This is a contradiction in terms. They are prepared for and expect violence to ensue if the authorities call their bluff. There’s nothing “peaceful” about an armed occupation.
Agreed.
Aside from trespass, they’ve interfered with governmental administration and threatened government officials with deadly weapons. No doubt there’s been some vandalism as well.
They’ll just keep pulling stunts like this until punished.
The other thing is that it’s easy to have “peace”, if law enforcement refuses to do anything except coddle these guys. ISIS would probably be a “peaceful” organization too if everyone just did what they want them to do.
Why you think he cares about that? You’re attributing to ignorance what you should be attributing to callous disregard and willful intent.
I don’t blame him. That’s exactly what it looks like to me.
(post shortened)
Because there are no LEO’s at the refuge (key words - at the refuge). That may change at sometime in the future. The protestors are there/present/at the refuge. The media is there. The media has not reported actually seeing any LEO’s blocking roads or guarding gates (and you believe everything they tell you). The media is allowed into the buildings. The protestors have left the refuge and returned to it. There is no standoff.
The militia members who occupied the wildlife refuge buildings set up a roadblock, and two armed members had manned a guard tower that is usually used to spot wildfires. But there was no sign of law enforcement in the area, and local police said they had no intention of going to the scene, not even to keep watch on the militia.
http://nhatnet.com/fbi-monitoring-armed-standoff-in-oregon-national-wildlife-refuge-abc-news.html
If there is no standoff, then there can be no armed standoff.
If he fucked Bristol Palin he would get a show
That’s what they said about the protestors who burned and looted Baltimore and Ferguson. Except for the burning, looting, and jumping on cars yelling, “Burn this city down” and “Fry pigs like bacon”, it’s hard to tell the difference between all of these protestors. :rolleyes:
I would pay good money to see Ed O’Neill dress up as Al Bundy with a gun and wander through that place for a day.
That would take them down a peg.
None of the others did.
(post shortened because it’s a crock of shit).
I don’t know, I think they’d think he’s their best bud.
What is your point with this nonsense? No one here defends the types of things you’re describing (and those things were done by a small fraction of those protesters, by the way). What we are doing is talking about current events.
You seem to have a knee jerk need to show equivalence between white and black protesters. I wonder what that’s about?
Current events suggest that there is currently no standoff, and there has never been a standoff, between the protestors and LEOs at the refuge. The LEOs are a no-show.
You may chose to make this a black and white issue. I’m talking about how various protestors chose to protest.
So far, this OCCUPY a refuge building has been peaceful and there is no standoff.
I don’t recall ever using the word standoff in relation to this. Others may have, but I don’t think I have.
Reuters is calling it a standoff.
“Oregon occupation leader rejects sheriff’s bid to end standoff”
I don’t understand the hangup over the word standoff. Call it whatever; call it a bunch of armed, uninformed douchebags taking over a biologist’s office. That would make a better headline in my opinion. Whatever floats your boat.
You don’t think you have? Well, let me know when you figure it out for yourself.
I’ve been talking about the media’s claim that there was/is an armed standoff at the refuge. I’ve also compared the actions of the OCCUPY refuge protestors to the actions of other protestors.
This is correct, but only because the FBI has thus far refused to play their game.
The Bundy idiots are currently engaged in an armed takeover of a Federal building on public land. They have repeatedly stated that they WANT to provoke an armed standoff, and one of them has stated plainly that he wants to be killed and martyred.
The fact that there is no “armed standoff” at present is entirely due to the decision of ONE PARTY; Law enforcement.
The Bundy idiots are armed, and have threatened violence. They are not peaceful. They have never described their own actions as “peaceful”. They want to provoke a violent confrontation. That is their explicit aim.
If you like,you are free to send them some snacks, and even contribute some money to them so they can buy more blue tarps to hide under, or so they can buy more booze to get wasted on in local motels.
She’s like reality television shows… Everybody gets a go.
(post shortened)
Isn’t Reuters still a media outlet? I think they are. Yet more proof that the media is still calling this a standoff. Unfortunately for them, a standoff still requires two or more adversaries. The protestors are present at the refuge and the media is present at the refuge. However, the second adversary (ie LEOs) are not present at the refuge.
Oh, and thanks, with your permission I will continue to, “Call it whatever”.
(post shortened)
The FBI is playing their own game. There is no immediate threat from the protestors. The FBI can simply wait them out. I think it’s a smart move for the FBI.
The County Deputy may cause an escalation. He arranged a meeting with some of the protestors and offered to escort them, safely, from the refuge. I doubt that the FBI negotiator was happy about that.
Some vigilantes have discussed creating a posse and charging into the refuge buildings to end the protest. That will probably escalate the situation and get a lot of people wounded or killed. It’s best that they follow the FBI lead.