|
Post by J Lee O'Brien on Jan 3, 2016 14:05:24 GMT -5
Forgive me if I'm lacking nuance, but...dozen (heavily?) armed men have illegally occupied a building that is explicitly owned/operated by the federal government, and have stated that they will effectively shoot to kill anyone who attempts to end said occupation. Correct?
This...this sounds like terrorism, but it can't be that simple, I suspect?
|
|
|
Post by Cyno on Jan 3, 2016 14:07:03 GMT -5
The thing with those sentences is that they were found to be invalid because the judge who sentenced them didn't follow mandatory minimum procedure.
I think mandatory minimum sentencing is generally bullshit. But that's the law on the books right now and the judge didn't follow it, so now they're going back to serve the rest of the sentence they were supposed to serve in the first place.
|
|
lodirulz
Hank Scorpio
Live as the color red in a world of black and white.
Posts: 6,412
|
Post by lodirulz on Jan 3, 2016 14:18:18 GMT -5
Forgive me if I'm lacking nuance, but...dozen (heavily?) armed men have illegally occupied a building that is explicitly owned/operated by the federal government, and have stated that they will effectively shoot to kill anyone who attempts to end said occupation. Correct? This...this sounds like terrorism, but it can't be that simple, I suspect? It is, but ABC News and The Wall Street Journal to name a couple of sources, have been calling them "peaceful protesting activists," which is thankfully resulting in a good 90% of people that I've seen on social media criticizing them for it. The people that are defending what The Bundy Family and Friends are doing are using some 2nd Amendment argument that I can't go into with respect to the forum rules.
|
|
|
Post by Cyno on Jan 3, 2016 14:19:33 GMT -5
Nothing says a "peaceful protest" like being armed to the teeth amirite?
|
|
|
Post by J Lee O'Brien on Jan 3, 2016 14:28:09 GMT -5
Forgive me if I'm lacking nuance, but...dozen (heavily?) armed men have illegally occupied a building that is explicitly owned/operated by the federal government, and have stated that they will effectively shoot to kill anyone who attempts to end said occupation. Correct? This...this sounds like terrorism, but it can't be that simple, I suspect? It is, but ABC News and The Wall Street Journal to name a couple of sources, have been calling them "peaceful protesting activists," which is thankfully resulting in a good 90% of people that I've seen on social media criticizing them for it. The people that are defending what The Bundy Family and Friends are doing are using some 2nd Amendment argument that I can't go into with respect to the forum rules. Wouldn't that argument be rendered moot, as this is taking place on what seems to be federal land, which per same Constitution, is under federal jurisdiction? Or am I applying far too much logic and reason towards a situation where one of these "occupiers" would wave a gun barrel at me as though it were his genitalia?
|
|
|
Post by MC Blowfish on Jan 3, 2016 14:31:22 GMT -5
Good thing they aren't the BLM movement or Muslims. They'd be labelled terrorists by now and probably killed.
|
|
|
Post by Limity (BLM) on Jan 3, 2016 14:47:55 GMT -5
It shouldnt matter what the media calls them. The media can label them as juicy skittles, aliens from another planet, or a band of rogue misfits trying to find the Death Star plans.
All that should matter is, does their conduct amount to domestic terrorism as defined by law? Yes, yes it does. And the actions of the rioters in Ferguson and Baltimore? They also meet the objective standard of what is considered domestic terrorism.
Unfortunately, it does matter a tremendous deal how the media reports on things and labels them. The court of public opinion, no matter how uninformed and ignorant that opinion may be, carries more weight than anything else these days.
|
|
Sephiroth
Wade Wilson
Surviving
Posts: 28,925
|
Post by Sephiroth on Jan 3, 2016 15:06:00 GMT -5
I have to agree that the situation is f***** up because those guys already served their time for a relatively minor offense, to say they need to go back and do more is outrageous. But I give them all the kudos that they are handing it peacefully and don't seem to want anything to do with the likes of those weirdos. I definitely agree. They fulfilled their sentences, I'm not sure they paid their fine, but if they did then it shouldn't be decided later that 3 months and 1 year weren't enough the first time. I won't condon arson or destruction of property, but this didn't result in any injuries so why are they bringing it back other than the Hammonds and Bureau of Land Management/US Fish and Wildlife have had problems for years. Not to paint the Hammonds as complete underdog good guys, they probably did violate the agreements of cattle grazing within the Refuge and most seriosuly, Dwight Hammond allegedly sent death threats to Refuge Managers. The means this happened also confuses me. US Court of Appeals threw out their original sentences for being too lenient, but why did they see it in the first place? Wouldn't this fall under double jeopardy, protection against reprosecution after conviction? They were able to get away with it so maybe they found a loophole that me, a layman in the subject of law, would not know. The situation is very complex in this case. I hope I'm not opening a can of worms by saying that I have absolutely no sympathy for the Bundy family. Having read up on that whole situation, Cliven Bundy had no case in his favor whatsoever-it came down to him just not paying his fines because he didn't feel like it and then manipulating the most anti-government elements into defending him. And probably no one would have come to his defense if he weren't a rancher, that classic image of all American manhood. Even the state of Nevada came out against him because he didn't have a legal leg to stand on. But in this case, its more difficult. These men did their time but it seems they are required to do more due to some technicality, and now the dweebs that Bundy had wrapped around his finger are just using this as an excuse to do more saber rattling. Little good it will do them, I am sure.
|
|
|
Post by Surfer Sandman on Jan 3, 2016 15:11:13 GMT -5
This is a situation where you send the military in to smoke them out. The fact that the feds haven't already demonstrates that they don't want another Waco or Ruby Ridge on their hands.
It's still domestic terrorism.
|
|
|
Post by SsnakeBite, the No1 Frenchman on Jan 3, 2016 15:14:03 GMT -5
Yes, these people are explicitly armed and threatening, so obviously there's time for negotiation here. And are contained, with no known desire to spread out from where they are. Are they as many as the protesters in Baltimore and Ferguson? How many standoffs with "explicitly armed and threatening" persons through the years have there been and law enforcement followed this exact procedure, of containment and waiting it out? That's precisely the problem. Why are peaceful protesters treated like they're more dangerous than domestic terrorists committing an armed assault on an official building? And yes, they are terrorists. People who use violence or even just threats of violence to forcibly impose their will on the public are the exact definition of terrorists. Yet the people trying to defend their right to not be murdered are treated like they're the crazy ones. Maybe I expressed myself poorly. I'm not saying the cops or the army or whoever is handling this are wrong to try and handle the situation peacefully. I'm saying it's wrong that people who are being far more peaceful (even if you want to bring up the riots) and who are far more justified in their anger are treated with less respect and still aren't listened to. There are some serious and blatant double standards going on and it's funny how when it's a majority of Black people doing it, even when they're being far less of a threat and are arguably more justified in their actions, the authorities are far less understanding and violence tends to be the default rather than the last resort. Keep in mind we were just told it's apparently unreasonable to expect policemen to take a few seconds to assess a threat before killing a 12-year-old boy. Yet apparently there is all the time in the world to check if a heavily armed "militia" who make no secret that they intend to use violence is a threat. EDIT: and again, just so we're on the same page. I'm not advocating using violence against these guys if it isn't necessary. I'm saying it is revolting that not all citizens are treated the same way.
|
|
|
Post by Magic knows Black Lives Matter on Jan 3, 2016 15:18:24 GMT -5
See, why do I feel like if this was something involving "Black Lives Matter", the response would be more than a bit different?
|
|
|
Post by Cyno on Jan 3, 2016 15:31:32 GMT -5
See, why do I feel like if this was something involving "Black Lives Matter", the response would be more than a bit different? Those Black Panthers in Philly in the 80's would agree with you if they weren't dead.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Schlapowitz on Jan 3, 2016 16:55:08 GMT -5
f*** these yokels. They're a bunch of cowardly "patriotic Muricans" playing Army because they would never be able to cut it in the real thing.
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Jan 3, 2016 18:08:34 GMT -5
If they were black, children and had toy guns, they'd be dead by now.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2016 18:14:57 GMT -5
I am sure this thread will allowed to get political as long as it keeps a certain slant. Some animals are more equal than others.
|
|
|
Post by shadowforce420 on Jan 3, 2016 18:41:00 GMT -5
f*** these yokels. They're a bunch of cowardly "patriotic Muricans" playing Army because they would never be able to cut it in the real thing. My sister just said the same to me
|
|
|
Post by Mayonnaise on Jan 3, 2016 19:16:39 GMT -5
I am sure this thread will allowed to get political as long as it keeps a certain slant. Some animals are more equal than others. You don't like how something is going, report it. These little jabs don't help anyone or thing.
|
|
|
Post by Clash, Never a Meter Maid on Jan 3, 2016 19:19:34 GMT -5
Neither one of them are what I'd call constructive pursuits in the long run, but all I'll say is this: rioting and domestic terrorism are not, I repeat, NOT the same thing at ALL. Nor should they be approached or thought of in any sort of similar method.
|
|
|
Post by Limity (BLM) on Jan 3, 2016 19:36:31 GMT -5
Neither one of them are what I'd call constructive pursuits in the long run, but all I'll say is this: rioting and domestic terrorism are not, I repeat, NOT the same thing at ALL. Nor should they be approached or thought of in any sort of similar method. m.fbi.gov/#https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/terrorism/terrorism-definitionUnder the purposefully vague definition used by the courts, it is the same. However I do agree with you, in spirit these acts and rioting are very different.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Jan 3, 2016 19:39:12 GMT -5
I don't know enugh about the original incident that spawned this to comment on it, but the "militia" type just seems like giant grandstanders and I wouldn't be surprised if even the family involved doesn't want anything to do with it.
|
|