will be judged on reasonable force. What would a reasonable FBI agent in a similar situation with the same experience do in the same situation.
Right now they are faced with multiple, ongoing documented threats and the knowledge the left over 4 people are heavily armed and have threatened not to be taken alive. They are also irate and lack rational thought.
Hopefully they fully cooperate while being arrested since there isn't a lot of wiggle room for them to not be considered a threat to the life and safety of the agents. Even if unarmed, any motion that could be construed as reaching for a weapon would be considered reasonable.
is that these people are the product of our current culture where some politicians and media outlets knowingly espouse hate-baiting extremist views to scare susceptible idiots into thinking about apocalyptic endings.
Any violence by the FBI
madgiantscow009 : 10:12 pm : link : reply
will be judged on reasonable force. What would a reasonable FBI agent in a similar situation with the same experience do in the same situation.
Right now they are faced with multiple, ongoing documented threats and the knowledge the left over 4 people are heavily armed and have threatened not to be taken alive. They are also irate and lack rational thought.
Hopefully they fully cooperate while being arrested since there isn't a lot of wiggle room for them to not be considered a threat to the life and safety of the agents. Even if unarmed, any motion that could be construed as reaching for a weapon would be considered reasonable.
They could have busted in weeks ago and left everyone dead and the public wouldn't have a problem with it. I'm surprised it didn't happen in day 2 or 3 to be honest.
to justify their armament and the more they use Scripture to condemn the FBI, the more I wonder what the reaction would be if the justification for a different religion.
most people give you a blank stare when you say "Ruby Ridge" but a strata of people will tell you in very vivid (if not necessarily factual) detail about the massacre that took place there. These people have long memories and really don't need anything else to feed into their paranoia.
but there was an inordinate amount of bloodlust on the part of some people in reference to these morons. Our desire to see blood in the streets (hopefully our desire to NOT see blood in the streets) should not be contingent on who is doing the bleeding. We should hope for law enforcement solutions, not SWAT/paramilitary solutions.
Sounds like they are doing their best to get shot. Â
It was meant to spoof how ridiculous it is for people to advocate the Government swooping in and "ending it".
Also, the rioters in Ferguson were terrorists according to the definition on this thread.
Then you forgot your smiley or [sarcasm] tag. There are people here who would say such things.
Rioting that destroys private property and injures civilians for political ends is terrorism by definition. In the case of Ferguson, it was the result of a much bigger problem then grazing rights or even Mike Brown. Not sure why you'd want to use something like that for comparison. Not apples to apples in any way that I can see, including expectations of response by law enforcement.
I'm curious. Can you point me to the articles where the Ferguson rioters acknowledged that they were armed to the hilt and that if the police tried to break it up that they would use their guns on the police?
Given how long this standoff has lasted, I don't think the government Â
and at the end it automatically went into one of those videos purporting that Sandy Hook was a hoax. Just despicable, but unsurprising to see those two videos connected. Similar comment section in both.
It was meant to spoof how ridiculous it is for people to advocate the Government swooping in and "ending it".
Also, the rioters in Ferguson were terrorists according to the definition on this thread.
Then you forgot your smiley or [sarcasm] tag. There are people here who would say such things.
Rioting that destroys private property and injures civilians for political ends is terrorism by definition. In the case of Ferguson, it was the result of a much bigger problem then grazing rights or even Mike Brown. Not sure why you'd want to use something like that for comparison. Not apples to apples in any way that I can see, including expectations of response by law enforcement.
If you can parse through the lunatic ravings, it is at least arguable that the Oregon folks are trying to vindicate a principle that is just important, that of government running roughshod over private citizens. You may not believe that happened either in Oregon or at the Bundy ranch, but plenty of people don't believe that what happened at Ferguson - perhaps distinct from some of what happened elsewhere - was particularly emblematic of wider problems.
The issues raised by both groups (racism and the proper scope of the power of a government over its citizens), whether violently, inarticulately, or based on incidents that perhaps did not prove what they were said to prove, are still extremely important issues.
The government power issue at play with these ranchers Â
seems to be the government's management of land owned by the government, right?
The Oregon bit was this notion, true or (likely) false, that the government was selectively enforcing laws against burns to maneuver private citizens off their land. And of course the Bundy ranch seemed to be whining about what looked to outsiders like rather plum deals for the use of public land, but there have been plenty of non-frothing criticisms of BLM heavy-handedness and capricious treatment of public lands.
How many people do you think would feel the same about these Â
guys if they were having some sort of organized sit-in that didn't involve being armed to the teeth and constantly engaging in confrontational behavior?
When's the last time someone called a bunch of hippies chained to trees as a sit-in 'terrorists'? This isn't about race, it's about a bunch of armed loons trying to instigate the government into a violent confrontation.
RE: How many people do you think would feel the same about these Â
guys if they were having some sort of organized sit-in that didn't involve being armed to the teeth and constantly engaging in confrontational behavior?
When's the last time someone called a bunch of hippies chained to trees as a sit-in 'terrorists'? This isn't about race, it's about a bunch of armed loons trying to instigate the government into a violent confrontation.
In much the same way that some people can't look at a mostly black protest with associated acts of vandalism without seeing Watts or the LA riots, I somehow doubt that the viewing public would have been able to see these folks - armed or otherwise - without seeing shades of either white hoods or Tim McVeigh.
These ranchers had a kindred spirit in the White House and didnt push for reforms then. I've read a lot about the complaints and the nut of it, IMO, is a complaint that ranchers should get to use federal lands below cost (both what you'd rent land for and even just the government's cost to maintain for grazing). Yes, 50-100 years ago they could basically use federal lands for grazing as they pleased. But now fed costs are higher and environmental impact is better known. You cant just have a situation where everyone just takes what they want. It's the archetype of the tragedy of the commons.
As for the Hammond story, I think it's important to note that while their defenders say that it was a defensive fire that spread onto federal land, the testimony at trial from a Hammond relative was that it was a fired set by Steve Hammond on federal land for the purpose of covering up illegal poaching. He was also convicted of a separate count re setting a defensive fire during an express burn ban was in effect and firefighters were within eyesight of where Steve's fire was. The criticism that other people set fires and are not prosecuted loses a lot of steam when you realize that they dont do it during bans and usually do it with permission or using notice protocols.
These ranchers had a kindred spirit in the White House and didnt push for reforms then. I've read a lot about the complaints and the nut of it, IMO, is a complaint that ranchers should get to use federal lands below cost (both what you'd rent land for and even just the government's cost to maintain for grazing). Yes, 50-100 years ago they could basically use federal lands for grazing as they pleased. But now fed costs are higher and environmental impact is better known. You cant just have a situation where everyone just takes what they want. It's the archetype of the tragedy of the commons.
As for the Hammond story, I think it's important to note that while their defenders say that it was a defensive fire that spread onto federal land, the testimony at trial from a Hammond relative was that it was a fired set by Steve Hammond on federal land for the purpose of covering up illegal poaching. He was also convicted of a separate count re setting a defensive fire during an express burn ban was in effect and firefighters were within eyesight of where Steve's fire was. The criticism that other people set fires and are not prosecuted loses a lot of steam when you realize that they dont do it during bans and usually do it with permission or using notice protocols.
I'm not disagreeing with your characterization of either controversy, I'm just saying that there are legitimate issues for people out west buried in what is likely bullshit, a "democratic deficit" of sorts.
I kind of like what Bill Mahr said about these guys.... Â
Wealthy ranchers who are also on subsidized welfare, is humorous to say the least. The biggest joke is how these wealthy ranchers have gotten a group of idiots to fight this for them.
The Bundy's story is amazing in that it boils down to them wanting nothing more then a competitive advantage over other ranchers. They have abused subsidized grazing lands for years both in not paying their extremely cheap feeding fees, to overgrazing and ruining vast swathes of land. They don't want to buy the land from the Govt, they think it should be given to them. Someone please tell me why those idiots should just be handed land while other should not? Because really this is what it boils down to
These ranchers had a kindred spirit in the White House and didnt push for reforms then. I've read a lot about the complaints and the nut of it, IMO, is a complaint that ranchers should get to use federal lands below cost (both what you'd rent land for and even just the government's cost to maintain for grazing). Yes, 50-100 years ago they could basically use federal lands for grazing as they pleased. But now fed costs are higher and environmental impact is better known. You cant just have a situation where everyone just takes what they want. It's the archetype of the tragedy of the commons.
As for the Hammond story, I think it's important to note that while their defenders say that it was a defensive fire that spread onto federal land, the testimony at trial from a Hammond relative was that it was a fired set by Steve Hammond on federal land for the purpose of covering up illegal poaching. He was also convicted of a separate count re setting a defensive fire during an express burn ban was in effect and firefighters were within eyesight of where Steve's fire was. The criticism that other people set fires and are not prosecuted loses a lot of steam when you realize that they dont do it during bans and usually do it with permission or using notice protocols.
My only issue with the claim it was a cover-up for poaching is that your looking at maybe a couple thousands in fines for poaching vs hundreds of thousands for arson. I don't see the logic in that for the Hammonds to do it
but it fails in the face of Dusty Hammond's testimony about starting the fire after the hunt.
Yeah its a hard one to overcome. The kid had some issues, but I think those issues were of his own doing and it being used as rational for him testifying is a pretty weak argument. You would have to believe he is telling some version of the truth.
Right now they are faced with multiple, ongoing documented threats and the knowledge the left over 4 people are heavily armed and have threatened not to be taken alive. They are also irate and lack rational thought.
Hopefully they fully cooperate while being arrested since there isn't a lot of wiggle room for them to not be considered a threat to the life and safety of the agents. Even if unarmed, any motion that could be construed as reaching for a weapon would be considered reasonable.
madgiantscow009 : 10:12 pm : link : reply
will be judged on reasonable force. What would a reasonable FBI agent in a similar situation with the same experience do in the same situation.
Right now they are faced with multiple, ongoing documented threats and the knowledge the left over 4 people are heavily armed and have threatened not to be taken alive. They are also irate and lack rational thought.
Hopefully they fully cooperate while being arrested since there isn't a lot of wiggle room for them to not be considered a threat to the life and safety of the agents. Even if unarmed, any motion that could be construed as reaching for a weapon would be considered reasonable.
They could have busted in weeks ago and left everyone dead and the public wouldn't have a problem with it. I'm surprised it didn't happen in day 2 or 3 to be honest.
I remember Youtube having a live stream of the Vatican when the last pope was picked. But yeah, I don´t recall much live content on Youtube.
End of problem.
Is it still gong on?
Is it still gong on?
Maybe not. I'm not sure if I'm listening to a live feed or prerecorded.
Don't mind me.
Also, the rioters in Ferguson were terrorists according to the definition on this thread.
Also, the rioters in Ferguson were terrorists according to the definition on this thread.
Rioting that destroys private property and injures civilians for political ends is terrorism by definition. In the case of Ferguson, it was the result of a much bigger problem then grazing rights or even Mike Brown. Not sure why you'd want to use something like that for comparison. Not apples to apples in any way that I can see, including expectations of response by law enforcement.
Quote:
It was meant to spoof how ridiculous it is for people to advocate the Government swooping in and "ending it".
Also, the rioters in Ferguson were terrorists according to the definition on this thread.
Then you forgot your smiley or [sarcasm] tag. There are people here who would say such things.
Rioting that destroys private property and injures civilians for political ends is terrorism by definition. In the case of Ferguson, it was the result of a much bigger problem then grazing rights or even Mike Brown. Not sure why you'd want to use something like that for comparison. Not apples to apples in any way that I can see, including expectations of response by law enforcement.
If you can parse through the lunatic ravings, it is at least arguable that the Oregon folks are trying to vindicate a principle that is just important, that of government running roughshod over private citizens. You may not believe that happened either in Oregon or at the Bundy ranch, but plenty of people don't believe that what happened at Ferguson - perhaps distinct from some of what happened elsewhere - was particularly emblematic of wider problems.
The issues raised by both groups (racism and the proper scope of the power of a government over its citizens), whether violently, inarticulately, or based on incidents that perhaps did not prove what they were said to prove, are still extremely important issues.
The Oregon bit was this notion, true or (likely) false, that the government was selectively enforcing laws against burns to maneuver private citizens off their land. And of course the Bundy ranch seemed to be whining about what looked to outsiders like rather plum deals for the use of public land, but there have been plenty of non-frothing criticisms of BLM heavy-handedness and capricious treatment of public lands.
When's the last time someone called a bunch of hippies chained to trees as a sit-in 'terrorists'? This isn't about race, it's about a bunch of armed loons trying to instigate the government into a violent confrontation.
When's the last time someone called a bunch of hippies chained to trees as a sit-in 'terrorists'? This isn't about race, it's about a bunch of armed loons trying to instigate the government into a violent confrontation.
In much the same way that some people can't look at a mostly black protest with associated acts of vandalism without seeing Watts or the LA riots, I somehow doubt that the viewing public would have been able to see these folks - armed or otherwise - without seeing shades of either white hoods or Tim McVeigh.
As for the Hammond story, I think it's important to note that while their defenders say that it was a defensive fire that spread onto federal land, the testimony at trial from a Hammond relative was that it was a fired set by Steve Hammond on federal land for the purpose of covering up illegal poaching. He was also convicted of a separate count re setting a defensive fire during an express burn ban was in effect and firefighters were within eyesight of where Steve's fire was. The criticism that other people set fires and are not prosecuted loses a lot of steam when you realize that they dont do it during bans and usually do it with permission or using notice protocols.
As for the Hammond story, I think it's important to note that while their defenders say that it was a defensive fire that spread onto federal land, the testimony at trial from a Hammond relative was that it was a fired set by Steve Hammond on federal land for the purpose of covering up illegal poaching. He was also convicted of a separate count re setting a defensive fire during an express burn ban was in effect and firefighters were within eyesight of where Steve's fire was. The criticism that other people set fires and are not prosecuted loses a lot of steam when you realize that they dont do it during bans and usually do it with permission or using notice protocols.
I'm not disagreeing with your characterization of either controversy, I'm just saying that there are legitimate issues for people out west buried in what is likely bullshit, a "democratic deficit" of sorts.
The Bundy's story is amazing in that it boils down to them wanting nothing more then a competitive advantage over other ranchers. They have abused subsidized grazing lands for years both in not paying their extremely cheap feeding fees, to overgrazing and ruining vast swathes of land. They don't want to buy the land from the Govt, they think it should be given to them. Someone please tell me why those idiots should just be handed land while other should not? Because really this is what it boils down to
As for the Hammond story, I think it's important to note that while their defenders say that it was a defensive fire that spread onto federal land, the testimony at trial from a Hammond relative was that it was a fired set by Steve Hammond on federal land for the purpose of covering up illegal poaching. He was also convicted of a separate count re setting a defensive fire during an express burn ban was in effect and firefighters were within eyesight of where Steve's fire was. The criticism that other people set fires and are not prosecuted loses a lot of steam when you realize that they dont do it during bans and usually do it with permission or using notice protocols.
My only issue with the claim it was a cover-up for poaching is that your looking at maybe a couple thousands in fines for poaching vs hundreds of thousands for arson. I don't see the logic in that for the Hammonds to do it
Yeah its a hard one to overcome. The kid had some issues, but I think those issues were of his own doing and it being used as rational for him testifying is a pretty weak argument. You would have to believe he is telling some version of the truth.
Hope someone can talk this poor guy out. Clearly appears to have some issues and in need of help. Also claimed this morning, he's feeling suicidal.
Yep