Again, I don’t want things to escalate in this case. I’ve already said that in this thread once, if not multiple times.
What I want is for the media to call out the discrepancy.
I get that these Oregon thugs are harmless idiots, at least for now. But the media should be using this as a prime opportunity to show the difference in police response to harmless idiots (or harmless non-idiotic protesters) when they are white vs. when they aren’t. At the very least, this Oregon situation can be used as an opportunity to spread awareness of the disparity of the response between them.
I don’t think you’re actually following what I am saying:
The Feds should not charge in.
These people should be arrested when they leave.
They did not have consequences for the last stand-off and because of this I think they’re here in the first place.
This group doe snot have local support to be here.
Issues between the locals, state and fed are not new to this area.
Just because someone says it’s a double standard does not mean they require the officials to make the same mistakes over and over again. I do, however want it acknowledged that peaceful unarmed protesters were engaged while armed people who have made threats to engage in violence (which is not an immediate threat in this situation) are getting pass in many regards
Finally, when we have another spat here in Oregon about forests or water rights or endangered species there you can bet there will be a small building of some kind these people could charge in again.
I don’t think militia response is appropriate. It’s not wanted by the locals. The Bundys are here for their own agenda not some local issue, and I don’t want it repeated. We have this sort of issue frequently. The amount of federally owned land in this state is large. It’s not uncommon to have a spat, but having bunch of armed militia members come into the state is new and not wanted.
I do, however want it acknowledged that peaceful unarmed protesters were engaged while armed people who have made threats to engage in violence (which is not an immediate threat in this situation) are getting pass in many regards
But again, the reason for this is because the armed protestors are doing their bullshit in a location which constitutes no threat to anyone, and thus does not require police presence in the immediate vicinity, while the unarmed protesters you mention were in a location in immediate proximity to innocent civilians and their property, thus necessitating police presence in that location. And it’s this police presence which tends to enable, if not directly cause, an escalation which leads to direct confrontation.
For instance, if you had the BLM folks doing exactly the same thing they did, in a location as remote and unoccupied as the case in Oregon, I suspect it would be handled exactly the same. It would likely get even less media coverage, and likely no one would even be arrested even after it was over. They’d just be ignored.
Finally, when we have another spat here in Oregon about forests or water rights or endangered species there you can bet there will be a small building of some kind these people could charge in again.
What small building will that be? Another unoccupied administrative building? Frankly, if they aren’t interfering with any actual operations, then the threat of this happening isn’t really a threat at all to me.
What kind of threat do unarmed protesters have? When we have students sitting in a public school building wielding their all mighty backpacks, what threat are they posing when officer sprays them in the face pepper spray? Do you remember those videos. We had students sitting in a circle and some office just sprays them in the face. What threat did they stop?
For instance, if you had the BLM folks doing exactly the same thing they did, in a location as remote and unoccupied as the case in Oregon, I suspect it would be handled exactly the same. It would likely get even less media coverage, and likely no one would even be arrested even after it was over. They’d just be ignored.
What small building will that be? Another unoccupied administrative building? Frankly, if they aren’t interfering with any actual operations, then the threat of this happening isn’t really a threat at all to me.
I don’t think it’s okay for people just to take over our buildings in the middle of the forest. Those buildings are there for a reason. Have you ever been to a ranger station. Do you know what rangers do?
Quite a lot? You don’t need guns or weapons to damage property or harm people. This is what necessitates police presence if a ton of people who MAY become destructive or violent congregate in an area.
When we have students sitting in a public school building wielding their all mighty backpacks, what threat are they posing when officer sprays them in the face pepper spray? Do you remember those videos. We had students sitting in a circle and some office just sprays them in the face. What threat did they stop?
The police ACTION in those cases was the problem, and it was directly resulting from their presence in the area. But their presence was necessitated by the fact that they were in an area where they were directly interacting and potentially harming innocent civilians and property.
In Oregon, this is actually one of the reasons why they aren’t sending cops in there… because putting police into such a situation increases the chance of it escalating. And in this case, there is no legitimate reason inject the cops into the situation, because there is no threat to people or property.
I don’t think it’s okay for people just to take over our buildings in the middle of the forest. Those buildings are there for a reason. Have you ever been to a ranger station. Do you know what rangers do?
Yes, I have been, and yes, I do. One of my oldest friends actually worked as a ranger for a period.
But they aren’t using that facility in Oregon currently. If they were, then it’d be different. But they aren’t. There is no threat to people or private property. The only potential threat would be to a small amount of public property, and there isn’t actually any suggestion that even that has occurred.
This doesn’t excuse the action, but it means that there is no reason to risk potential escalation.
I remember those videos. Was that UC Davis? I do think that cop lost his job over that. But…a protest, however peaceful that disrupts the lives, educations and/or jobs of others needs to be responded to. Those cops (that idiot with the tear gas spray) over reacted. But while there is no threat of danger by those protesters they are disrupting others.
How about we compare this to the Ferguson protesters who brought freeway traffic to a halt. I don’t believe there were arrests or any violent police response involved with those. The cops just let it play out.
Although the news isn’t really reporting it widely, there is a native group that isn’t able to do what they usually do because of this protest, does that count as disruption. They also closed the school.
I’m fine with them letting this ride out, but that’s not what they normally do. It probably is what they should do but there are lots of examples where that is not the usual course. I don’t think we should pretend that’s true. There are probably more examples of ill response than not.
As for the rest, I don’t think this should end with this group thinking it’s okay to just take over buildings whenever the government does something they don’t like. I just don’t. And i don’t care how small or insignificant some people think these buildings are or whether they are currently in use.
Although the news isn’t really reporting it widely, there is a native group that isn’t able to do what they usually do because of this protest, does that count as disruption. They also closed the school.
It’s not really clear WHY they closed the school. It’s 30 miles from the site, right? That seems like a mistake on the part of the school.
What’s the native group that can’t do what they usually do?
I’m fine with them letting this ride out, but that’s not what they normally do. It probably is what they should do but there are lots of examples where that is not the usual course. I don’t think we should pretend that’s true. There are probably more examples of ill response than not.
What is another example where such a protest has occured 30 miles from the nearest population center? I would be interested in analyzing such an example, because it would be much more applicable than the examples we’re talking about here, which all occurred in some place with tons of other people and property.
There is a native group there, they’re the Paiute’s, and they have rights to go onto those federal lands. It’s consider part of their ancestral lands, not part of the reservation, so it’s basically sacred land. I don’t know that this time of year they’re trying to do anything on it, but they have cultural practices they do on that land. The stance I’m hearing from you though says the militia can be there indefinitely until they give it to the locals, well not the actual locals I am true Bundy has no intention of trying to give that back to the tribes.
I believe they’re keeping everyone out of the area just to be safe.
What is another example where such a protest has occured 30 miles from the nearest population center? I would be interested in analyzing such an example, because it would be much more applicable than the examples we’re talking about here, which all occurred in some place with tons of other people and property.
You keep moving the bar don’t you. So let me ask you this, if I own a vacation home 100 miles away from the nearest neighbor or town, it is okay for someone to break in with a gun and just hang out because they’re not threatening anyone and aren’t destroying anything? There’s no immediate threat. I mean should we eve lock federal buildings. Why should just the armed men get to hang out when they want? Maybe everyone should be able to camp out when they feel like it.
I don’t think anyone here has argued that they didn’t break the law and that when they finally leave their shouldn’t be some sort of punishment. I think everyone here agrees with that.
It’s what you do to get them to leave. Should the FBI storm the fort? Should we send in the army? Should we bomb them or use drones? Or should we let it play out?
I do think they should be arresting everyone who leaves the site and prevent them from returning though. I also wouldn’t let anyone enter the site now.
The reality is they’re free to leave and do whatever they want, though. They need food, so they can go get some and come back since the police aren’t restricting them at all. Or they can have people bring stuff, the police wont stop them either.
If tomorrow they decided they wanted to go home they could and odds are pretty good nothing would come of it.
So they aren’t actually interfering with anything that tribe is doing?
I mean, the wildlife refuge is part of their ancestral lands, ok… but the refuge also covers an area of three hundred square miles. Certainly, even if the militia nuts were somehow preventing someone from coming onto the refuge (which does not seem to be the case), clearly the location where the militia guys are isn’t sacred land to the Paiute… because the government already built administrative buildings there.
So not only is there no indication that the Paiute even want to do something on the refuge at this time, but there’s no suggestion that the militia nuts are somehow stopping it, since the militia has decided to occupy some government building, not the entirety of a 300 square mile refuge.
You keep moving the bar don’t you.
No, not at all. What I’ve done is point out a key element of the scenario which you do not seem willing to acknowledge, because it effectively negates your suggestion that the treatment is due to some sort of institutional racism.
But, just to be clear, we can lay it out directly:
Police presence increases the chance of escalation with protesting groups.
Danger to the property and lives of innocent civilians requires police presence, because it’s their duty to protect those lives and property.
Since things like riots in baltimore occurred in places where there were tons of homes and businesses, the police were obligated to be present. This presence created a situation where conflict occurred, often through the fault of the police.
The reason there is no conflict with the protesters in oregon, is because there is no police presence. The reason there is no police presence, is because there is no potential for harm to private property or civilian lives.
Thus, in order to have a comparable situation, you would need to have another protest group at some remote location like this where there is no danger to lives or property. And in such a situation, I suspect that there would be no police presence, since there would be no reason to create a situation where a conflict could occur.
Likewise, if you just decided to inject police into the refuge in Oregon, you likely WOULD have similar types of conflict with the militia guys (potentially much worse). Because it’s the police presence, not the color of the their skin, which enables the conflict. And it’s the lack of private property and lives, not the color of their skin, which results in a lack of police presence.
So let me ask you this, if I own a vacation home 100 miles away from the nearest neighbor or town, it is okay for someone to break in with a gun and just hang out because they’re not threatening anyone and aren’t destroying anything?
Well no, if they break into your home they’ve actually already damaged your property, and so they have demonstrated that they are in fact a threat to your property, so it would be the duty of the police to stop them.
However, let us imagine that you simply left your place unlocked, and they didn’t actually damage anything to get in, and were merely trespassing. In that case though, you are the property owner and you have the right to demand the police protect your property. Now, if they were literally doing nothing damaging at all, and had guns? As the property owner, since in this case you aren’t even interested in going there at the moment, and you somehow knew that they weren’t going to damage anything, and you knew who they were? It would probably be smart for you to have the cops just wait for them to leave and then arrest them… In the story you’ve constructed, this gets obfuscated, since most people would have tons of their own personal property in a vacation home, and thus having people be in there would constitute an invasion of their privacy. Also, in a real situation, you actually wouldn’t know that the trespassers weren’t planning on damaging anything, so you would probably want to have the cops stop them since you’d generally assume that they were there to steal/break your stuff.
You’re actually allowed to go onto the Malheur Wildlife Refuge whenever you like, aren’t you? You aren’t allowed to take motor vehicles into land designated as wilderness by the federal government, but you’re allowed to go there and camp and hike.
In terms of actual federal buildings, the reasons why we normally lock federal buildings is because most of them actually have important and valuable stuff inside.
I am not sure. I don’t think so for right now. I know they’re concerned about it. Your position doesn’t seem to be let them stick around until they start getting in someone’s way though. Your comments suggest this is in a place and building on one cares about, which is not true.
Because there are armed men occupying a building by force, I believe the local authorities are suggesting no one else go to the area. For anything else, you’d have to talk to the tribe. I’m not the one saying theirs any issue with their sacred ground. They are. And they would also say they’re the true locals.
You’re actually allowed to go onto the Malheur Wildlife Refuge whenever you like, aren’t you? You aren’t allowed to take motor vehicles into land designated as wilderness by the federal government, but you’re allowed to go there and camp and hike.
No. You can’t just enter buildings in the middle of the forest that don’t belong to you. I might go to a lake or reserve but I don’t get to just break into the building because I’m allowed to go into the forest. There are a lot of small buildings, ones you don’t seem to care abut, that are not open to the public even if the wilderness area they’re in are.
You keep saying you understand what I am talking about but the way you talk about these sites makes me think you don’t know. You think the public just helps themselves to ranger stations and storage sheds owned and operated by the BLM-USFS.
That’s true, but “You can’t do that” doesn’t mean “The police need to intervene immediately, using force”.
For instance, you can’t park your car on the street in a no parking zone. Your car doesn’t belong there. It’s a public property, and no parked cars are allowed. It might inconvenience other cars and/or people that want to use that road. There are clear rules telling you not to do that. If you park anyway, you are clearly flouting the law. Et cetera.
But it’s unreasonable to suggest that whenever someone parks in a no parking zone, an armed force needs to swoop in immediately to deal with the problem. Particularly if it’s parked on the shoulder of a rural highway and not, say, in front of a hospital emergency room. Nor do I think the matter is made more urgent if the driver happens to be carrying a gun.
The proper response is to write up a citation, mail it to the owner or leave it on the windshield, and deal with it later. And yes if the car really isn’t going anywhere for a long time, or enough unpaid citations accumulate, then eventually you could tow it or something. But that should not be the first response.
Maybe I should just add it to my signature since I have to keep repeating myself. I do not think the police should engage these men with guns itching for a fight if they can avoid it.
They should face consequences for their actions. This is the second time this group had created a stand-off situation with the federal government, and to my knowledge, they had no consequences he last time. They are not entitled to breaking into buildings simply because no one using it right now. These buildings have a purpose. They are not abandoned. There are a lot of them in forested areas in a state as large and forested as ours. And since disagreements between locals, the state and the federal government are not uncommon here, I have a reasonable concern that this not become the status quo for trying to resolve these often heated issues.
I’ve heard nothing from officials that even suggests they plan on citing these guys with anything, and they’re not making it that difficult to stay either. And despite asking if there is a group that being disrupted by it and being given that information, the tribe says they are having issues with it, that information was rejected.
I’ll just agree to disagree with Timex at these points. I care about national forests. Those builds serve a purpose. I don’t think is an appropriate response to the Hammond case, who, once again, didn’t want them in the first place. I don’t think it’s a minor issue. And certainly don’t believe the other groups are treated with as much respect as these armed men are being treated for doing something that is unlawful.
The Y’all Qaida guys aren’t besieging the place: they already “captured” it. I guess the Feds could be besieging the place, but they said they aren’t doing that. Moreover, if it is the Feds that are being referred to as the besiegers, that makes the Y’all Qaida guys the defenders or the “good guys”.
I’ll just agree to disagree with Timex at these points. I care about national forests. Those builds serve a purpose. I don’t think is an appropriate response to the Hammond case, who, once again, didn’t want them in the first place. I don’t think it’s a minor issue. And certainly don’t believe the other groups are treated with as much respect as these armed men are being treated for doing something that is unlawful.
To be clear:
I very much care about national forests. But I also do not see this event as being at all a threat to them.
I agree that the action of these nuts is not at all reasonable.
I disagree with you here, in that I do not see this as being a serious matter, unless the federal government were to create the conflict that the militia nuts desire. Without that potential for escalation, I believe this will end uneventfully, and after the fact there will be no harm done to even suggest it happened.
I’ve already covered the difference between this case and the others.
As noted above, the local sheriff has already warned the protesters that they face charges. He met with them today, followed by a public statement that they should go home. Apparently he will be coming back in a few days.
As for “making it difficult to stay”: It’s winter, and their power will be (has been?) cut. They protesters are going to face difficulties soon enough.
Also remember that their “cache” of supplies is pitiful. My friggin’ mini-van, alone, could have held more food than what all these guys, put together, brought. They clearly didn’t think this through despite being willing to stay “for years”.
