Where is the National Guard?

[HardcoreDandDGirl]

My mother's new boyfriend keep thinking they are some kind of Robin hood freedom fighters... He thinks an armed revolt against the whole government would make his life better. He I guess thinks that said revolt would include some kind of miracle that would create a perfect world... I've given up trying to correct him.

I wonder if we as a country could 'give' a state or region to these people...

 

[HardcoreDandDGirl]

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.

I don't think they are terrorist, and just threatening alone well committing another crime is an odd place to draw the line...

Jim bob walked into a bank and handed a note to the teller saying 'put all the money in the bad' well she was doing it the off duity security guard pulls her gun and says 'freeze' in response he pulls his grenade and says "If you don't put down the gun, I will kill everyone in here" he is a bank robber not a terrorist...

Kelly is a cat burgler, but one who carries a gun and made the mistake of robbing Officer Joes' house well he wasn't home... he come home and sees the broken window and identifies himself as a cop... so she pulls a kitchen knife and hold it to his sleeping wife throat..."If you come in the bed room I will slit her throat..." still not a terrorist...

 

[Janx]

I don't think they are terrorist, and just threatening alone well committing another crime is an odd place to draw the line...

Jim bob walked into a bank and handed a note to the teller saying 'put all the money in the bad' well she was doing it the off duity security guard pulls her gun and says 'freeze' in response he pulls his grenade and says "If you don't put down the gun, I will kill everyone in here" he is a bank robber not a terrorist...

Kelly is a cat burgler, but one who carries a gun and made the mistake of robbing Officer Joes' house well he wasn't home... he come home and sees the broken window and identifies himself as a cop... so she pulls a kitchen knife and hold it to his sleeping wife throat..."If you come in the bed room I will slit her throat..." still not a terrorist...

Good points.

PEr the official list from page 3, posted by Umbran:
The FBI says:

"Domestic terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:

1) Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
2) Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping; and
3) Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.


I believe they have violated #2 (section ii to be precise) per all the reasons you quoted. checkpoint #2 is what differentiates this from a bank robbery or burglary

#3 is obvious. And I thought somebody successfully argued #1.

If not, I believe #1 is triggered because they have taken over a federal building with weapons and made statements about holding it with force.

actual damage hasn't happened, but the act of taking it over set up a dangerous condition for the law to try to recover it.

I think somebody could sway me on #1 not being Terrorism with the right argument. Right now, I think the Bundy's actions are close enough.

 

[Umbran]

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.)

That term is sometimes used for personal threats, but by my understanding that use predates our current handling of and laws about terrorism, so we need to be careful in this context.

By the FBI definition I posted earlier, it isn't a terror threat. I am an individual, not a population, nor am I a member of government, nor, as stated, is it about changing government policy. Threatening me, personally, for something I did would be considered illegal in most jurisdictions, but not as terrorism, per se. Such is usually considered a form of assault and/or covered by statutes against coercion, not statutes about terrorism.

If someone says, "If the government does not do X, I will shoot Umbran," then they are making a terror threat - specifically threatening violence to impact government policy.

 

[Janx]

That term is sometimes used for personal threats, but by my understanding that use predates our current handling of and laws about terrorism, so we need to be careful in this context.

By the FBI definition I posted earlier, it isn't a terror threat. I am an individual, not a population, nor am I a member of government, nor, as stated, is it about changing government policy. Threatening me, personally, for something I did would be considered illegal in most jurisdictions, but not as terrorism, per se. Such is usually considered a form of assault and/or covered by statutes against coercion, not statutes about terrorism.

If someone says, "If the government does not do X, I will shoot Umbran," then they are making a terror threat - specifically threatening violence to impact government policy.

Yes. Which I covered in the next sentences that you cut off when you quoted me...

In any event. making threats is a crime.

Saying "I will defend myself if the cops try to stop me" while you are committing a crime is a threat to the cops who are expected to stop/catch people who are committing/committed a crime. Thus, it is a crime to say such things.

 

[Janx]

Here's a new news link. Apparently the FBI are taking over, but with a light hand:
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/protesters-vow-hold-oregon-refuge-until-feds-give-n489606

Based on the quotes involved. The Bundy's are trying to say somethings without crossing the line, but then there's subtext of "but we are armed and won't be rooted out" behind what they are saying.

I'm sure they were coached by a lawyer wannabe on what to say.

But a regular protest would be marching down a street to city hall with signs.

These guys have guns, and have taken over a building that just happened to be empty.

The implication is that somebody will be hurt if the "government is wanting their building back" (an actual part of a Bundy quote from the article).

That kind of means that unless the Bundy's get what they want, the government cannot have their building back without violence.

Is that Terrorism?

Is it not Terrorism to send a note saying that unless your demands are met, you will deprive the government of one of their buildings?

 

[Istbor]

Can we at least agree that these fellows are of a particular brand of stupid?

Looking for some common ground.

I am not sold on this being some act of Terror, but more of some lame political statement or a grab for attention (maybe even martyrdom?).

If they were threatening to kill or blow up a building with actual hostages then maybe I would jump on the Terror bus. As it stands this is almost as if this group is trying to declare war, but wants the Government to look like the aggressor. Which is very much what several member's ideology is all about.

I just don't see the fear they are trying to instill. Criminals threatening police or other law enforcement is not new. Especially when that group of criminals has a propensity to try to buck authority.

Extremists? Certainly.
Terrorists? That remains to be seen.

 

[Janx]

Can we at least agree that these fellows are of a particular brand of stupid?

Looking for some common ground.

I am not sold on this being some act of Terror, but more of some lame political statement or a grab for attention (maybe even martyrdom?).

If they were threatening to kill or blow up a building with actual hostages then maybe I would jump on the Terror bus. As it stands this is almost as if this group is trying to declare war, but wants the Government to look like the aggressor. Which is very much what several member's ideology is all about.

I just don't see the fear they are trying to instill. Criminals threatening police or other law enforcement is not new. Especially when that group of criminals has a propensity to try to buck authority.

Extremists? Certainly.
Terrorists? That remains to be seen.

I get trying to find common ground, but I must be feeling argumentive today.

I'm not so sure they're stupid. Kind of like how I think Ted Cruz is an idiot, but in reality he's a Harvard educated smarter than average person who excels in debate.

These guys have some bad ideas that they believe in.

But their strategy is getting them attention as we argue about whether to call them Terrorists, because if they aren't, then they have been very smart to set themselves up to come just short of that to avoid a SWAT team and a trip to Gitmo.

 

[Kramodlog]

I don't think you are.

Doubting me hurts my feelings.

Dad hurt me a lot. I'm straight, dad! I'm straight!

 

[Kramodlog]

His followup tweets pretty clearly show that the Bundys aren't interested in starting violence, but will defend themselves if attacked.

So, to be clear, you believe that if unarmed law officiers come to arrest and handcuff them, the Bundys will cooperate and be non-violent?