Armed Militia Members take over Federal Building in Oregon

[zinfamous]

I didn't see guns but I have to admit I didn't look closely. Also, what makes that non-violent. Was there violence caused? Do you have to have guns in order to be violent?

black panthers with clubs at the polling station.

Was that violent?

 

[zinfamous]

I'm sorry, you're right LK: I distinctly recall MLK and Ghandi telling their followers to arm themselves as a means of peaceful protest.


Don't know where my head was.

 

[HomerJS]

Hey OP, want to consider changing the title to armed terrorists take over Federal building.

BTW, I thought these were the good guys with guns.

I don't know why every terrorist who aimed their guns at federal law enforcement weren't arrested. If you couldn't round them up why aren't they on the terrorist watch list?

Anyone know more people are killed by these kind or terrorists in the US then Muslim?

 

[ivwshane]

or perhaps I just enjoy fucking with you.

Trolling is strictly prohibited on these forums, should I report you like you do others?

 

[blankslate]

If this was an Islamic group, the Black Panthers, or Black Lives matter shots from snipers with IR optics would've happened last night.


Who's complaining about Obama being soft on terrorism now?



_______________

 

[Knowing]

Okay, just so long as you realize that the courts have to use the real definition of words and not the ones you make up. Vacating an illegal sentence and imposing a legal one is not double jeopardy by any standard I am aware of.



So again, the occupation of federal facilities and the threat to kill anyone who tries to stop you is somehow mitigated because it's a minor federal facility. Baffling.

I'm going to ignore the rest of the irrelevant nonsense.



Uhmm, I'm quite sure that the appeals court did exactly that in their decision. If you bothered to read your own link you would see they were convicted and sentenced for arson under a provision of a terrorism law, which is presumably the law they were charged under. It doesn't matter if you call someone a mean name like terrorist, it matters what laws they are charged under. If you think the law was incorrectly applied then you are free to make that legal argument. The federal court of appeals apparently disagrees with you however, so you may have an uphill battle. Good luck with the 'cruel and unusual' argument as well. Sadly, conservatives have badly weakened that amendment to the point at which it offers little or no protection.

Again, this is truly a very troubling conspiracy to correctly enforce the law. I am scandalized. How's the conspiracy hunt coming?



Speaking of those incapable of reading, as I already mentioned they were sentenced for arson under a provision of a specific law, a law that the sentence did not meet the mandatory minimum provision for.

It is entirely irrelevant what you think qualifies something as terrorism, because they weren't charged or sentenced for terrorism.



Saying that the Bundy gang is electing to endure federal sanction in no way means that you agree with it. If you meant that you agreed with that outcome you failed to communicate that thought so the number of times you post it is again irrelevant. Since you've failed to answer it repeatedly I'll give you another chance: Presumably you support the arrest and prosecution of these individuals?

As for the disrespect part, of course. Haven't I made it abundantly clear that I think you're an idiot?

The sentence was served, also good appeal to ignorance. Further, a conspicuous lack of explanation how the fires were terrorism. I figured that you could do that since you're obviously a federal prosecutor like the one that didn't call them terrorists.

Mitigated. Yes, I really don't care about this outpost in bfe nowhere that I didn't know or care about yesterday. I understand that you'll take white terrorism in any possible flavor no matter how irrelevant. Good job ignoring terrorism that lasted 22 days and actually resulted in deaths as "irrelevant nonsense". Your powers of context are clearly beyond mere mortal understanding.

Calling people mean names like terrorist is how the last few administrations have gotten these things done. I understand that you take race in to account when assessing outrage - I don't. I don't remember you complaining when DOMA wasn't enforced. Do you pick and choose the laws that you apply this circular reasoning to?

As far as luck with the conspiracy theory goes, the public money was wasted on more appeals and more sentencing that will likely result in the institutionalization of 2 nonviolent nonrecidivists. Since there hasn't been a repeat of the crime I'm scratching my head to determine who benefits from this other than BLM and the sacred honor of some US attorney who other than starting shit doesn't seem to have a dog in this fight.

Its irrelevant whether or not it's terrorism, they were charged for terrorism. Lets take this back to 2nd grade, a prosecutor is a person who ________? If you chose prosecutes you win a star! So if a prosecutor doesn't think a person is a terrorist and doesn't call them a terrorist and they don't meet the definition (which is abundantly clear) of a terrorist then why are you arguing that they're terrorists?

However, yes, the Bundy gang is electing to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune in order to bring attention to what is probably a persistent government f-up.

What I believe is irrelevant because Judge Dredd is the law and the law is the law is the law is the law is Judge Dredd is the law because terrorism is Judge Dredd is the law.

I was going to try to find a sweet meme of Bush and terrorism because I think that's something that you might have posted 10 years ago but I didn't like any on the first page of google results so I typed you this nice run on sentence to call you a hypocrite one last time.

 

[HomerJS]

Anyone want to take bets on when the Bundy hero worship starts at Fox News? I say before noon on Monday

 

[DrDoug]

I haven't dropped it, I still believe it's double jeopardy. The declaration of the previous sentence as illegal (the dispensation of the money unclear) seems to ease your conscience and that's good for you.

"Who cares?"
All of the people who don't actually care except for the political fodder of white guys with guns in a federal building without the context of how irrelevant this particular federal building is. But, here's another couple of terrorists. They only killed 10 people in a place that sadly has enough shootings despite well meaning and common sense gun laws.

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying it's politically convenient that despite the federal prosecutor not calling them terrorists they're being called such and the BLM is handily just waiting for their ranch to go up for sale. No one has yet explained how "arson" is "terrorism".

From the link that you apparently repeatedly have not read:







So, with these quotes in context: The federal prosecutor charged them with arson, they served time for arson. Some US attorney literally thinks that the world is going to end if a federal prosecutor convicts someone on arson charges and they serve time for arson so under a "rare" appeal they go back to court to get it right which just happens to mean that the BLM takes their land. No one died and so far there's no political motive for the fires which disqualifies them from being terrorism (which for those incapable of reading unless it's posted a gorillion times, the federal prosecutor never so much as accused them of).






If you had read it the first time, I wouldn't have had to post it two more times. I look forward to your continued disrespect concealed as bog standard ignorance and you not reading it a fourth time. ~<:^)

The two men in this case have a history in the area that the locals are very familiar with, that's why they were convicted by a jury of their peers. They illegally hunted deer on BLM land and set a fire to cover it up. They are suspected of having set several other fires that that they weren't charged with (in addition to the two fires that they were found guilty of setting). There is no doubt of their guilt, the only issue is the terrorism tag that gets attached to arson in this case (as the judge noted to them, eco-terrorism is terrorism). The first judge violated the law and improperly sentenced them, the prosecutor appealed and won, they appealed all of the way to the Supreme Court and lost. Now they are going to serve a sentence that is according to the law as it is written.

Does the law on minimum mandatory sentences need to be changed? Yes. Should judges have discretion in sentencing? Yes but right now that isn't happening due to our lawmakers. The real issue here is people who are not welcome in our state who have nothing to do with the situation here thinking they are helping these guys by attacking the federal government. These two situations have nothing to do with each other except for some assholes with guns who want to make it their hill to die on.

They say they are going to occupy this federal facility for years. When they are done there I'm sure the government has another federal facility that they can also occupy for another few years...lol!

 

[LegendKiller]

Trolling is strictly prohibited on these forums, should I report you like you do others?

I said perhaps.

 

[zinfamous]

I distinctly recall half of you knuckleheads in this thread defending the rednecks' "peaceful armed protest" invoking the 2012 or 2008 Black Panther duo outside that one polling station as soon as last week. One of you even posted that photo.

You had to remind us that the BP's were threatening peaceful voters by standing out there with nightsticks, despite doing nothing. Now, these armed criminals in Oregon, in defense of other criminals, are merely peacefully displaying their patriotism?

Can you guys just stop being pussies and admit you are racist as shit?

 

[Jhhnn]

What isn't lost on rational people is that these people aren't patriots--they are selfish little pricks that refuse to suffer the consequences of their illegal actions. None of their rights are being, or have ever been violated. They have refused the responsibilities of citizenship of the USA and chose armed insurrection in lieu of the consequences of violating the laws afforded to citizens.

Somebody finally used the correct terminology- armed insurrection, and exhortation to more of the same.

The backstory is utterly immaterial in light of that, particularly given that the insurrectionists had no part in it. They crossed a line, the one between private property & federal property, the difference between "defending" the Bundy Ranch & this episode.

Hopefully, the Govt won't have to kill any of these delusional fools to assert the fact that the occupied facility belongs to the People, not them.

 

[HTFOff]

If this was an Islamic group, the Black Panthers, or Black Lives matter shots from snipers with IR optics would've happened last night.


Who's complaining about Obama being soft on terrorism now?



_______________

Lol

The mayor of baltimore literally gave blm and similar miscreants carte blanche to destroy downtown baltimore.

The hell you smoking willis?

 

[Knowing]

Does the law on minimum mandatory sentences need to be changed? Yes. Should judges have discretion in sentencing? Yes but right now that isn't happening due to our lawmakers. The real issue here is people who are not welcome in our state who have nothing to do with the situation here thinking they are helping these guys by attacking the federal government. These two situations have nothing to do with each other except for some assholes with guns who want to make it their hill to die on.

While I agree that the wholesale slaughter of wildlife is wrong, I don't think that it quite qualifies as ecoterrorism the way that say, the arson of Hummers does. Presumably they were at least using the meat. I have also read that a study was done and found that no harm was done to the habitats from at least one of the fires.

The rest of this post is what I was hoping to find in this thread. I agree wholeheartedly, I hope that the Bundys are successful in bringing the topic to a head but I have a suspicion that merely associating the Bundys with the Hammonds is going to make the Hammonds worse off.

 

[OutHouse]

It would be comical if they built walls around it and turned it into the Malheur federal penitentiary.

Caesar did this. when the Gauls holed up in a defensive position he had his legions build a big ass wall around them and starved them. Very effective

 

[fskimospy]

The sentence was served, also good appeal to ignorance. Further, a conspicuous lack of explanation how the fires were terrorism. I figured that you could do that since you're obviously a federal prosecutor like the one that didn't call them terrorists.

It doesn't matter if they were terrorism. They were sentenced under a provision of an act with terrorism in the name, but that doesn't mean that provision requires any proof of terrorism whatsoever. I get the feeling you didn't bother to read your own link.

You feel that the federal appellate court applied the law incorrectly. Since you're clearly an appellate judge, feel free to use your considerable legal talents to explain why. It's pretty funny that you try to call me out for lack of legal expertise for disagreeing with a prosecutor (although we don't actually disagree), while disagreeing with an entire appeals court.

The hypocrisy and stupidity is amazing. Lol.

Mitigated. Yes, I really don't care about this outpost in bfe nowhere that I didn't know or care about yesterday. I understand that you'll take white terrorism in any possible flavor no matter how irrelevant. Good job ignoring terrorism that lasted 22 days and actually resulted in deaths as "irrelevant nonsense". Your powers of context are clearly beyond mere mortal understanding.

Gotcha, so you're basically admitting that the two have nothing to do with one another. Please don't bring this kind of irrelevant nonsense up again.

Calling people mean names like terrorist is how the last few administrations have gotten these things done. I understand that you take race in to account when assessing outrage - I don't. I don't remember you complaining when DOMA wasn't enforced. Do you pick and choose the laws that you apply this circular reasoning to?

Irrelevant and nonsensical ranting. Prosecutorial discretion and judges enforcing uncontested statues are nowhere even close to each other. This would only be confusing to someone who is not very bright. (Or trying to remain selectively ignorant)

As far as luck with the conspiracy theory goes, the public money was wasted on more appeals and more sentencing that will likely result in the institutionalization of 2 nonviolent nonrecidivists. Since there hasn't been a repeat of the crime I'm scratching my head to determine who benefits from this other than BLM and the sacred honor of some US attorney who other than starting shit doesn't seem to have a dog in this fight.

I'll take that as a "no, I have absolutely no evidence for my stupid conspiracy theory". Thanks!

Its irrelevant whether or not it's terrorism, they were charged for terrorism. Lets take this back to 2nd grade, a prosecutor is a person who ________? If you chose prosecutes you win a star! So if a prosecutor doesn't think a person is a terrorist and doesn't call them a terrorist and they don't meet the definition (which is abundantly clear) of a terrorist then why are you arguing that they're terrorists?

I never argued they were terrorists. If you think I did, please provide the relevant quote. I said they were convicted of a provision of an act with terrorism in its name. Just as you should not judge a book by its cover you should not assume every provision in such an act magically labels anyone who violates it a terrorist. This is actually what the prosecutor was saying, haha.

What I believe is irrelevant because Judge Dredd is the law and the law is the law is the law is the law is Judge Dredd is the law because terrorism is Judge Dredd is the law.

I was going to try to find a sweet meme of Bush and terrorism because I think that's something that you might have posted 10 years ago but I didn't like any on the first page of google results so I typed you this nice run on sentence to call you a hypocrite one last time.

Don't blame me for your lack of English skills. What you said didn't mean what you claimed, plain as day. Either you were too dumb to know it or you're a liar. My guess is the second, but I'm willing to hear evidence for stupid.

 

[OutHouse]

The government isn't trampling on anyone's rights

In Connecticut the government is having a hay-day burning your rights.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-connecticut-guns-idUSKBN0TT2EM20151210cuite

 

[DrDoug]

While I agree that the wholesale slaughter of wildlife is wrong, I don't think that it quite qualifies as ecoterrorism the way that say, the arson of Hummers does. Presumably they were at least using the meat. I have also read that a study was done and found that no harm was done to the habitats from at least one of the fires.

The rest of this post is what I was hoping to find in this thread. I agree wholeheartedly, I hope that the Bundys are successful in bringing the topic to a head but I have a suspicion that merely associating the Bundys with the Hammonds is going to make the Hammonds worse off.

The judges and attorneys in the case agree that it's not terrorism but the law is the problem, not the judges and lawyers. The prosecutor is pursuing the case because the law allows them to do so and because they thought the original sentences were incorrect. Even the judge doing the latest sentencing agrees but says that the law ties their hands on the matter. The problems here are the mandatory minimums, the automatic terrorism 'upgrade' to the charges, the first judge who sought to circumvent the letter of the law, the prosecutor who decided that it wasn't enough and lawmakers who pass feel-good legislation that ties the hands of judges.

The armed zealots hijacking the 'story' are just making a bad situation worse for these guys.

 

[OutHouse]

This race thing in this thread is nauseating.

i agree. this has nothing to do with race and the fucktards throwing the race card around sound like the racist ones.

 

[kage69]

Caesar did this. when the Gauls holed up in a defensive position he had his legions build a big ass wall around them and starved them. Very effective

Sorry, have to ask: what battle are you referring to?

Can't be Alesia, it would make your reference too laughable (and you sound serious).

 

[EOM]

i agree. this has nothing to do with race and the fucktards throwing the race card around sound like the racist ones.

Perhaps there is confusion about the BLM acryonym? Black Lives Matter vs Bureau of Land Management....

 

[MagickMan]

Hey OP, want to consider changing the title to armed terrorists take over Federal building.

You mean Federal log cabin in the middle of the wilderness, right? I'm still waiting for links to the people who have been injured.

If this was an Islamic group, the Black Panthers, or Black Lives matter shots from snipers with IR optics would've happened last night.


Who's complaining about Obama being soft on terrorism now?

Only you stupid Leftist shits are calling them "terrorists". And if they are, well, they're the worst I've ever seen. Even worse than the shoe-bomber. They absolutely need militant muslims to teach them about how to cause terror, because they're doing it wrong.

 

[feralkid]

Libs advocating for the imprisonment and bombing of protesters. Color me surprised.

A "sit-in" style occupation would likely have garnered this group more sympathy; "armed occupation" is an entirely different matter.

 

[MagickMan]

Can you guys just stop being pussies and admit you are racist as shit?

If you want honesty, how about you admit that what's going on outside a cabin in the middle of Nowhere Oregon is nothing like what you fucktards are painting? :\

 

[OutHouse]

Sorry, have to ask: what battle are you referring to?

Can't be Alesia, it would make your reference too laughable (and you sound serious).

I dont remember a specific battle but i do remember talking about it in at a NCO leadership school 20+ years aggo. but hey its the age of google so i found this just for you.


https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilear...l_caesar_built_an_18km_wall_around_a_gaulish/

I must ask, why prickish reply?

 

[fskimospy]

If you want honesty, how about you admit that what's going on outside a cabin in the middle of Nowhere Oregon is nothing like what you fucktards are painting? :\

Okay, so a bunch of armed right wing militiamen took over a federal building and have threatened to kill anyone who tries to remove them.

Please tell me how we can describe this in a way that will be ideologically acceptable to you.