@puzzledperson,
Local sheriffs can be nut jobs too.
This is not to say this one is, as I know nothing about the man but it interesting how people who would never trust law enforcement to tell the truth when a young black man is shot and killed by an officer, are more inclined to consider them threat experts when it comes to "right-wing extremists"
Maybe he just doesn't have a way with words, but it hardly seems likely that the men who are occupying this station see it as an attempt to overthrow the federal government, or, for that matter, the county government. Now they may have it in mind that a bloody stand will somehow spark a rebellion, but even if that's the case, they are not now attempting to overthrow any government.
I can certainly understand why the sheriff is anxious. This could be a very difficult situation for his small force to deal with, however given that he only has a half dozen or so deputies and believes these men want a gunfight to occur, I would think the smart and safe option to take is to leave them be and call for reinforcements. The station is hardly vital to the operation of any level of government, and unless they have hostages, which I do not believe is the case there's no reason to confront them. This is a good time for
talking.
The NYT op-ed is misleading in its attempt to make the case that right-wing groups present a greater threat to the US than Islamists. Although 382 officers were polled, the authors seem to be able find only one who unequivocally states that right-wingers are a greater threat than Islamists. A second officer ranked right-wingers "higher" than Islamists because the level of intelligence available concerning the former is lower that that available concerning the latter. This, arguably makes them less predictable and thus, to a certain, extent more difficult to deal with, it doesn't follow that they are the greater threat to America.
It's not at all surprising that officers around the country perceive right-wing extremists a great threat to their jurisdiction than jihadi. Only with the advent of ISIS inspired "home grown" jihadists has the threat of Islamist terrorism been considered realistic in Anytown USA. Al Qaeda operatives, successful or thwarted, we're looking for big impact, symbolic attacks. For the most part, the radicalized Muslim American isn't going to be capable of pulling off such attacks. Instead they have been and will be focusing on local soft targets: recruiting offices in a local shopping center, the holiday party of a local employer. Should these attacks continue and increase in frequency, the police officers in Anytown USA will begin to fear the threats more.
This is not to say there isn't a threat of violence from fringe right-wing groups, but the motivation of people like the authors of the NYT op-ed is very often more to taint conservatism and defend Muslims in the wake of Islamist attacks. The defense of Muslims is a knee-jerk progressive reaction which is entirely unnecessary if the fear is that reasonable people will start thinking that every Muslim is a terrorist. The unreasonable minority who think that way are certainly not going to be persuaded otherwise by an Op-Ed in any newspaper.
I intend to read the cited article from the CTC, but am currently on a plane and heading home. It's interesting to note that on the first page of the website 10 recent publications are profiled. Six are focused exclusively on Islamists. Two, bear covers with photos related to Islamist terrorists, and one is a general study of terrorism which undoubtedly references Islamist terrorists. Only one is devoted to right-wing violence and it is entitled "Challengers From the Sidelines," which one way or another, implies Islamists are the ones on the playing field.
