Showdown in Oregon

ProdigalHorn said:
Regardless, the rule above isn't an "either-or". It has to meet all three. It does not.
Click to expand...

Seattle what I meant by this was that it has to meet all three of the main bullet points. I understand that in the second one, it only has to be one of the three choices, but it has to meet all three of the main points.

Seattle Husker said:
gain, I don't think anyone is drawing a clear correlation with Islamic terrorists but the intent to coerce or intimidate government into action is there.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone on this board necessarily is, but the fact is that we have protocols in place to deal with domestic terrorists that blow up buildings and slaughter civilians, and there are certainly people who view these guys as the same kind of threat, even though there's no indication that they are. But once you qualify them as domestic terrorists, there are all kinds of things you can justify doing.

At this point, there's no reason to think this is going to end any other way than the government continuing to wait them out until they run out of food and give up. That's not really in keeping with how domestic terrorists act.
 
I think any reasonable or practical definition of the terrorism has to include violence or threatened violence toward civilians. I take the ideas below as more holistic as opposed to using each as a criterion to alone define terrorism.

(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping

i) identifies the targets, ii) identifies the intent or purpose and iii) identifies the means or methods.

The guys in Oregon don't fit that profile.

The problem with the word terrorist is that we as a populace judge "terrorists" as categorically "bad" and should be fought. The minute we label a person as such, again we as a populace will accept more or less any type of action against him/her. I think the best approach is seek peaceful reconcilation in conflict not label people with the most inflammatory label we can find to try to win some ideological or rhetorical argument.
 
It looks like this sordid ordeal is winding down. Sadly, one armed protester is dead. As usual, there are 2 different eye witness accounts. One that paints the government as gunning Finicum down in cold blood and the other that claims he charged law enforcement. Regardless, the rhetoric of "willing to die for the cause" and consistent presence of guns raised tensions to the point that a peaceful resolution was near impossible.
 
Seattle Husker said:
It looks like this sordid ordeal is winding down. Sadly, one armed protester is dead. As usual, there are 2 different eye witness accounts. One that paints the government as gunning Finicum down in cold blood and the other that claims he charged law enforcement. Regardless, the rhetoric of "willing to die for the cause" and consistent presence of guns raised tensions to the point that a peaceful resolution was near impossible.
Click to expand...

That sounds familiar. #whitelivesmatter
 
2 ends of the same spectrum.
Click to expand...

Good points were made above about the problem with police violence and "dangerous" black or white criminals/protestors (depending on your point of view) getting killed.

That said, someone else made a related point about it.



I expressed irritation in this thread about americans rejecting peaceful protest. However, after watching this, I realized the other reason the Oregon protestors also irritated (but not angered) me.

There are real instances of branches of the federal government violating the constitution. They include wars, wiretapping, recent supreme court decisions, etc. These protestors were not protesting a real reason. They were just generally angry at the man and decided to react disproportionally to the situation at hand. As stated above, the people they were protesting for did not even want them there. Instead of expressing their displeasure at the arrest of those ranchers in a proportionate manner, the oregon people decided to be defcon 1 fort sumter "we're armed and seizing a federal building!" idiots.

The same is true of many of the college campus protests. There are real instances of racism in the world and the usa. However, the college students keeps protesting nonsense or "microaggressions" that should only elicit "microanger." Instead, if they see or hear something they do not like (no matter how minor or if they only perceived it and it did not happen), they respond with "IM GOING ON STRIKE! FIRE EVERYONE! BAN ALL SYMBOLS I DO NOT LIKE! CHANGE ANY NAMES I DO NOT LIKE! IM GOING TO GET IN THE FACE OF ANYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH ME, SHOUT THEM DOWN, THREATEN ANYONE WHO APPROACHES MY SAFE SPACE AND ACT LIKE A NONSENSICAL TURD!"

Have we examined a factor (not the reason or even the main factor, but just a factor) in all the shootings is that people get too dang angry about stuff? See road rage for example. People will not remember what happened on their drive home the next day but get so angry at anything they do not like on the road. Why get so angry about something you will not even remember tomorrow or have any lasting effects on your life? Maybe this country has an anger problem. Maybe everyone needs to move to colorado for a little while and chill, I do not know. I do now think this may be a factor in the success of Trump, the angry man. Angry americans (of which there seem to be many of all political persuasions) can relate his unjustified or disproportionate rage to their own. Mike Tyson, Bob Knight and John Rocker all endorsed Trump and I think, other than sports, anger issues might be the only thing they have in common.
 
Last edited:
Htown77 said:
Good points were made above about the problem with police violence and "dangerous" black or white criminals/protestors (depending on your point of view) getting killed.

That said, someone else made a related point about it.



I expressed irritation in this thread about americans rejecting peaceful protest. However, after watching this, I realized the other reason the Oregon protestors also irritated (but not angered) me.

There are real instances of branches of the federal government violating the constitution. They include wars, wiretapping, recent supreme court decisions, etc. These protestors were not protesting a real reason. They were just generally angry at the man and decided to react disproportionally to the situation at hand. As stated above, the people they were protesting for did not even want them there. Instead of expressing their displeasure at the arrest of those ranchers in a proportionate manner, the oregon people decided to be defcon 1 fort sumter "we're armed and seizing a federal building!" idiots.

The same is true of many of the college campus protests. There are real instances of racism in the world and the usa. However, the college students keeps protesting nonsense or "microaggressions" that should only elicit "microanger." Instead, if they see or hear something they do not like (no matter how minor or if they only perceived it and it did not happen), they respond with "IM GOING ON STRIKE! FIRE EVERYONE! BAN ALL SYMBOLS I DO NOT LIKE! CHANGE ANY NAMES I DO NOT LIKE! IM GOING TO GET IN THE FACE OF ANYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH ME, SHOUT THEM DOWN, THREATEN ANYONE WHO APPROACHES MY SAFE SPACE AND ACT LIKE A NONSENSICAL TURD!"

Have we examined a factor (not the reason or even the main factor, but just a factor) in all the shootings is that people get too dang angry about stuff? See road rage for example. People will not remember what happened on their drive home the next day but get so angry at anything they do not like on the road. Why get so angry about something you will not even remember tomorrow or have any lasting effects on your life? Maybe this country has an anger problem. Maybe everyone needs to move to colorado for a little while and chill, I do not know. I do now think this may be a factor in the success of Trump, the angry man. Angry americans (of which there seem to be many of all political persuasions) can relate his unjustified or disproportionate rage to their own. Mike Tyson, Bob Knight and John Rocker all endorsed Trump and I think, other than sports, anger issues might be the only thing they have in common.
Click to expand...


Good point. Why do you think people are so angry? My hypothesis is that with the internet, we've narrowed the political spectrum of our media consumption. Rather than being forced into a centrist-ish view from our nightly news, now we self-silo ourselves in extremist viewpoints. Rather than take in the media to make an assessment that shapes our world view too many consume media that reinforces their world view and emboldens it even in the face of contrary evidence.

This gives people like the Mizzou student confidence that that are "doing right" even when they are exaggerating the facts. The militia men think they are fighting for a bigger cause than what in reality they are.
 
I would say that it's like when you have a kid that throws temper tantrums, and he finally learns that if he wants mom and dad to pay attention and respond, he needs to throw a fit. Basically if you want to get noticed today, there's no quicker way than to have a loud, obnoxious protest somewhere accompanied by angry social media messaging. You'll find a host of useful idiots ready to echo your demands without vetting or questioning them, and now you've got a movement on your hands where the vast majority of supporters don't understand the cause or even know why they're mad.

When everyone else is yelling, too, that just means you have to yell even louder to get that attention.
 
The FBI released a video and I'm seeing all sorts of Mimes about a rancher getting shot with his hands up. The video clearly shows him reaching towards the inside of his jacket between decisions to put his hands up ... plenty of reason to shoot an inner city teen.

Don't people realize that when you bring weapons to a "peaceful protest" tensions get escalated? FBI agents, just like most police, want to go home to their families and when your actions cause them to fear for their lives you are very probably going to get shot.
 
Last edited:
People always seem to have this "it will never happen to me" mentality. I don't know if it's the whole TV culture, but it's like we feel removed from any catastrophic consequences to our action - like they're not real, or that maybe we're so desensitized to the idea of armed people holing up in a building that people do it without even thinking that they're now going to be viewed as a real threat that will be shot at any sign of a threat.
 
I saw the video the same way. Finicum exits the car with his hands up then clearly reaches into his coat or waist. Keep in mind, this gentleman had publicly stated that he "wouldn't spend a night in behind bars" and was "willing to die for the cause". Oh, he also toted guns including a holstered pistol.
 
ProdigalHorn said:
People always seem to have this "it will never happen to me" mentality. I don't know if it's the whole TV culture, but it's like we feel removed from any catastrophic consequences to our action - like they're not real, or that maybe we're so desensitized to the idea of armed people holing up in a building that people do it without even thinking that they're now going to be viewed as a real threat that will be shot at any sign of a threat.
Click to expand...

Yep. In think some of these individuals truly feel they'd be able to walk away from this ordeal too rather than be arrested. One of the stated asks from the remaining protesters on the refuge is that the Feds drop the warrant for one of the final remaining individuals. Seriously? If that happens what message would that send to the next group of wannabe militia?
 
Or
Seattle Husker said:
Yep. In think some of these individuals truly feel they'd be able to walk away from this ordeal too rather than be arrested. One of the stated asks from the remaining protesters on the refuge is that the Feds drop the warrant for one of the final remaining individuals. Seriously? If that happens what message would that send to the next group of wannabe militia?
Click to expand...


Or any other holed up or fleeing armed felon.
 
I think it is okay to be enraged at the government when you feel they have wronged you. I am not saying that the armed protesters in Oregon were right in what they did or that their response was proportional. What I am saying is that it is not wrong to become enraged when the state harms you. These interactions in between ranchers and the BLM affect their means of providing for themselves. As we have seen by this incident, the government can carry weapons and shoot people and nobody criticizes them much. They can bully people unreasonably while being on the "right" side of the law. The protests, arrest, and shooting is a symptom of a much bigger issue going on in the West and in the US in general.

Why do we agree with the assumption that the federal agents will have guns and be okay with it while we are so surprised and critical that citizens would also want to have guns themselves? It is irrational to me.
 
There are real instances of branches of the federal government violating the constitution. They include wars, wiretapping, recent supreme court decisions, etc. These protestors were not protesting a real reason. They were just generally angry at the man and decided to react disproportionally to the situation at hand. As stated above, the people they were protesting for did not even want them there. Instead of expressing their displeasure at the arrest of those ranchers in a proportionate manner, the oregon people decided to be defcon 1 fort sumter "we're armed and seizing a federal building!" idiots.
Click to expand...

Good summary.
 
Monahorns said:
Why do we agree with the assumption that the federal agents will have guns and be okay with it while we are so surprised and critical that citizens would also want to have guns themselves? It is irrational to me.
Click to expand...

So you prefer the Somali model? Seems like anarchy if we no longer allowed those enforcing our laws to project and use force.

I've always thought that if law enforcement caught me in the appearance of malfeasance, it was not nice, but acceptable that they would point weapons, cuff or otherwise restrain me. A cop orders me to put my hands up, I put 'em up and would expect that should I so much as reach for a screwdriver I'm committing suicide by cop.

Private citizens holding guns or me or restraining me by force would seem guilty of kidnapping and I'd be more resistant if I had the means.

Should the FBI go into those situation unarmed, or maybe armed with a baton like an old time British Bobbie? Or like in the Old Western Movies where they line up for a fair fight and draw on signal, giving the outlaw an even chance?
 
Last edited:
I never said cops or government agents shouldn't carry weapons. I am not even saying the police were in the wrong in this case or that they don't have a right to enforce the law.

I am questioning the double standard of being comfortable with the government carrying weapons but being critical, suspicious of citizens carrying weapons.

I am also hoping that people start to think about the idea that in some cases the government can be wrong or immoral even if the action is legal. Legality doesn't constitute morality or rightness and I think citizens have a right even a responsibility to be enraged and act accordingly when unjust laws are enforced.
 
I am also hoping that people start to think about the idea that in some cases the government can be wrong or immoral even if the action is legal.
Click to expand...

Right: For example, I think Bundy and crew were right that the sentences for the arsonist ranchers was way out of line for the crime committed. Damned "minimum sentence" laws remove much needed judge/jury discretion. The injustice is really glaring when it affects prosperous white people.
 
Monahorns said:
Why do we agree with the assumption that the federal agents will have guns and be okay with it while we are so surprised and critical that citizens would also want to have guns themselves? It is irrational to me.
Click to expand...

What you're referring to is the social contract. We all agree to let the government manage law and order because it's in our collective best interest. An individual managing law and order for themselves has only their own best interest which may differ from my best interest. In your scenario, we trust that the government won't abuse that power. As a whole, that trust is warranted. Due to our local, state and federal law enforcement agencies we have the safest country in the world.

What evidence is there that this power granted to the agencies is being abused? The ranchers are upset that they are losing their grazing rights, some paid for and some not. Why are they losing it? The BLM is enforcing other rights that belong to the population. Habitats, endangered species, and mineral rights are other considerations. If I don't own the land but lease it they need to realize that's not a permanent right. If I have a coffee shop in which I lease the building and the owner decides not to renew why should have expect there to be recourse? It's the same idea with these ranchers.

Honestly, what you are advocating for is the destruction of the social contract which would set our nation back to a Pre-Constitution state.
 
Monahorns said:
Legality doesn't constitute morality or rightness and I think citizens have a right even a responsibility to be enraged and act accordingly when unjust laws are enforced.
Click to expand...

What is the remedy? Change the laws, the politicians, or the bureaucrats. We have legal means of recourse. Picking up your guns to send a message is pure anarchy and uncivilized.
 
Monahans: Certainly most gun owners are responsible, caring, law-abiding citizens. Some will shoot your four-year-old because you accidentally cut them off in traffic or flipped the bird at them when they did it to you.

I know a lot of people who want to carry guns everywhere would like us to be accepting of it and not look twice. Hey, if I knew they all had Hoss Cartwright and Lucas McCain outlooks that would be cool. But honestly, I look differently at persons, even cops, carrying a tool that gives them the capability in a second or two to kill practically anybody they can see. I see a guy walking through my neighborhood carrying an AR-15, I'm hiding and calling the cops. A guy sits next to me in church or Torchy's Tacos with a holstered pistol, I'll be alert, wary and if he acts strange, I'm creating some distance.
 
SeattleH, I guess I don't completely agree with the social contract principle because I never opted in (along with every generation of American since the 1800s) and there is no option to opt out. I don't disagree that there is a role government can play in providing public services and goods, but I don't think it is a good thing to concede all measures of force over to the state, neither did the founders even though they of all people could be said to have opted in to our current social contract.
 
Crockett, I agree if I saw someone walking down the street with a rifle I would be concerned and cautious. I would react the same if it was a police officer. I have no reason to trust a policeman any more than anyone else. I have no reason to fear an armed citizen anymore than a policeman.
 
Monahorns said:
Crockett, I agree if I saw someone walking down the street with a rifle I would be concerned and cautious. I would react the same if it was a police officer. I have no reason to trust a policeman any more than anyone else. I have no reason to fear an armed citizen anymore than a policeman.
Click to expand...

Is that an indictment of law enforcement?
 
Monahorns said:
I think it is more a healthy distrust of any human being walking around my neighborhood with a gun.
Click to expand...

OK. I'd agree that anyone walking around openly carrying a rifle in my neighborhood would be disconcerting. Then again, if it was a cop I'd be locking the doors assuming they were tracking an equally armed bad person. As opposed to a non-law enforcement person my immediate response would be "I've spotted the crazy person."
 
The guys doing this didn't seem to be making sense to me but I don't know the law with respect to federal lands. Running away with the truck after being stopped was not smart. No sympathy for law breaking there.

The part that really takes the stupidity cake was trying to run the blockade. Brilliant strategy employed there.

Then to top that stupidity cake the guy gets out and gets himself shot by clearly reaching for his gun or what law enforcement would reasonably believe was a gun. (I couldn't hear any sound from the video if there was any)

What an embarrassment to reasonable people assuming they were reasonable at some point. It doesn't seem reasonable to try this or any type of protest, save second amendment protection protest perhaps, while being armed with anything but sign placards.

Use words and social media to make your point. Gather a following of reasonable people by making your case verbally. Darwin wins again.
 
After skimming through ... I think there's something which resembles consensus ... and you can pat me on the back for my restraint with Seattle's initial post. Though I'm not sure he understands being armed isn't "intimidating" in/of itself. You may be intimidated, but the simple fact of "being armed" doesn't "check the requirement" for being intimidating.

These folks have a legitimate grievance, and their protest is admirable. I don't know what happened between the on site activity and that viral video of LaVoy's last 10 minutes on the planet. But something went way over the line to have motivated that response from the FBI.

I read an article which suggested LaVoy was seeking to "diffuse the situation" when he exited the truck. Whatever else happened, when you run a roadblock, strike an officer with your vehicle, then RUN out of your truck ... that's not surrender ... that's having lost the authority to diffuse anything. LaVoy would have had breakfast (in the pokey I'm sure) the next morning if, as late as the botched roadblock activity ... would have just followed directions of the officers.

I'm gonna go farther and say ... even if he exited the vehicle before receiving any command ... stopped right there, got on his knees with hands behind his noggin. He doesn't get shot.

There's another example of Fed-gone-wild MUCH CLOSER to home (at least for those of us not named Seattle Husker) ...

http://www.tapwires.com/2016/02/01/...aving-deeds-paying-property-taxes-on-the-land

How would you react to the Fed taking property which had been in your family ... and worked ... for 70 years and on which you'd built a house?

The BLM is nothing more than another marker of unConstitutional expansion in the Fed. The extent of its purview should be the brokering of property for the use of INSTALLATIONS ... that means infrastructure ... buildings ... runways. (military base) ... not 50%/more of forest in a given state.
 
Last edited:
Htown77 said:
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-35406324

^ Apparently the BBC is of the opinion Americans are angry.
Click to expand...

I can't remember the thread but someone posted on this observation recently. There is certainly a thread of truth to the view that "American's are angry" if you look at the primary races for POTUS.

I stated this in another thread but the polarization of our media consumption has to be a critical factor in driving this anger. Gone are the days where Walter Cronkite and Tom Brokaw attempt to be unbiased in their news reporting. Now political hacks like Bill O'Reilly and Rachel Maddow get more viewers than Andersen Cooper. Breitbart and Dailykos get more hits than NPR. It's both a sad statement on the media consumer and the media sites that deliver media with a major bias.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Back
Top