Armed Militia Members take over Federal Building in Oregon

[Sheik Yerbouti]

:thumbsup:

The double standard here is particularly appalling. If this were a group of legally armed muslims barricading themselves in this facility to protest the current stream of anti-muslim propaganda, I'm guessing the conversation would have a decidedly different slant to it.

Nah, not guessing, it would definitely have a more aggressive slant to it, removing them by force, or whatever means necessary. To say otherwise is either genuinely naive or willfully ignorant.

"by occupy idiots" you mean OWS?

Are you actually comparing the Bundies and their militias, which arm themselves and set up snipers aimed at Federal agents when occupying these properties to unarmed protests and occupations by OWS and BLM?

Your white privilege is showing. You know as well as anyone else does that this verdict would have been drastically different were these armed blacks or scary muslims.

That shit was obvious from the very getgo. To think otherwise is willfully ignorant.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Well, occupy idiots illegally occupied all sorts of areas, and BLM has repeatedly blocked interstate highways. Same concept.

Sadly predictible. There's a reason I qualified my question with "armed individuals who occupied them with threat of violence". You can not equate this to OWS, BLM etc... until you can demonstrate a similar situation.

So I will again ask for any situation where people acted in the same manner as this group and were only charged with trespassing. You asserted that has happened many other times. Let's see one of those times.

 

[Homerboy]

"by occupy idiots" you mean OWS?

Are you actually comparing the Bundies and their militias, which arm themselves and set up snipers aimed at Federal agents when occupying these properties to unarmed protests and occupations by OWS and BLM?

Your white privilege complete stupidity is showing. You know as well as anyone else does that this verdict would have been drastically different were these armed blacks or scary muslims.

FTFY

 

[fskimospy]

BLM has very little to do with "counter-government" and everything to do with anti-white. The group makes that abundantly clear.

You better tell all the white people in the BLM movement that they are anti-white. lol. Thanks for outing yourself as someone who knows nothing about that movement. The entire movement started as a protest against government violence directed against black people in case you don't read the papers much.

Of course you don't, most people who love big government to better control those they disagree with can't understand why anyone would be opposed to such control.

I'm sure they are perfectly happy with such control so long as that control is being used against the 'right' people. Anyone want to bet what percentage of them support the Muslim ban, etc?

Except they were not found guilty of committing "multiple felonies" in this case.

Yes, we know. By the way, you said the correct verdict was reached. I asked you why and you didn't answer. Will you tell us now why you believe the verdict was right?

 

[Jaskalas]

If tried by a Jury of their peers, as part of a counter-government culture then yes, I do believe anyone could have.

I expect the result has less to do with the men in question and is instead about giving the Feds the middle finger. It proves that Bundy is not alone in that sentiment, just that his actions went too far for others to directly participate. It really tells you where Palin and Bachmann, the Tea Party, and Libertarians come from. There's clearly a segment of folks out there who are part of a culture that is completely foreign to you.

Do you seriously believe this is true? Swap out the Bundys with 12 black guys and you think they walk? My ass. I can't imagine you seriously believe that. I bet if you polled those individuals and asked them what they thought about the counter-government culture of Black Lives Matter you would see them go ballistic about those 'criminals'.

You do not see, the crux of my words are a JURY OF THEIR PEERS.
If you change the defendants, you change the jury or they would no longer be "of their peers".
To use your parallel, I view the result of this acquittal to be as if members of #BLM were on a jury over a #BLM riot.
I can see peers of ANY group acquitting over actions they support.

Cries of white privilege are just plain ignorant and trying to smear racial shit over something that is cultural. Race baiting is deeply offensive and does not belong.

[As for whether or not I understand their culture I'm very sure that I don't. What I do know is that in America when people commit multiple felonies and brag about it they deserve to go to jail. I would hope we could all agree on that one.

What, you also didn't read my immediate reaction to the acquittal? You have nothing to wonder if you would but listen.
To clarify, I think these men are dangerously emboldened and I fear they'll harm people next time. If I could dictate I'd give them 5-10 years in prison. Felony conviction, no more guns or weapons. If they did something else with weapons after that... life in prison.

 

[jackstar7]

Jask, do you know how juries are chosen? I get the sense that you do not.

I get the sense that you will face a contempt of court charge if you are ever on trial for something. Just trying to help you out.

 

[Jaskalas]

Jask, do you know how juries are chosen? I get the sense that you do not.

I get the sense that I was directly addressing fskimospy's "Swap out the Bundys with 12 black guys" and drawing up how that parallel would actually work for #BLM. If they had a Jury of peers. Of actual peers and not just 12 random dudes. I'm addressing the race baiting and "what if" scenarios in contrast to how this acquittal happened.

You can step down off your high horse over Jury selection.

 

[fskimospy]

You do not see, the crux of my words are a JURY OF THEIR PEERS.
If you change the defendants, you change the jury or they would no longer be "of their peers".
To use your parallel, I view the result of this acquittal to be as if members of #BLM were on a jury over a #BLM riot.
I can see peers of ANY group acquitting over actions they support.

Cries of white privilege are just plain ignorant and trying to smear racial shit over something that is cultural. Race baiting is deeply offensive and does not belong.

That is not how 'jury of your peers' is legally defined, so I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.

Regardless race is EXTREMELY important here and it is deeply offensive that you would try to discount it. We both know that if this had been seven black men they would be heading to prison right now. It never ceases to amaze me how everyone seems to agree that racism exists in America as a concept but it somehow NEVER applies to the matter at hand.

This is one of the big problems we have with the current reactionary movement against minorities. It's not just that people pretend racism doesn't exist, they say any attempt to tell them otherwise is offensive.

What, you also didn't read my immediate reaction to the acquittal? You have nothing to wonder if you would but listen.
To clarify, I think these men are dangerously emboldened and I fear they'll harm people next time. If I could dictate I'd give them 5-10 years in prison. Felony conviction, no more guns or weapons. If they did something else with weapons after that... life in prison.

Well I'm glad we agree on this. It does seem like this action basically guarantees future attacks on federal facilities by armed nuts. They need to be made an example of.

 

[fskimospy]

I get the sense that I was directly addressing fskimospy's "Swap out the Bundys with 12 black guys" and drawing up how that parallel would actually work for #BLM. If they had a Jury of peers. Of actual peers and not just 12 random dudes. I'm addressing the race baiting and "what if" scenarios in contrast to how this acquittal happened.

You can step down off your high horse over Jury selection.

There is no race baiting, just simple statements of fact that you know they would be in jail if they were black.

Peers are not people who know and identify with you in a legal sense.

 

[dainthomas]

I can't believe anyone wouldn't agree that black and/or muslim people would all be in prison or dead if they did the same thing.

A huge can of worms has been opened with regards to all the anti-govt militia kooks. Expect to see more of the same since armed occupation of government buildings is a-ok now.

 

[hal2kilo]

It's all about jury selection folks.
Cough..Nullification.

 

[zinfamous]

I can't believe anyone wouldn't agree that black and/or muslim people would all be in prison or dead if they did the same thing.

A huge can of worms has been opened with regards to all the anti-govt militia kooks. Expect to see more of the same since armed occupation of government buildings is a-ok now.

what a precedent to set ahead of Hillary Clinton entering the WH, and the bulk of these Trumpsters/militia retards thinking that this is somehow an external subversion of "American freedom." Hopefully, these guys are as stupid as they are and just never are able to connect the dots into thinking that this somehow allows them carte blanch to arm themselves and squat on all federal property. Could get real messy, real fast.

 

[1prophet]

I can't believe anyone wouldn't agree that black and/or muslim people would all be in prison or dead if they did the same thing.

A huge can of worms has been opened with regards to all the anti-govt militia kooks. Expect to see more of the same since armed occupation of government buildings is a-ok now.

Isn't funny how you don't see these so called militia's actually defending the eroding rights of Americans by the true masters of the Federal government.

Change government buildings to a corporate owned pipeline or some corporate take over of land under eminent domain and the Bundys would be dead or in jail as well, and you can take that to the bank, corporate owned of course.

 

[PokerGuy]

"by occupy idiots" you mean OWS?

Are you actually comparing the Bundies and their militias, which arm themselves and set up snipers aimed at Federal agents when occupying these properties to unarmed protests and occupations by OWS and BLM?

BLM protests "unarmed"? What are you smoking? Plenty of robbing, shooting, violence, looting etc in many places. But that's not the point. I agree with the verdict because I view this as federal overreach, they overcharged these people to make an example of them and it blew up in their faces. Had they actually harmed anyone, then it's a different game and heavier charges would make sense to me.

Your white privilege is showing. You know as well as anyone else does that this verdict would have been drastically different were these armed blacks or scary muslims.

Your racist assumptions are showing. Hypothetical scenarios about what a verdict would have been like have nothing at all to do with whether the verdict in this actual scenario was correct. The race of those involved also has nothing to do with whether the verdict is correct or not.

Now if you want to have a discussion about whether the verdict would have been the same had the defendants not been white, that's perfectly fair -- my guess is they would not have gotten acquitted. That has no bearing on whether the verdict in this case was correct or not.

 

[PokerGuy]

Threaten violence and discord?

Hey, you just summed up BLM

 

[PokerGuy]

absolute Bullshit and you know it. Like with any other protest or subversive group, there are elements within that don't subscribe to the message or the point of the group. You choose to pick the fringe group and use them to define the whole, rather than define the fringe for what they actually are.

You choose to believe the radical elements are fringe. I've seen enough statements and quotes from leaders and organizers within the movement to believe that it's not fringe at all. The movement is permeated with racism, violence and hate.

 

[PokerGuy]

You can not equate this to OWS, BLM etc... until you can demonstrate a similar situation.

Yeah, because there's not been any violence at all as part of these peaceful BLM protests right? /sarcasm

So I will again ask for any situation where people acted in the same manner as this group and were only charged with trespassing.

Just because you claim it to not be equivalent does not make it so.

 

[fskimospy]

BLM protests "unarmed"? What are you smoking? Plenty of robbing, shooting, violence, looting etc in many places. But that's not the point. I agree with the verdict because I view this as federal overreach, they overcharged these people to make an example of them and it blew up in their faces. Had they actually harmed anyone, then it's a different game and heavier charges would make sense to me.

The charges were as follows:

1. Having guns in a federal facility. I mean.... duh.

2. Conspiracy to prevent government workers from discharging their duties. They got together and explicitly made a plan to take over the wildlife refuge and said that anyone who tried to come in there was at risk of being shot.

They obviously committed both of those crimes. What charges do you think would have been appropriate?

 

[Vic]

Could you just imagine what would happen if BLMers took over a government facility by armed force? Yeah..

 

[WelshBloke]

A huge can of worms has been opened with regards to all the anti-govt militia kooks. Expect to see more of the same since armed occupation of government buildings is a-ok now.

FEDs know now just to shoot first ask questions later.

 

[zinfamous]

You choose to believe the radical elements are fringe. I've seen enough statements and quotes from leaders and organizers within the movement to believe that it's not fringe at all. The movement is permeated with racism, violence and hate.

again, you understand dick-all about BLM. "The leaders and organizers have said and done!": Technically, anyone is a leader or organizer if they claim they are one. Exactly as I said--BLM's poor organization and intentional lack of centralized leadership is something that has bitten them in the ass (just like OWS). It allows for the fringe to claim loudly that they have influence just as they have done, and makes it easy for unread puppets such as yourself to point to singular incidents and claim how right you are while ignoring conflicting evidence.

 

[Thump553]

The extremist redneck version of the OJ Simpson trial. The vast majority of the time the jury system works fine, but every once in a while a jury goes completely off the rails.

 

[OutHouse]

The charges were as follows:

1. Having guns in a federal facility. I mean.... duh.

2. Conspiracy to prevent government workers from discharging their duties. They got together and explicitly made a plan to take over the wildlife refuge and said that anyone who tried to come in there was at risk of being shot.

They obviously committed both of those crimes. What charges do you think would have been appropriate?

guess the courts know the law better than you do.

 

[zinfamous]

The extremist redneck version of the OJ Simpson trial. The vast majority of the time the jury system works fine, but every once in a while a jury goes completely off the rails.

Funny, that was the first thing that came to mind this morning when I heard this on the news. Just as bad as the OJ screwup. I wonder if PokerGuy and Outhouse below will claim that "the courts" know the law better than the rest of us when it comes to OJ.

guess the courts know the law better than you do.

the "courts"? This was a jury decision. You know full well that no judge versed in US constitutional law made this decision. Please don't try to hang on to this argument.

 

[WelshBloke]

guess the courts know the law better than you do.

It's pretty hard to refute either of those points!