So, a group of armed terrorists has occupied a federal building

[Lady Florida.]

 

 

 

So, this escalation is their next show of force, putting heavily armed people around to 'secure a perimeter' is not in response to any outside threat.  This is all on the terrorists and their desire for confrontation. I am guessing they weren't getting enough media attention and though they needed to look more threatening and macho.  The not bringing enough groceries and asking for food does sort of undermine that.

 

The community remains worried about who exactly is walking around with guns in their community.  Bundy has called for anyone with guns to come and join them, so who knows who is showing up.

 

 

 

Oh, but that's all just peaceful civil disobedience. /sarcasm

[Guest]

 

.  Bundy has called for anyone with guns to come and join them, so who knows who is showing up.

 

 

I know some liberal feminist environmentalist homesteady types with guns.

 

You reckon they'd roll out the welcome endangered-bear skin mat? :laugh:

 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Oh, but that's all just peaceful civil disobedience. /sarcasm

 

And they have no idea why they brought the guns.  It is just a sit in!

 

I would laugh but this is getting scary and dangerous for the locals.

 

[swimmermom3]

 

 

 

A couple of things:

• The "covering up poaching" was a theory that the prosecutor put forth during the trial.  However, the jury finding the Hammonds guilty of arson does not necessarily mean that the jury believed that aspect of the prosecutor's case.  It just means that they believed the Hammonds let the BLM land catch fire on purpose
• The poaching theory of the prosecution's case relied on testimony from Dusty Hammond, an estranged relative who had been thirteen years old at the time of the fire.  Dusty's testimony also contradicted public hunting records.  As a result, the judge believed his testimony was biased
• The Hammonds were not charged with illegal hunting
• Evidence at the trial included the phone call the Hammonds placed in which they got permission to set the fire
• A range conservationist testified that the fire improved the conditions on the BLM land (juniper is invasive and drinks up a lot of water)

 

A transcript of the original sentencing can be found here

 

The Hammond's Supreme Court brief is here

 

 

Thank you for adding the additional information. This actually makes more sense.  Juniper "reclamation" has been a huge project in that area and a very necessary one.

 

 

[EmseB]

And in these cases it was law enforcement who escalated the situation by showing up in full riot gear, putting snipers on roofs, driving around in huge armored vehicles with weapons on top and pointing them at peaceful demonstrators, using tear gas and pepper spray (sometimes on people who were already physically subdued and in cuffs).

 

 

So, wait, we do want law enforcement to show up and escalate the situation, or we don't?  I'm so confused.  In any case, I'm not sure that it is as one-sided as you claim (the idea that it was solely the presence of heavy handed law enforcement which escalated the situation).

 

ETAA: But wouldn't the solution to your scenarios posted above be that law enforcement is not as heavy handed?  Or is your solution that they should give everyone the tear gas treatment?

 

ETA:  Tamir Rice being shot is so very dissimilar from the this situation I don't even know how to address you bringing it up.

Edited January 9, 2016 by JodiSue

[albeto.]

You know, for a bunch of people who are so hepped up on STATES RIGHTS they sure are a lot of out of town boys.  The Bundys and their minions are from Utah, these new guys are from Idaho...and they all seem to be invading Oregon. Oregon, the actual community where they are, have asked them to leave..the sheriff, the locally elected sheriff, the authority that is supposed to be the only legeitimate one in their eyes, has asked them to leave.  When does Oregon get any say in the matter? It's clear to me that these guys don't believe a word of what they profess.  If they did, they would have left when they were asked to leave.

 

I don't understand why sheriff didn't call the feds and army reserve after they stated they were taking over federal land. Why didn't he put that place under siege? No media. No cell phone towers. No power. No water. No one gets in. Everyone who gets out gets a quick ride to jail, on the taxpayers dime. 

 

I cannot understand why this thing is allowed to play out so long. 

Edited January 9, 2016 by albeto.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

So, wait, we do want law enforcement to show up and escalate the situation, or we don't? I'm so confused. In any case, I'm not sure that it is as one-sided as you claim (the idea that it was solely the presence of heavy handed law enforcement which escalated the situation).

 

ETAA: But wouldn't the solution to your scenarios posted above be that law enforcement is not as heavy handed? Or is your solution that they should give everyone the tear gas treatment?

 

ETA: Tamir Rice being shot is so very dissimilar from the this situation I don't even know how to address you bringing it up.

I think there is a difference between escalating when there is crowd demonstrating/protesting (especially if peaceful) and showing up armed and prepared when an armed group takes over federal property.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I don't understand why sheriff didn't call the feds and army reserve after they stated they were taking over federal land. Why didn't he put that place under siege? No media. No cell phone towers. No power. No water. No one gets in. Everyone who gets out gets a quick ride to jail, on the taxpayers dime.

 

I cannot understand why this thing is allowed to play out so long.

The FBI is involved but l think (wisely) not publically saying what they are doing as they get assets in place. The army reserve can only be called up for use in this case by the state governor.

 

An armed group of this nature is not something federal law enforcement deals with often, and federal troops cannot legally be used at this point. It the situation can be ramped down that would be safest for all.

[poppy]

So, wait, we do want law enforcement to show up and escalate the situation, or we don't?  I'm so confused.  In any case, I'm not sure that it is as one-sided as you claim (the idea that it was solely the presence of heavy handed law enforcement which escalated the situation).

 

ETAA: But wouldn't the solution to your scenarios posted above be that law enforcement is not as heavy handed?  Or is your solution that they should give everyone the tear gas treatment?

 

ETA:  Tamir Rice being shot is so very dissimilar from the this situation I don't even know how to address you bringing it up.

 

No one wants a siege in Oregon.  (Except the militants, apparently).

 

Law enforcement should not be heavy handed with peaceful protesters. Protesting is a protected right.

 

I don't really have strong feelings about what law enforcement "should" do against armed anti-government forces who are itching to get headlines.   I don't think there is no one-size-fits-all for that.

 

As for Tamir Rice, he was shot for holding an (apparent) weapon in an open-carry state.... you'd think this group would care very much about Rice.

[chiguirre]

 

 

 

A couple of things:

• The "covering up poaching" was a theory that the prosecutor put forth during the trial.  However, the jury finding the Hammonds guilty of arson does not necessarily mean that the jury believed that aspect of the prosecutor's case.  It just means that they believed the Hammonds let the BLM land catch fire on purpose
• The poaching theory of the prosecution's case relied on testimony from Dusty Hammond, an estranged relative who had been thirteen years old at the time of the fire.  Dusty's testimony also contradicted public hunting records.  As a result, the judge believed his testimony was biased
• The Hammonds were not charged with illegal hunting
• Evidence at the trial included the phone call the Hammonds placed in which they got permission to set the fire
• A range conservationist testified that the fire improved the conditions on the BLM land (juniper is invasive and drinks up a lot of water)

 

A transcript of the original sentencing can be found here

 

The Hammond's Supreme Court brief is here

 

Dusty Hammond has a very good reason to be an estranged relative:

 

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/01/05/oregon-rancher-heroes-accused-of-child-abuse.html

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Dusty Hammond has a very good reason to be an estranged relative:

 

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/01/05/oregon-rancher-heroes-accused-of-child-abuse.html

 

Yikes.

[redsquirrel]

So, wait, we do want law enforcement to show up and escalate the situation, or we don't?  I'm so confused.  In any case, I'm not sure that it is as one-sided as you claim (the idea that it was solely the presence of heavy handed law enforcement which escalated the situation).

 

ETAA: But wouldn't the solution to your scenarios posted above be that law enforcement is not as heavy handed?  Or is your solution that they should give everyone the tear gas treatment?

 

ETA:  Tamir Rice being shot is so very dissimilar from the this situation I don't even know how to address you bringing it up.

 

I don't have a particular desire about what LE does. I just want to point out that these particular militant are the ones who are escalating the weaponry, making them more public, taking an increasingly aggressive public stand. When are they going to stop? What is their line? Are they going to start shooting anyone who approaches their 'perimeter'?  They are heavily armed and have made it clear that they are willing to kill, so I assume they will.  Is that ok with the people of this country?

 

As for Tamir Rice, he was a black boy with a toy gun who got shot. The people of a jury, which makes them representatives of all of us, decided that just the very sight of a black body holding a weapon was threatening enough that LE was justified in using overwhelming force. The very vision of a black man (child) holding a weapon, in an open carry state, was inherently threatening enough that police had no reason to take more than 2 seconds to draw a bead and shoot him dead. The fact that he was a 6th grader wasn't important. He was black and he was armed and that was enough to justify using deadly force. According to the laws of our society LE didn't do anything wrong. He was right to be afraid and kill to defend himself.

 

Now we have who knows how many white adult men, who have stated that they are willing to shoot police or any law enforcement,, or really anyone, walking around public land, claiming for their own and the response of law enforcement and society is one of 'give them time. Let's figure out what is going on here.'  These guys are going out of their way to look as threatening and aggressive as possible, lying about their (lack of) military training to make themselves seem like professional killers. And they get time. They get a public forum to air their grievances. They get politely asked to leave and nothing happens when they say no.  I don't know how this is going to play out, but so far they are all alive.  They met with the local sheriff and were specifically not asked to come unarmed and they left having not been arrested.

 

Do I think that the white extremists should have been shot on sight? No. But I am pointing out the difference in how this society sees and evaluates who is threatening, who gets speak their case, and who does not. Who is determined to be too potentially dangerous to live and who is not. When is force by the state justified and when is it not? Where are the lines and who is drawing them?

 

I don't claim to have all the answers, but I think they are important questions. If this situation in Oregon continues to escalate I think they are questions we are all going to have to grapple with.

[EmseB]

I don't have a particular desire about what LE does. I just want to point out that these particular militant are the ones who are escalating the weaponry, making them more public, taking an increasingly aggressive public stand. When are they going to stop? What is their line? Are they going to start shooting anyone who approaches their 'perimeter'?  They are heavily armed and have made it clear that they are willing to kill, so I assume they will.  Is that ok with the people of this country?

 

As for Tamir Rice, he was a black boy with a toy gun who got shot. The people of a jury, which makes them representatives of all of us, decided that just the very sight of a black body holding a weapon was threatening enough that LE was justified in using overwhelming force. The very vision of a black man (child) holding a weapon, in an open carry state, was inherently threatening enough that police had no reason to take more than 2 seconds to draw a bead and shoot him dead. The fact that he was a 6th grader wasn't important. He was black and he was armed and that was enough to justify using deadly force. According to the laws of our society LE didn't do anything wrong. He was right to be afraid and kill to defend himself.

 

Now we have who knows how many white adult men, who have stated that they are willing to shoot police or any law enforcement,, or really anyone, walking around public land, claiming for their own and the response of law enforcement and society is one of 'give them time. Let's figure out what is going on here.'  These guys are going out of their way to look as threatening and aggressive as possible, lying about their (lack of) military training to make themselves seem like professional killers. And they get time. They get a public forum to air their grievances. They get politely asked to leave and nothing happens when they say no.  I don't know how this is going to play out, but so far they are all alive.  They met with the local sheriff and were specifically not asked to come unarmed and they left having not been arrested.

 

Do I think that the white extremists should have been shot on sight? No. But I am pointing out the difference in how this society sees and evaluates who is threatening, who gets speak their case, and who does not. Who is determined to be too potentially dangerous to live and who is not. When is force by the state justified and when is it not? Where are the lines and who is drawing them?

 

I don't claim to have all the answers, but I think they are important questions. If this situation in Oregon continues to escalate I think they are questions we are all going to have to grapple with.

 

 

What's interesting to me is that while they have stated they will defend themselves (presumably from threats to their lives, right?  As in the cops storm in guns ablazin, is what I'm thinking they mean) they stated up front that their goal is not to be violent.  Yet, you completely discount that statement because they carry guns.  But I know several people who carry guns (concealed) and none of them have the intent to be violent, but will defend themselves in a confrontation.  These aren't violent people simply because they carry.  So, you speculate that they are going to start shooting people at random who approach their perimeter.  That seems to be a stretch, but if they start shooting innocent people I don't think there's really a dilemma about what should happen.  I don't think anyone is arguing about that.

 

But clearly there is a difference between someone aiming and pointing a gun (pre-teen or not), and people saying that they are willing to defend themselves against some unspecified action that is not happening currently?  I mean, if Bundy pointed his gun at an officer during a raid or stand off, he'd surely be shot (and rightly so).  That's not what is happening in Oregon.  Black and armed is different than black and pointing a weapon at people.  Walking around on public land with guns is not the same thing as pointing a firearm at someone.  Clearly there's a huge difference, otherwise carrying a weapon would always be grounds for getting shot by LE.  You're comparing situational apples and oranges and then trying to make it look like it's about race when the situations themselves and the circumstances of the situations are completely and entirely different.

 

Stating you are willing to defend yourself isn't the same as stating you want to kill LE.  And it isn't the same as pointing a weapon at an LEO.  Of course it isn't.  Even writing an entire song about killing LEOs and then owning a gun won't get you hauled off to jail.  Pointing a weapon at a bystander or LEO will, however, probably get you killed.

 

As to the bolded, that seems a bit of a cop out to me.  As you state, these are important questions, and what LE does is pertinent.  How could you not have a preference?  Of course we as citizens have an interest in whether or not LE acting a way that is either heavy-handed or not.  If you really don't care how they respond, then none of this makes any difference.  Let them protest or shoot them all, it doesn't matter?  We may differ in how we want them to handle any given situation, but as you point out, their responses to similar situations should be fair and consistent, and IMO, tear gas and riot gear shouldn't be a response to a sit-in if no one is getting hurt, whether the participants are armed or not.

 

Should these guys who want to sit in a federal building with their guns be shot to death?  Should the people who want to camp out on Mizzou's lawn be hauled off to jail?  Should the people in Madison have tear gas thrown in the building to get them out of it?  Should an entire compound of women and children be burned alive because they refuse to comply with LE?  I think we should definitely have a preference as to what happens in these types of situations.

Edited January 9, 2016 by JodiSue

[ChocolateReignRemix]

What's interesting to me is that while they have stated they will defend themselves (presumably from threats to their lives, right? As in the cops storm in guns ablazin, is what I'm thinking they mean) they stated up front that their goal is not to be violent. Yet, you completely discount that statement because they carry guns. But I know several people who carry guns (concealed) and none of them have the intent to be violent, but will defend themselves in a confrontation. These aren't violent people simply because they carry. So, you speculate that they are going to start shooting people at random who approach their perimeter. That seems to be a stretch, but if they start shooting innocent people I don't think there's really a dilemma about what should happen. I don't think anyone is arguing about that.

 

But clearly there is a difference between someone aiming and pointing a gun (pre-teen or not), and people saying that they are willing to defend themselves against some unspecified action that is not happening currently? I mean, if Bundy pointed his gun at an officer during a raid or stand off, he'd surely be shot (and rightly so). That's not what is happening in Oregon. Black and armed is different than black and pointing a weapon at people. Walking around on public land with guns is not the same thing as pointing a firearm at someone. Clearly there's a huge difference, otherwise carrying a weapon would always be grounds for getting shot by LE. You're comparing situational apples and oranges and then trying to make it look like it's about race when the situations themselves and the circumstances of the situations are completely and entirely different.

 

Stating you are willing to defend yourself isn't the same as stating you want to kill LE. And it isn't the same as pointing a weapon at an LEO. Of course it isn't. Even writing an entire song about killing LEOs and then owning a gun won't get you hauled off to jail. Pointing a weapon at a bystander or LEO will, however, probably get you killed.

 

As to the bolded, that seems a bit of a cop out to me. As you state, these are important questions, and what LE does is pertinent. How could you not have a preference? Of course we as citizens have an interest in whether or not LE acting a way that is either heavy-handed or not. If you really don't care how they respond, then none of this makes any difference. Let them protest or shoot them all, it doesn't matter? We may differ in how we want them to handle any given situation, but as you point out, their responses to similar situations should be fair and consistent, and IMO, tear gas and riot gear shouldn't be a response to a sit-in if no one is getting hurt, whether the participants are armed or not.

 

Should these guys who want to sit in a federal building with their guns be shot to death? Should the people who want to camp out on Mizzou's lawn be hauled off to jail? Should the people in Madison have tear gas thrown in the building to get them out of it? Should an entire compound of women and children be burned alive because they refuse to comply with LE? I think we should definitely have a preference as to what happens in these types of situations.

The way you just manage to merrily ignore the simple fact that CRIMINALS (these guys are for numerous reasons) don't get to exert a right of self defense against LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENTS acting LAWFULLY and EXECUTING LEGAL ORDERS just boggles the mind.

 

And again, seizing a federal property and saying you will use force to prevent your removal is not a sit in. It is a felony.

[poppy]

 

 

Walking around on public land with guns is not the same thing as pointing a firearm at someone.

Is that what you think this is ? A nice little ramble on a woodsy path ? 

 

 

As you state, these are important questions, and what LE does is pertinent.  How could you not have a preference?  Of course we as citizens have an interest in whether or not LE acting a way that is either heavy-handed or not.  If you really don't care how they respond, then none of this makes any difference.  Let them protest or shoot them all, it doesn't matter?  We may differ in how we want them to handle any given situation, but as you point out, their responses to similar situations should be fair and consistent, and IMO, tear gas and riot gear shouldn't be a response to a sit-in if no one is getting hurt, whether the participants are armed or not.

 

 

I don't think anyone is voting for tear gas and riot gear here.  What we all want, I think, is for the armed trespassers to stand down. Not knowing the best way to achieve that does not =  "no preference".  Of course my preference is no bloodshed.  The new armed perimeter is making that less likely. 

[Ravin]

Thanks for posting the transcript from the original sentencing. It was a Federal judge's last sentencing at the end of a 39 year career on the bench, and he obviously took the opportunity to give a judicial middle finger to the mandatory minimum.

[Ravin]

I really think the Feds are working with local LE and staying out of sight because they don't want this to turn into a Waco or Ruby Ridge sort of situation.

[Lady Florida.]

Thanks for posting the transcript from the original sentencing. It was a Federal judge's last sentencing at the end of a 39 year career on the bench, and he obviously took the opportunity to give a judicial middle finger to the mandatory minimum.

 

If the Hammonds are going to blame anyone besides themselves they should blame that judge. Middle finger or not, the judge knew better. Or they could blame their lawyer. Their lawyer had to know the prosecutors would appeal what was an illegal sentence since it ignored the mandatory minimum. 

[Pam in CT]

If the Hammonds are going to blame anyone besides themselves they should blame that judge. Middle finger or not, the judge knew better. Or they could blame their lawyer. Their lawyer had to know the prosecutors would appeal what was an illegal sentence since it ignored the mandatory minimum. 

 

As Ravin outlined above, it ultimately is about the inflexibility of mandatory sentence legislations (which when instituted were largely in response to issues of terrorism, drugs and gangs).  Right or wrong, the judge who heard the initial case was not able to take into consideration factors that might have been "mitigating" because of the mandated sentence structure.  Subsequent appeals did not look at the merits of the Hammond case, only ruled that the mandatory sentence was indeed mandatory.

 

(FTR, I don't believe in mandatory sentences.)

[ChocolateReignRemix]

As Ravin outlined above, it ultimately is about the inflexibility of mandatory sentence legislations (which when instituted were largely in response to issues of terrorism, drugs and gangs).  Right or wrong, the judge who heard the initial case was not able to take into consideration factors that might have been "mitigating" because of the mandated sentence structure.  Subsequent appeals did not look at the merits of the Hammond case, only ruled that the mandatory sentence was indeed mandatory.

 

(FTR, I don't believe in mandatory sentences.)

 

I am mixed on mandatory minimums.  Although they can be abused, they have also helped offset biased sentencing for certain criminals, particularly in sex crimes cases.

[Lady Florida.]

As Ravin outlined above, it ultimately is about the inflexibility of mandatory sentence legislations (which when instituted were largely in response to issues of terrorism, drugs and gangs).  Right or wrong, the judge who heard the initial case was not able to take into consideration factors that might have been "mitigating" because of the mandated sentence structure.  Subsequent appeals did not look at the merits of the Hammond case, only ruled that the mandatory sentence was indeed mandatory.

 

(FTR, I don't believe in mandatory sentences.)

 

I agree with that, but their lawyer still should have known unless they wanted to make their case about challenging mandatory minimums (which I don't think they did). And the judge still should have known he'd be challenged in a higher court.

 

I don't agree with mandatory minimums either. To me they're another example of how legislators have taken decision-making out of the hands of professionals. Instead of allowing the professionals to make decisions based on their expertise and experience, whether those experts are teachers, judges, doctors, etc., they are bound by laws made by people who are often ignorant of the situation. That sounds rather odd coming from this bleeding heart liberal who thinks government regulation is generally a good thing, but there you have it. 

[Pam in CT]

re: mandatory sentencing minimums, and removing discretion from judges--

I am mixed on mandatory minimums.  Although they can be abused, they have also helped offset biased sentencing for certain criminals, particularly in sex crimes cases.

Yes, it's complex, and maybe there are unintended consequences either way.  

 

Mandatory sentences shift power/discretion over to the prosecutor's side -- when they're in place, the prosecutor can pile on a number of charges with mandatory sentences and thereby virtually compel defendants to plead guilty.  Particularly if they don't have counsel.  Which creates a different set of problems.

 

 

I agree with that, but their lawyer still should have known unless they wanted to make their case about challenging mandatory minimums (which I don't think they did). And the judge still should have known he'd be challenged in a higher court.

 

I don't agree with mandatory minimums either. To me they're another example of how legislators have taken decision-making out of the hands of professionals. Instead of allowing the professionals to make decisions based on their expertise and experience, whether those experts are teachers, judges, doctors, etc., they are bound by laws made by people who are often ignorant of the situation. That sounds rather odd coming from this bleeding heart liberal who thinks government regulation is generally a good thing, but there you have it. 

Out of the hands of judges (who are closer to the legal specifics than legislators) and also who have, in any particular case, access to the specific evidence and circumstances of that case (and potentially access to mitigating circumstances, which may have been relevant in the Hammond case).

[ChocolateReignRemix]

re: mandatory sentencing minimums, and removing discretion from judges--

Yes, it's complex, and maybe there are unintended consequences either way.  

 

Mandatory sentences shift power/discretion over to the prosecutor's side -- when they're in place, the prosecutor can pile on a number of charges with mandatory sentences and thereby virtually compel defendants to plead guilty.  Particularly if they don't have counsel.  Which creates a different set of problems.

 

 

Out of the hands of judges (who are closer to the legal specifics than legislators) and also who have, in any particular case, access to the specific evidence and circumstances of that case (and potentially access to mitigating circumstances, which may have been relevant in the Hammond case).

 

Either way there will be issues.  Mandatory minimum are well back on my issues list.

 

Regarding legislators setting the sentencing guidelines, this has always been the case starting with determining whether a crime is a misdemeanor or a felony.  I admit I am uncomfortable with judges having too much discretion in the variance they are allowed when sentencing those convicted of crimes.  I am also uncomfortable with them having no discretion at all.

[Pam in CT]

OT, but, CR, have you by chance read Michelle Alexander's The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness?  It is... very eye-opening.  And FWIW, tipped me off the fence re: mandatory sentences.  Which I agree are a complex policy issue, with power abuse risks either direction.

[Mergath]

What's interesting to me is that while they have stated they will defend themselves (presumably from threats to their lives, right?  As in the cops storm in guns ablazin, is what I'm thinking they mean) they stated up front that their goal is not to be violent.  Yet, you completely discount that statement because they carry guns.  But I know several people who carry guns (concealed) and none of them have the intent to be violent, but will defend themselves in a confrontation.  These aren't violent people simply because they carry.  So, you speculate that they are going to start shooting people at random who approach their perimeter.  That seems to be a stretch, but if they start shooting innocent people I don't think there's really a dilemma about what should happen.  I don't think anyone is arguing about that.

 

But clearly there is a difference between someone aiming and pointing a gun (pre-teen or not), and people saying that they are willing to defend themselves against some unspecified action that is not happening currently?  I mean, if Bundy pointed his gun at an officer during a raid or stand off, he'd surely be shot (and rightly so).  That's not what is happening in Oregon.  Black and armed is different than black and pointing a weapon at people.  Walking around on public land with guns is not the same thing as pointing a firearm at someone.  Clearly there's a huge difference, otherwise carrying a weapon would always be grounds for getting shot by LE.  You're comparing situational apples and oranges and then trying to make it look like it's about race when the situations themselves and the circumstances of the situations are completely and entirely different.

 

Stating you are willing to defend yourself isn't the same as stating you want to kill LE.  And it isn't the same as pointing a weapon at an LEO.  Of course it isn't.  Even writing an entire song about killing LEOs and then owning a gun won't get you hauled off to jail.  Pointing a weapon at a bystander or LEO will, however, probably get you killed.

 

As to the bolded, that seems a bit of a cop out to me.  As you state, these are important questions, and what LE does is pertinent.  How could you not have a preference?  Of course we as citizens have an interest in whether or not LE acting a way that is either heavy-handed or not.  If you really don't care how they respond, then none of this makes any difference.  Let them protest or shoot them all, it doesn't matter?  We may differ in how we want them to handle any given situation, but as you point out, their responses to similar situations should be fair and consistent, and IMO, tear gas and riot gear shouldn't be a response to a sit-in if no one is getting hurt, whether the participants are armed or not.

 

Should these guys who want to sit in a federal building with their guns be shot to death?  Should the people who want to camp out on Mizzou's lawn be hauled off to jail?  Should the people in Madison have tear gas thrown in the building to get them out of it?  Should an entire compound of women and children be burned alive because they refuse to comply with LE?  I think we should definitely have a preference as to what happens in these types of situations.

 

I really don't understand what you're trying to get at here. They're armed, and they're committing a crime. If I commit armed robbery for example, shooting the cops does not count as self defense. Even if I had good intentions and was going to give all the money I stole to a charity that helps orphans, I'm still armed and committing a crime. If I break into a bank and hole up in there with a bunch of guns, the cops are probably going to shoot me, or at least use tear gas or tasers or something. If they do, and I start shooting the cops, I would not be in the right. I would not be defending myself. I would be killing police officers during the commission of a crime.

 

I seriously don't get how you fail to see that. The fact that these guys supposedly have good intentions doesn't negate the fact that they're armed and committing a crime.

[Word Nerd]

This story claims the Bundys are part of the sovereign citizens movement, which if true further explains their motivation.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

OT, but, CR, have you by chance read Michelle Alexander's The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness? It is... very eye-opening. And FWIW, tipped me off the fence re: mandatory sentences. Which I agree are a complex policy issue, with power abuse risks either direction.

I think there is a middle ground regarding mandatory minimums. Personally I would solve part of the problem by revamping many of our drug laws.

[Daria]

Why do you believe this? There are many photos from the last Bundy standoff of people aiming guns at law enforcement officers during the standoff.  None of those people were shot.  

 

 

  I mean, if Bundy pointed his gun at an officer during a raid or stand off, he'd surely be shot (and rightly so).  

 

[EmseB]

I really don't understand what you're trying to get at here. They're armed, and they're committing a crime. If I commit armed robbery for example, shooting the cops does not count as self defense. Even if I had good intentions and was going to give all the money I stole to a charity that helps orphans, I'm still armed and committing a crime. If I break into a bank and hole up in there with a bunch of guns, the cops are probably going to shoot me, or at least use tear gas or tasers or something. If they do, and I start shooting the cops, I would not be in the right. I would not be defending myself. I would be killing police officers during the commission of a crime.

 

I seriously don't get how you fail to see that. The fact that these guys supposedly have good intentions doesn't negate the fact that they're armed and committing a crime.

 

I don't think a sit-in or protest or occupation is the same type of crime as a robbery, nor should it be handled the same way.  I think, as long as people are simply occupying some place, armed or no, they should be left to protest peacefully.

 

I don't think, because someone is armed, they are not protesting peacefully.  I think of it like this:  if someone is carrying concealed and they get pull over for a traffic infraction and inform the cop they have a weapon in the car, that is definitely not the same thing as threatening law enforcement.  It doesn't make the person who committed the infraction violent, and it doesn't mean that if the cops want to detain them it will turn into a shooting match.  It could, but it's not a given.  The situation can and should be resolved peacefully between both parties.

 

I think there is a huge difference between pointing a weapon at an officer and letting an officer know you are armed before a conflict happens.  Yes shooting an officer is definitely wrong.  If these guys started shooting at law enforcement, we'd be having a different conversation.  But they aren't doing that.

 

The problem with equating what's happening to armed robbery is that even if someone breaks into a bank or a house unarmed and steals the money they should be arrested and hauled off to jail immediately, right?  So, if we're drawing parallels, even protesters who are not armed should be immediately hauled off to jail for occupying a government building (if it is the same as robbery).

 

Obviously people disagree with my take on protests and how police should handle them, but it's not that I "don't see" what you're talking about, it's that I disagree with the premise that sitting in a government building, even with arms, while stupid, is not the same as an armed robbery.  Just like I don't agree that sitting in a federal building without guns is the same as an unarmed robbery.

 

Related, I found this article in the Oregonian interesting:

 

Todd MacFarlane, a Utah lawyer acting as a mediator, said occupation leader Ammon Bundy doesn't want the armed visitors there.

Bundy's message: "We don't need that. We don't want it and we're asking you to leave," MacFarlane told reporters at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.

MacFarlane said he had just met with Bundy and other leaders of the occupation.

They're "alarmed" by the arrival of Pacific Patriots Network members, some carrying rifles, and concerned about the perception they convey.

"This was the last thing in the world they wanted to see happen," MacFarlane said.

Bundy didn't request the presence of the network, he said, and has "tried to put out the word: 'We don't need you.'"

Edited January 11, 2016 by JodiSue

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I don't think a sit-in or protest or occupation is the same type of crime as a robbery, nor should it be handled the same way.  I think, as long as people are simply occupying some place, armed or no, they should be left to protest peacefully.

 

I don't think, because someone is armed, they are not protesting peacefully.  I think of it like this:  if someone is carrying concealed and they get pull over for a traffic infraction and inform the cop they have a weapon in the car, that is definitely not the same thing as threatening law enforcement.  It doesn't make the person who committed the infraction violent, and it doesn't mean that if the cops want to detain them it will turn into a shooting match.  It could, but it's not a given.  The situation can and should be resolved peacefully between both parties.

 

I think there is a huge difference between pointing a weapon at an officer and letting an officer know you are armed before a conflict happens.  Yes shooting an officer is definitely wrong.  If these guys started shooting at law enforcement, we'd be having a different conversation.  But they aren't doing that.

 

The problem with equating what's happening to armed robbery is that even if someone breaks into a bank or a house unarmed and steals the money they should be arrested and hauled off to jail immediately, right?  So, if we're drawing parallels, even protesters who are not armed should be immediately hauled off to jail for occupying a government building (if it is the same as robbery).

 

You do get that many times those at sit ins are hauled off to jail, right?

 

Regarding the guns, simply taking the guns on to federal property is a crime.  In addition, there is a massive difference between a peaceful sit in and an armed take over where the "protesters" threaten to defend themselves with force if the authorities try to remove them. Peaceful protesters at a sit in are not a danger to anyone.

 

[Pam in CT]

...

 

Related, I found this article in the Oregonian interesting:

 

Todd MacFarlane, a Utah lawyer acting as a mediator, said occupation leader Ammon Bundy doesn't want the armed visitors there.

Bundy's message: "We don't need that. We don't want it and we're asking you to leave," MacFarlane told reporters at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.

MacFarlane said he had just met with Bundy and other leaders of the occupation.

They're "alarmed" by the arrival of Pacific Patriots Network members, some carrying rifles, and concerned about the perception they convey.

"This was the last thing in the world they wanted to see happen," MacFarlane said.

Bundy didn't request the presence of the network, he said, and has "tried to put out the word: 'We don't need you.'"

 

That is rather ironic, since the participants in the town meeting, the Pauite leadership, the Oregon governor, and the Hammonds themselves -- the actual local stakeholders to the various, sometimes competing, interests, have all asked Bundy & Co to leave.

 

At this point, they cannot plausibly claim to be speaking for ANY party other than themselves.

[Ravin]

The 3%ers who showed up and were asked to leave (and according to the Oregonian, did just that.) weren't the only ones there who are armed. Bundy & Co. have their own guns by all accounts.

 

Every day they are there, the bill for damages for the vehicles, computers, bunkhouses, and other facilities that they have "liberated" from the Federal government is going up. They aren't just sitting there.

 

 

[Mergath]

I don't think a sit-in or protest or occupation is the same type of crime as a robbery, nor should it be handled the same way.  I think, as long as people are simply occupying some place, armed or no, they should be left to protest peacefully.

 

I don't think, because someone is armed, they are not protesting peacefully.  I think of it like this:  if someone is carrying concealed and they get pull over for a traffic infraction and inform the cop they have a weapon in the car, that is definitely not the same thing as threatening law enforcement.  It doesn't make the person who committed the infraction violent, and it doesn't mean that if the cops want to detain them it will turn into a shooting match.  It could, but it's not a given.  The situation can and should be resolved peacefully between both parties.

 

I think there is a huge difference between pointing a weapon at an officer and letting an officer know you are armed before a conflict happens.  Yes shooting an officer is definitely wrong.  If these guys started shooting at law enforcement, we'd be having a different conversation.  But they aren't doing that.

 

The problem with equating what's happening to armed robbery is that even if someone breaks into a bank or a house unarmed and steals the money they should be arrested and hauled off to jail immediately, right?  So, if we're drawing parallels, even protesters who are not armed should be immediately hauled off to jail for occupying a government building (if it is the same as robbery).

 

Obviously people disagree with my take on protests and how police should handle them, but it's not that I "don't see" what you're talking about, it's that I disagree with the premise that sitting in a government building, even with arms, while stupid, is not the same as an armed robbery.  Just like I don't agree that sitting in a federal building without guns is the same as an unarmed robbery.

 

Related, I found this article in the Oregonian interesting:

 

Todd MacFarlane, a Utah lawyer acting as a mediator, said occupation leader Ammon Bundy doesn't want the armed visitors there.

Bundy's message: "We don't need that. We don't want it and we're asking you to leave," MacFarlane told reporters at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.

MacFarlane said he had just met with Bundy and other leaders of the occupation.

They're "alarmed" by the arrival of Pacific Patriots Network members, some carrying rifles, and concerned about the perception they convey.

"This was the last thing in the world they wanted to see happen," MacFarlane said.

Bundy didn't request the presence of the network, he said, and has "tried to put out the word: 'We don't need you.'"

 

So if my neighbor has a really nice house and I decide to occupy it to make a point about mortgage rates or something, the police should just let me be until I feel like leaving?

 

What if I decide to get a bunch of people together to occupy a hospital so that the doctors and nurses can't do their jobs? Should the police leave me alone then?

 

If a person wants to occupy a place in order to protest something, that's their choice. But it's illegal and they should expect to be arrested. The idea that these guys shouldn't be arrested because they're trying to make a point with their illegal actions baffles me. If a smoker who was against anti-smoking laws went into their state capitol and lit up, they're going to get arrested, even though they're protesting. If a heroin addict wanted to protest drug laws, they're going to get arrested if they walk into the White House and shoot up. We can't just decide that laws stop counting if you're engaged in a protest.

[Word Nerd]

The 3%ers who showed up and were asked to leave (and according to the Oregonian, did just that.) weren't the only ones there who are armed. Bundy & Co. have their own guns by all accounts.

 

Every day they are there, the bill for damages for the vehicles, computers, bunkhouses, and other facilities that they have "liberated" from the Federal government is going up. They aren't just sitting there.

 

What damages are you referring to?

[Pam in CT]

So if my neighbor has a really nice house and I decide to occupy it to make a point about mortgage rates or something, the police should just let me be until I feel like leaving?

 

What if I decide to get a bunch of people together to occupy a hospital so that the doctors and nurses can't do their jobs? Should the police leave me alone then?

 

If a person wants to occupy a place in order to protest something, that's their choice. But it's illegal and they should expect to be arrested. The idea that these guys shouldn't be arrested because they're trying to make a point with their illegal actions baffles me. If a smoker who was against anti-smoking laws went into their state capitol and lit up, they're going to get arrested, even though they're protesting. If a heroin addict wanted to protest drug laws, they're going to get arrested if they walk into the White House and shoot up. We can't just decide that laws stop counting if you're engaged in a protest.

 

Right.  That's how sit-ins, and peaceful civil disobedience generally, work.

 

No analogy is ever *exactly* the same, but the closest in this situation that I can imagine is if the Pauite tribe -- who unlike the Bundys actually ARE local and who actually DO have ancestral claims to this particular land -- broke into the federal building, and set up squatting as a means of protesting BLM management.

 

if they did this peacefully, and accepted arrest (either as a point of entree into the courts, in order to pursue a legal strategy within existing law; or in order to gain political support to pursue changes in existing law), that would be peaceful civil disobedience.  They're breaking the law, and accepting the consequences, in furtherance of change.

 

If they announced they would resist arrest with arms, that would NOT be peaceful civil disobedience.  

 

The very word "civil" means working within the legislative and judiciary system.  That's the process.

[Ravin]

What damages are you referring to?

 

They are occupying and using Federal property. Any wear and tear on those assets and depletion of consumables will be assessed in the calculation of damages. Any loss of revenue from the reserve being closed. The costs of having to shut down the schools, etc. Lawyers are very good at coming up with damages to claim and the Federal government has a lot of lawyers.

[redsquirrel]

I don't think a sit-in or protest or occupation is the same type of crime as a robbery, nor should it be handled the same way.  I think, as long as people are simply occupying some place, armed or no, they should be left to protest peacefully.

 

I don't think, because someone is armed, they are not protesting peacefully.  I think of it like this:  if someone is carrying concealed and they get pull over for a traffic infraction and inform the cop they have a weapon in the car, that is definitely not the same thing as threatening law enforcement.  It doesn't make the person who committed the infraction violent, and it doesn't mean that if the cops want to detain them it will turn into a shooting match.  It could, but it's not a given.  The situation can and should be resolved peacefully between both parties.

 

I think there is a huge difference between pointing a weapon at an officer and letting an officer know you are armed before a conflict happens.  Yes shooting an officer is definitely wrong.  If these guys started shooting at law enforcement, we'd be having a different conversation.  But they aren't doing that.

 

 

 

That is white privilege, right there.

 

What you have written is true for some, but it is absolutely not true for all. Again, a person walking peacefully, not even protesting, with a gun who is not white is not given the same consideration. And as for a weapon in a car...that is almost cliche at this point.

 

A lot of people in this country live a different reality. Their actions, their bodies get a different level of scrutiny, and the results of not acknowledging that is deadly

 

 

http://abcnews.go.com/US/verdict-reach-trial-cleveland-police-officer-accused-2012/story?id=31252998

 

 

 

 

[EmseB]

So if my neighbor has a really nice house and I decide to occupy it to make a point about mortgage rates or something, the police should just let me be until I feel like leaving?

 

What if I decide to get a bunch of people together to occupy a hospital so that the doctors and nurses can't do their jobs? Should the police leave me alone then?

 

If a person wants to occupy a place in order to protest something, that's their choice. But it's illegal and they should expect to be arrested. The idea that these guys shouldn't be arrested because they're trying to make a point with their illegal actions baffles me. If a smoker who was against anti-smoking laws went into their state capitol and lit up, they're going to get arrested, even though they're protesting. If a heroin addict wanted to protest drug laws, they're going to get arrested if they walk into the White House and shoot up. We can't just decide that laws stop counting if you're engaged in a protest.

 

A government building is different than a private home or a hospital, and interfering with people doing their jobs.  I feel like the differences are obvious.

 

If you think cops should just come in and arrest protesters, then that needs to be applied universally to places like Mizzou, Madison, Zucotti, etc.

 

Yes, I do think people, as long as they are being peaceful and not interfering with private property or business, should be allowed to sit in an otherwise public government building and protest government actions.

 

Your examples of occupying someone's private home, a hospital where people will die if business is not conducted as usual, or a drug addict shooting up in the White House (?!) are not comparable to most sit ins I've seen, including this one.  And I've not, before this incident, seen anyone from the left advocating for the end of sit ins as a means of protest by heavy-handed police action.  People do sit out in front of the White House and protest all the time.  No one is hauling them off to jail on a regular basis because sitting and protesting on a public street is not disruptive or violent in and of itself, even if some of those protesters may happen to have CC licenses or weapons.  People protest loudly at the G8 and G20, and don't get hauled off unless they get violent.  If these people get violent, I advocate using any means necessary to end their violence.  That has not yet happened, so I don't see any reason for law enforcement to be violent with them, unless we think that law enforcement should always forcibly remove protesters from an otherwise unobtrusive occupation.

[EmseB]

That is white privilege, right there.

 

What you have written is true for some, but it is absolutely not true for all. Again, a person walking peacefully, not even protesting, with a gun who is not white is not given the same consideration. And as for a weapon in a car...that is almost cliche at this point.

 

A lot of people in this country live a different reality. Their actions, their bodies get a different level of scrutiny, and the results of not acknowledging that is deadly

 

 

http://abcnews.go.com/US/verdict-reach-trial-cleveland-police-officer-accused-2012/story?id=31252998

 

Okay, let's grant it's white privilege.  Should the privilege be extended to everyone, or taken away from everyone?  Should cops be more equitable and less heavy-handed with non-whites, or should they be more heavy handed with everyone?

 

The point is, lawfully carrying a weapon in any given scenario (I'm not talking about brandishing it or aiming it) doesn't make someone violent.  It doesn't make something that is peaceful inherently not peaceful because of the presence of the weapon.

 

As for your link, I'm not sure how a 22-mile high speed chase in an effort to avoid being pulled over for a traffic violation (which is horribly horribly dangerous and not in any way peaceful in and of itself since we're looking at endangering everyone on the road) is comparable to what's going on in Oregon.  I have read high speed chases are a particular issue with LE, because after or during an extended chase there is so much adrenaline extreme discipline is needed not to make a horrible decision when the chase ends.  But that's a complete tangent from the OP, because I don't think adrenaline or evading LE is even an issue with this occupation.

 

Interestingly it mentions peaceful protesters have gathered for the verdict.  Do you think those protesters should be forcibly removed from the area because they are sitting in at a courthouse?

[albeto.]

Okay, let's grant it's white privilege.  Should the privilege be extended to everyone, or taken away from everyone?  Should cops be more equitable and less heavy-handed with non-whites, or should they be more heavy handed with everyone?

 

The point is, lawfully carrying a weapon in any given scenario (I'm not talking about brandishing it or aiming it) doesn't make someone violent.  It doesn't make something that is peaceful inherently not peaceful because of the presence of the weapon.

 

This is astounding. How about instead of worrying about who should get a privilege, how about actually following, or enforcing the actual law?

 

Or is the law secondary to one's belief that things ought to be a certain way? Is personal belief good enough to trump law now? 

 

The point is, these guys aren't lawfully carrying a weapon into their scenario. The point is, they are threatening violence if the law is enforced upon them. The point is, this ceased being peaceful as soon as they threatened deadly retribution. 

[happi duck]

I imagine a sit-in at a public place to be:

Place is currently open

Protesters enter and crowd the place

Staff and visitors are inconvenienced perhaps but not banned

 

This is not what is happening in Oregon, afaik.

 

.

Edited January 11, 2016 by happi duck

[ChocolateReignRemix]

A government building is different than a private home or a hospital, and interfering with people doing their jobs.  I feel like the differences are obvious.

 

If you think cops should just come in and arrest protesters, then that needs to be applied universally to places like Mizzou, Madison, Zucotti, etc.

 

Yes, I do think people, as long as they are being peaceful and not interfering with private property or business, should be allowed to sit in an otherwise public government building and protest government actions.

 

Your examples of occupying someone's private home, a hospital where people will die if business is not conducted as usual, or a drug addict shooting up in the White House (?!) are not comparable to most sit ins I've seen, including this one.  And I've not, before this incident, seen anyone from the left advocating for the end of sit ins as a means of protest by heavy-handed police action.  People do sit out in front of the White House and protest all the time.  No one is hauling them off to jail on a regular basis because sitting and protesting on a public street is not disruptive or violent in and of itself, even if some of those protesters may happen to have CC licenses or weapons.  People protest loudly at the G8 and G20, and don't get hauled off unless they get violent.  If these people get violent, I advocate using any means necessary to end their violence.  That has not yet happened, so I don't see any reason for law enforcement to be violent with them, unless we think that law enforcement should always forcibly remove protesters from an otherwise unobtrusive occupation.

 

The fact that you are equating legal protests in a public space (outside the White House, public demonstrations, etc) with the a group of armed individuals breaking into a federal building while armed and threatening to resist arrest by using their weapons yet again demonstrates that you have no idea what you are talking about.

 

Can you point out to me where the other protesters you mentioned broke into public buildings and were not arrested?

 

[Pam in CT]

re: difference between carrying a weapon, vs. announcing you will use it unless you get your way

Okay, let's grant it's white privilege.  Should the privilege be extended to everyone, or taken away from everyone?  Should cops be more equitable and less heavy-handed with non-whites, or should they be more heavy handed with everyone?

 

The point is, lawfully carrying a weapon in any given scenario (I'm not talking about brandishing it or aiming it) doesn't make someone violent.  It doesn't make something that is peaceful inherently not peaceful because of the presence of the weapon.

 

...

 

JodiSue, I am genuinely struggling to understand your viewpoint, and how you're using language.

 

The material issue here is not that the protestors are *carrying* weapons.  It is that they have announced they will use them if arrested, even though they have broken into, and are illegally squatting on, land that is not theirs.  

 

There's a difference between open-carrying a weapon into a convenience store, vs. openly carrying a weapon into the same store and saying "give me the contents of your cash register or I will shoot you."  The threat of violence -- even if violence does not actually happen --  changes the encounter from non-violent to violent.

 

If a guy comes up to me with a gun and says "give me your wallet or I'll shoot," and I do (so no shooting actually takes place), would you characterize that as a "non-violent" encounter?

 

 

[justasque]

A government building is different than a private home or a hospital, and interfering with people doing their jobs.  I feel like the differences are obvious.

 

...

 

But this wasn't an unused, abandoned building.  People work there.  And now they can't.  So jobs are being interfered with.  As an example:

 

Wiki says:  Refuge officials have been actively managing an overabundance of common carp (Cyprinus carpio) in the refuge since at least the 1970s. The invasive fish species was likely introduced to the refuge's waterways prior to the 1920s as a food source, and has been recognized as an ecological threat to the region since the 1950s. Carp are aggressive feeders that have reduced food availability and diminished habitat quality for the migratory bird species that utilize the refuge's marshes and lakes as part of the Pacific flyway.

 

This article points out:  The war on carp, ...which the refuge had waged unsuccessfully for years and now is expanding under the direction of a fish biologist, Linda Sue Beck...

 

Beck has guided that effort from her office at the stone headquarters building claimed by protesters last week. The protesters had cleared a space on her desk to make room for boxes of pizza and ammunition, according to two reporters from Reuters.

 

In an interview with Reuters, Ryan Bundy, brother of Ammon, referred to Beck as the carp lady. He said she could come claim her personal belongings, but should not return to work as they prepare to refashion the refuge into what some protesters have called the “Harney County Resource Center.â€

 

“She’s not here working for the people,†Ryan Bundy said. “She’s not benefiting America. She’s part of what’s destroying America.â€

[redsquirrel]

 

But this wasn't an unused, abandoned building.  People work there.  And now they can't.  So jobs are being interfered with.  As an example:

 

Wiki says:  Refuge officials have been actively managing an overabundance of common carp (Cyprinus carpio) in the refuge since at least the 1970s. The invasive fish species was likely introduced to the refuge's waterways prior to the 1920s as a food source, and has been recognized as an ecological threat to the region since the 1950s. Carp are aggressive feeders that have reduced food availability and diminished habitat quality for the migratory bird species that utilize the refuge's marshes and lakes as part of the Pacific flyway.

 

This article points out:  The war on carp, ...which the refuge had waged unsuccessfully for years and now is expanding under the direction of a fish biologist, Linda Sue Beck...

 

Beck has guided that effort from her office at the stone headquarters building claimed by protesters last week. The protesters had cleared a space on her desk to make room for boxes of pizza and ammunition, according to two reporters from Reuters.

 

In an interview with Reuters, Ryan Bundy, brother of Ammon, referred to Beck as the carp lady. He said she could come claim her personal belongings, but should not return to work as they prepare to refashion the refuge into what some protesters have called the “Harney County Resource Center.â€

 

“She’s not here working for the people,†Ryan Bundy said. “She’s not benefiting America. She’s part of what’s destroying America.â€

 

 

 

Once again, their total lack of ability to see irony is truly amazing.  I think I'll laugh at them, because if I don't I'd cry.

 

I take back my defense of their intelligence, they don't deserve it.

 

 

[poppy]

 

Interestingly it mentions peaceful protesters have gathered for the verdict.  Do you think those protesters should be forcibly removed from the area because they are sitting in at a courthouse?

 

Really? Do you genuinely believe that sitting in public waiting room is the same as taking over a building and threatening to shoot law enforcement if they interfere? I don't think you do.

 

 

[Dmmetler]

Here's a blog on Linda Beck from Travis Longcore, who is a pretty big name in urban ecology research. I'm not thrilled with his painting LDS as anti-science, but otherwise it's pretty interesting.

 

 

https://medium.com/@travislongcore/i-stand-with-linda-sue-beck-a651895b71ce#.rl0edf2hd

[MSNative]

Yikes! Did you see the latest? Um, no no no!

 

"The leader of a small, armed group occupying a national wildlife refuge in southeastern Oregon said Monday he and his followers are going through government documents stored inside refuge buildings."

[Mergath]

Yikes! Did you see the latest? Um, no no no!

 

"The leader of a small, armed group occupying a national wildlife refuge in southeastern Oregon said Monday he and his followers are going through government documents stored inside refuge buildings."

 

And apparently they tore down a fence in order to let cattle into the refuge. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/armed-militia-says-it-has-accessed-government-files-at-oregon-refuge/

 

I really don't understand why the government is still letting this go on.

[redsquirrel]

Here is the statement that the county sheriff put out yesterday.  It seems that members of law enforcement and employees of the US Fish and Wildlife dept are being harassed and stalked in an attempt to intimidate them. The sheriff is telling them to stop

 

http://portlandtribune.com/pt/9-news/288465-165596-harney-county-sheriff-warns-of-intimidation-aimed-at-federal-employees

 

When those who are now occupying the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge first came to town several months ago, we started to see an up-tick in the number of vandalism, harassment and intimidation reports. In recent days, they issued a “call to action,†which resulted in the arrival of numerous outside militia members. They claim to be here in peace, but we continue to see behavior by some that is concerning. There are continual reports of law enforcement officers and community members being followed home; of people sitting in cars outside their homes, observing their movements and those of their families; and of people following them and their families as they move around the community. While not direct physical threats, these activities are clearly designed to try to intimidate.

 

Specifically, U.S. Fish and Wildlife, which manages the refuge, has told me that while their employees are physically safe, this is clearly a distressful situation for all involved. As this issue has developed over the past week, employees and their loved ones have reported a number of uncomfortable incidences in which unknown individuals from outside our community have driven past slowly or idled in front of their homes, observing the residents and their activities. In addition, self-identified militia members have attempted to engage employees and family members in debates about their status as Federal employees. Many of these confrontations are taking place as their employees are grocery shopping, running errands with their families and trying to lead their day-to day lives.

 

Let me be clear: the law enforcement agencies – those that are local as well as the sheriff’s deputies from around the state, the Oregon State Police troopers and the FBI Agents – will not be intimidated from doing their jobs. Everyone on the law enforcement side is working together to bring a peaceful resolution to this situation, and the behavior of these folks from outside of our community only serves to escalate the situation unnecessarily.

 

The people on the refuge – and those who they have called to our community – obviously have no consideration for the wishes or needs of the people of Harney County. If they did, they, too, would work to bring this situation to a peaceful close.