Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Jan 28, 2016 2:47 pm UTC

This ain't nevada. And nobody is suggesting blowing up the hoover dam.

Here, people want the land. At least, some people. Enough cattle folks that they were able to round up a good lot to join them here. So...sell it? For whatever the market will bear. You can't reasonably say nobody wants it when people are protesting for it.

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby leady » Thu Jan 28, 2016 2:48 pm UTC

sardia wrote:http://www.blm.gov/es/st/en/prog/lands/0.print.html
By law, they can't. They have to sell at market prices, which these ranchers can't afford. That's why the militia are mad.


Market prices are simple to determine, just auction the land off were the highest price offered is the market price :)

What I think they'll find that vast tracts of the US are practically zero value - like Scotland :)

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Jan 28, 2016 2:51 pm UTC

It's likely that grazing land out west is pretty cheap, yes.

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3988
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby Dauric » Thu Jan 28, 2016 4:03 pm UTC

If you're going to -buy- grazing land, you're going to need a lot of it. The cheaper the land is the more you're going to need per head of cattle. This is just assuming "grazing lands" that have no other use. Greener pastures oddly enough are popular for housing and commercial development. In Colorado your best pasture lands are located just east of the mountains, where you have the best view of said mountains, thus increasing demand for those properties and increasing the value.

You also need to have contiguous open space, which also increases the value, and said space needs to be zoned by the local municipality for Agricultural use. You're going to be in competition for zoning status with housing and shopping-center developers who can promise more users and more tax income per acre than cattle grazing lands.

If you're going to buy grazing lands to rent out to cattle ranchers, then developing it as housing or commercial space is a better investment...
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Jan 28, 2016 4:21 pm UTC

If they get bought for more by other people, there's no problem.

That's not really a reason for not selling.

And, given the population density out west, probably not a huge problem.

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3988
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby Dauric » Thu Jan 28, 2016 4:30 pm UTC

The point however was that the cattle ranchers for all their emotional response to 'East Coast Imperialists' are better off with federal government managing grazing rights than private property owners who would make more money by making the same lands unusable for grazing.

Now sure, there's arguments for selling of the land to private owners who use the land to build housing developments or commercial spaces, but that will reduce the ability of cattle ranchers to make a living, ultimately putting them out of business. Fewer ranchers means fewer head of cattle going to market, raising the price of beef, and also making "Factory Farming" (confining animals to small pens, and creating significant problems disposing of high concentrations of animal waste) an even more profitable enterprise.
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6785
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby sardia » Thu Jan 28, 2016 4:34 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:If they get bought for more by other people, there's no problem.

That's not really a reason for not selling.

And, given the population density out west, probably not a huge problem.

I think the bigger rival to the scrubland is the conservationists, Indians, hikers, greens etc etc. They value it at priceless and have restricted, the destructive, use of the land. Hence the grazing fees and management. Grazing fees are low because the agency has to balance that with the demands of the poor ranchers. And now we arrived at our present situation. It's like those amazon farmers who slash and burn the forest in order to feed themselves. Yes we could tear up our environmental laws so ranchers could make a quick buck. However how does that compare with let's say creative economic destruction? The market forces are indicating you can't make a living ranching out there. Justify why these ranchers need special subsidies instead of say, an education and job in the city?

Edit. I suppose you are arguing to make the environmentalist buy the land instead of lobbying congress to protect it on tax payer funds.

Ryan123
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2015 4:17 pm UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby Ryan123 » Thu Jan 28, 2016 4:42 pm UTC

There are 4 possible buyers to sell to:

1) To Ranchers - a large ranching corporation will come in and out bid all the small local ones and shuts down access to everyone except themselves (including to the local ranchers who currently have access). These ranchers speak of the good old days forgetting that in the "good old days" land was even more restricted due to large ranching corps.
2) To the local Native Americans - I cannot speak for the local tribe but typically the first thing they do is kick everyone out of the land they purchase and lock things down tighter than most ranching companies.
3) Non-Profit Wildlife Organization - They will protect the birds, keep access for recreation open, but have no money and will probably keep the ranchers out until they realize letting them in will offset costs - but charge them even more than the Government Currently charges (raising the fees is what started this whole mess to begin with).
4) Local Community - most local communities can barely afford to keep roads plowed, much less take on a nature preserve. And many state government were/have been shutting down and locking down their parks due to budget crunches.

Although having the Federal Government in your backyard sounds scary to some people - usually those who think that the post office is out to get them and forget that its their neighbors who are working in these jobs - the truth is that only the Federal Government can ensure that every American has access to these lands. This is actually an unique idea in the world as there are very few counties which have set aside land for everyone to use for purposes that they (the individual person) deems important to them.

This Preserve Alone Allows:
Wildlife Viewing
Photography
Fishing
Hunting (They Encourage you to Shoot Things!)
Education
Hiking
Bicycling
Horseback Riding
ATV Riding
Boating
Ranching

And if you can't find what you want to do on that preserve there are thousands of other places set aside for you to go. Selling out only benefits those that you sell to - ignoring the rest of America who year after year as a whole supports these type of parks and preserves (its actually one of the few parts of the Government they actually support in mass).

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Jan 28, 2016 5:18 pm UTC

sardia wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:If they get bought for more by other people, there's no problem.

That's not really a reason for not selling.

And, given the population density out west, probably not a huge problem.

I think the bigger rival to the scrubland is the conservationists, Indians, hikers, greens etc etc. They value it at priceless and have restricted, the destructive, use of the land. Hence the grazing fees and management. Grazing fees are low because the agency has to balance that with the demands of the poor ranchers. And now we arrived at our present situation. It's like those amazon farmers who slash and burn the forest in order to feed themselves. Yes we could tear up our environmental laws so ranchers could make a quick buck. However how does that compare with let's say creative economic destruction? The market forces are indicating you can't make a living ranching out there. Justify why these ranchers need special subsidies instead of say, an education and job in the city?

Edit. I suppose you are arguing to make the environmentalist buy the land instead of lobbying congress to protect it on tax payer funds.


It doesn't make a lot of logical sense that so much land is environmentally important in the west, and almost none is out east. A more logical conclusion is that ranchers just wield comparatively little political influence.

Seriously, out west, we could sell 95% of the government land, and still have more preserved than out east. At a certain point, one must wonder how much land a hiker needs to hike, and why the vastly more populous east needs so much less of it.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby KnightExemplar » Thu Jan 28, 2016 5:32 pm UTC

Just an FYI: The Bundy group doesn't seem to want the US Government to sell the land (EDIT I mean, sell the land to the Bundy group). The arguments I've been hearing is that the US Federal Government should sell the land to the State of Oregon (or to the state wherever the land is located) because the 10th Amendment reserves that right to the states.

The specific "arson" issue is that a Rancher decided that it was better for the environment for a fire to get started. I don't know the details, but clearly the federal government disagreed with the fire, and charged the rancher with arson. It seems like the ranchers in the area agree with each other that the fire was beneficial for the environment, and therefore their trust in federal control of the land has eroded. They believe the State of Oregon would be more accountable and environmentally friendly stewards of the land (ie: especially on the issue of starting up minor fires to mitigate the potential of a massive forest fire down the road).

Ultimately, they see Washington DC as distant eggheads who don't understand the environment, yet maintain control of the area.
Last edited by KnightExemplar on Thu Jan 28, 2016 6:55 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Jan 28, 2016 5:54 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:Just an FYI: The Bundy group doesn't seem to want the US Government to sell the land. The arguments I've been hearing is that the US Federal Government should sell the land to the State of Oregon (or to the state wherever the land is located) because the 10th Amendment reserves that right to the states.


I'm more interested in solving the general problem than I am in making the Bundy's in particular happy.

There's always gonna be some crank out there demanding more. You can't fix that. You can fix the issue where there's enough widespread dissatisfaction to let them gather a following. Everyone supporting the Bundys, or disagreeing with them on method, but sympathizing with their grievances, is of more interest than they themselves are.

Agreed regarding the general lack of trust, too. Protective and pre-emptive burns are a very standard practice that don't get well understood out east.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby morriswalters » Thu Jan 28, 2016 5:57 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:This ain't nevada. And nobody is suggesting blowing up the hoover dam.

Here, people want the land. At least, some people. Enough cattle folks that they were able to round up a good lot to join them here. So...sell it? For whatever the market will bear. You can't reasonably say nobody wants it when people are protesting for it.
You're literal minded beyond all compare. The use of part about Hoover Dam was just an indicator of how much effort is involved in making much of the land in the west useful. They want the use of the land, not the associated costs, like the taxes the state would impose.

Since you are nit picking, take Oregon. Since land owned by the government makes a little over half the land in the state it's a good example. The Feds currently give the state some amount of money in lieu of property taxes. They manage the land as well, which means renting pasturage, allowing sustainable resource extraction, and fire fighting. Among others. The Forest Service, more or less controls the parks, with other agencies also controlling parcels. The bulk of the land is controlled by the Bureau Of Land Management the Cowboys current hate toy. Congress can sell it at will if they so wish. Currently conservatives own the Legislative Branch. They can outright grant it to Oregon if they choose to. That would be about 16 million acres. There is history on this.
At statehood in 1859, the federal government granted Oregon 3.4 million acres of land - two sections out of every township - to finance public schools. After more than 150 years, the Land Management Division still manages land to generate revenue for Oregon's 197 K-12 public school districts.
As far as I'm concerned, get it done and let them have the land controlled by the BLM and pay the states the fees for the land taken up by the parks. Let them manage that land, pay for firefighting and so on. What I'm prepared to defend is the land being used by parks and for public recreational use. I have a good idea how it would play out. Any land that had anything of value associated with it would become more valuable than the ranchers could afford. Ranchers with political clout would benefit from grazing state land since they can feed state legislators money while garnering influence. Little ranchers would be starved out. And so on.

Just so you know Oregon and Nevada share a border and the Refuge and the land around it shares more in common with Nevada than it does with the forests of coastal Oregon

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Jan 28, 2016 6:04 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:This ain't nevada. And nobody is suggesting blowing up the hoover dam.

Here, people want the land. At least, some people. Enough cattle folks that they were able to round up a good lot to join them here. So...sell it? For whatever the market will bear. You can't reasonably say nobody wants it when people are protesting for it.
You're literal minded beyond all compare. The use of part about Hoover Dam was just an indicator of how much effort is involved in making much of the land in the west useful. They want the use of the land, not the associated costs, like the taxes the state would impose.


This is scrubland. There's nothing there in comparison with the Hoover Dam. There's not a lot of maint to do, really. Fire management. Fencing. Which...the government seems to be either handling badly or making the ranchers do anyways.

Since you are nit picking, take Oregon. Since land owned by the government makes a little over half the land in the state it's a good example. The Feds currently give the state some amount of money in lieu of property taxes. They manage the land as well, which means renting pasturage, allowing sustainable resource extraction, and fire fighting. Among others. The Forest Service, more or less controls the parks, with other agencies also controlling parcels. The bulk of the land is controlled by the Bureau Of Land Management the Cowboys current hate toy. Congress can sell it at will if they so wish. Currently conservatives own the Legislative Branch. They can outright grant it to Oregon if they choose to. That would be about 16 million acres.


There was a rather long speech by one of the area reps on C-span if memory serves. Part of his complaints is that congress has passed some laws regarding this that the BLM is outright ignoring. Particular examples regarding fencing were given. Later today, I'll pop on youtube and see if I can find the clip.

Prefanity
Posts: 280
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2009 10:28 am UTC
Location: Reno, NV

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby Prefanity » Thu Jan 28, 2016 9:21 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:Most of the land they want isn't worth having, and were it up to me I'd give it to them. They'd overgraze the land and use up all the water resources that are left trying to make a living on land not suited to it. And then they'd come crying for a bailout.


As an aside, I live in Nevada and fuck that noise. The land is absolutely worth having around (developing it would be dumb in most cases) and nuts to the idea of letting some uppity rich hicks ruin the environment over it.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6785
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby sardia » Fri Jan 29, 2016 4:12 am UTC

Prefanity wrote:
morriswalters wrote:Most of the land they want isn't worth having, and were it up to me I'd give it to them. They'd overgraze the land and use up all the water resources that are left trying to make a living on land not suited to it. And then they'd come crying for a bailout.


As an aside, I live in Nevada and fuck that noise. The land is absolutely worth having around (developing it would be dumb in most cases) and nuts to the idea of letting some uppity rich hicks ruin the environment over it.

Agreed, but then we just sound like those dirty foreigners because real Americans something something Palin-esque oneliner.

Interesting tidbit caught my eye about who really cares about local control.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/26/upsho ... ref=upshot
Opponents have frequently responded by trying to limit the legislative power of cities. Many states have passed so-called pre-emption laws, which block cities from making their own laws on certain issues, including gun control, plastic bag bans, paid leave, fracking, union membership and the minimum wage. It’s a strategy pioneered by the tobacco lobby and later much used by the National Rifle Association. In all but seven states, state laws pre-empt local gun laws.
TLDR: Those who espouse the greatness of local control is just a means to an ends to get what you want when you're blocked by your opponents. The same groups that demanded local control will step in and demand states crush any rebellious cities if the political parties aren't aligned.

How do you balance local control vs oversight from a larger body? I think trying to figure this out is a fool's errand. A better theory is do whatever you have to do to get what you want. Principles don't matter, just who wins along with the veneer of the letter of the law.

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby Diadem » Fri Jan 29, 2016 12:40 pm UTC

Looking at a video of the shooting, it's hard to say whether it was justified or not. He tried to dodge a roadblock, nearly hitting an officer with his truck, though that last part looked unintentional (The officer practically jumps in front of the car). He then gets out and puts his hands up in the air, but keeps moving (albeit quite slowly). But then a few seconds later he lowers his hands again, and he does seem to be reaching into his coat at some point. The shooting however is a few seconds after that, when he has his back to the camera, and I can't see what he is doing with his hands at that point. His body language during the entire incident seems mostly confused. He's jumping around, moving and looking in all directions.

Given the history of police violence in the US I'm not willing to just give them the benefit of the doubt, but the video evidence at least doesn't disproof the claim that it was self-defence by the officers.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

User avatar
Djehutynakht
Posts: 1546
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 1:37 am UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby Djehutynakht » Fri Jan 29, 2016 3:37 pm UTC

Diadem wrote:Looking at a video of the shooting, it's hard to say whether it was justified or not. He tried to dodge a roadblock, nearly hitting an officer with his truck, though that last part looked unintentional (The officer practically jumps in front of the car). He then gets out and puts his hands up in the air, but keeps moving (albeit quite slowly). But then a few seconds later he lowers his hands again, and he does seem to be reaching into his coat at some point. The shooting however is a few seconds after that, when he has his back to the camera, and I can't see what he is doing with his hands at that point. His body language during the entire incident seems mostly confused. He's jumping around, moving and looking in all directions.



It's interesting, actually. Apparently this guy, Finicum, was sort of the spokesperson for the standoff, so reporters know him a bit well. The BBC profiled him.

Obviously, this is no proof, but he did previously give statements that he'd resist to the death if the police attempted to arrest him, as he had no intention of being jailed.

I dunno. His profile makes me think. He doesn't seem like your stereotypical lunatic, even if I think his views are off.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6785
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby sardia » Fri Jan 29, 2016 4:07 pm UTC

The cops didn't want to take the chance, when have they ever? So they shot him.

Now imagine they did that every time at every routine stop. That's life in nonwhite America.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby morriswalters » Fri Jan 29, 2016 6:19 pm UTC

sardia wrote:The cops didn't want to take the chance, when have they ever? So they shot him.

Now imagine they did that every time at every routine stop. That's life in nonwhite America.
Since every one was a member of White privilege I'm having a hard time seeing the connection. This wasn't an average stop. They don't haul helicopters and the FBI to the high desert for traffic stops, and the people normally stopped haven't been posting on Youtube about their intentions to die fighting, not to mention that they are, in fact, armed. There are around 62 million interactions between police and not police each year, most don't end in gunfire. Or for that matter force of any kind.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6785
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby sardia » Fri Jan 29, 2016 8:26 pm UTC

A large amount of non incidents doesn't means there isn't a problem. The connection is that the privileged member made several remarks and actions that led to the officials to deem him a threat. An ambiguous action was considered hostile because of the assumption of danger by the officials. Non privileged members are more often seen as threats so an ambiguous act often leads to violence by the official to resolve the situation.

Police often kill those deemed dangerous. Black people are considered more dangerous and police respond by killing them more often. Blacks aren't given the benefit of the doubt. This white dude was deemed dangerous and was killed for acting sorta maybe violent. Was not given benefit of the doubt. Happens to minorities often but privileged people wouldn't understand a seemingly senseless killing.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Jan 29, 2016 8:32 pm UTC

sardia wrote:Police often kill those deemed dangerous. Black people are considered more dangerous and police respond by killing them more often. Blacks aren't given the benefit of the doubt. This white dude was deemed dangerous and was killed for acting sorta maybe violent. Was not given benefit of the doubt. Happens to minorities often but privileged people wouldn't understand a seemingly senseless killing.


The idea that nobody privileged can understand that is...odd.

Yeah, plenty of us understand this, dude. It's not particularly hard to understand.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby morriswalters » Fri Jan 29, 2016 10:12 pm UTC

sardia wrote:A large amount of non incidents doesn't means there isn't a problem. The connection is that the privileged member made several remarks and actions that led to the officials to deem him a threat. An ambiguous action was considered hostile because of the assumption of danger by the officials. Non privileged members are more often seen as threats so an ambiguous act often leads to violence by the official to resolve the situation.
Of course there is a problem, but the problem of privilege has nothing to do with this. There is no true ambiguity in this instance. He talked the talk, and when push came to shove, given what I saw, I would have shot him, had I been there. I suppose his pride overwhelmed his good sense. There was no doubt about what Law Enforcement was there to do. There was nowhere to go and nowhere to hide. No innocent bystanders and overwhelming force. They isolated them and presented them with no way out. Everybody but him seemed to understand this, since you can assume they were all armed and chose not to shoot it out.
sardia wrote:Police often kill those deemed dangerous. Black people are considered more dangerous and police respond by killing them more often. Blacks aren't given the benefit of the doubt. This white dude was deemed dangerous and was killed for acting sorta maybe violent. Was not given benefit of the doubt. Happens to minorities often but privileged people wouldn't understand a seemingly senseless killing.
He was killed because he had stated he was armed and prepared to fight. No matter what you think about guns the main factor is that they alter the way we interact in violent situations. Culturally in this country we expect violence and plan for it. Mix that with racism and you have a perfect storm where boys with toys end up on a slab. But that has nothing to do with this. This wasn't a random mixing on the streets by random people.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6785
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby sardia » Fri Jan 29, 2016 11:49 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:He was killed because he had stated he was armed and prepared to fight. No matter what you think about guns the main factor is that they alter the way we interact in violent situations. Culturally in this country we expect violence and plan for it. Mix that with racism and you have a perfect storm where boys with toys end up on a slab. But that has nothing to do with this. This wasn't a random mixing on the streets by random people.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/30/us/bu ... otest.html
"But not everyone was satisfied, and many citizens who watched the video do not accept the F.B.I.’s account of what happened. It is absolutely another dividing line with one side saying it was coldblooded murder and the other side is saying it was completely justified,”"
Not everyone accepts the FBI made the 'right' call, so my explanation is appropriate for them. Why would the FBI shoot a man who was just lowering his hands? Because they didn't want to risk their lives to save his, on the off percent chance the FBI was wrong. Some of those people posted in this very thread. Now if you made up your minds that it was a 'good' shoot, then it's no big deal.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby morriswalters » Sat Jan 30, 2016 12:51 am UTC

sardia wrote:Now if you made up your minds that it was a 'good' shoot, then it's no big deal.
Despite what you may have heard I only have half a mind not two. Just out of idle curiosity, when should they shoot?

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6785
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby sardia » Sat Jan 30, 2016 2:14 am UTC

morriswalters wrote:
sardia wrote:Now if you made up your minds that it was a 'good' shoot, then it's no big deal.
Despite what you may have heard I only have half a mind not two. Just out of idle curiosity, when should they shoot?

My suggestion, put their life on the line and wait for the suspect to shoot. Then gun him down.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby Tyndmyr » Sat Jan 30, 2016 2:32 am UTC

Video Footage. https://photographyisnotacrime.com/2016/01/28/breaking-fbi-releases-video-of-lavoy-finicum-shooting/

Alright, looking over this...the cops are clearly going into this super paranoid. Lots of bodies, lots of guns out, etc. That's fine as is, but you do see a certain mentality here. It doesn't look like the victim has any similar intent. I mean, you've apparently got some gung ho cop sprinting AT the vehicle as he's clearly trying to avoid them by driving into the snow. Drift that big, he's clearly intentionally getting stuck to avoid impact with any of them. Seems to be doing the right thing.

When he leaves the vehicle, he's not next to any of them. He's not lunging at them. He's walking away from the vehicle with his hand up. He stumbles once on the snow, but puts his hands back up asap. One of the cops runs out from behind a tree. The victim has his back to this guy, and he evidently hears him, and starts to turn. Not lowering his hands at all, mind you. Guy running out shoots or tazes him. Can't tell which. But he's definitely moving on the ground after whatever it is. Looks like he's asking for help. Nobody goes up to help him, or check on him. You see some kind of flash on the snow between the cops and the white vehicle. Not sure what that is. Did a cop cook something off, and if so, why? It's well after the fact. You see another flash at 6:46. Maybe a flashbang? What the hell? At 6:55, you see what looks like a bullet impact the side of the vehicle. He took the shot at about 6:06, so I'm not sure why this is still going on.

In any case, nobody seems interested in checking him out throughout the video. They just leave him to die.

Holy fuck. From what I can see, this looks like an awful shoot.

icanus
Posts: 478
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 1:19 pm UTC
Location: in England now abed

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby icanus » Sat Jan 30, 2016 3:02 am UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:But he's definitely moving on the ground after whatever it is. Looks like he's asking for help. Nobody goes up to help him, or check on him.

In any case, nobody seems interested in checking him out throughout the video. They just leave him to die.

He's laying in open ground a few feet away from, and in full view of, a car that still has 7 armed suspects in it.

Longer video - It takes about 9 minutes after the shot for them to get all the others out of the car, immediately after which, they approach LaVoy.

Mambrino
Posts: 388
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 9:45 pm UTC
Location: No we don't have polar bears. Except in zoos.

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby Mambrino » Sat Jan 30, 2016 3:26 am UTC

I just ate breakfast so I'm not in a mood for watching videos of people being killed, but from the description of it, it sounds like the police were very lucky that the guy they shot happened to one with "I'd rather die than go jail" statements.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby morriswalters » Sat Jan 30, 2016 3:28 am UTC

sardia wrote:My suggestion, put their life on the line and wait for the suspect to shoot. Then gun him down.
I somehow thought you would see it that way.
Tyndmyr wrote:Holy fuck. From what I can see, this looks like an awful shoot.
Unsurprising for you.

What each of us sees, from our points of view, is just what we expect to see. Sardia wants the cops to shoot only after the suspect does. Tyndmyr sees the cops as heartless and perhaps cruel, leaving the victim to die. I see the victim as someone who primed the pump, and set the event in motion. He ran and tried to beat the roadblock.

This is the right to carry arms in action. If guns are involved then the default position is that they will be used, and guns, in the end, are designed to kill. The Feds by their statements had been using the protesters social media messaging to track them. To me it isn't surprising that LaVoy's statements primed the pump. The expectation would be that he meant what he said. So at that moment when his hands moved in the direction of his waist, he was reaching for a gun. The truth is not relevant. Of course that is only my opinion.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6568
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby Thesh » Sat Jan 30, 2016 3:44 am UTC

Watching the video, as much as I want to side against the militia morons, the cops should have waited until they actually saw a gun. I think the cops did have good reason to believe he was going for a gun, but reason to believe is not the same as immediate threat. I don't think the outcome would have changed had they waited, but lethal force should only be used after a threat is confirmed.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10485
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby CorruptUser » Sun Jan 31, 2016 1:13 am UTC

Eh nah, siding with the cops on this one.

If I've ever defended the police in any of the the various unarmed black guy cases, and I have in a few of the cases, I'm not going to be that racist shitfuck that sides with the crazy armed white guys against the police.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Feb 01, 2016 1:47 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:The truth is not relevant. Of course that is only my opinion.


When you start coming to conclusions like this, your opinion MIGHT be wrong.

Statements on social media do not take priority over the truth. Yes, his statements were moronic, but...we shouldn't kill people just because they said something dumb. That doesn't excuse it. I mean, you walk into the street, shoot a random guy, and after the fact comb his social media, you can probably find SOMETHING to paint him as a bad sort. Happens all the time.

His color is irrelevant, it's wrong either way.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby morriswalters » Mon Feb 01, 2016 4:24 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Statements on social media do not take priority over the truth.
Threaten my life on social media and I will shoot you if you frighten me enough. However that wasn't my point. What you see when you see the video is dependent on what you believed prior to watching it. The truth is more fragile. What was going through the individuals minds isn't available to us. The video shows what it shows. Our minds supply us with something we mistake for truth. It isn't. If it were then we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Feb 01, 2016 7:12 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Statements on social media do not take priority over the truth.
Threaten my life on social media and I will shoot you if you frighten me enough. However that wasn't my point. What you see when you see the video is dependent on what you believed prior to watching it. The truth is more fragile. What was going through the individuals minds isn't available to us. The video shows what it shows. Our minds supply us with something we mistake for truth. It isn't. If it were then we wouldn't be having this conversation.


Sure. But I can see that he's obviously not threatening the shooter, because he's not aware of the shooter until the shooter rushed him. And the unsteadiness is pretty obvious. If I can see it off a less than awesome camera mounted on a heli, then the person right there should also be able to see that.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby morriswalters » Mon Feb 01, 2016 7:47 pm UTC

We disagree, which is not to say you are wrong, but it speaks to how two different people can see the same thing from two points of view. And in effect, both be 'right'. And the person "right there" is in no better position, and maybe in a worse one. The main difference is that he has to act, it's what he is there for.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6785
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby sardia » Mon Feb 01, 2016 8:22 pm UTC

There are other actions besides shooting. They were trained to shoot first, so that's not an excuse. You can train then to do other things too.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Feb 01, 2016 8:35 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote: The main difference is that he has to act, it's what he is there for.


He is trained to be ABLE to act. Just because you are competent with a gun does not mean it is right to use it.

If someone is not presenting a threat, you should not kill them. Not even if they have previously said stupid words, or not been entirely compliant with police in the past. Shooting people is only justified to stop a reasonable threat in the present. The purpose of police is not to create a pile of corpses, but to mitigate harm.

Incidentally, more up to date information from the FBI confirms the use of flash bangs and firing OC capsules at the vehicle after shooting him. Now, granted, nobody died from that, but...it does seem as if they got a teensy bit aggressive. Nobody in the vehicle did any aggressive action. Not even after a lengthy period of that. It almost looks as if they were trying to provoke them into a move that would justify a pile of corpses.

I mean, they shot one of the other guys in the wrist(Payne) while his hands were out of the window and in the air. That seems difficult to justify. Incidentally, that was at the first roadblock, which sort of explains panicky behavior. If you've stopped, and cops just start shooting...well, that casts his decision to try to leave in a different light, doesn't it? Sure, sure, the ranchers could lie, but...Payne got out of the vehicle. So, he literally could not have incurred that injury at the second stop.

Police apparently fired hundreds of rounds in total. Exact count unavailable so far as I can tell.

Chen
Posts: 5570
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby Chen » Mon Feb 01, 2016 8:47 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:I mean, they shot one of the other guys in the wrist(Payne) while his hands were out of the window and in the air. That seems difficult to justify. Incidentally, that was at the first roadblock, which sort of explains panicky behavior. If you've stopped, and cops just start shooting...well, that casts his decision to try to leave in a different light, doesn't it? Sure, sure, the ranchers could lie, but...Payne got out of the vehicle. So, he literally could not have incurred that injury at the second stop.

Police apparently fired hundreds of rounds in total. Exact count unavailable so far as I can tell.


Where did you read this? I saw one article that talked about similar stuff but it seemed pretty sketchy (This). Most of the other reports say that Ryan Bundy was the other person who was injured by gunshot, not Ryan Payne.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby morriswalters » Mon Feb 01, 2016 9:00 pm UTC

sardia wrote:There are other actions besides shooting. They were trained to shoot first, so that's not an excuse. You can train then to do other things too.
Sure. And armed protesters don't need to be armed either. Is there a point in this somewhere? My post isn't about what might have been, it is about what was. In the hypothetical I would take away everybody's guns, including law enforcement's, which would serve your point. That isn't the world we live in.

And if I was in law enforcement in this situation currently my mantra would be shoot first, since by definition it implies that the alternative is for the other guy to shoot first. Happy talk about being sure, in the situation under discussion, is simply that. This isn't Ferguson. You conveniently forget what happened at the Bundy family ranch and the Feds walked rather than risk it. So it isn't hard to believe that LE was afraid of a firefight.
Tyndmyr wrote:I mean, they shot one of the other guys in the wrist(Payne) while his hands were out of the window and in the air. That seems difficult to justify. Incidentally, that was at the first roadblock, which sort of explains panicky behavior. If you've stopped, and cops just start shooting...well, that casts his decision to try to leave in a different light, doesn't it? Sure, sure, the ranchers could lie, but...Payne got out of the vehicle. So, he literally could not have incurred that injury at the second stop.

Police apparently fired hundreds of rounds in total. Exact count unavailable so far as I can tell.
Yeah I ran across this as well. I used my sniff test on it. It failed. To start with I doubt if you can count that reliably with someone shooting at you, and eyewitness statements have a tendency to veer from reality. When Lavoy was shot the groups were separated by some distance. As is usual in these discussions everyone is in front of the facts. The post mortem on Lavoy hasn't been released. That will tell us how many times he was shot. Sooner rather than later someone will go on the record with how many guns were discharged. Certainly in court it will be disclosed.

User avatar
natraj
Posts: 1890
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 10:13 pm UTC
Location: away from Omelas

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby natraj » Mon Feb 01, 2016 9:10 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:And if I was in law enforcement in this situation currently my mantra would be shoot first, since by definition it implies that the alternative is for the other guy to shoot first.


what, no. that is a deliberately obtuse misinterpretation of what 'shoot first' implies. it is not 'shoot first before the other person', it is 'shoot first before you have had a chance to assess the situation'. the statement is typically followed by 'shoot first ask questions later', not by 'shoot first before the other guy does'. you should absolutely not be shooting before you have had a chance to figure out whether or not you are actually, in fact, in danger and need to be shooting.
You want to know the future, love? Then wait:
I'll answer your impatient questions. Still --
They'll call it chance, or luck, or call it Fate,
The cards and stars that tumble as they will.

pronouns: they or he


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: mashnut and 8 guests