I’m on the fence on the question if they should be labeled as terrorists, but I believe you are understating the situation.
They were clearly carting out acts of intimidation to prevent workers from returning to work. It’s disingenuous to suggest that they were simply “empty” buildings because no one happen to be there on the weekend and it was their threats which kept the workers away.
In the criminal complaints against these wing nuts, the FBI had charged that they threatened a BLM employee, saying that they knew where she lived and would burn her house down. That simply cannot be characterized as on the same level as open carry.
Talking about bringing down the federal government and calling for a gathering of fellow armed right wing nuts to help with that purpose cannot be dismissed as harmless. Not with all the potentially extremely violent crazies out there.
Openly speaking of preparing to die, while carrying guns and bragging of snipers in snow camouflage is not the equivalent of an unarmed sit in.
Not was their aim to simply sit quiet. They were planning on provoking a response from the government and since they weren’t getting one at the center, there was a very serious concern of them escalating the situation.
Actually, the refuge is staffed all year. They manage water flow amongst other things, and probably answer mail and calls and do paperwork. The buildings were empty because it was Saturday and because people had been given vacation/furlough time off work so that they would not have to encounter the Bund.
Additionally, there are accounts of threats and intimidation directed toward refuge staff. That is not being harmless, and it is not legal.
I think that this is what is putting me on the fence. If they had been content to simply occupy the place without the aggressiveness, threats, and desire to provoke a further fight with the intent to overthrow at least part of the federal government, then I could see labeling them as demonstrators, but you get more crazy things like the following, also from the same article’
OTOH, they hadn’t actually shot or killed anyone yet, so this seems like terrorist-lites.
The FBI basically does all the work at times to provide someone with an idea, materials, and so on and then arrest the “terrorist” who hasn’t done much of anything. If that’s okay to arrest for terrorism, I don’t see why these militants can’t be labeled terrorists.
It might not have been intentional, but it sure as hell would have been negligent. IANAL, but I suspect killing someone by means of negligent operation of a motor vehicle whilst fleeing police might rise to criminal negligence or manslaughter. Your legal hypothetical reasonable person A) doesn’t flee from the first batch of police and B) doesn’t try to blast through 4 feet of snow mere inches away from parked vehicles with people standing behind them. Anything bad that happens during that sequence is on the driver’s head, intentional or not.
I think the distinction you see is that they don’t have dark skin, or names like Farook or Mohammed. If these people were associated with a mosque or the Black Panthers they would undoubtedly be labeled terrorists.
I think it’s abundantly clear Finicum was reaching for something, and the the police had probable cause to use deadly force. I also think it’s abundantly clear that nothing, not even the video showing exactly that, will stop the Bundyites and their idiotic ilk from claiming he was murdered by the feds. They’re all too far gone for little things like facts and evidence to change their preconceived notions.
At the very least, driving full speed toward a manned roadblock was reckless endangerment. I think if he had hit and killed the agent he would have been charged with manslaughter.
Of course the question is moot at this point. It’s fortunate that Finicum’s was the only death.
Very, but unfortunate that he (seemingly unavoidably) got his death wish fulfilled. He belonged in a cage for an appropriate length of time, as many/most/all of them do.
Can we agree that one outcome of their actions was to strike terror? Certainly they were intimidating in the local town if not rising to the point of terrorizing a significant part of the local population?
He comes out and steps well away from the vehicle with his hands up. Then he foolishly starts reaching with his left hand toward his waistband and they shoot him.
Considering the five minute refusal to get out of the vehicle at the stop, followed by tearing off and then plowing into the snow at full speed by the roadblock, it wasn’t like they were going to give the man a lot more chances.
Actual killing (even “megadeath”) is not the point of terrorism. That’s an instrument to create fear, which is the real weapon. If threats of violence are believable, that works as well. This is why “terroristic threat” is a felony in many jurisdictions.
So if someone hijacks a plane but authorities manage to talk him into surrendering and the plane lands safely without any casualties, that man wasn’t a terrorist?
Yes it is. Again, you appear to be incredibly ignorant here.
No, I don’t see the difference because there is no difference. Again, what you think isn’t accurate.
Perhaps you should know what you’re talking about before you speak (hint: look up 18 USC § 2331; judging by your posts in this thread you prolly won’t understand it, but at least you’ll have read all the words and then we can patiently explain what the big words mean).
ETA: You use the phrase “as I understand it” a lot, but your posts in this thread show that you don’t really understand much.
I don’t know. There have been hijackings carried out by people seeking asylum that I’d have a hard time calling terrorists and there have been hijackings by terrorists that I wouldn’t call anything but terrorism. I don’t have a set rule on who gets labeled a terrorist.
