The Money Mustache Community
Other => Off Topic => Topic started by: Glenstache on January 12, 2016, 07:39:07 PM
-
As a resident of the west who ventures into the sagebrush areas, has worked for the Federal Government, spent an inordinate amount of time dealing with regulators, I've been following the standoff at the Malheur Refuge with interest. Over the years I've also followed the related threads of the Sagebrush Rebellion, practice and impacts of grazing on public lands, and the patriot/constitutionalist/militia movements.
My take on the issues of the occupation and request to return lands to local control (effectively have carte blanch to extract natural resources with little/no constraint is clearly intended across these groups) is that it is the tragedy of the commons (google it if you are not familiar with the concept) writ large, and interspersed with people confronting a changing world, and fringe militancy, and extreme libertarian ideologies. Pretty much all sides think the actual occupiers are both strategically and tactically off on their occupation (see sources anywhere from Gawker to High Country News to Oathkeepers.org). But, it is a window into an interesting group of people in our nation. One that I disagree with strongly on many, many points, but find very fascinating. To be gracious, it seems like supposedly good-sounding principles being divorced from the reality that our actions have impacts, and that we live in a broader society that we have to interact with and have shared responsibility with (i.e., the concept of the social contract).
The parallel thread is the largely toothless enforcement of lease permits and laws by the BLM.
Here's a pile of articles from HCN on the occupation and related issues:
https://www.hcn.org/topics/sagebrush-rebellion
Anyone else been following it, or have thoughts? Especially those with a different point of view than my own?
-
I think they should be starved out and then arrested and prosecuted.
But I am tempted to send them a suitable care package.
http://gawker.com/angry-militia-leader-stop-mailing-us-dildos-1752580458?utm_campaign=socialflow_gawker_facebook&utm_source=gawker_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow
-
I have been following it, but I share your take on it. I find it funny that many of the movements lack a larger base based on simple economics. Specifically, that the average rancher can end up with a pretty sweet deal when leasing from the feds, and ends up paying a fraction of market rates. Other than that, they seems to be a delusional group that bases their "beliefs" on a mixture of fantasy, claiming that they have rights to property that the feds. owned in many cases since the day they wrestled control from the tribes, and well before the states were even established. Coupled with the delusion that "giving" control of the land to individual states will create some kind of economic nirvana. In reality, it wouldn't take too long until the extraction industries, and massive multi-national "ranchers" have a monopoly, and these dumbasses end up with a big bag of nothing, pretty much how I worked at the end of the 19th century, in fact, LOL. I am continually fascinated by how much of the thought process of many rural westerners is based on a romanticized version of the way it was, and all they are continually be deprived of, due to whatever villain is currently being hyped in their low information circle of information.
-
I have been following it, but I share your take on it. I find it funny that many of the movements lack a larger base based on simple economics. Specifically, that the average rancher can end up with a pretty sweet deal when leasing from the feds, and ends up paying a fraction of market rates. Other than that, they seems to be a delusional group that bases their "beliefs" on a mixture of fantasy, claiming that they have rights to property that the feds. owned in many cases since the day they wrestled control from the tribes, and well before the states were even established. Coupled with the delusion that "giving" control of the land to individual states will create some kind of economic nirvana. In reality, it wouldn't take too long until the extraction industries, and massive multi-national "ranchers" have a monopoly, and these dumbasses end up with a big bag of nothing, pretty much how I worked at the end of the 19th century, in fact, LOL. I am continually fascinated by how much of the thought process of many rural westerners is based on a romanticized version of the way it was, and all they are continually be deprived of, due to whatever villain is currently being hyped in their low information circle of information.
I would add that there is also a significant population of ranchers who genuinely care for the land, manage land properly, play by the rules, and have little in common with the turds mentioned above. Ranchers tend to fall on the conservative side of the political spectrum, but there are many flavors there.
-
http://gawker.com/angry-militia-leader-stop-mailing-us-dildos-1752580458?utm_campaign=socialflow_gawker_facebook&utm_source=gawker_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow
Best.. title.. ever.
I think they're mostly ignored. The Daily Show (now with Trevor Noah) had a bit on them briefly with the hint that it was a good idea to get all kinds of crazies self-imprisoning themselves in the middle of nowhere. In that bit, one of the Daily Show crew explained how helpful he was in sending out of date clothing or children's socks to these guys in a care package.
On the more serious side, I think the FBI needs to keep protective duty on government workers related to this place. They've reported being followed home - probably by militia members. I don't think they should mess with stalking and intimidation - those are arrest worthy.
-
The authorities need to turn the power off, starve them out, arrest them, prosecute them, and put them in jail. There are legal ways to protest, and this is not example of than. Then we need a congressional investigation of the BLM and alleged actions of certain employees, with follow-on disciplinary action or prosecution of those employees if the investigation warrants it.
After the hubbub dies down, we need to start a real conversation about how we make rural communities livable and economically viable. Wealth continues to concentrate in our urban and suburban areas. Those areas continue to expand and pave over farmlands and countryside at the expense of any environmental or habitat values. As the urban centers grow, the concentration of voting power increases in those urban centers, and they can act to "preserve" the rural areas as their own amusement park. This impacts the economic vitality of those rural areas, making people very frustrated.
How would people in urban areas feel if those in rural areas could vote to limit their further development; force "habitat restoration" on all undeveloped lots, parks, riverfronts, and wildlife corridors; and prohibit any sort of tree cutting, lawn fertilizing, or flood mitigation work on the grounds that "nature needs to be allowed to be natural"?
-
So I am from Germany and I heard of the whole incident for the first time. (low-information diet and all) ;) But my oppinion does differ and I will play the devil's advocate!
In my humble opinion, it is very important to understand the motivation between events like this. Most people are not crazy and often there are legitimate motives driving them. After some short research I found this piece for example:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/01/08/im-an-oregon-rancher-heres-what-you-dont-understand-about-the-bundy-standoff/
So I guess, it is a cry for attention and a great opportunity to think about how to solve the problems of these people. I am sure a wealthy, democratic country can find a solution that satisfies all parties! ;)
-
I read that article a couple of days ago, and that is part of the basis of my comments, along with my own experience in the rural western U.S. However, while a cry for help is okay and should be investigated and understood, it is illegal and unacceptable to occupy property that is not your own (with weapons, no less), imply threats of violence, and vandalize that public property. These thugs need to face justice, and then we need to understand the frustration behind their motives and consider what reasonable things can be done.
-
Taran,
Would a handful of people with picket signs in Burns, Oregon have attracted any attention at all? I doubt it. That said, Bundy is a moron who is trying to conflate his self-interest with the outright bullshit that was force upon the Hammonds by the BLM and the dept of justice. The Hammonds should absolutely be freed from jail. This was clearly done to ruin the hammonds, who plea-bargained for the shorter sentences by allowing the BLM to have first right of refusal on the sale of their property.
The BLM should also have some of it's employees jailed. They set wildfires all the time, and have killed hundreds of cattle and destroyed thousands of acres of private land. They diverted water to flood out ranchers who refused their low-ball offers for their land.
As someone who grew up on the ranch, I can attest to the thug tactics used by the DFW and BLM when trying to land-grab. Examples: a neighbor made his property a nature refuge for birds and frogs. Fine, that's his right to make his land worthless. Unfortunately, that swamp extends onto our ranch. He tried first to build a dam, but that would have flooded out half of OUR field. He then called in the DFW. An ARMED official trespassed on our property, and started painting lines to build a fence to keep our cattle off of the swamp as it existed. We made a stink to the local DFW and threatened legal action, and they didn't come back... but were told in no uncertain terms that it didn't matter if it was private property, if they wanted to annex it into the refuge that there was little we could do about it. I think this was a bluff, but they do have this attitude that they're above property rights. We have had cattle on this land for decades, and the swamp was just fine.
Another example, a few years later. we have two creeks that border a field, and join together at one corner of it. in 1996, the creeks flooded and joined in the middle, leaving a mud puddle about 10 inches deep and covering about 1 acre, dead nuts in the middle of the field. Another DFW trespasser came on our property, trying to claim that the entire field was 'clearly a wetland' and we needed to get our cattle off it. Never mind that there was green grass under the water, and the rivers were normally about 10 feet below the grade of the field.
A neighbor has about 1000 acres of timber he planted about 40 or 50 years ago, to harvest as his retirement fund. It borders BLM land. He applies for the permit to start cashing in, and low and behold, he's denied. Apparently, a BLM employee said there are 'dozens' of spotted owls nesting on the property. First off, what is a BLM employee doing on his property? He appeals to the forestry department, tells them to come out and show him. He spends a lot of time on this land, and knows there aren't any. He, and the USDA official go to meet them at the gate bordering BLM land. The BLM guys were already there, and refuse to point out the nest locations. They have some guy there, who holds out a dead mouse, and a spotted owl swoops down and grabs it, and fly's off to a branch nearby. What wild owl would do that? in broad daylight no less. They have a TRAINED goddamned owl they use to lock up timber bordering BLM land.
The USDA official smelled the rat, and sand "So, while you can't harvest timber within a certain distance of a spotted owl nest, you can fall a spotted owl nested tree for firewood. Make of that what you will." So he did. Turns out this nest was built with nails and sawed wood. Crafty fucking owl.
Those who live in the city don't see this stuff, but it happens ALL the time. If you had multi generation farmland, and some wormy desk rider bitch came and told you to fence it off and sniveled something about "usufructory rights" and 'sustainable land use,' you'd be pissed too. Especially when these farmers have proven to be better stewards of the land than the feds anyway.
-
The BLM should also have some of it's employees jailed. They set wildfires all the time, and have killed hundreds of cattle and destroyed thousands of acres of private land. They diverted water to flood out ranchers who refused their low-ball offers for their land.
As someone who grew up on the ranch, I can attest to the thug tactics used by the DFW and BLM when trying to land-grab. Examples: a neighbor made his property a nature refuge for birds and frogs. Fine, that's his right to make his land worthless. Unfortunately, that swamp extends onto our ranch. He tried first to build a dam, but that would have flooded out half of OUR field. He then called in the DFW. An ARMED official trespassed on our property, and started painting lines to build a fence to keep our cattle off of the swamp as it existed. We made a stink to the local DFW and threatened legal action, and they didn't come back... but were told in no uncertain terms that it didn't matter if it was private property, if they wanted to annex it into the refuge that there was little we could do about it. I think this was a bluff, but they do have this attitude that they're above property rights. We have had cattle on this land for decades, and the swamp was just fine.
Thanks for sharing that information. I don't necessarily agree with the protesters, but I definitely don't agree that the feds can arbitrarily order someone who already served their time to go back and serve more time after the fact. Wouldn't that be a form of double jeopardy? I don't want to live in a country where the government can do that. Period. Or one that can get away with harassing citizens to steal their land, either.
-
It isn't quite double jeopardy, but it is a mandatory minimum sentencing thing due to some terrorism statute. The DOJ could have decided not to contest it, but they did.
-
property that the feds. owned in many cases since the day they wrestled control from the tribes, and well before the states were even established.
...speaking of which, if anybody has a claim that the Feds should give up control, then it's the Paiutes (http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jan/06/oregon-militia-malheur-wildlife-refuge-paiute-indian-tribe-sacred-land), not the ranchers!
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.
-
They have some guy there, who holds out a dead mouse, and a spotted owl swoops down and grabs it, and fly's off to a branch nearby. What wild owl would do that? in broad daylight no less. They have a TRAINED goddamned owl they use to lock up timber bordering BLM land.
I'm not commenting about the majority of your post, which I can't comment on. But this is, in fact, one of the ways that biologists locate wild spotted owl nests. It is of course possible, but highly unlikely, that the bird was trained. I've personally located wild spotted owl nests this way in remote mountain areas of California. It seems weird, I agree, but spotted owls are extremely non-wary, and very approachable. Hell, you just imitate their call and they will often fly in a perch next to you. Not the brightest birds LOL.
The fact that one was nearby and took the mouse doesn't necessarily prove the presence of nesting, however, just the owl's presence at that location. To determine active nests, you'd have to locate the actual nest cavity and see signs of reproduction (young, prey remains, eggshells, etc). The reason biologists 'mouse' spotted owls is that it is quick and easy to locate the nest IF the owl takes the mouse, and then flies to the nest to feed young.
Again, I have no doubt your attitude is 'fuck all the stupid owls', but that isn't why I'm posting. Just pointing out that your idea that biologists use trained owls is most likely paranoia (possibly warranted, which I can't judge).
-
Well, regarding the Hammonds here is something actually in the formal record:
http://landrights.org/or/Hammond/FINAL-Decision-Hammond_Redacted.pdf
I am generally opposed to mandatory terms (as opposed to sentencing guidelines) and have mixed feelings about their jail terms. Those sentencing issues came about post OK-city bombing. However, the 5 years is more about our response to terrorism and application of minimum sentences than ranching issues. None of the coverage I've seen has specified a plea bargain agreement being reneged on.
-
My attitude is 'fuck the stupid owls' if they're planted there. I'll have to look into the mouse dangling thing... it would explain why they're endangered. but the nest being built out of nails and boards in the tree sure makes it seem like they brought it in, one way or another. I personally didn't see the nest, and given that a central part of the story was the trained owl thing, the rest seems to be suspect to me now.
-
Well, regarding the Hammonds here is something actually in the formal record:
http://landrights.org/or/Hammond/FINAL-Decision-Hammond_Redacted.pdf
I am generally opposed to mandatory terms (as opposed to sentencing guidelines) and have mixed feelings about their jail terms. Those sentencing issues came about post OK-city bombing. However, the 5 years is more about our response to terrorism and application of minimum sentences than ranching issues. None of the coverage I've seen has specified a plea bargain agreement being reneged on.
My understanding is that they agreed to plead guilty to two fires - the 2001, and 2006 fires (one of which was with BLM verbal permission.), and sign over a first-right-of-refusal for their land. In exchange, they'd only be sentenced to several months and about 1 year (for the dad and son. can't remember who got what here.). The DOJ later decided that the terrorism MMS applied, and said they needed to finish the five years. Because they were found guilty (per the plea bargain) AND the law states a minimum sentence for burning federal property, there was no choice but to sentence them for 5. Had they known that, they may have rejected the plea bargain, and been found totally innocent.
As for the court papers... the denial for renewal was due to being found guilty of arson. It is completely ridiculous that this was used against them... as they were engaging in burning tactics widely used by other ranchers, AND the BLM, many times in cooperation, to control juniper. one of the two fires was done with BLM approval! While maybe against regulation, it was a prolific and effective practice to control that stuff. One fire was to back-burn into some lighting strike wildfires, and only got 1 acre of public land. It saved thousands of acres from burning, and whether it was the hammonds fire or not wasn't really clear either.
It's basically entrapment, I'd think.
-
As for the court papers... the denial for renewal was due to being found guilty of arson. It is completely ridiculous that this was used against them... as they were engaging in burning tactics widely used by other ranchers, AND the BLM, many times in cooperation, to control juniper. one of the two fires was done with BLM approval! While maybe against regulation, it was a prolific and effective practice to control that stuff. One fire was to back-burn into some lighting strike wildfires, and only got 1 acre of public land. It saved thousands of acres from burning, and whether it was the hammonds fire or not wasn't really clear either.
It's basically entrapment, I'd think.
The DOJ and the court disagrees with you about the fires.
The Hammonds knowingly committed arson in 2001 to cover up another crime (illegal hunting). There were several witnesses.
The 2006 fire was indeed an attempt by the ranchers to create a back burn on their ranch to protect their feed. Despite dry conditions and a burn ban, the Hammonds started a fire and failed to control it. I'm skeptical -- and so was the court -- that the back burn "saved thousands of acres," especially since the BLM had to contain their back burn. In other words, this was a stupid and dangerous act on their part. They'd be up for manslaughter if a firefighter died from their unannounced and uncontrolled back burn.
-
Where's Janet Reno when you need her?
...a reference to the David Koresh fiasco, for people who aren't old like me.
-
As a global statement, I think the best option is for this to be resolved through deescalation and moving through the court system.
They broke laws, and at least some of their supporters have been intimidating law enforcement and local employees. I find the blase mention of resolving this through gunfire to be callous and short-sighted. I understand that at a visceral level that could be appealing/satisfying, but the FBI has hard-learned experience that escalation does not play out well unless absolutely necessary.
-
My attitude is 'fuck the stupid owls' if they're planted there. I'll have to look into the mouse dangling thing... it would explain why they're endangered. but the nest being built out of nails and boards in the tree sure makes it seem like they brought it in, one way or another. I personally didn't see the nest, and given that a central part of the story was the trained owl thing, the rest seems to be suspect to me now.
They aren't really endangered because they are approachable, I was making a joke there. They are endangered because they require fairly large stands of old growth forest, which is prime timber, and there isn't much of it left. A similar, non-endangered, relative species, the Barred Owl, does well in more mixed-age forest and will outcompete the SO where their ranges cross, so even when SOs are able to habituate somewhat to less than optimal forest, they will be 'elbowed out' by the better-adapted Barred Owls in the area.
"Planting" an owl for nefarious purposes is highly unlikely (logistically very difficult for a lot of different reasons that I won't bother going into). The mousing thing has been a standard technique for working with SOs since the 1980s, so it is very likely that SOs were legitimately present in the area. If they were indeed nesting on the public land, the managers would indeed typically NOT disclose the nest locations (particularly to a hostile individual), for fear of foul play.
If the species is endangered (and SOs are), then some forms of artificial support will be used to help sustain it on public land where it occurs (particular kinds of silvicultural management; putting up nest platforms if appropriate nesting trees are not plentiful, etc.). If there was a 'built nest' that would likely be a nest platform; this is another standard management technique for birds that will use them and are at risk because of insufficient nesting habitat (SOs nest in tree-cavities, but will use broken off tree stubs or broad tree crotches as well...hence the platform).
HOWEVER, just because the owl was legitimately in the area, and very well might have been using the nest platform, doesn't necessarily mean the landowner's story is completely false. The caginess that biologists typically adopt with the public when it comes to endangered species is understandable, given that they are legally charged to protect the animals on behalf of the public, but it certainly does not engender trust or confidence in a suspicious person and isn't very helpful to work out disputes such as this in a mature way.
I could hypothetically see 1) a legitimate mistake in placement of the platform, so that it ended up close enough to private land so that some of the private land couldn't be harvested...typically in that case, an arrangement might be made to move the platform away from the bordering land...this could be impossible if the land patch is too small; or it might have to be postponed until the nest was not in active use (non-breeding season) because active nest sites are legally protected from disturbance; or 2) an unscrupulous manager might have deliberately placed the platform close to the border, to try to prevent old-growth timber harvest on adjacent private land. No way for me to judge of course, and the rules about this type of thing are complex. I'm not a legal expert in that regard. I just know raptor and bird biology.
Boy did that go off on a tangent! Sorry all.
As to the morons occupying the refuge: apparently their splinter Mormon-sect beliefs encourage them to this action, because god will send an army of like-minded armed citizens to stand with them against the tyranny of the gov't. So mostly, the longer this drags on and the stupider they look, and the longer people don't come join them, the more I point and laugh and hope they are worrying that god doesn't love them after all. Schadenfreudelicious.
-
As for the court papers... the denial for renewal was due to being found guilty of arson. It is completely ridiculous that this was used against them... as they were engaging in burning tactics widely used by other ranchers, AND the BLM, many times in cooperation, to control juniper. one of the two fires was done with BLM approval! While maybe against regulation, it was a prolific and effective practice to control that stuff. One fire was to back-burn into some lighting strike wildfires, and only got 1 acre of public land. It saved thousands of acres from burning, and whether it was the hammonds fire or not wasn't really clear either.
It's basically entrapment, I'd think.
The DOJ and the court disagrees with you about the fires.
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. Curiously, that particular nephew is mentally disabled; so it's widely believed that the DOJ planted the idea. Honestly, if you had several hundred acres of land, why would you poach on government land? And if you did poach on government land, why would you bother to set a fire to cover it up? All they would have had to do was drag it across the property line, and wait a few days. It's not like there are game wardens who patrol those areas on a regular basis.
The 2006 fire was indeed an attempt by the ranchers to create a back burn on their ranch to protect their feed. Despite dry conditions and a burn ban, the Hammonds started a fire and failed to control it. I'm skeptical -- and so was the court -- that the back burn "saved thousands of acres," especially since the BLM had to contain their back burn. In other words, this was a stupid and dangerous act on their part. They'd be up for manslaughter if a firefighter died from their unannounced and uncontrolled back burn.
Yes they would, but that's not what happened. The details matter, not what-ifs. The Hammonds were not charged with terrorism because they make poor decisions about fire control. This is a crazy & complex case, with roots that go back decades.
-
As a global statement, I think the best option is for this to be resolved through deescalation and moving through the court system.
They broke laws, and at least some of their supporters have been intimidating law enforcement and local employees. I find the blase mention of resolving this through gunfire to be callous and short-sighted. I understand that at a visceral level that could be appealing/satisfying, but the FBI has hard-learned experience that escalation does not play out well unless absolutely necessary.
Actually, it was reported today, that it was the FBI that was caught impersonating the militiamen who were harassing locals. Basically a black flag operation to turn local opinion against the protestors.
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/oregon-fire-marshall-resigns-exposing-undercover-fbi-agents-posing-militia/
-
Taran,
Would a handful of people with picket signs in Burns, Oregon have attracted any attention at all? I doubt it. That said, Bundy is a moron who is trying to conflate his self-interest with the outright bullshit that was force upon the Hammonds by the BLM and the dept of justice. The Hammonds should absolutely be freed from jail. This was clearly done to ruin the hammonds, who plea-bargained for the shorter sentences by allowing the BLM to have first right of refusal on the sale of their property.
The BLM should also have some of it's employees jailed. They set wildfires all the time, and have killed hundreds of cattle and destroyed thousands of acres of private land. They diverted water to flood out ranchers who refused their low-ball offers for their land.
As someone who grew up on the ranch, I can attest to the thug tactics used by the DFW and BLM when trying to land-grab. Examples: a neighbor made his property a nature refuge for birds and frogs. Fine, that's his right to make his land worthless. Unfortunately, that swamp extends onto our ranch. He tried first to build a dam, but that would have flooded out half of OUR field. He then called in the DFW. An ARMED official trespassed on our property, and started painting lines to build a fence to keep our cattle off of the swamp as it existed. We made a stink to the local DFW and threatened legal action, and they didn't come back... but were told in no uncertain terms that it didn't matter if it was private property, if they wanted to annex it into the refuge that there was little we could do about it. I think this was a bluff, but they do have this attitude that they're above property rights. We have had cattle on this land for decades, and the swamp was just fine.
Another example, a few years later. we have two creeks that border a field, and join together at one corner of it. in 1996, the creeks flooded and joined in the middle, leaving a mud puddle about 10 inches deep and covering about 1 acre, dead nuts in the middle of the field. Another DFW trespasser came on our property, trying to claim that the entire field was 'clearly a wetland' and we needed to get our cattle off it. Never mind that there was green grass under the water, and the rivers were normally about 10 feet below the grade of the field.
A neighbor has about 1000 acres of timber he planted about 40 or 50 years ago, to harvest as his retirement fund. It borders BLM land. He applies for the permit to start cashing in, and low and behold, he's denied. Apparently, a BLM employee said there are 'dozens' of spotted owls nesting on the property. First off, what is a BLM employee doing on his property? He appeals to the forestry department, tells them to come out and show him. He spends a lot of time on this land, and knows there aren't any. He, and the USDA official go to meet them at the gate bordering BLM land. The BLM guys were already there, and refuse to point out the nest locations. They have some guy there, who holds out a dead mouse, and a spotted owl swoops down and grabs it, and fly's off to a branch nearby. What wild owl would do that? in broad daylight no less. They have a TRAINED goddamned owl they use to lock up timber bordering BLM land.
The USDA official smelled the rat, and sand "So, while you can't harvest timber within a certain distance of a spotted owl nest, you can fall a spotted owl nested tree for firewood. Make of that what you will." So he did. Turns out this nest was built with nails and sawed wood. Crafty fucking owl.
Those who live in the city don't see this stuff, but it happens ALL the time. If you had multi generation farmland, and some wormy desk rider bitch came and told you to fence it off and sniveled something about "usufructory rights" and 'sustainable land use,' you'd be pissed too. Especially when these farmers have proven to be better stewards of the land than the feds anyway.
I don't have any multi-generational family land. My brother has ours because he loves it more than I do. My cousin has another tract, much bigger, in another part of the state. So I get it, and I understand where you're coming from.
I have done some reading from the side of people who support the occupiers' message if not their methods. It's consistent with some of what you said regarding government overreach if not plain stupidity. Best example was a rancher who managed his ranch so effectively that all the birds left the refuge next door in favor of his ranch. Then the refuge managers wanted to confiscate his ranch because it was such great habitat. W. T. F. Why isn't this stuff reported in the main stream press? If more of this is exposed by the Bundy actions, it will be a good thing.
But it doesn't change the fact that what the occupiers are doing is illegal. Two wrongs don't make a right.
-
But it doesn't change the fact that what the occupiers are doing is illegal. Two wrongs don't make a right.
While that is true, is what the Bundy militia is doing in Oregon so much different than what Occupy Wall Street was doing? Both were the (low level) occupation of a public space. In both cases, the original concept was a protest by civil disobedience, which is an "extenuating circumstance" under most misdemeanor charges in most places. And in both cases the civil disobedience (the illegal act) is performed for the purpose of bringing media (and therefore public) attention to gross misconduct of an institution that (often unreasonably) receives the benefit of the doubt from national media.
-
They are different because the Occupy Wall Street movement didn't publicly state that they were armed, that they would defend themselves, and that they would die for their cause. By doing this, the Bundy clan has crossed the line.
Ncornilson is right that the Bundy tactics are more likely to get media attention than a peaceful protest in a sparsely populated remote steppe. Maybe it's calculated that way. But it is still illegal and oversteps the constitutional rights that we all have to peacefully assemble and to petition our government for redress of grievances.
-
But it doesn't change the fact that what the occupiers are doing is illegal. Two wrongs don't make a right.
While that is true, is what the Bundy militia is doing in Oregon so much different than what Occupy Wall Street was doing? Both were the (low level) occupation of a public space. In both cases, the original concept was a protest by civil disobedience, which is an "extenuating circumstance" under most misdemeanor charges in most places. And in both cases the civil disobedience (the illegal act) is performed for the purpose of bringing media (and therefore public) attention to gross misconduct of an institution that (often unreasonably) receives the benefit of the doubt from national media.
1) The criminals in Oregon are armed and say they're willing to kill or be killed.
2) Occupy Wall Street was mostly on public land, not restricted federal property.
3) Some Occupy Wall Street protesters were arrested.
This smells like a false comparison to me.
-
But it doesn't change the fact that what the occupiers are doing is illegal. Two wrongs don't make a right.
While that is true, is what the Bundy militia is doing in Oregon so much different than what Occupy Wall Street was doing? Both were the (low level) occupation of a public space. In both cases, the original concept was a protest by civil disobedience, which is an "extenuating circumstance" under most misdemeanor charges in most places. And in both cases the civil disobedience (the illegal act) is performed for the purpose of bringing media (and therefore public) attention to gross misconduct of an institution that (often unreasonably) receives the benefit of the doubt from national media.
1) The criminals in Oregon are armed and say they're willing to kill or be killed.
The fact that they are armed is a notable difference, but only of degree. It's notable to point out that being armed in Oregon isn't typically a felony in it's own right; doing the same thing in Times Square most certainly would be.
Also, please show me where anyone within the protest has stated that they welcome violence. All that I can find is that they refuse to leave voluntarily, and left the rest up to imagination. You can assume that they are willing to engage in a firefight with feds if you wish, but I'd be more inclined to think that it's a bluff for media attention; which, once again, is the end goal of a civil disobedient style of public protest.
2) Occupy Wall Street was mostly on public land, not restricted federal property.
There is no legal distinction between those two phrases, outside of the context of military property. The bird reserve was public land, for which many ranchers did, and many still do, own grazing rights that predate the federal management of that property. It was a bird sanctuary, bird hunting was was the primary restricted activity. Hiking & camping was also permitted with a federal public lands permit.
http://www.blm.gov/or/resources/recreation/permits2.php
3) Some Occupy Wall Street protesters were arrested.
Yes, for criminal activities unrelated to the protest, such as dealing in illegal drugs, theft & rape. I'd wager that there won't be much of that in the Bundy protest.
This smells like a false comparison to me.
Methinks your sniffer is broken.
-
They are different because the Occupy Wall Street movement didn't publicly state that they were armed, that they would defend themselves, and that they would die for their cause. By doing this, the Bundy clan has crossed the line.
References please? I am willing to be wrong, but did actual militiamen say this, or is this heresay?
Ncornilson is right that the Bundy tactics are more likely to get media attention than a peaceful protest in a sparsely populated remote steppe. Maybe it's calculated that way. But it is still illegal
Well, of course it is. So was Occupy Wall Street's continuous occupation of that park. So what? That is the common thread across all civil disobedience, that some civil law is being disobeyed. It's still a protest, and the intent of the protestors should be considered. That is not to say that they shouldn't still be arrested, and perhaps serve jail time, over what actually occurs during the protest; but don't you think that is up to a court to determine after it's all over?
and oversteps the constitutional rights that we all have to peacefully assemble and to petition our government for redress of grievances.
In what way? As far as I can tell, there has been no violence at all; much less violence initiated by the protesters. How is this not a peaceful assembly of like minded citizens, exactly? Just because they are doing their assembly on public property without asking for the permission of authorities? I think you already know the answer to this one, even if you don't like what the protesters have to say.
-
1) The criminals in Oregon are armed and say they're willing to kill or be killed.
The fact that they are armed is a notable difference, but only of degree. It's notable to point out that being armed in Oregon isn't typically a felony in it's own right; doing the same thing in Times Square most certainly would be.
Also, please show me where anyone within the protest has stated that they welcome violence. All that I can find is that they refuse to leave voluntarily, and left the rest up to imagination. You can assume that they are willing to engage in a firefight with feds if you wish, but I'd be more inclined to think that it's a bluff for media attention; which, once again, is the end goal of a civil disobedient style of public protest.
From Ammon Bundy himself:
"The only violence that, if it comes our way, will be because government is wanting their building back,"
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/oregon-standoff-armed-protesters-political-reaction-yallqaeda-n490031
Armed occupation with threat of violence. Criminal.
2) Occupy Wall Street was mostly on public land, not restricted federal property.
There is no legal distinction between those two phrases, outside of the context of military property. The bird reserve was public land, for which many ranchers did, and many still do, own grazing rights that predate the federal management of that property. It was a bird sanctuary, bird hunting was was the primary restricted activity. Hiking & camping was also permitted with a federal public lands permit.
http://www.blm.gov/or/resources/recreation/permits2.php
If they were on the land, you might be right. But they're occupying a government building, which is illegal. Again, criminal.
-
Geez, beltim, you beat me to it...
...but you forgot to mention defacing public property through unauthorized replacement of the refuge sign and removal of fences.
-
1) The criminals in Oregon are armed and say they're willing to kill or be killed.
The fact that they are armed is a notable difference, but only of degree. It's notable to point out that being armed in Oregon isn't typically a felony in it's own right; doing the same thing in Times Square most certainly would be.
Also, please show me where anyone within the protest has stated that they welcome violence. All that I can find is that they refuse to leave voluntarily, and left the rest up to imagination. You can assume that they are willing to engage in a firefight with feds if you wish, but I'd be more inclined to think that it's a bluff for media attention; which, once again, is the end goal of a civil disobedient style of public protest.
From Ammon Bundy himself:
"The only violence that, if it comes our way, will be because government is wanting their building back,"
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/oregon-standoff-armed-protesters-political-reaction-yallqaeda-n490031
Armed occupation with threat of violence. Criminal.
More jumping, Beltim. Tired yet? You left out the part about Bundy being asked about looking for a violent confrontation. Read it again, without your "anti-redneck" bias, and you will notice that Bundy wasn't calling for violence here. If this is the best you have, I'm calling bullshit on your claim that they are looking for a confrontation. This comment is consistent with a bluff.
2) Occupy Wall Street was mostly on public land, not restricted federal property.
There is no legal distinction between those two phrases, outside of the context of military property. The bird reserve was public land, for which many ranchers did, and many still do, own grazing rights that predate the federal management of that property. It was a bird sanctuary, bird hunting was was the primary restricted activity. Hiking & camping was also permitted with a federal public lands permit.
http://www.blm.gov/or/resources/recreation/permits2.php
If they were on the land, you might be right. But they're occupying a government building, which is illegal. Again, criminal.
They are occupying a garage in the middle of nowhere, located upon property that is actually under dispute, and has been for about as long as the BLM has existed. Criminals they may be, but that still isn't your's to decide, fortunately. Personally, I think that they may be going about it the wrong way, but I can't argue with their results so far. If they were really smart, they'd quietly get rid of their guns, and film the fed's while they are getting arrested.
-
Geez, beltim, you beat me to it...
...but you forgot to mention defacing public property through unauthorized replacement of the refuge sign and removal of fences.
That's okay, I didn't forget. And neither did Occupy...
http://hyperallergic.com/38778/occupying-the-walls-graffiti-as-political-protest/
https://storify.com/motherjones/occupy-wall-street-ows-grafitti-tags
Once again, you guys are trying to make a distinction without a difference.
-
1) The criminals in Oregon are armed and say they're willing to kill or be killed.
The fact that they are armed is a notable difference, but only of degree. It's notable to point out that being armed in Oregon isn't typically a felony in it's own right; doing the same thing in Times Square most certainly would be.
Also, please show me where anyone within the protest has stated that they welcome violence. All that I can find is that they refuse to leave voluntarily, and left the rest up to imagination. You can assume that they are willing to engage in a firefight with feds if you wish, but I'd be more inclined to think that it's a bluff for media attention; which, once again, is the end goal of a civil disobedient style of public protest.
From Ammon Bundy himself:
"The only violence that, if it comes our way, will be because government is wanting their building back,"
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/oregon-standoff-armed-protesters-political-reaction-yallqaeda-n490031
Armed occupation with threat of violence. Criminal.
More jumping, Beltim. Tired yet? You left out the part about Bundy being asked about looking for a violent confrontation. Read it again, without your "anti-redneck" bias, and you will notice that Bundy wasn't calling for violence here. If this is the best you have, I'm calling bullshit on your claim that they are looking for a confrontation. This comment is consistent with a bluff.
You're awfully quick to throw out accusations about bias with no evidence. You might find that arguing the facts instead of claiming bias is more effective.
The link I provided has a direct quote from Bundy saying he would be violent if the government "want[ed] their building back." This is illegal occupation with the threat of violence.
2) Occupy Wall Street was mostly on public land, not restricted federal property.
There is no legal distinction between those two phrases, outside of the context of military property. The bird reserve was public land, for which many ranchers did, and many still do, own grazing rights that predate the federal management of that property. It was a bird sanctuary, bird hunting was was the primary restricted activity. Hiking & camping was also permitted with a federal public lands permit.
http://www.blm.gov/or/resources/recreation/permits2.php
If they were on the land, you might be right. But they're occupying a government building, which is illegal. Again, criminal.
They are occupying a garage in the middle of nowhere, located upon property that is actually under dispute, and has been for about as long as the BLM has existed. Criminals they may be, but that still isn't your's to decide, fortunately. Personally, I think that they may be going about it the wrong way, but I can't argue with their results so far. If they were really smart, they'd quietly get rid of their guns, and film the fed's while they are getting arrested.
Please stop lying. Does this look like a garage to you?
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cb/MalheurNWRHeadquarters.jpg/1024px-MalheurNWRHeadquarters.jpg)
-
I'm a federal employee. I work in a federal facility. If armed men came and tried to occupy my work site, armed federal agents would come and shoot those people dead.
I'm not entirely clear on why that didn't happen in this case.
Basically, I think this is new federal policy to "do nothing" in such cases. For similar reasons, the US government doesn't do eminent domain anymore when they need to build infrastructure, which has led to a handful of landowners costing the nation hundreds of billions of dollars (your taxes) to build extra stuff other places, instead of just the important stuff in the places it should obviously go. The government just bends over backwards to accommodate anyone with an opinion, and we all suffer for it.
At the moment, the pendulum of power has swung WAY too far towards private citizens. George Washington, POTUS who put the Whiskey Rebellion into every American textbook, would be ashamed.
Hell, even threatening violence against a federal employee in the performance of his duties is a felony. These guys in Oregon are ultimately going to jail, it's just a matter of how they defuse the PR situation before that happens.
-
Geez, beltim, you beat me to it...
...but you forgot to mention defacing public property through unauthorized replacement of the refuge sign and removal of fences.
That's okay, I didn't forget. And neither did Occupy...
http://hyperallergic.com/38778/occupying-the-walls-graffiti-as-political-protest/
https://storify.com/motherjones/occupy-wall-street-ows-grafitti-tags
Once again, you guys are trying to make a distinction without a difference.
We all know the difference...Occupy gets a free pass because they are a leftist cause. Anyone who claims otherwise is either lying or clueless.
-
1) The criminals in Oregon are armed and say they're willing to kill or be killed.
The fact that they are armed is a notable difference, but only of degree. It's notable to point out that being armed in Oregon isn't typically a felony in it's own right; doing the same thing in Times Square most certainly would be.
Also, please show me where anyone within the protest has stated that they welcome violence. All that I can find is that they refuse to leave voluntarily, and left the rest up to imagination. You can assume that they are willing to engage in a firefight with feds if you wish, but I'd be more inclined to think that it's a bluff for media attention; which, once again, is the end goal of a civil disobedient style of public protest.
From Ammon Bundy himself:
"The only violence that, if it comes our way, will be because government is wanting their building back,"
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/oregon-standoff-armed-protesters-political-reaction-yallqaeda-n490031
Armed occupation with threat of violence. Criminal.
More jumping, Beltim. Tired yet? You left out the part about Bundy being asked about looking for a violent confrontation. Read it again, without your "anti-redneck" bias, and you will notice that Bundy wasn't calling for violence here. If this is the best you have, I'm calling bullshit on your claim that they are looking for a confrontation. This comment is consistent with a bluff.
You're awfully quick to throw out accusations about bias with no evidence. You might find that arguing the facts instead of claiming bias is more effective.
The link I provided has a direct quote from Bundy saying he would be violent if the government "want[ed] their building back." This is illegal occupation with the threat of violence.
If you say so, Beltim. If you say so.
2) Occupy Wall Street was mostly on public land, not restricted federal property.
There is no legal distinction between those two phrases, outside of the context of military property. The bird reserve was public land, for which many ranchers did, and many still do, own grazing rights that predate the federal management of that property. It was a bird sanctuary, bird hunting was was the primary restricted activity. Hiking & camping was also permitted with a federal public lands permit.
http://www.blm.gov/or/resources/recreation/permits2.php
If they were on the land, you might be right. But they're occupying a government building, which is illegal. Again, criminal.
They are occupying a garage in the middle of nowhere, located upon property that is actually under dispute, and has been for about as long as the BLM has existed. Criminals they may be, but that still isn't your's to decide, fortunately. Personally, I think that they may be going about it the wrong way, but I can't argue with their results so far. If they were really smart, they'd quietly get rid of their guns, and film the fed's while they are getting arrested.
Please stop lying. Does this look like a garage to you?
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cb/MalheurNWRHeadquarters.jpg/1024px-MalheurNWRHeadquarters.jpg)
Actually, no. It looks like a country cabin with a large wrap-around deck. Not even big enough to have an attached garage. Great for a cook-out, though. Nice choice, really. Definately prettier than the photo of a concrete block garage that I saw. Is there another building nearby?
-
I'm a federal employee. I work in a federal facility. If armed men came and tried to occupy my work site, armed federal agents would come and shoot those people dead.
I'm not entirely clear on why that didn't happen in this case.
Because there was no one in the building, federal employee or otherwise. The building had been winterized and closed for the season, the militiamen knew this. If armed men came to occupy your work building, they would be coming to defend the lives of federal employees; not prevent property damage. Context, Sol; look for the context.
Basically, I think this is new federal policy to "do nothing" in such cases. For similar reasons, the US government doesn't do eminent domain anymore when they need to build infrastructure, which has led to a handful of landowners costing the nation hundreds of billions of dollars (your taxes) to build extra stuff other places, instead of just the important stuff in the places it should obviously go. The government just bends over backwards to accommodate anyone with an opinion, and we all suffer for it.
At the moment, the pendulum of power has swung WAY too far towards private citizens.
I'm not even sure that's a thing.
George Washington, POTUS who put the Whiskey Rebellion into every American textbook, would be ashamed.
George Washington was, supposedly, already ashamed of what happened during the Whiskey Rebellion & his role in it; so that's probably not a good example to choose. Washington was acting upon the advice of Hamilton, who also penned several op-eds published under the name "Tully". Washington was, supposedly, a bit shocked to learn later that what had been presented to him as an armed insurrection was nothing more than a tax protest; which has happened both before and since, without violence; and for which there was precedence in English Common Law (as well as the Boston Tea Party). Also, the use of force didn't solve anything for Washington, since the tax was largely not collected afterwards anyway. Climate science might be your area of expertise, Sol; but you should avoid stumbling into the areas of either History or Economics. You might just find I have the advantage in those fields.
Hell, even threatening violence against a federal employee in the performance of his duties is a felony.
Only if the threat is credible, and directed towards a particular federal employee. Just mentioning that they would resist the use of force to take the property, even with actual violence, doesn't rise to that standard. Which, I'm sure that you already knew, Sol. Unless, of course, the federal employee in question happens to be the POTUS; in which case the threat doesn't even have to be credible.
These guys in Oregon are ultimately going to jail, it's just a matter of how they defuse the PR situation before that happens.
Oh, I agree with that. I would expect that is part of the plan for most of them. That's a very effective method of bringing attention to government overreach, and it proves the point. That is, so long as they can't be accused of actually using violence to resist arrest; which is why I said their best move would be to sneak the guns away and replace them with video cameras. If a protester get shot because he is holding a video camera, it would be Ruby Ridge all over again. That would suck for the unlucky protester, but it would be a PR victory that the BLM might not ever recover from.
-
property that the feds. owned in many cases since the day they wrestled control from the tribes, and well before the states were even established.
...speaking of which, if anybody has a claim that the Feds should give up control, then it's the Paiutes (http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jan/06/oregon-militia-malheur-wildlife-refuge-paiute-indian-tribe-sacred-land), not the ranchers!
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 was trying to play out in my mind how this scenario would work if the building being occupied was in Detroit and the armed men were all black, wearing hoodies. Then I tried to play out how the scenario would work if the building was in New York and the armed men were all Arab.
Nobody was left alive after the immediate storming of the building by SWAT teams in either of those scenarios. I can't quite figure out why these white guys are being treated so differently. It appears to be the most blatant example of white privilege so far this year . . .
-
This is all great arguing and all but getting way too "I'm right and you're stupid" for me to actually learn anything valuable. I am truly curious about the situation and why everyone is so grumpy. I tend to agree with the BLM because that is the information that has been passed on to me through media. Otherwise I would have no other opinion.
What ownership rights do ranchers/farmers etc have on the federal lands? I thought they were leases?
If it is federal public land, can any U.S. citizen use the property for their own personal gain?
From a previous post about some of the unscrupulous actions of federal employees: does the BLM confiscate privately owned property (not leased or grazing rights property), and not compensate based on the fair market value of the property? (eminent domain issue?) I read some of your anecdotes, and a neighbor changing their property that affects your use and enjoyment of your own property would be a trespass. Wouldn't this be remedied through tort law? (I took some law courses years ago so my memory may not be totally clear).
I would also appreciate any links explaining any problems or grievances. However, biased sources won't help anyone here. Is there really an unbiased source??
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
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.
-
What ownership rights do ranchers/farmers etc have on the federal lands? I thought they were leases?
This isn't directly responsive to your question, but it's interesting with a lot of support, so I thought you might enjoy reading "The Armed Oregon Ranchers Who Want Free Land Are Already Getting a 93 Percent Discount" (http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-armed-oregon-ranchers-who-want-free-land-are-already-getting-a-93-percent-discount/#fn-1)
-
No, they don't take the land... they just dictate that certain areas are to only be used in certain ways.
That still should legally be considered a "taking," the same way a rezoning is.
-
I would be rightfully unhappy if I was unable to have use of my property without just compensation. I'm not a lawyer, but why hasn't this issue been challenged in court? If it has, what was the outcome?
Basically, I'm trying to figure out the root of the argument/disagreement. I get that some people are anti federal government and regulating private citizens, and some are for the protection of endangered species. No one can change their minds on that.
Does all of this really boil down to the relative merits of individual profit motive of leased land vs. environment protection?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
The issue of whether or not the Feds have the right to a wildlife sanctuary here has been to the supreme court in the 1930s and it squarely determined that yes, the Feds can do that.
http://openjurist.org/295/us/1
Ammon's brother Ryan made the kill or be killed comment. Ryan has a long history of overreach beyond what locals want, and appears to be a bit of a hothead and a provocateur (personal opinion, not particularly relevant to right/wrong of the current situation). Ammon stated publicly that he does not support that sentiment (I don't know if he says different things to different people).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KUz47-xh_Q
-
No, they don't take the land... they just dictate that certain areas are to only be used in certain ways.
That still should legally be considered a "taking," the same way a rezoning is.
rezonning is not a "taking" in the legal sense. where is cathy when you need her...
-
No, they don't take the land... they just dictate that certain areas are to only be used in certain ways.
That still should legally be considered a "taking," the same way a rezoning is.
rezonning is not a "taking" in the legal sense. where is cathy when you need her...
Really? That argument sure manages to work great for the developers where I live, whenever they want to build shit everyone hates and the community tries to use rezoning to stop them.
-
The issue of whether or not the Feds have the right to a wildlife sanctuary here has been to the supreme court in the 1930s and it squarely determined that yes, the Feds can do that.
http://openjurist.org/295/us/1
Yes, the supreme court did do this. Yet, objections remain that SCOTUS didn't have the legal authority, under the Constitution, to even decide this question. This is just one of the legal objections noted by constitutional scholar KrisAnne Hall. The root of her argument is that, according to the notes, anti-federalist & federalist papers, and the US Constitution itself; the US Constitution can only be interpreted as a contract between the states to form a federal government, and that same government definitely does not have the authority to own property, of any kind, within the boarders of a state; but only in territories, protectorates & foreign embassies. So at root, the original mission of the BLM was a unconstitutional over-reach of federal authority from the get go. According to her own website, she's in Oregon right now, advising a group of local ranchers on the extent of their land rights.
http://krisannehall.com/
EDIT: So it should be obvious that this has become bigger than a bunch of rednecks in pickup trucks taking over an unoccupied building in the middle of nowhere to have a two week campout. Even if, maybe especially if, the protesters get arrested; this brewhaha won't be over soon.
-
There may be a lot of whining and the politicians are just caving but a judge would not stand for this. link a paper article if you have one on hand
so long as there is still a 'use' of the property then no. I cannot remember the different 'tests' but basically so long as they didn't actually take it or remove all use then no. The most famous perhaps other than maybe Euclid is Lucas
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/505/1003
coincidentally, this is right in front of where we go to the beach, and yes waves are practically hitting the houses and there are always trucks dumping sand and driving in piers, etc. while the rest of the dunes are in pretty good shape.
-
The issue of whether or not the Feds have the right to a wildlife sanctuary here has been to the supreme court in the 1930s and it squarely determined that yes, the Feds can do that.
http://openjurist.org/295/us/1
Yes, the supreme court did do this. Yet, objections remain that SCOTUS didn't have the legal authority, under the Constitution, to even decide this question. This is just one of the legal objections noted by constitutional scholar KrisAnne Hall. The root of her argument is that, according to the notes, anti-federalist & federalist papers, and the US Constitution itself; the US Constitution can only be interpreted as a contract between the states to form a federal government, and that same government definitely does not have the authority to own property, of any kind, within the boarders of a state; but only in territories, protectorates & foreign embassies. So at root, the original mission of the BLM was a unconstitutional over-reach of federal authority from the get go. According to her own website, she's in Oregon right now, advising a group of local ranchers on the extent of their land rights.
http://krisannehall.com/
EDIT: So it should be obvious that this has become bigger than a bunch of rednecks in pickup trucks taking over an unoccupied building in the middle of nowhere to have a two week campout. Even if, maybe especially if, the protesters get arrested; this brewhaha won't be over soon.
The view of federal land ownership is clearly an item that is being debated in some corners, but I don't think a majority of the population believes that the Feds should wholesale hand federal lands over to the states. I also don't think it is agreed upon that the Federal government does not have the legal authority to own lands and there is strong precedent and argument saying that the Feds can, in fact, own land legally. This is an issue that was also specifically addressed as Oregon became a state rather than a territory (and notably after the Federal Government invaded Mexico via Vera Cruz, took Mexico city, and then forced the leader (Santa Anna) to cede most of the west to the USA. A tangent further would be to note that the same leader's prosthetic leg is on display in Illinois and Texas wants it back, and that many who would later be notable in the Civil War such as Lee were part of the invasion.). Oregon was given much land in the Oregon territory at the transition to statehood (about 5000 acres of that are still being allocated following recent court decisions- notable that resolution of that took place through the courts, rather than through armed occupation.).
The Sagebrush Rebellion and friction against the Federal government is obviously larger than the Oregon standoff. That said, my opinion is that the Bundys are scofflaws and are not good representatives of their professed point of view (which I disagree with regardless of the mouthpiece).
-
That said, my opinion is that the Bundys are scofflaws and are not good representatives of their professed point of view (which I disagree with regardless of the mouthpiece).
On this point, at least, we can agree.
-
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, 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.
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.
But I don't want to generalize,
You still did, despite your declaration of contrary desires.
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.
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.
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.
-
Well, I tried to lighten it up with a little tongue in cheek joking, but apparently you didn't get it. Relax, dude.
-
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.
-
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
-
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.
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.
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.
The Hammonds were not charged with terrorism because they make poor decisions about fire control.
The Hammonds weren't charged with terrorism.
-
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.
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 (http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jan/06/oregon-militia-malheur-wildlife-refuge-paiute-indian-tribe-sacred-land), 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.
-
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.
-
One could argue that most human occupation doesn't improve the land.
-
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.
-
One could argue that some people on this board are too argumentative to enjoy a joke, however small.
-
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!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
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.
-
An interesting view from the ground:
https://www.facebook.com/peter.walker.31542/posts/1039941086069281
Many of his other posts are interesting as well.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
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.
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.
-
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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Oscar_Grant) 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.
-
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.
“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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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/
-
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. ;)
-
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 (http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-01-14/fbi-agents-werent-posing-as-militia-ex-fire-chief-clarifies)
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.
-
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 (http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-01-14/fbi-agents-werent-posing-as-militia-ex-fire-chief-clarifies)
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.
-
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 (http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-01-14/fbi-agents-werent-posing-as-militia-ex-fire-chief-clarifies)
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...
“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.
-
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 (http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-01-14/fbi-agents-werent-posing-as-militia-ex-fire-chief-clarifies)
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...
“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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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. "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?
-
Jason Stapleton had much to say about all of this on his radio show today.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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:
-
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.).
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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....
-
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.
-
Another trial for Malheur Refuge standoff has ended. This was for some of the supporting cast, so to speak. Unlike the Bundys, who received non-guilty on all charges, this jury returned some guilty verdicts. More at:
http://www.hcn.org/articles/the-oregon-standoff-trials-are-finished-but-will-they-ever-be-over
-
Bringing this back out of the dustbin because Trump just pardoned the Hammonds, who were part of the original catalyst for the Malheur standoff.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/10/us/politics/trump-pardon-hammond-oregon.html
The comment from Huckabee Sanders that the Hammonds had the support from local law enforcement seems to neglect the part where they acted aggressively towards federal employees up to and including death threats. So much winning!
https://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/01/oregon_militants_years_before.html
Beyond the specifics of this particular case, I am most concerned about how this will embolden the fringe groups that want to reduce protections for public lands, usually for increased access for extractive industries for short term gain.
-
Bringing this back out of the dustbin because Trump just pardoned the Hammonds, who were part of the original catalyst for the Malheur standoff.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/10/us/politics/trump-pardon-hammond-oregon.html
The comment from Huckabee Sanders that the Hammonds had the support from local law enforcement seems to neglect the part where they acted aggressively towards federal employees up to and including death threats. So much winning!
https://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/01/oregon_militants_years_before.html
Beyond the specifics of this particular case, I am most concerned about how this will embolden the fringe groups that want to reduce protections for public lands, usually for increased access for extractive industries for short term gain.
All part of Putin's plan to destabilize the US.