Not really a good precedent.
MOVE lived in their rowhome for years, accumulating various complaints from their neighbors, indictments, parole violations …
When the police finally came by with arrest warrants, they refused to come out. The police threw in tear gas, MOVE responded with automatic weapon fire.
Then things … escalated.
Yes. And the black protesters don’t even have to be armed and flaunting it like this group is.
I must have missed the news on this happening in the recent “protests” that just happened to involve looting and burning the city down. In contrast, what is the damage this crazy militia did?
Also how many BLM protesters were gunned down again? I seem to remember them causing more disruption and being more violent while maintaining a low body count.
There’s no direct parallel. The protests in Ferguson, Baltimore, were handled far more aggressively than this campsite in Oregon, but police can’t just ignore riots in urban areas. Even if you think police were too aggressive (I absolutely think this), ‘just let them cool off’ was not possible.
However, law enforcement is, in general, far more likely to use lethal force against african americans than whites. I don’t think that’s in dispute among reasonable people.
Yeah, I agree. A far better parallel would have been the law enforcement responses to marches, sit-ins, and other protests during the Civil Rights era. While decades ago and therefore rendered imperfect in this comparison, that’s not too long ago in terms of history and addressing the biases of our culture. Consider that police quite often come from families with histories of law enforcement. Those involved in the 60’s could have been parents and grandparents of the cops involved in the ugly situations of today.
A more direct comparison would be how the cops handled ruby ridge and waco… but that comparison doesn’t really play well, since it doesn’t demonstrate any kind of overt racism, merely an improvement in how cops handle such situations between now and then.
The vast majority of protesting in Ferguson and Baltimore was peaceful. Near universally it was the police who escalated things.
And when it wasn’t the police escalating things, it was often outside perpetrators who did.
And all that ignores the obvious fact that the Ferguson Police has been an absolute hell hole for years, so obviously the people had a right to be angry at them.
And so since police escalated things in Ferguson of course they should escalate things in Oregon.
Ferugson is not the only place. It’s a double standard, and not just escalation even the way they’re being reported. Unarmed protesters for BLM, Occupy Wall Street, any number of prior incidents have have been called thugs, were pepper sprayed and arrested. Now these armed protesters are being labeled as patriots, and we’re hoping they just go home as if this group has not repeatedly tried to engage federal agents in an armed stand-off with no consequences. How exactly is that a good result?
The next time we have a water fight here in the Klamath Basin or there’s an issue with logging in the national forests should we just expect armed militia to show up from around the country as the new norm?
I once had the completely random opportunity to talk to an officer from there (he was doing security work on the side). He told me that whenever he’s driving even while off duty in his personal vehicle, he’ll see people speeding, write down their license plate number, pull up alongside them, and tell them to come pick up their ticket at the station. It struck me as such a bizarre practice. I mean, I’m all for safety, but wth?
These protesters (the Oregon guys) are only being called Patriots by the far rightest of the right, a minority. The mass media sure isn’t calling them that, And I would agree, they shouldn’t be allowed to “just go home”, anymore than a protester in Ferguson who threw items at police or stole from a store should be allowed to “just go home” afterwards.
I don’t know the real answer to this so I ask it. But I have heard in some places cops are never truly “off duty”. They are required to wear arms when off duty and basically react as if on duty. I have never heard of them handing tickets out when off duty though.
Again, you are ignoring the critical difference between a remote location that is in the wilderness, 30 miles from anything, and an inner city location which is co-located with the homes and businesses of innocent civilians.
THAT is what necessitated police presence in various urban situations, and that presence inherently carries with it the danger of escalation.
Since there is no danger to civilians in Oregon, there is no need for police presence in the immediate area, which directly reduces the chance of escalation.
I have a cop in the family (my cousin), and from what I can tell he’s essentially “on call” for emergencies, kind of like a doctor would be. However, he doesn’t need to carry a weapon while off duty. That said, he normally keeps one nearby in case something does come up. If he sees a crime while off duty, he’s not required to give chase. In fact, he shared a story with me related to that where an off-duty cop once did that and got shot at by his fellow officers (they thought he was another criminal until he belatedly identified himself).
edit - it should be noted that the department he works with was once put under review for shady overtime practices
You didn’t address my last point. Are yous saying the next time we have a drought situation here in Oregon and the farmers and the fishers and the federal government have a dispute we should just expect armed militia to show and threaten people as the new norm?
Are you saying they don’t have the “right” to show up? And while the guys in Oregon have talked mean they haven’t exactly threatened anyone directly yet, at least as far as I know.
They showed up with guns, took over a federal building, put up an armed watch and let everyone know they were prepared to defend themselves if anyone comes in. They’re not an immediate threat but they have threatened. They have a right to show up peacefully and protest, which is not what they are doing. I don’t think they have a right to take over federal buildings with guns and threats of violence. I don’t think that should be part of the normal discourse in an area where conflict between the locals, the state and the federal government is not uncommon.
Who exactly have they threatened? There is no one at that facility. You are overblowing this vague notion that they are somehow threatening people, despite the fact that there ARE NO PEOPLE THERE TO BE THREATENED.
Again, this is the key difference between this situation and ones that take place where there are actually people and property to be threatened.
You ask whether you can expect people to show up and threaten people the next time there is some kind of conflict about logging or water rights. Show up where? What are they going to threaten? Presumably, if they actually pose some threat to something, whether it be federal or civilian people or their property, then they would be dealt with. Because it would be totally different.
It’s clear that the Oregon y’all-queda group is engaged in illegal activity. But it would be monumentally stupid for the feds to risk a shoot-out. There is currently no risk to innocents or even to property. There’s no reason to risk another Ruby Ridge/ Waco situation with these nutcases.
If the feds did charge in, it would be another case of law enforcement creating a risk to themselves, then killing in response to that risk. While these yahoos are not total innocents, as a Tamir Rice was, there is a similarity. Don’t create a situation which will lead to a shooting if you don’t have to do that.
Wait them out and arrest them later, when they’re not literally lying in wait for a fight.
EDIT: Typo corrected, as CraigM pointed out
Added the bold (probably a typo on your end I’m guessing), and agree. Monitor, and arrest as they leave. Make these idiots uncomfortable (like cutting power and denying resupply) in the meantime.