Where is the National Guard?

[Sacrosanct]

To make sure we are all on the same page, what they have said (according to CNN.com) is:

"We have no intentions of using force upon anyone, (but) if force is used against us, we would defend ourselves."

The word "deadly" do not appear. Nor, admittedly, is there a clear statement that they intended specifically to shoot law enforcement officials.
.

The other day, Ian Kullgren (a reporter for the Oregonian) sent out a tweet, "I talked to Ryan Bundy on the phone again. He said they're willing to kill and be killed if necessary."

 

[Kramodlog]

This video certainly supports evidence of a double standard.

I'm shocked.

 

[Istbor]

I don't think you are.

 

[Ovinomancer]

The other day, Ian Kullgren (a reporter for the Oregonian) sent out a tweet, "I talked to Ryan Bundy on the phone again. He said they're willing to kill and be killed if necessary."

His followup tweets pretty clearly show that the Bundys aren't interested in starting violence, but will defend themselves if attacked. Kinda takes the air out of that statement a bit.

Look, again, I think these people are idiots. They're committing criminal trespass. They're inviting scorn by saying that they'll defend themselves. There's no heroic or anything worth emulation or adulation here. But neither is there the things that the internet is screaming about, like terrorism or threatening to kill police. The stupid is strong enough already without adding made up stupid on top of it.

 

[Janx]

In the context of this scenario, yeah it is. They aren't making these statements from their homes. It would be like going into a bank and taking it over, saying you're gonna kill anyone who displays force towards you. That's a pretty clear threat, considering that ANY action the police would do to enforce the law would be construed as "showing force" towards you.

*edit* that is to say, saying "if the police do their jobs, we will react with deadly force" is in fact a threat.

I concur.

Laws vary by state, but in TX, you lose the right to self defense if you are committing a crime.

So by act of trespassing, they may not fire their weapons nor make a statement about defending themselves with lethal force because they are already committing a crime.

This nuance, at least in TX, is what prevents the robber from saying he was "defending himself" when he shoots me back when I am trying to shoot him for robbing me. Since he was in the middle of robbery, he has to take the bullet.

I would expect most states that have "self defense" laws to have similar conditions on when you can defend yourself.

Also, as you say, while standing inside my home at the front door, I may display my weapon and tell somebody they are tresspassing (TX law covers use of Force, but not Lethal Force to mean displaying a weapon to a tresspasser).

What I may not do without a CHL is do the same but walk outside onto my driveway, as now I am not under my roof or in my vehicle. This is the "at home or in my car" clause for self defense. It takes a CHL in TX to be able to go outside and defend oneself.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Because right wing militia groups have a history of not reacting with violence when law enforcement gets involved to arrest them? Not sure what world you're living in.

That Ritzheimer guy who is there I posted earlier? Right before this started, he essentially posted a video that was, "tell my kids I love them. I'm not coming home." That, combined with the aforementioned rhetoric he's posted about wanting to shoot up Muslim neighborhoods, and I can't see how you can sit there in good faith and honestly believe that there is nothing that is threatening by this group. It's their MO, quite literally.

video in question is here

 

[Janx]

I think threatening to shoot law enforcement officers in the lawful act of performing their duties probably breaks some laws.

don't they call that "terroristic threats"

That term applies quite readily to any threatening speech about harming somebody.

So me saying "Umbran, I'm gonna shoot you for wut you done" is a terroristic threat (a fake one.)


I don't know that we'd normally call a dude a Terrorist who is charged with making Terrorist Threats. I'm sure there's oodles of cases with that on the charges from some drunk dude in a bar, or restraining order from an ex-girlfriend, where the guy is clearly not making it to the FBI's terrorism watch list.

 

[billd91]

His followup tweets pretty clearly show that the Bundys aren't interested in starting violence, but will defend themselves if attacked. Kinda takes the air out of that statement a bit.

Not really. They're practicing a form of compellence. By occupying the federal facility, they're trying to put the ball for starting a fight in the FBI's court, because, sooner or later, the Feds are going to have to do something. That way, they are trying to get want without the opprobrium of being the ones who started the fight.

Look, again, I think these people are idiots. They're committing criminal trespass. They're inviting scorn by saying that they'll defend themselves. There's no heroic or anything worth emulation or adulation here. But neither is there the things that the internet is screaming about, like terrorism or threatening to kill police. The stupid is strong enough already without adding made up stupid on top of it.

As far as the law (and the public) goes, the cops get to use a certain amount of force against unruly suspects. Threatening to kill or be killed if violence starts is threatening to kill cops.

 

[Sacrosanct]

A few more things to consider. All of these people are facing felony charges, if the government chooses to prosecute.

1. Trespassing with a firearm is a 3rd degree felony
2. transporting firearms across state lines is also a felony (these people aren't from Oregon, and have had to cross several states depending on where they came from. Concealed carry permits are only by individual state)
3. Armed sedition is most definitely a felony

That means that every single one of these militia can be prosecuted with a felony, which means they would no longer be legally able to own firearms in the future. Even if this thing ends peacefully, do these people strike you as the sort that would give up all of their guns and never own one again? I doubt it. Looking at past history every single time something like this has happened, and looking at the rhetoric they've been saying in the past and present, and I don't see how this ends well.

 

[Janx]

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.

Umbran defined the legal parameters for this event being Terrorism.

I and somebody engaged him on his specific checklist.

The parameters for debating if this event is Terrorism have effectively been defined.

Thus, if you wish to prove it is NOT Terrorism, please disprove the points (as you are doing below). You will find that I am easily swayed if you engage on the points of dispute.

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.

The Bundy's have threatened violence if somebody tries to get them out.

They are actively breaking the law by holding the building with weapons (several laws no doubt).

As they are actively breaking the law, they do not have a right to self defense. Therefore, any statement they make about "defending ourselves" is a threat.

Additionally, it is what differentiates this from a break-in/trespassing to do some squatting vs. holding territory and making demands (the release of the Hammonds).
A squatter will go with the cops, flee or shoot at them because they don't want to go to jail.
Before the cops even got there, the Bundy's have declared that they will use force to maintain their position, and that they have a specific political goal to free the Hammonds (those ranchers who burned some federal land and poached).

I say they have this goal, because they said that is why they are there, and there is no point to this action if not to raise awareness and incite change in the Hammonds state. At least Netflix's Making a Murderer didn't take over any federal buildings and threaten to defend itself if Avery wasn't freed.

In contrast to the Occupy movement, those folks did not have weapons. They only occupied actual public spaces where the public was free to assemble (in contrast, a federal building that is meant to be closed to the public). They did not make statements about defending themselves if the police tried to remove them. They did not offer violent resistance to police when they came to remove them.

Thus, I conclude the Bundy's are closer to matching the Terrorism checkpoints than the Occcupy people (as a whole, there were Anarchists and such in their ranks that did do bad stuff).

---------------------
here's the bottom line ( I just drew it

The Bundy's don't have a right to make Self Defense statements because they are actively committing other crimes. Those are terroristic threats (which per another post, does not mean they are terrorists, but they are illegal to say). So any argument you have about that specifically is nullified to me, thus far.

However, the finer point I see you have is whether being a Terrorist requires actually committing violence.

I posit that actual violence need not happen if the threat of it exists. The bad guys are holding Nakatome Tower. Nobody was home in this version of the movie. Are they not terrorists because nobody was home?

Sell me on this point that "nobody got hurt or hostaged" so it's not Terrorism.