ADVERTISEMENT

150 armed terrorists take over federal building

Right, so any "thug" in an inner city saying the same thing to an officer would carry the same response to attempted arrest .... right? Even if they openly carried?
why do you gotta call them thugs.

And why was the cop making an arrest in your example.

What is arrest worthy in Oregon so far
?

Obviously, in the comparison, it would be for breaking the law.

Self defense is a legal term, do you believe someone breaking the law can defend themselves, legally, from law enforcement action? I would wager that every state has a law saying the opposite.

If you aren't talking about in a legal sense, then all resisting arrest is simply self-defense, which is an absurd position to take considering your political stance.

They're protesting. What have they done that is arrest worthy?[/QUOTE]

Wait, what is going on in your scenario? You've admitted they are trespassing, violating law, right? They've been asked to leave, presumably, right? Therefore they can be arrested.

Their response, apparently, is that they will use their weapons as force to resist that arrest.

You've lost all coherence. I think it is pretty well agreed-upon that a person can't resist an arrest (lawful/unlawful, but especially lawful as you admit here), and certainly can't do so violently nor with weapons.
 
Also, I'm not sure that they should be arrested or that I would arrest them were I in charge, this all spurned form your defending them .... while calling out other "protests" as being wrong.

I've been trying to discuss this under the rule of law you have been demanding in threads about protests, none of which have outwardly promoted violence nor threatened to respond with violence, including admitting to being armed.
 
Obviously, in the comparison, it would be for breaking the law.



They're protesting. What have they done that is arrest worthy?

Wait, what is going on in your scenario? You've admitted they are trespassing, violating law, right? They've been asked to leave, presumably, right? Therefore they can be arrested.

Their response, apparently, is that they will use their weapons as force to resist that arrest.

You've lost all coherence. I think it is pretty well agreed-upon that a person can't resist an arrest (lawful/unlawful, but especially lawful as you admit here), and certainly can't do so violently nor with weapons.[/QUOTE]

Like I said. The BLM shut down and international airport and the worlds largest retail center. They made threats of violence and were tresspassing. Apparently that wasn't arrest worthy.

Visible weapons is the only difference you give me here.

Even though I would say magnitude of the disturbance tilts heavily towards BLM.
 
Wait, what is going on in your scenario? You've admitted they are trespassing, violating law, right? They've been asked to leave, presumably, right? Therefore they can be arrested.

Their response, apparently, is that they will use their weapons as force to resist that arrest.

You've lost all coherence. I think it is pretty well agreed-upon that a person can't resist an arrest (lawful/unlawful, but especially lawful as you admit here), and certainly can't do so violently nor with weapons.

Like I said. The BLM shut down and international airport and the worlds largest retail center. They made threats of violence and were tresspassing. Apparently that wasn't arrest worthy.

Visible weapons is the only difference you give me here.

Even though I would say magnitude of the disturbance tilts heavily towards BLM.
[/QUOTE]


What? If you want to claim that BLM (not the Bundy v. BLM) made threats of violence, feel free to post quotes to back it up. I'm not saying it didn't happen, but I will say that it didn't come from the defacto and self-proclaimed leader of the group. Any time you get a large, emotional, group together there will be "non-sanctioned" things, such as threats. This Bundy appears to be self-sanctioning violence via his weaponry.

And that "only difference" is pretty striking. That "only difference" is often the difference between a "justified" OIS and one that was not, which is why the response from Law Enforcement is almost always that the bad guy was armed or reaching for the LEO's firearm.

And you are helping to pinpoint many of our complaints in this very thread: You find one "protest" to be wrong and one to be acceptable/right/defensible/whatever .... and the one you defend is the one where the group is admittedly armed and willing to kill in defense.
 
Like I said. The BLM shut down and international airport and the worlds largest retail center. They made threats of violence and were tresspassing. Apparently that wasn't arrest worthy.

Visible weapons is the only difference you give me here.

Even though I would say magnitude of the disturbance tilts heavily towards BLM.

What? If you want to claim that BLM (not the Bundy v. BLM) made threats of violence, feel free to post quotes to back it up. I'm not saying it didn't happen, but I will say that it didn't come from the defacto and self-proclaimed leader of the group. Any time you get a large, emotional, group together there will be "non-sanctioned" things, such as threats. This Bundy appears to be self-sanctioning violence via his weaponry.

And that "only difference" is pretty striking. That "only difference" is often the difference between a "justified" OIS and one that was not, which is why the response from Law Enforcement is almost always that the bad guy was armed or reaching for the LEO's firearm.

And you are helping to pinpoint many of our complaints in this very thread: You find one "protest" to be wrong and one to be acceptable/right/defensible/whatever .... and the one you defend is the one where the group is admittedly armed and willing to kill in defense.[/QUOTE]

I didn't say I support either. Quite the opposite in fact.

I don't see much difference between the two, except politics.
 
For the last time: It is not just visible weapons, no matter how much you want to make it a 2A issue. They have implied, if not specifically threatened, that they will use their arms to defend themselves from arrest ... very different than just having "visible weapons".
 
  • Like
Reactions: naturalmwa
What? If you want to claim that BLM (not the Bundy v. BLM) made threats of violence, feel free to post quotes to back it up. I'm not saying it didn't happen, but I will say that it didn't come from the defacto and self-proclaimed leader of the group. Any time you get a large, emotional, group together there will be "non-sanctioned" things, such as threats. This Bundy appears to be self-sanctioning violence via his weaponry.

And that "only difference" is pretty striking. That "only difference" is often the difference between a "justified" OIS and one that was not, which is why the response from Law Enforcement is almost always that the bad guy was armed or reaching for the LEO's firearm.

And you are helping to pinpoint many of our complaints in this very thread: You find one "protest" to be wrong and one to be acceptable/right/defensible/whatever .... and the one you defend is the one where the group is admittedly armed and willing to kill in defense.

I didn't say I support either. Quite the opposite in fact.

I don't see much difference between the two, except politics.[/QUOTE]


So, here is your opportunity. Should the Bundy group be arrested and removed for their actions? Should they be charged with crimes? Or, alternatively, should they be allowed to defend themselves using their 2A arms?

You haven't equivocated about BLM, so I'm not sure why you are here.
 
I didn't say I support either. Quite the opposite in fact.

I don't see much difference between the two, except politics.

So, here is your opportunity. Should the Bundy group be arrested and removed for their actions? Should they be charged with crimes? Or, alternatively, should they be allowed to defend themselves using their 2A arms?

You haven't equivocated about BLM, so I'm not sure why you are here.[/QUOTE]

If you didn't pay attention to the BLM in the past few weeks I'm sorry. If you did then you're playing politics.
 
If you wait long enough, Facebook will deliver:

944099_1065434480175746_6440315709417085237_n.jpg
 
If you didn't pay attention to the BLM in the past few weeks I'm sorry. If you did then you're playing politics.

So, not interested in posting anything? When I did a basic google search it just showed a lot of articles about the protesters, themselves, being threatened. Do you have something where the leader, or some sanctioned response was that they would use weapons to defend themselves from being removed? Or even without weapons?
 
Good grief...they're protesting the convictions of two men who hunted illegally and then set a fire to destroy the evidence. Who can defend these morons?

No they aren't, they are simply taking the opportunity to kirk-start their "movement", trying to somehow force out the federal government so that they can control themselves. I presume this to mean that Cliven Bundy and his son's will simply get to take whatever land they want, it would be interesting to see how they would treat their surrounding people ... I'm sure not kindly and not likely to be sharing the grazing land.
 
So, not interested in posting anything? When I did a basic google search it just showed a lot of articles about the protesters, themselves, being threatened. Do you have something where the leader, or some sanctioned response was that they would use weapons to defend themselves from being removed? Or even without weapons?

BLM doesn't have a leader. Kinda like Occupy.

Harder to hold them accountable without a structure.
 
Good grief...they're protesting the convictions of two men who hunted illegally and then set a fire to destroy the evidence. Who can defend these morons?
Well, I suppose if you think they were wrongfully convicted you might protest. Wrongful convictions have been known to happen.

All I've heard about this case is that their defense was that the fire was an accident. A deliberately set fire on their own land that jumped to public land by accident. Apparently the court disagreed.

The 5-year sentences seem too long. But I'm a liberal and I often think sentences are too harsh, so take that for what it's worth. Apparently that's the legal minimum for that offense. As a liberal I also tend to oppose minimum sentences.

Until I hear any arguments for the convicts - who have quite clearly distanced themselves from this revolt - I will do as I usually do and give the judge/jury the benefit of doubt.
 
  • Like
Reactions: naturalmwa
BLM doesn't have a leader. Kinda like Occupy.

Harder to hold them accountable without a structure.
Thanks for the mindless wingnut criticism.

The real reason is because it's a people's movement and diffuse structure helps prevent the agenda being co-opted by authoritarian types, plutocrats, political parties and such - as happened to the early Tea Party movement.
 
Well, I suppose if you think they were wrongfully convicted you might protest. Wrongful convictions have been known to happen.

All I've heard about this case is that their defense was that the fire was an accident. A deliberately set fire on their own land that jumped to public land by accident. Apparently the court disagreed.

The 5-year sentences seem too long. But I'm a liberal and I often think sentences are too harsh, so take that for what it's worth. Apparently that's the legal minimum for that offense. As a liberal I also tend to oppose minimum sentences.

Until I hear any arguments for the convicts - who have quite clearly distanced themselves from this revolt - I will do as I usually do and give the judge/jury the benefit of doubt.

Sentence is definitely too harsh, especially considering it falls under some sort of terrorism umbrella passed without anything like this in mind.

But it does appear that his nephew (?) who was younger at the time testified against them saying that he was instructed to stand right at the fence line and light as many matches as he could, with the others doing so as well, and that they even flew over it to watch it burn. It seems pretty clear it wasn't accidental, it wasn't approved, it wasn't allowed. How that equates to 5 f****** years is beyond me, but that is the federal criminal system for us.

These guys are not actually protesting that conviction, as is often the case with protests, they are simply using it as a starting point.
 
Thanks for the mindless wingnut criticism.

The real reason is because it's a people's movement and diffuse structure helps prevent the agenda being co-opted by authoritarian types, plutocrats, political parties and such - as happened to the early Tea Party movement.

Or, it's just an amoebic, anarchism with no direction

Content rather just operating on id.
 
No penalty?

Let them leave with their guns?

Let people who think like this still be able to purchase guns?

Make the taxpayers foot the bill?

Can I do this, too? Take over some federal vacation spot, live there for free for the duration of my vacation, and then just walk away? Cool.
They have done nothing that would allow the government to do anything so outrageous as taking their guns.
 
Well, I suppose if you think they were wrongfully convicted you might protest. Wrongful convictions have been known to happen.

All I've heard about this case is that their defense was that the fire was an accident. A deliberately set fire on their own land that jumped to public land by accident. Apparently the court disagreed.

The 5-year sentences seem too long. But I'm a liberal and I often think sentences are too harsh, so take that for what it's worth. Apparently that's the legal minimum for that offense. As a liberal I also tend to oppose minimum sentences.

Until I hear any arguments for the convicts - who have quite clearly distanced themselves from this revolt - I will do as I usually do and give the judge/jury the benefit of doubt.

There were people who were in their "hunting" party who testified against them. One was a relative. They tried to cover it by calling BLM after the fact and making the bogus claim about burning invasive weeds. The five year sentences are due to a law dealing with arson on public property. That law was passed by a GOP Congress in '96 after the attack in Oklahoma City
 
Sentence is definitely too harsh, especially considering it falls under some sort of terrorism umbrella passed without anything like this in mind.

But it does appear that his nephew (?) who was younger at the time testified against them saying that he was instructed to stand right at the fence line and light as many matches as he could, with the others doing so as well, and that they even flew over it to watch it burn. It seems pretty clear it wasn't accidental, it wasn't approved, it wasn't allowed. How that equates to 5 f****** years is beyond me, but that is the federal criminal system for us.

These guys are not actually protesting that conviction, as is often the case with protests, they are simply using it as a starting point.
If you read tarheels's post in this thread, it doesn't sound too harsh. They intentionally tried to burn the whole forest down to cover up a poaching criminal act. Now I'm a huge fan of alternative sentencing for non violent crimes, but this crime could have killed people all for free venison. Taking such a person out of public circulation seems appropriate.
 
You guys wanted culture wars and now we are getting culture wars. BLM v the local popo. Muslim jihadist vs all of us. White boy nationalist vs the federal govt.

24832140.jpg
 
They have done nothing that would allow the government to do anything so outrageous as taking their guns.
Really? So if I come onto your property with a gun and tell you I plan to shoot you if you try to remove me, I'm golden in your book?
 
Actually the more I think about it...

The BLM and Bundy's group should join forces.

They are both protesting an oppressive government.

Imagine if they did.
 
If you read tarheels's post in this thread, it doesn't sound too harsh. They intentionally tried to burn the whole forest down to cover up a poaching criminal act. Now I'm a huge fan of alternative sentencing for non violent crimes, but this crime could have killed people all for free venison. Taking such a person out of public circulation seems appropriate.

I don't see this at all. Your justification is that his crime could have killed people. It didn't, so the punitive nature (which I argue heavily against) isn't there. So it must be either protective or rehabilitative. Are we concerned they will do it again? Probably, they listed multiple incidences. If so, are there other ways to convince them not to? Heavy fines? Revocation of leases? Even short jail stint? I would think that any one of those would reach the same goal. Prison? Good lordy. They are ranchers, they don't really need rehabilitation, they just need to stop doing this one specific bad act, which they likely have.
 
There were people who were in their "hunting" party who testified against them. One was a relative. They tried to cover it by calling BLM after the fact and making the bogus claim about burning invasive weeds. The five year sentences are due to a law dealing with arson on public property. That law was passed by a GOP Congress in '96 after the attack in Oklahoma City

Precisely - a law about terrorism. Was this terrorism? Of course not, maybe a selfish act with disregard for the law and other things, but certainly not terrorism. Why did they ever even go looking in that chapter? Prosecutors need to use discretion, not simply figure out how to charge somebody with something that might fit the language.
 
I don't see this at all. Your justification is that his crime could have killed people. It didn't, so the punitive nature (which I argue heavily against) isn't there. So it must be either protective or rehabilitative. Are we concerned they will do it again? Probably, they listed multiple incidences. If so, are there other ways to convince them not to? Heavy fines? Revocation of leases? Even short jail stint? I would think that any one of those would reach the same goal. Prison? Good lordy. They are ranchers, they don't really need rehabilitation, they just need to stop doing this one specific bad act, which they likely have.
If you are willing to burn a forest to cover an illegal hunt, I'm not sure I trust you to be out in the public. That's some serious enough bad judgment and disregard for property and people. This wasn't an accidental fire like some are pretending. This was an attempt at a massive destruction to cover up a minor offense. Perhaps a mental institution would be more appropriate but we don't have that option anymore in America. Crazy people go to jail here.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT