It only takes one. And the comments on articles, social media, etc. tells me there are many more than one. I have no doubt that eventually there will be innocent victims that can be traced to these clowns and their rhetoric.
Look, I don’t view this as any more threatening to the people of the U.S. than Syrian refugees. An armed man got killed while resisting arrest. I’d like them to have released more details, but at this point, I’ll assume it was a good shooting by law enforcement. (My view is, of course, subject to change as we do get details.)
These characters are already running around with arms threatening innocent people. Maybe realizing that they are the ones who will get killed will make a difference. Otherwise, I don’t give a fuck.
They were a danger to the people, to law enforcement, and to themselves already, before any of them were shot. If they continue to be a danger, then more of them will be arrested, tried, convicted, imprisoned, and in the worst case, killed. Too bad.
hmmm… Might be a little grey. Were they going for supplies to continue their 'standoff? IMHO, that would be furtherance (huh, first time I’ve seen that word).
So more of them will do dumbass things. Dumbasses doing dumbass things are a PITA.
No, you miss the point; the death has to be in furtherance of the offence. Getting supplies would be in furtherance of the offence. Getting shot by police is not in furtherance; being killed tends to hinder rather than further one’s ability to commit an offence.
Is it just me, or does it sound like the Bundys are going to try to make a Supreme Court case out of this?
[QUOTE=Ammon Bundy]
Being in the system, we are going to take this opportunity to answer the questions on Art. 1, Section 8, Cause 17 of the United States Constitution regarding rights of statehood and the limits on federal property ownership. Thank you and god bless America.
[/QUOTE]
Something tells me that this won’t get very far.
Also, he wants the feds to let the remaining occupiers off the hook:
[QUOTE=Ammon Bundy]
We will have more to say later but right now I am asking the federal government to allow the people at the refuge to go home without being prosecuted.
[/QUOTE]
I really hope he doesn’t get his way. I hope every last person gets prosecuted. The funny thing is: if they simply hadn’t brought weapons, I would have completely supported their right to assemble and protest on public land. I wouldn’t have supported the vandalism, of course, but all they had to do to not be criminal assholes about this was to come unarmed and not vandalize federal property.
I really don’t think this guy is going to be seen as a martyr by anyone who wasn’t on the side of the Bundys to begin with. He was on record saying that he would rather die than be arrested.
You seem to have missed the bit about “during that offence.”
A law officer could cause a death during an offence committed by the participant.
But, the list of federal predicate felonies doesn’t seem to have anything really applicable. Even though it’s kind of obvious that Finicum would be alive today if Ammon Bundy hadn’t led people into the takeover.
No, I didn’t miss that. I think the distinction is between someone who’s key political action is not in itself violent and someone who’s very method is violence designed to cause wide psychological effects, even beyond those immediately affected.
These guys were primarily occupiers. That they said they would commit violence to prevent their eviction does not put them in the same league as those who just kill a bunch of people at random to make their point, or who grab some innocents and threaten to kill them similarly.
Go ready the wiki article on the subject; it recognises that the term is controversial but emphasises that a key element is the aim of causing terror, fear, wide ranging psychological effects etc.
You are participating in the slow erosion of superlatives that come gradually to mean nuthin’ much. That’s an inevitable process, I know; I’m a descriptivist not a prescriptivist when it comes to language.
But frankly you are insulting those actually living in terror of being blown up or mowed down at random in public by actual terrorism, by using this term so casually. Are the wider public really concerned that some derps in big hats may suddenly terrify them by occupying a wildlife refuge near them?
Fromhere
Since they are currently charged with “federal felony charges of conspiracy to impede federal officers from discharging their official duties through the use of force, intimidation or threats” that would not seem to be included. As I posted above, it does not fit the Oregon requirements for felony murder either.
Hmm, yes, missed that sorry.
You could well be right but how does that matter? If his existing supporters are motivated to do stoopit things based on their righteous rage at the killing of a martyr, then they are.
Local schools were cancelled during the first week of the occupation. Local residents have expressed concern. Local law enforcement has expressed concern.
Does anyone really think that will be the only charge against these guys by the time they see court?
It could equally well be supposed that they might be intimidated and that this could prevent future deaths.
I agree that it would have been better to have taken Finicum alive simply because it would have been humiliating to him after all his statements saying he wouldn’t be. But I don’t think his death will have any great effect on sympathizers either way.
No, but I think it would be a stretch to apply any of the other qualifying charges for felony murder. They might be charged with burglary or theft but they were not directly involved in that at the time of Finicum’s death.
I don’t know the federal felony murder requirement, but the typical rule is that you are still sufficiently involved in the crime if you have not yet reached a temporary place of safety–which means no longer being chased by the cops. Hard to define in this context, perhaps, but not entirely clear-cut as to how it would shake out.
Yes, you are quite right. I’m sure when someone blows up a bus and kills 50 people or holds a 100 hostages in a shopping mall and starts shooting them one by one the local residents and law enforcement will “express concern”.
Seriously.
So terrorism, in your view, is defined by numbers? By numbers of people killed or threatened? And if it’s below that number it’s not terrorism?
By your example, there hasn’t been a terrorist attack in the U.S. since the Oklahoma City bombing.
No it’s defined as stated above. I don’t think some people expressing concern means they are being terrorised. I think you need to get some perspective. There are people who are suffering or have suffered greatly at the hands of real terrorists. Some concern don’t cut it. You need to get some Og damned perspective.
That’s not to downplay the criminality involved in what occurred here, it’s just that it wasn’t terrorism.
And by the way, I’m not so sure Oklahoma is the last terrorist attack in the US. For a start, you might want to look up a little thing called 9/11. Most people have heard of it, I believe 