon Refuge Standoff
« Reply #81 on: January 25, 2016, 08:58:38 AM »
Quote
Of course, if they (or anybody non-white) tried the sorts of tactics Bundy and his accomplices are using, they'd have been shot dead already.

I'm with Sol and GuitarStv . . . why aren't these idiots dead already? Regardless of how you feel about their complaints, they should be either dead or rotting in jail at this point because of the highly illegal way that they chose to exert their opinions by waving guns around like terrorists. Honestly it would be fine with me if the govt had a drone drop bombs on these assholes.

Well, hold on there a minute! I didn't say that (that was my quote, by the way) to express the idea that Bundy et. al. should be shot, but instead to point out that non-white people doing things like that shouldn't have been! If racist oppression is a problem, then the solution is to abolish the oppression, not to expand it to apply to everyone.

Should these people be arrested? Absolutely. Shot dead without due process? Absolutely not!

Also, I'm sick and tired of the categorization of people as "terrorists" as a bullshit excuse to shit on civil rights -- legally, there is no such thing as a "terrorist" (or "enemy combatant")! Anyone labeled a "terrorist" is either a criminal, in which case due process for criminals applies, or a soldier, in which case the Geneva Convention applies. There are no other categories possible, and anyone claiming otherwise is a sick totalitarian sociopath.

Zamboni

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1750
Re: Oregon Refuge Standoff
« Reply #82 on: January 25, 2016, 12:38:11 PM »
Sure, go on in, tell them they are trespassing and ask them to come out peacefully, and then arrest them and give them due process. I'm all for that.

But this is more like the actual situation:
If you wave a gun at police, and they say "put the weapon down" and you don't and they then feel threatened and shoot you, then you have brought that on yourself. They have not been arrested because they are waving their guns around and everyone is afraid of them. That is lawlessness and this is not the Wild Old West anymore. Time to bring in the snipers.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Oregon Refuge Standoff
« Reply #83 on: January 25, 2016, 01:09:20 PM »
Sure, go on in, tell them they are trespassing and ask them to come out peacefully, and then arrest them and give them due process. I'm all for that.

But this is more like the actual situation:
If you wave a gun at police, and they say "put the weapon down" and you don't and they then feel threatened and shoot you, then you have brought that on yourself. They have not been arrested because they are waving their guns around and everyone is afraid of them. That is lawlessness and this is not the Wild Old West anymore. Time to bring in the snipers.

Really?  Did they point weapons at you, or did you see this happen to someone else?

Taran Wanderer

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 464
Re: Oregon Refuge Standoff
« Reply #84 on: January 25, 2016, 01:54:50 PM »
Also, I'm sick and tired of the categorization of people as "terrorists" as a bullshit excuse to shit on civil rights -- legally, there is no such thing as a "terrorist" (or "enemy combatant")! Anyone labeled a "terrorist" is either a criminal, in which case due process for criminals applies, or a soldier, in which case the Geneva Convention applies. There are no other categories possible, and anyone claiming otherwise is a sick totalitarian sociopath.

This.

Zamboni

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1750
Re: Oregon Refuge Standoff
« Reply #85 on: January 25, 2016, 02:55:37 PM »
Every article I can find on this situation (from both right and left leaning media outlets) has some description that involves "armed" or "gun toting" or "at least a half dozen rifles visible" or "militants" or something like this. And, yes, I can see them holding automatic weapons myself in many of the photos. Not just one guy in one photo. Dozens of photos of different men brandishing different guns, in some cases shoving cameramen (there are several different versions of this photo, seems to be a theme.) The local sheriff has told them very directly to leave and has offered to escort them off the property which clearly does not belong to them.

Do I have the civil right to march onto property I do not own and stand there, refusing to leave, brandishing an automatic weapon? What if it is your property? Still okay?

I belong to a wildlife club where there are ranges for trap, skeet, and sporting clays as well as a target ranges for pistols. Even there, where everyone is a card carrying NRA member and probably half of the people have concealed carry permits, marching around the property with a loaded automatic weapon slung over your shoulder would be considered menacing. In fact, it is strictly against the rules and you would be asked to leave. If you refused, the police would be called. If they asked you to leave and you refused, you would be arrested. Why is this so hard to understand? Why isn't this what has happened there?

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Oregon Refuge Standoff
« Reply #86 on: January 25, 2016, 04:05:14 PM »
Every article I can find on this situation (from both right and left leaning media outlets) has some description that involves "armed" or "gun toting" or "at least a half dozen rifles visible" or "militants" or something like this. And, yes, I can see them holding automatic weapons myself in many of the photos. Not just one guy in one photo.

Not remotely the question I asked; but this still accidentally answered the question, I think.  But just for clarity, am I correct in my assumption that all the evidence that you have that any of these protestors have actually threatened police officers with a weapon is either hearsay or otherwise of a second-hand nature?

ncornilsen

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 598
Re: Oregon Refuge Standoff
« Reply #87 on: January 26, 2016, 09:21:20 AM »
Every article I can find on this situation (from both right and left leaning media outlets) has some description that involves "armed" or "gun toting" or "at least a half dozen rifles visible" or "militants" or something like this. And, yes, I can see them holding automatic weapons myself in many of the photos. Not just one guy in one photo. Dozens of photos of different men brandishing different guns, in some cases shoving cameramen (there are several different versions of this photo, seems to be a theme.) The local sheriff has told them very directly to leave and has offered to escort them off the property which clearly does not belong to them.

Do I have the civil right to march onto property I do not own and stand there, refusing to leave, brandishing an automatic weapon? What if it is your property? Still okay?

I belong to a wildlife club where there are ranges for trap, skeet, and sporting clays as well as a target ranges for pistols. Even there, where everyone is a card carrying NRA member and probably half of the people have concealed carry permits, marching around the property with a loaded automatic weapon slung over your shoulder would be considered menacing. In fact, it is strictly against the rules and you would be asked to leave. If you refused, the police would be called. If they asked you to leave and you refused, you would be arrested. Why is this so hard to understand? Why isn't this what has happened there?

I cannot reconcile you belonging to a 'wildlife club' with ranges and such, with you being so ignorant of firearms as to call an AR-15 an 'automatic' weapon.

There is a difference between open carrying and brandishing. Having a rifle slung over your shoulder is open carrying, and is not brandishing. Holding a handgun in your hang, finger on the trigger, pointing it at people is brandishing. A pistol in a holster is open carrying. If you find open carry menacing, that's your problem.

That said, these guys need to be ignored. pull back the news crews, shut off the power and water, and walk away. They'll give up in a week. While I agree with a small part of their cause, it's been lost in the nonsense. Now, anyone who wants to stand up for property rights is going to have to try and avoid the stigma of these idiots.

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1326
  • Age: 185
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2024 (maybe?)
Re: Oregon Refuge Standoff
« Reply #88 on: January 26, 2016, 10:08:32 PM »
http://www.wsj.com/articles/oregon-standoff-leader-ammon-bundy-arrested-by-fbi-in-violent-confrontation-1453864450
I'm sad that this ended with violence, but glad that it did not end with more considering the amount of hardware involved in the occupation.
Now to see if any unrest emerges over the next week or two, and then on to the trial.

Taran Wanderer

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 464
Re: Oregon Refuge Standoff
« Reply #89 on: January 26, 2016, 10:49:00 PM »
Unfortunately it is not over yet. There is still a group at the refuge. It's just the leaders that have been arrested.  I hope the rest have the sense to turn themselves in peacefully. If they don't, I expect that law enforcement will continue to exercise patience.

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1326
  • Age: 185
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2024 (maybe?)
Re: Oregon Refuge Standoff
« Reply #90 on: January 26, 2016, 11:14:39 PM »
Unfortunately it is not over yet. There is still a group at the refuge. It's just the leaders that have been arrested.  I hope the rest have the sense to turn themselves in peacefully. If they don't, I expect that law enforcement will continue to exercise patience.
Unfortunately, yes. And it is also possible that this will provide a rally call for other like-mided indviduals. The comments on the Oathkeepers page suggest there are at least a few people willing to talk that talk. Ugh.

paddedhat

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1831
Re: Oregon Refuge Standoff
« Reply #91 on: January 27, 2016, 04:12:05 AM »
Unfortunately it is not over yet. There is still a group at the refuge. It's just the leaders that have been arrested.  I hope the rest have the sense to turn themselves in peacefully. If they don't, I expect that law enforcement will continue to exercise patience.
Unfortunately, yes. And it is also possible that this will provide a rally call for other like-mided indviduals. The comments on the Oathkeepers page suggest there are at least a few people willing to talk that talk. Ugh.
meida

I understand the feds. handling of the situation, engaging in a policy of non-confrontation. I would question the wisdom of how they let this turn into a comic version of summer camp for fringe idiots. If these "freedom fighters" want to take over a government facility, and face off against a government, that their choice. I don't get the whole idea of the open door policy, letting the media interact with these clowns, and allowing them to even think that it would be an acceptable tactic to head to town for a town hall meeting on their cause. The take-over needs to be a two sided effort. The Bundy faction holds the compound, the feds. hold a perimeter, no traffic, no utilities, no cell service, no violence, no communication, until the end. From a distance, this whole thing looks like some type of Monty Python grade farce. I can just picture John Cleese, dressed as a metrosexual rancher, as he announces a time out to head to town for a nice relaxing trip. Maybe take in a movie, grab those socks and pop-tarts the supporters mailed, have a nice little get together with the townsfolk............... The whole thing seems more than a bit ridiculous.

As for concerns of sympathizers taking up the cause? They can only join the circus if they do so with the permission of the federal agencies involved. If the feds are just going to stand buy as more of these idiots saddle up and drive to the fight, this mess will never end.

brett2k07

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 83
Re: Oregon Refuge Standoff
« Reply #92 on: January 27, 2016, 05:45:50 AM »
Every article I can find on this situation (from both right and left leaning media outlets) has some description that involves "armed" or "gun toting" or "at least a half dozen rifles visible" or "militants" or something like this. And, yes, I can see them holding automatic weapons myself in many of the photos. Not just one guy in one photo. Dozens of photos of different men brandishing different guns, in some cases shoving cameramen (there are several different versions of this photo, seems to be a theme.) The local sheriff has told them very directly to leave and has offered to escort them off the property which clearly does not belong to them.

Do I have the civil right to march onto property I do not own and stand there, refusing to leave, brandishing an automatic weapon? What if it is your property? Still okay?

I belong to a wildlife club where there are ranges for trap, skeet, and sporting clays as well as a target ranges for pistols. Even there, where everyone is a card carrying NRA member and probably half of the people have concealed carry permits, marching around the property with a loaded automatic weapon slung over your shoulder would be considered menacing. In fact, it is strictly against the rules and you would be asked to leave. If you refused, the police would be called. If they asked you to leave and you refused, you would be arrested. Why is this so hard to understand? Why isn't this what has happened there?

I cannot reconcile you belonging to a 'wildlife club' with ranges and such, with you being so ignorant of firearms as to call an AR-15 an 'automatic' weapon.

There is a difference between open carrying and brandishing. Having a rifle slung over your shoulder is open carrying, and is not brandishing. Holding a handgun in your hang, finger on the trigger, pointing it at people is brandishing. A pistol in a holster is open carrying. If you find open carry menacing, that's your problem.

That said, these guys need to be ignored. pull back the news crews, shut off the power and water, and walk away. They'll give up in a week. While I agree with a small part of their cause, it's been lost in the nonsense. Now, anyone who wants to stand up for property rights is going to have to try and avoid the stigma of these idiots.

This reminds me of when Rand Paul was on The View a couple weeks ago and Whoopi Goldberg made reference to nobody needing "automatic" weapons. Despite Rand Paul correcting her on the issue and stating outright that automatic weapons are prohibitively expensive and extremely difficult to obtain legally, and further suggesting that she was probably talking about semi-automatic weapons, she reiterated her position at the end of the segment with the same "nobody needs an automatic weapon" line.

I'm sad the standoff has gone this direction, though I really don't have any empathy for the protesters given the tactics and methods they've chosen. I do feel bad for them in the sense that they feel they have no other recourse against what is perceived to be an overzealous, highly bureaucratic branch of government. The fact that they feel their only method of protest is, for all intents and purposes, an armed, hostile takeover of a government building just strikes me as sad. 

wenchsenior

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1061
Re: Oregon Refuge Standoff
« Reply #93 on: January 27, 2016, 09:24:33 AM »
If I were in charge, the Feds would have set up a perimeter and starved these morons out. And encouraged locals to come and have bbq parties within sniffing distance of said morons in the compound. 

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Oregon Refuge Standoff
« Reply #94 on: January 27, 2016, 08:08:52 PM »
I'm sad the standoff has gone this direction, though I really don't have any empathy for the protesters given the tactics and methods they've chosen. I do feel bad for them in the sense that they feel they have no other recourse against what is perceived to be an overzealous, highly bureaucratic branch of government. The fact that they feel their only method of protest is, for all intents and purposes, an armed, hostile takeover of a government building just strikes me as sad.

Don't feel sad. The fact they feel their only method of protest is an armed, hostile takeover demonstrates they are a bunch of privileged, high testosterone, gun crazy wacko bullies. Instead of emulating true men and women of courage who HAVE changed the world by means of peaceful civil disobedience, these pathetic losers imagine themselves as a cross between Rambo and the Founding Fathers, hoping to start a revolution and/or die as martyrs in a shoot out.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Oregon Refuge Standoff
« Reply #95 on: January 27, 2016, 10:56:24 PM »
I'm sad the standoff has gone this direction, though I really don't have any empathy for the protesters given the tactics and methods they've chosen. I do feel bad for them in the sense that they feel they have no other recourse against what is perceived to be an overzealous, highly bureaucratic branch of government. The fact that they feel their only method of protest is, for all intents and purposes, an armed, hostile takeover of a government building just strikes me as sad.

Don't feel sad. The fact they feel their only method of protest is an armed, hostile takeover demonstrates they are a bunch of privileged, high testosterone, gun crazy wacko bullies. Instead of emulating true men and women of courage who HAVE changed the world by means of peaceful civil disobedience, these pathetic losers imagine themselves as a cross between Rambo and the Founding Fathers, hoping to start a revolution and/or die as martyrs in a shoot out.

The early reports are that the guy who was killed was unarmed at the time.  There is some confusion about whether or not he also had his hands up.  I find it amazing that liberals complain for decades about how poorly the federal & state governments treated the Native Americans, then African Americans; yet can't wrap their heads around the idea that the government agencies may not actually be acting in an upstanding manner today. 

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5236
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Oregon Refuge Standoff
« Reply #96 on: January 27, 2016, 11:03:08 PM »
The early reports are that the guy who was killed was unarmed at the time.  There is some confusion about whether or not he also had his hands up.

Really?  Because the reports I've been reading say that his vehicle fled the traffic stop and then crashed and then he was instructed to stay in his vehicle but disobeyed, exited the vehicle shouting and wearing a sidearm in a holster, and STILL wasn't shot until he drew his weapon after being told to stand down.  I think they gave that guy about three chances too many, personally.

And this is the same guy who told various media outlets for the past few weeks that he wasn't going to jail even if it meant death.  He must have wanted to be a martyr for his cause, I think.

I'm sure the video will surface eventually, and then we'll all get to see exactly what happened.  The feds don't organize a roadblocked traffic arrest without a variety of cameras present.  Dash cams, body cams, probably a live overhead drone feed too. 

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Oregon Refuge Standoff
« Reply #97 on: January 27, 2016, 11:23:02 PM »
The early reports are that the guy who was killed was unarmed at the time.  There is some confusion about whether or not he also had his hands up.

Really?  Because the reports I've been reading say that his vehicle fled the traffic stop and then crashed and then he was instructed to stay in his vehicle but disobeyed, exited the vehicle shouting and wearing a sidearm in a holster, and STILL wasn't shot until he drew his weapon after being told to stand down.  I think they gave that guy about three chances too many, personally.

I heard about that version also.  Some conflicting information.
Quote
And this is the same guy who told various media outlets for the past few weeks that he wasn't going to jail even if it meant death.  He must have wanted to be a martyr for his cause, I think.
He definitely did say this, but what he said or didn't say doesn't matter if the way it happened was different.  Some people bluff well, but when the time comes to lay down their cards, they are standing there with a pair of threes.
Quote
I'm sure the video will surface eventually, and then we'll all get to see exactly what happened.  The feds don't organize a roadblocked traffic arrest without a variety of cameras present.  Dash cams, body cams, probably a live overhead drone feed too.

We will only see those videos come out before a court order if it was obvious he was misbehaving.  If it's even questionable, there would be a legal fight over it.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5236
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Oregon Refuge Standoff
« Reply #98 on: January 27, 2016, 11:37:50 PM »
We will only see those videos come out before a court order if it was obvious he was misbehaving.  If it's even questionable, there would be a legal fight over it.

If the FBI doesn't release them, I'm sure there will be a court order.  There are enough people who are upset about these issues to want the truth.  But the poor man's only been dead like 24 hours, give it a few days before you start crying conspiracy.  Let them at least officially notify the next of kin.

After Waco and Ruby Ridge, the feds are well versed in armed standoffs.  There are training programs.  There are video tapes and workshops and scenario role playing exercises.  FBI agents are American citizens too, men and women with families and mortgages who have a difficult and thankless job and who know that their every move will be criticized from every angle, because they are entrusted with making life or death decisions in bad situations.  This isn't your local renegade Detroit SWAT team. 

The whole point of doing the traffic stop arrest was to give everyone a chance to surrender peacefully, to minimize the chances for violence.  Nobody is happy someone had to get shot, and that would be true whether he was shot in the back while handcuffed or he was charging the feds with guns blazing.  It sucks for his family and his kids.  It sucks for the agents who were on the scene.  It sucks for the protesters and for the prosecution team that will eventually argue for their incarceration.

RIP LaVoy Finicum, you crazy redneck cowboy.  We regret everything about the last month of your life.

Telecaster

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 821
Re: Oregon Refuge Standoff
« Reply #99 on: January 27, 2016, 11:41:47 PM »

The early reports are that the guy who was killed was unarmed at the time.  There is some confusion about whether or not he also had his hands up.  I find it amazing that liberals complain for decades about how poorly the federal & state governments treated the Native Americans, then African Americans; yet can't wrap their heads around the idea that the government agencies may not actually be acting in an upstanding manner today.

Credible witnesses (that is, people in the vehicle with Finicum when they were pulled over) say that Finicum charged law enforcement.   

Quote
“He was not on his knees, none of that,” McConnell said. “He was none of that nonsense. You know, that was a miscommunication on somebody else’s part. But he went after them. He charged them.

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/01/eyewitnesses-knock-down-conspiracy-theories-about-lavoy-finicum-dying-with-his-hands-up/

Now, it could be that only people over a thousand miles away from the event know the truth.  And that everyone on the scene is a bald faced lair.  But that seems extremely unlikely to me.  At  a minimum, I personally think no one a thousand miles away can correct describe what happened at the scene.

Perhaps we will have to agree to disagree on this point.  But your viewpoint that eyewitness accounts should be weighted the same as people who have zero knowledge of the event is....uh, weird.