Where is the National Guard?

[Ovinomancer]

I think you are confusing the resolution strategy for the crime.

Goldie and have have refuted Umbran's terrorism checklist by covering all 3 points. Nobody has countered, so we win, it's Terrorism (feel free to counter argue my point on 2ii of the checklist, and I'll cede victory).

That said, this being redneck Terrorism aka " bunch of idiots posturing out in the wilderness", has nothing to do with the solution, well, out in the wilderness does.

It's winter, in the woods. they can be starved out, blinded from internet deprivation. If this was Nakatome Tower, that might call for a a different response. There's no need to storm the ramparts because there's no hostages and no risk to collateral damage. Which would ironically enough, be the safest way to storm them.

However, given the very topic they are on about is Arson, it is possible they may decide to burn the place down, which is federal property and could also carry risk for forest fire. So doing nothing may be complicated as well.

Oh, wow. "No one addressed what I said, so it's automatically right!" Yeah, I can't win that one. I don't have to directly respond to you to not agree with you, and no one responding to you doesn't mean you're right. That's basic logic, there.

But, that said, your supposed refutation of Umbran is flawed because you're exaggerating events to your flawed understanding of the legal definition. No violence has been used. No violence, except in self defense, has been promised. Lack of violence means that your assumptions for 2ii are flawed, as there is no intimidation or coercion. You've assumed violence, and you've assumed that criminal trespass and squatting are somehow sufficient crimes to coerce or intimidate, but I assure you they are not. If you insist that your analysis is correct, then you must also condemn the Occupy movement as terrorists. This is clearly false, and so is your analysis of 2ii in this case.

I get that people are scared of people that are armed, but that's not a legal threat, even if you consider it threatening.

Also, imagining those people doing bad things they haven't done and haven't said they'd do is just you projecting and has no bearing on what a rational response would be. However, you did manage to mention that a siege would be a good solution, but starving people is an excellent way to create a crisis of bad decisions. Food, medical and power need to be kept on so that a reasonable solution can be achieved. Well, power until it warms up, if it takes that long. Also, unfortunately, it's against the law to jam cellphone signals, even for Feds or that would be my first step -- cut outside lines of communication. They could possibly work with the provider in the area to shut down the towers, or isolate and shut down individual phone's ability to connect to the cell tower, but the latter is challenging for many reasons and the former would mess with the Feds, too.

 

[Ovinomancer]

How many "armed protesters" did Occupy Wall Street have?
It's their first day. Give them time. They'll be disrupting government workers who have jobs to do in those buildings.
The question is, what does this group of terrorist consider "violence" from the government?

Good, I'm glad you can at least admit that.
Yes, they are.

Yet. It's now day two. Give them time. The idiots at father Bundy's ranch started stopping civilians driving by and pulling guns on them. You think these guys are going to be less violent?
Nope, but thanks for trying to play it like that.

Awesome, let's set a precedent were any group of "armed protesters" can take over government property and threaten violence if they don't get their way. That's sure to turn out well.

Waco was a completely different situation. Those were religious people being persecuted for their beliefs.

Totally not interested in a fisk war. If you'd like to bundle those up a bit, I'd be happy to discuss.

So you think these guys won't fire on police officers if police officers try to get them out of there? At all?

Doesn't matter, they haven't done it and they've only said that they may defend themselves if force is used. The law doesn't operate on what you fear people will do, it operates on what people actually do. So far, these people haven't issued any threats, nor have they engaged in violence. You being scared that they might isn't sufficient.

 

[Ovinomancer]

yup.

That would be part of item 2 on the checklist. If I was a cop and my boss told me to go up there and ask them to leave or be arrested, I would be worried about my safety.

One would hope that you'd be worried about your safety approaching any perp. However, a reasonable fear for one's safety is not sufficient to achieve 2ii. Actual threats of violence are required, and those are missing. Again, you being scared of something isn't sufficient.

 

[billd91]

But, that said, your supposed refutation of Umbran is flawed because you're exaggerating events to your flawed understanding of the legal definition. No violence has been used. No violence, except in self defense, has been promised. Lack of violence means that your assumptions for 2ii are flawed, as there is no intimidation or coercion. You've assumed violence, and you've assumed that criminal trespass and squatting are somehow sufficient crimes to coerce or intimidate, but I assure you they are not. If you insist that your analysis is correct, then you must also condemn the Occupy movement as terrorists. This is clearly false, and so is your analysis of 2ii in this case.

How exactly one of the Bundy's saying they're willing to kill in this situation and being armed isn't an attempt at intimidation or a threat of violence eludes me. It's clearly an attempt at intimidation of the authorities.

 

[Sacrosanct]

A couple things. I grew up in eastern Oregon, so this hits home a bit close for me.

1. Don't call them "the Oregon group". These people aren't from Oregon. In fact, the people who actually live there don't want them there
2. They are engaging in armed sedition. Terrorism might not be the right word, but armed sedition is. Which is still pretty bad
3. My irony meter is off the chart, because their cause (give the land back to white ranchers) happens to be on land that is considered sacred by the Paiute tribe. Which is why the government manages it and private owners do not
4. One of the original group to take over the site is Jon Ritzheimer. If that name rings a bell, it's because he's famous for protesting mosques in full combat gear and weapons. He also posted a video of himself in a car a couple months ago saying he was going to a Muslim neighborhood in NY to bring violence.
5. The excuse they are using (and it's just a poor excuse) was because of the two ranchers who had to go back to jail because the local judge violated federal law in his sentencing. They were convicted of arson to cover up illegal poaching they were engaged in. Not good or innocent people here.
6. If Obama has been very reluctant to use the word "terrorism" with the San Bernadino shooting, he also did not use the term when a radical Christian shot up the planned Parenthood a week prior to that. That's called consistency, not that he's covering up for Muslims.

 

[Ryujin]

Oka was a just a long grind and a Mohawk got away with murder. So we should accept more armed protests?

And at Ipperwash, Dudley George was killed.

That clearly wasn't what I said, was it? I said that different methods need to be used, other than armed confrontation. A heavy hand simply puts the match to the powder.

 

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

Totally not interested in a fisk war. If you'd like to bundle those up a bit, I'd be happy to discuss.

You've already bundled them up in one quote. You can discuss it if you want. If you can't, don't. I won't be bothered.

Doesn't matter, they haven't done it and they've only said that they may defend themselves if force is used. The law doesn't operate on what you fear people will do, it operates on what people actually do. So far, these people haven't issued any threats, nor have they engaged in violence. You being scared that they might isn't sufficient.

Yes, they have issued threats. That what they did when they said the y would "defend" themselves. But hey, if you're willing to set a precedent where "armed protesters" can take over government facilities with their freedom guns, go ahead. Just remember to hold everyone who follows their example to the same standards.

 

[Ovinomancer]

How exactly one of the Bundy's saying they're willing to kill in this situation and being armed isn't an attempt at intimidation or a threat of violence eludes me. It's clearly an attempt at intimidation of the authorities.

Saying that you will defend yourselves if violence is used against you isn't a threat. Your paraphrase is deliberately provocative and isn't in line with the statements actually made. Now, that said, what was said is still stupid, but it's not a threat of violence to say that you will defend yourself against violence. If the Feds go in shooting, it's arguably legal to shoot back if what you're doing isn't endangering others. At that point, the Feds are engaged in illegal use of deadly force. The police can't just shoot you because you're doing something illegal, you must be a danger to others. So far, that's not the case, and the protesters/activists are within their legal rights to state that they will defend themselves with lethal force if attacked with lethal force.

Again, just because YOU think it's scary, doesn't mean it's an actual threat.

 

[was]

This is a federal issue; the National Guard works for the states unless federalized.

...This is why the Guard is not involved. Unless there is some sort of disaster, and the federal government takes over, the National Guard falls under control of the state's governor.

...It's unlikely that the governor of Oregon is willing to take the political flack for supporting the federal government over local constituents. The fact that the trespassing, illegal grazing and poaching occurred on federally protected land allows her to avoid dealing with the problem.
​​​
...There's a long history of conflict between the federal government and cattle ranchers over these protected areas. Particularly considering the reintroduction of wolves, and their rising populations. Historically, ranchers in these areas have sought to eradicate wolves and illegally grazed their cattle on public lands with relative impunity.

 

[Ryujin]

I want these people killed quite frankly. What they are doing is treason and rebellion. I would fully support a joint tactical strike to wipe them out.

Well there goes the wilderness refuge.