If that include them breeding, the deal’s off.
The Black Panthers were not “eliminated” by the feds (or anybody else).
Tamir Rice was killed by local police officers.
MOVE was bombed by the Philadelphia PD from a PA State Police helicopter.
No feds involved. I repeat, the “If they were black” rhetoric makes no sense, since they are not dealing with agencies that have a history of unjustified killings of black people.
Never heard of Nat Turner? Charles Deslondes? I guess one could quibble that the National Guard troops and airplanes in the Tulsa Riot of 1921 were under state, rather than federal control, but that won’t belie that a considerable amount of shooting was still done. Authorities in the U.S. have a pretty bad history of shooting lots of black people.
Then expand that thought to include the history of Native Americans shot by federal authorities… it doesn’t take long to realize that racial minorities have frequently been on the receiving end of violence by local, state, and federal governments in the U.S.
The one part of the “if they were black” rhetoric that’s accurate is that “If they were black, then the right wing apologists for Bundy *et al *would be cheerleading for a very different federal response.”
Agree that “If they were black, then federal agency XYZ would already have massacred them.” is just not borne out by recent history.
Admittedly, *pace *wevets, you don’t have to go very far back before the feds were as much of the problem as anyone else.
It’s a good point - the cheerleading for violence is, luckily, a lot easier to come by in the modern U.S. than the actual violence, and the last few decades have been very good in that respect.
One thing to ponder is that in the last several decades, it has become less and less acceptable to use a bunch of guys with guns to assert Manifest Destiny over some part of land inside the U.S. In that sense, the Malheur incident harkens back to a history, especially from the 19th century, best avoided (definitely not best forgotten.)
You know what happened to people who participated in sit-ins? They were arrested. And if they’d violently resisted arrest, they would have been killed.
Thank you for clarifying it. I was being emotional and you stated what I would prefer to have said.
If you were here for the Sandra Bland argument it’s clear that some people have a hypocritical stance on the use of force.
It’s hard to make very strong distinctions between the “Feds” and those local cops, when you are being given orders, or being maimed or killed. This distinction is characteristic though of states righters, seditionists, militia types, survivalists, second amendment fetishists, and other people who could always get their way with the local sheriff but have trouble asserting their usually racist dominion over the federal government.
(bolding mine)
I don’t know enough about the laws in question, but couldn’t they be guilty of a felony here? I thought felons weren’t allowed to own guns. I believe simple trespass is usually a misdemeanor, but if they’re ordered to come out and refuse, if they’re told they’re under arrest and don’t comply, if they threaten to respond with deadly force, is nothing in there a felony? Obviously they’d have to be convicted first…
Regarding whether a violent law enforcement response is required, I tend to be of the mindset that while I’m offended that they think they’re above the law, it doesn’t feel worth getting someone killed over. But I’m curious, where do you draw the line? What would be the minimum they’d have to do before an armed response was warranted?
I don’t think it’s fair to compare to sit-ins, where people generally don’t resist arrest, and certainly not with the threat of violence.
It’s likely there is a federal statute that covers unauthorized occupation of federal facilities, though I couldn’t tell you off the top of my head what it is.
I saw a picture of Ammon Bundy today, and had to do a triple-take to make sure that it wasn’t H Jon Benjamin.
That distinction is hard to make after you have already let your mouth overload your ass, for sure.
This may or may not apply to this case, but § 102-74.440 of the Code of Conduct from the Department of Homeland Security states “Federal law prohibits the possession of firearms or other dangerous weapons in Federal facilities and Federal court facilities by all persons not specifically authorized by 18 U.S.C. 930. Violators will be subject to fine and/or imprisonment for periods up to five (5) years.”
IANAL, and I admittedly don’t know if this covers the situation in Oregon, but it would seem cut & dried to me.
Sit-ins are non-violent protests using passive resistance. The forcible removal with only passive resistance is often desired as part of garnering sympathy for a cause.
This is no sit-in. These are armed thugs who came in to property that is not theirs and who explicitly threaten violence if someone tries to evict them, if the government tries to take their building back. They are threatening to shoot any cops or Feds who attempt to halt their performing their illegal activity.
Not saying that tempting that is worth it, not saying it is not, but do not insult us all by comparing this to a sit-in. When they leave their criminal actions (legally it is assault to make a credible threat of bodily harm with a weapon of potentially fatal force, yes?) must be prosecuted.
The latest I read was that they said they are going to leave at some point, so there really is no reason for law enforcement to do anything. A sheriff went over there, talked to them, no violence occurred, everything’s hunky dory.
That doesn’t necessarily follow. The guy playing ultraloud music in a public park in a residential neighborhood at 3 AM also intends to stop at some point, but is still a nuisance.
You don’t kill anybody over a nuisance, so law enforcement shouldn’t.go around.storming the place, but at some later point when passions are lower and they’ve left the refuge, they should answer to the courts for what they’ve done.
Carrying around a gun doesn’t confer immunity to the laws the rest of us have to live by, the forebearance of law enforcement for a matter of time is not the same as these people gaining immunity from the law in perpetuity.
As far as I’m concerned, their pride being preserved in a graceful exit, is worthless when weighed against my right to view whatever whack-ass birds live in bum-fuck-Oregon!
Nothing is stopping you from doing that now. You aren’t going to see birds in the administration building.
Maybe I want to ask an expert about viewing strategies and specific locations that are good for my particular interests!!1111
Or, you know, get a pamphlet or something.
The idea of gun bullying is to instill in their opponents the fear of being shot at, there is indeed a risk for any bird watcher to be confused by the militants as the FBI coming to get them.
As for the Sheriff going in the compound, I need a cite because the latest I read was that the Sheriff and the militants met but in ground outside the compound.
BTW the revenue from hunting permits (that many are not aware is a revenue for the parks and refuges) is being lost too, as many hunters with an ounce or reason would avoid the area for as long as the bird putsch is going on.