Ok.
@Stugace: The quote mentioned in #91 doesn’t seem to be from a blog, but was apparently someone’s tweet. http://www.bizpacreview.com/2016/01/03/wheres-the-national-guard-comparisons-of-oregon-to-ferguson-trigger-debate-290741?hvid=4Kn4zp. Kinda garners a big “so what” reaction.
The last thing the feds should do is go in with guns blazing. We don’t need another Waco.
The way to stop all these illegal sit-ins or protests that do damage is to make those who do the damage civilly liable for that damage and to go after them for the money. So if these guys damage the building, they pay. The same goes for college students who damage the offices of their university, the protesters who break windows, and the illegal marchers who shut down streets, airports and freeways.
“The last thing the feds should do is go in with guns blazing. We don’t need another Waco.”
Or MOVE.
I agree. I think a measured law enforcement response is the correct one.
But it is striking that a 12 yo kid with a toy gun is killed instantly but these armed bozos are walking tall.
Which, I suppose, is the 21st-century equivalent of Tom Lehrer’s description of mid-20th century US military policy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHhZF66C1Dc
I’m OK with not going in with guns blazing. But I want all of these guys criminally prosecuted and I want them to go to jail. This is an armed takeover of a federal facility; it is not like a sit-in in a college president’s office. And people who oppose gun control should be furious at these bozos, not defending them.
Portland Audubon has issued a statement regarding the armed occupation of Malheur that I found very interesting. It covers the history of the place and why it is special. http://audubonportland.org/news/audubon-society-of-portland-statement-on-the-occupation-of-malheur-national-wildlife-refuge
The Occupy Wall Street people took over public parks and streets. Were any of them criminally prosecuted? I’m not saying these guys shouldn’t be prosecuted, but that all such actions should be treated in the same manner. I’m just saying that most of the Occupy Wall Street people, if they were arrested, were released in short order and basically the police did nothing to root them out of the parks. They were just left alone until the ‘movement’ died out.
And whether it’s a federal visitor’s center, a city park, or a state university office building, the trespassing is the same. Whether we get all worked up over that trespassing seems to be a matter of politics. However, the government and the justice system and the police should act in the same manner based on the offense, not the politics.
I agree, but not to sure about the illegal aspect in all cases. There is a very big distinction between an illegal act and a protest, specifically a public protest against government.
For the students on private campuses, it is illegal to occupy the president’s office or shut down the quad - that is private property. Just taking up space, any space, on private property is illegal if you are unwanted. The act of occupying is illegal, but the protest itself is not. If the students protested on the public street outside of Princeton campus, there would be no real illegality issue except maybe a public nuisance and disturbance issue.This is why BLM could be thrown out of the Mall of America - private property - and they have no recourse to sue for any rights infringement.
The issue is not an “illegal” protest, but where the protest takes place, particularly tricky issue in a public space. It is illegal to break into a building, yes, but the protest itself is not illegal. If citizens’ protests against government could be called illegal in itself, then there would effectively be no right to petition, which would be unconstitutional.
Wait them out is the best approach, pretty much like people waited out the Occupy Wall Street "bozos.’ and how police just contained the rioters and watched Baltimore riot.
Occupy Wall Street is not comparable. There weren’t threats of violence from protestors or break ins, were there? Just those two things put this into a different arena entirely.
The government can require a permit to march if the marchers are going to be blocking a public street or if the rally is a mass rally. Something done without that would be illegal. And camping overnight in a publc park (like the Occupy people did) is not allowed here, but nothing was done proactively to roust them out. They were camped out in front of City Hall for weeks.
These people are out in the middle of nowhere really not harming anyone. They are getting more publicity than the event warrants. And without the publicity, they’d all just go home.
You are comparing paperwork to threats of violence and breaking and entering. It’s still comparing apples to oranges. If these dimwits were camping in tents on the land without weapons and threats to local law enforcement, then it would be comparable.
Interesting conflating of policing, gun-carrying laws, and culture, which makes zero sense.
A person, any person, walking around with a real-looking gun in an area where it is illegal to do so and getting the police called to check him out is immediately suspect as up to no good and is considered armed and dangerous. So, unfortunately, the police took no chances.
In contrast, a group of people who are carrying guns legally in an area where carrying is fully legal and where having a gun is normal is no reason to them armed and dangerous, because they do that every day.
Legality and culture matter because they fully determine level of concern. What the 12-yr old kid was doing was illegal (and dumb) on many fronts and raised concern in the public because it was culturally inappropriate for where he lives. In OR, 50 to 100 people with guns is ho hum because there is nothing illegal, concerning, or culturally inappropriate about seeing that, as people see that all the time.
Since when is it culturally inappropriate and illegal for a 12 yr old kid to play with a toy gun? Furthermore, the cops believed he was an adult. If that is true, then Ohio is an open carry state, so he still was within law. Oh, kids in minority neighborhoods can’t play with guns??..
I can’t…
Sure, and the key word is “can.” It does not always, and that is the issue. This is not a mass rally or march. The size of this protest is not the type to require a permit based on its spontaneity.
I agree with the breaking and entering issue and no issue charging them with that. But, then the government would need to arrest and charge BLM protesters who shut down bridges and public roads leading to airports, which is interfering with interstate commerce and with the security of the affected area.
I’m not so worried about the idea of them sitting there in the cold until they get tired and decide to go home. I have a problem with threats of physical violence and setting up what is essentially a sniper tower. The final video statements indicate that this is the hill that some of them want to die on which is quite the opposite of the black lives matter and occupy movements.
awc, what do you think would happen if the authorities walked to the front door, announced the people had to lead, and, if they didn’t leave, began to drag them out? Would any of those many weapons be fired, like the protestors say they’d be fired?
The first amendment gives them the right to PEACEABLY assemble. When they are threatening law enforcement officials with guns, I think they have stepped over that “peaceable” boundary. They all belong in federal prison.
As for the legality of OWS…this is just one local example
http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2011/12/01/occupy-santa-cruz-stands-firm-in-vacant-bank-building/
So yes, OWS DID indeed occupy buildings…in this case private ones. The blocked traffic, terrorized the government employees trying to get to their offices and made a human potty out of the local river and park. So…let’s not hold these guys up as examples of anything.
After the fact narrative - it is one thing to know in advance that something is a toy.
And no, playing with guns is not safe. The kids in my area have guns and walk around with them all the time, but they carry them properly, on their shoulders or holstered.
Sure, black kids can play with toy guns, but culture matters and they have to be smarter about their environment, as not all environments are the same.
My area has no problem with young white kids shooting other white kids. However, I would venture to guess that where that kid lived there is a problem with young black kids killing other black kids, just a guess, so police react differently. Pretty stupid to play with a toy guns in an area where the young men are shooting each other with abandon and to then think the police would see you as just another kid playing with a toy gun - that is dumb.
To give perspective, I could care less in my area with a young white kid with a gun - I see them all the time, but then we do no have kids killing each other all the time. But, if I were driving though a poor area and I happen to see a black kid with a gun, I am heading the other way fast. That is simple common sense, ala Jesse Jackson logic. Culture matters.
For the record, open carry does not mean walking around with a gun loosely - there are rules on holstering and how to carry. What this kid (thought to be an adult) was doing was illegal under open carry, thus the suspicion.