43
   

Hundreds of Armed Right-Wing Militia Members Take Over Federal Building

 
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Tue 5 Jan, 2016 04:34 pm
@George,
George wrote:

To be clear, what I wrote was:
"Having the readiness, will and ability to shed blood should not make you
immune to prosecution if you've broken the law."

The readiness and will are states of mind. The ability is physical. None of
these is wrong. What is wrong is when these make you immune to
prosecution.

If one commits a crime, that person should be called to account. It is wrong
to allow anyone to walk free simply because calling him (or her) to
account might be dangerous.


Although I could quibble that the ability to injure or kill someone is (given modern weapons) more mental than physical, I agree completely with your overall premise.

That these men are armed and dangerous should not be a reason for letting them off, but right now, they are not being let off.

We are talking about timing and the potential consequences of bringing them to justice sooner than later.

I'm not sure what they can be charged with right now, but absent an attempt to trump up terrorism charges, it seems like their actual crimes are relatively minor. This doesn't mean they should be ignored or that minor crimes cannot have major symbolic value.

We can disagree on this, of course, but I just do not see that the value of "shutting down" this protest and the grandiose posturing of these fools is worth anyone's life. Certainly not the life of a law enforcement agent.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Tue 5 Jan, 2016 04:36 pm
@George,
George wrote:

No, there should not be an armed assault by federal agents. Not at all.

I am disagreeing with those who are saying let them alone until they get
tired of it and go home.

I don't want them to just go home. I want them to be arrested.


We agree. When they get tired they will want to go home. That will be the time to cut a deal with them that avoids an armed conflict but still involves punishment that is commensurate with the crimes they've committed.
layman
 
  -1  
Tue 5 Jan, 2016 04:36 pm
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:

I mean seriously calling for it.


http://able2know.org/topic/307729-7#post-6101214
boomerang
 
  2  
Tue 5 Jan, 2016 04:47 pm
@Thomas,
Agreed!

Honestly, I think the humiliation of having to waddle away without any fanfare would be pretty good punishment.

And, of course, having to pay for any damages to our beautiful wilderness and visitor's center.

Former governor Tom McCall provided Oregon with it's unofficial state slogan "Come visit. Don't stay." It seems to apply here.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  0  
Tue 5 Jan, 2016 04:58 pm
@ehBeth,
ehBeth wrote:

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Bundy & Co. isn't going to get away with anything unless the federal, state and local officials refuse to prosecute them. What do you think the chances are of that happening?


they (the Bundy's) are used to getting away with things. The government does not follow through on legal decisions against them.


Well, I don't blame the Bundys for that, and I don't think they should be killed or injured because the government is feckless. I certainly don't think the lives of law enforcement agents should be risked because there is a lack of confidence in the government's ability or will to properly handle any prosecution of crimes they can be charged with.

The idea that the Bundys need to be taken out in a firefight because the government can't properly deal with them has the ring of vigilantism to it, except the vigilantes want federal agents to be their proxies.

Let's keep in mind that despite all of the bluster and bullshit from these clowns, they are not in engaged in an effort to overthrow the government. For all I know they may think they are, but if they are, it has to be the most feeble revolution in history. This is not to say that they are not willing or capable of making a more robust effort, but we all know that at this point in time, there isn't a snowball's chance in hell that one of these fringe groups will start a revolution, let alone win one. Instead the threat they present is for terrorist acts that their twisted logic tells them will eventually bring down the government. The notion is that the government will become increasingly oppressive after each attack and eventually even the Average Joe and/or Jane will take the barricades.

Of course most of them can't seem to comprehend that, even should a plan such as this work, it will be their actions that create the tyrannical government. The power mad leaders of groups like these (regardless of the underlying ideology) understand that they are creating the monster they need to kill to have any chance at securing the power they crave, but the followers buy into the BS that is fed to them that the acts of terrorism don't create the monster, they just force it out of the shadows; revealing its true self.

In the end though, martyrs are great inspiration for revolutionaries who settle, for a while, on being terrorists. Waiting them out and cutting a deal with them for prosecution on relatively modest charges (as opposed to going for charges involving terrorism or treason) will not create any martyrs, a bloodbath will.
layman
 
  -2  
Tue 5 Jan, 2016 05:00 pm
@layman,
layman wrote:

edgarblythe wrote:

I mean seriously calling for it.


http://able2know.org/topic/307729-7#post-6101214


Actually, Ed, I know you did see this post, because your ONLY immediate comment on it was as follows:

Quote:
People prepared to shoot the law in Oregon, the same as unarmed protesters?


Which seems to simply be another way of saying: "But this is different, and these guys deserve different treatment."

Like a commie would say, ya know? "Liberating tolerance," and alla that there.

BTW, it's not really relevant, but rounds of ammunition were confiscated during the Wisconsin takeover, too
Finn dAbuzz
 
  0  
Tue 5 Jan, 2016 05:02 pm
@blatham,
Maybe one day you will not conflate every possible variant and perversion of conservatism with the GOP and mainstream conservatism. Maybe.

BTW - Marshall's comment is idiotic because BLM has faced a "backlash" not because the two movements are such polar opposites.
ehBeth
 
  1  
Tue 5 Jan, 2016 05:03 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
The idea that the Bundys need to be taken out in a firefight


I say they should be ignored and you're talking to me about firefights.

wtf is that about?

ehBeth
 
  1  
Tue 5 Jan, 2016 05:06 pm
@ehBeth,
ehBeth wrote:

ignore them

it'll drive them mad

I'm xíng out every reference to them I hit on FB
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  0  
Tue 5 Jan, 2016 05:08 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:
Certainly not the life of a law enforcement agent.


Agree and see my comments on using a few mortars.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Tue 5 Jan, 2016 05:08 pm
@blatham,
I'm sure this is an example of your sarcastic wit, but I fail to see the point you are trying to make or how it is relevant to anything I've written.
0 Replies
 
George
 
  1  
Tue 5 Jan, 2016 05:09 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
. . . We agree. . . .
Oh good. I wasn't sure you knew that.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Tue 5 Jan, 2016 05:10 pm
@boomerang,
boomerang wrote:

I've never suggested we should kill them. I said we should shut down the electricity and water to the refuge so they'll get really uncomfortable and bored and go home.


Of course you haven't. Your post simply fell, conveniently for me, into a timeline wherein people who seem to be advocating a robust response were ticking off their crimes. I didn't mean to imply you wanted to see them killed.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  0  
Tue 5 Jan, 2016 05:12 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Wait for them to break up and go home and then do simultaneously SWAT raids on their homes in the middle of the night to take them into custody.

No reason to play by their rules and thereby risk federal agents lives.
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  -2  
Tue 5 Jan, 2016 05:20 pm
@layman,
layman wrote:

Quote:
It's not as if discretion hasn't been employed by law enforcement before. The NYC police could have swept into the OWS tent city and made mass arrests.


And it's not as if a LACK of discretion hasn't been employed before either. The Honorable Richard Daley, Chicago Mayor, issued some illegal "shoot to kill" orders back in 1968. The Chicago police also decided to "clear protesters out" of Lincoln and Grant parks.

The result was a fiasco, with a subsequent full investigation characterizing it as a "police riot."



And, it might be noted for the benefit of the race baiters, these protestors were predominantly white foke. Go figure, eh?
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Tue 5 Jan, 2016 05:25 pm
@layman,
layman wrote:

layman wrote:

edgarblythe wrote:

I mean seriously calling for it.


http://able2know.org/topic/307729-7#post-6101214


Actually, Ed, I know you did see this post, because your ONLY immediate comment on it was as follows:

Quote:
People prepared to shoot the law in Oregon, the same as unarmed protesters?


Which seems to simply be another way of saying: "But this is different, and these guys deserve different treatment."

Like a commie would say, ya know? "Liberating tolerance," and alla that there.

BTW, it's not really relevant, but rounds of ammunition were confiscated during the Wisconsin takeover, too


They do deserve different treatment. But suggesting I called to shoot them is a hell of a stretch.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Tue 5 Jan, 2016 06:02 pm
@ehBeth,
ehBeth wrote:

Finn dAbuzz wrote:
The idea that the Bundys need to be taken out in a firefight


I say they should be ignored and you're talking to me about firefights.

wtf is that about?




It is the occasional nature of discourse in this forum and with me. All of the comments I make in any given response post are not necessarily directly in response to something the original poster wrote. For example, you did not express the idea that the Bundys needed to be taken out in a firefight. My comment was in reference to those who believe a "robust" response is required. I thought it was clear that this was not in direct response to what you wrote (I don't think I'm often so coy as to not make it clear when I am - For example, I would have written "Your idea that the Bundys need to be taken out in a firefight because the government can't properly deal with them has the ring of vigilantism to it, except you want federal agents to be your proxies)
, but obviously not. I've been in your position before on other threads so I know the confusion. It's something I will need to be more mindful of going forward. I should add that while I don't think anyone has come right out and said there needs to be a firefight, it is so likely to be the result of any robust effort made by the Feds that I think it's disingenuous to suppose anything else might happen.
ehBeth
 
  2  
Tue 5 Jan, 2016 06:05 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
use reply all

it's a good option when you're not actually responding to the person you're replying to
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  -1  
Tue 5 Jan, 2016 06:13 pm
@edgarblythe,
Quote:
They do deserve different treatment. But suggesting I called to shoot them is a hell of a stretch.


Well, Ed, that was your ONLY response to Montel Williams demanding that "shoot to kill" orders be issued. You didn't express a word of disagreement with that sentiment when you commented on the post. Do you want to now?

This all (re)started with your claim that no one was calling for such a resolution. Did you even read the post?
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Tue 5 Jan, 2016 06:19 pm
@George,
George wrote:

No, there should not be an armed assault by federal agents. Not at all.

I am disagreeing with those who are saying let them alone until they get
tired of it and go home.

I don't want them to just go home. I want them to be arrested.


Stay tuned…

Quote:
The FBI is handling a criminal case against the armed men occupying the refuge since Saturday, and has told Ward that the men will face charges. The sheriff still believes a peaceful resolution to the conflict is possible.

“The bureau has assured me that those at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge will at some point face charges,” Ward said.

Ward did not give specifics on what charges the men will face.
Source
 

Related Topics

T'Pring is Dead - Discussion by Brandon9000
Another Calif. shooting spree: 4 dead - Discussion by Lustig Andrei
Before you criticize the media - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fatal Baloon Accident - Discussion by 33export
The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
Robin Williams is dead - Discussion by Butrflynet
Amanda Knox - Discussion by JTT
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 1.2 seconds on 12/26/2024 at 01:34:44