Ferguson St Louis - Michael Brown shot by police

Nesrie, you’ve been quite clear that you don’t believe the police, feds, or whomever else should storm the place or anything like that. I agree. You’ve also been clear that you don’t believe folks should just shrug this off as silly people being silly. I agree with that too. There’s a whole lot of ground between those two points, though. Perhaps I just missed it, and I apologize if so, but what is it that you believe should done?

I think her point is that this isn’t a non-issue that some people have sort of indicated in a round-about way.

I think Timex understandably set her off with his “best case scenario” being everyone walks away like nothing happened, which is a fair thing to get upset about imo.

I’m fairly sure I see where they’re both coming from and there is some talking past each other and some poorly worded sentences that are making it worse.

You shouldn’t let fear of criminals stop you from going after criminals like the Oregon band of outlaws.

If starving them out is the safest option, starve them out. If going in guns blazing is the best option, I’m fine with that. Just need to make sure none of them walk out freely except to surrender to the Feds.

Yeah, I didn’t mean to suggest that somehow these guys should be absolved of all responsibility. Certainly the leaders of this thing should be held accountable.

But at the same time, we’re talking about pretty minor offenses at this point. The talk of these guys being terrorists is nonsensical. They aren’t actually DOING anything significant. They’re huddled in the freezing wilderness, and frankly, looking like idiots at this point.

To me, the best outcome is for the government to basically ignore them. It totally destroys their claim that the government is somehow oppressing them. It sucks the air out of any of their claims that Obama is somehow out to get them. Basically, they’re spoiling for a fight, and the best response in this case is to just deny them their wish entirely. Don’t let them build themselves up into anything big. Treat them like what they are… a bunch of unimportant hicks playing soldier in the snow.

Since they aren’t actually threatening anyone or anything, they don’t matter. They don’t deserve to be treated as though they do.

And then, when they eventually get bored and go home (which they will), then basically hit them with whatever the penalty is for trespassing or whatever other minor offenses they’ve committed. Probably a fine or something. Say something like, “Oh, here’s a parking ticket for your little play-date out on the wildlife refuge.” Trivialize them, because that’s what will ultimately destroy movements like theirs.

I suspect you’re right. Hoping that getting some more specifics would help unravel some of it. Timex’s above post is a great example of what I was hoping for (thanks!).

There’s two components to this thing. First, how to get them to stand down without stuff going sideways. My (completely lay level) understanding is that Timex is on the right track there. They want attention? Don’t give it to them. Keep the situation contained, but at least as things stand there’s no rush. Keep everyone, including the idiots, safe. Second, once the immediate situation/crisis is resolved, what manner of consequences should the idiots face for their actions? IMO, Timex is on the right track there and they should get hit with whatever the law says is available. I disagree only in scale. It’s important that they feel some consequences. Timex’ stated goal of disempowering them via mockery and trivializing their importance is an excellent start for discouraging this sort of nonsense by removing the perceived (by the idiots) positives of their actions. The flipside is for there to be non-trivial negatives as well. Remove any positive reinforcement to their choices and add some negative.

I’m curious what folks who have actual experience in this sort of crisis management think, though. As stated, I’m just a random armchair quarterback.

This exactly. This group, and let’s be clear here there are not many Oregonians actually involved in this stand-off last I checked, seems to be emboldened by their last stand-off that they took their issue to another state and are trying to start something. I do not consider what they are doing to be a minor offense, and since they got away with it last time they’re just doing it again somewhere else until finally they get what they want… which is violence. Why have the guns? You can break into a remote building without being heavily armed.

Implicitly condoning taking over federal property is probably a bad idea. Once you ignore them, they’ll have to escalate. It’s right out of the Terrorist Handbook.

Personally, I’m all for the judicious application of federal jackboots to peckerwood throats, but I can see the wisdom in just waiting them out and making vicious fun of them on twitter.

I think they are idiots, but this is basically no more than a right wing version of Occupy Wall Street.

Only with guns and threats (since backed off on) of violence.

However there is currently no threat to anyone, so rather than going in with guns blazing I think waiting them out is reasonable. Better that they try to slink out of there in a week or three than several people die forcing them out tomorrow.

I think that the thing that makes the lack of federal response not actually “condoning taking over a federal property” is that they haven’t actually taken over anything.

They are essentially standing out in the snow. The federal property would normally be vacant anyway. They aren’t interfering with any federal business. If it weren’t covered by the media, literally no one would even know it was happening, because their actions would have zero impact on anything. It’d be like if you went out into the middle of the desert and “occupied” it. I mean, ok… you’re standing out there. Which I guess is fine, since no one else is really interested in standing out there at the moment anyway.

For me, the line where they need to be dealt with is as soon as they do something like damage the federal property in some real way, or interfere with civilians or government officials trying to go about their lives.

But as it is, they’re standing next to some abandoned buildings in the high desert of oregon, in the winter. And literally the only reason they are doing it is for attention. They should be denied attention.

Which thankfully is exactly what’s happening, and they are looking progressively more foolish as time goes on.

Some small group of them went to some super market and was like, “We’re taking a stand! Who’s with us?”

No one was with them. They looked like fools.

I’m morbidly fascinated by whether they’ll actually stay out there for years.

The Feds need to leave them alone, just to see if that would happen. Heck, that’s got to be greater punishment than whatever they would get for trespassing.

Remote is not abandoned. It doesn’t belong to them. Just in case you are curious, I’m not in favor of teens breaking into empty buildings either just because they’re not being used right now. Throw in guns and threats, and that group should be arrested too.

The plan to cut the power might work. Clearly these idiots are not prepared for the elements.

Feds are cutting the power:

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jan/05/oregon-wildlife-militia-standoff-power-cut-off

I love how that article catalogs their entire cache of supplies in painstaking detail: “. . . a single bag of pretzels and one granola bar.”

But it IS abandoned now. No one works there at this point in the year. It’s not permanently abandoned, of course, but it’s abandoned for a few months. As long as they don’t actually damage the property, it’s not going to impact anyone at all.

Have they actually even gone into the buildings? I thought that they are just outside them. That’s why they are sitting outside trying to build fires, and failing.

Yeah I don’t think the word abandoned means what you think it means. Just because no one is there does not mean the property is cast-off or deserted. It’s simply not occupied during certain parts of the year, which is common for a lot of natural kind of locations. If I go on vacation for a month, I didn’t abandon my house. Why do you… why do think that?

And the report says they are going into a building at night presumably not to freeze to death.

No, all reports have them broken in and occupying the buildings.

Occupying empty buildings, void of any other people. Soon to be powerless empty buildings.

Just to be clear, I understand that the administrative buildings aren’t literally abandoned. I’m using the term to describe their current state. Perhaps simply calling them unoccupied administrative buildings would be more appealing to you?

Yes because that’s accurate. This is not a piece of property nobody cares about. You keep seeming to imply that’s the case when it’s not. There are several remote small buildings throughout the state that maybe unoccupied at any given time of year. These can be owned by the federal or state government or private owners. There are also places where pieces of heavy equipment can be left idle for long period of time. The fact they’re not in use does not give individuals the right to simply use or claim them at their leisure.

You seem to imply that because it’s not a high tower or mall we just shouldn’t care. I think that stance is ridiculous.