Bundyite militia seizes federal building

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

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

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

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby morriswalters » Sat Jan 09, 2016 5:30 pm UTC

sardia wrote:There's kids on that compound who haven't met anyone not crazy in 15 years? How is this OK in any way?
I never said it was okay, it is what it is. However you had never heard of it had you?

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby sardia » Sun Jan 10, 2016 6:23 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:
sardia wrote:There's kids on that compound who haven't met anyone not crazy in 15 years? How is this OK in any way?
I never said it was okay, it is what it is. However you had never heard of it had you?

I honestly don't care about any individual person, no matter how tragic it is. However, other people aren't me and are usually concerned about public interest stories, like a cat stuck in a tree or a white girl gone missing. If this has gone on for 15 years, it seems that the public officials have decided to concede their duty because it's easier to give in to right wing extremists. That's much more interesting; the idea that I could avoid charges out there if I threatened enough people with guns. Like if I got a speeding ticket out there, I could just take over the court house, and threaten to take down everyone who approaches me until the charges are dropped. This signals that there's something deeply wrong with that area. I've been to plenty of country towns and nobody acts like this. Being conservative is one thing, but hunkering down at every attempt to enforce the rules is kinda disturbing.

The excuses I'm hearing from the "conservatives" on this are
1. They're just outliers and aren't representative of us.
2. They'll die of old age, it's fine to let them do what they want.
3. I support them but I don't want anyone to know I share their beliefs too.
I found it especially rich that maintaining law and order for people who break the law this badly is considered to be a secret Stalinist agenda for liberals...*cough*leady is #3*cough*

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/won ... heir-guns/
In other words, people tend to believe conspiracy theories when they feel like they're losing. Fully 79 percent of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents say their side loses more than it wins in politics, according to a recent poll by the Pew Research Center, compared to 52 percent of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents. Whether Republicans really do lack political power is another question. "They control the Senate. They control the House. They control a lot of state governments and governors' mansions," said Kyle Saunders, a political scientist at Colorado State University. Indeed, Republicans hold 68 out of 98 partisan state legislative chambers, more than ever before in GOP history.

This is the key point, and big cause for a lot of this rebellion bullshit. If you always think you're losing and the country is going the wrong way, than it doesn't matter if you break a few laws or threaten a bunch of people. If this was just an isolated attempt, than yea it doesn't matter. There's on-the-ground support behind every insurgency, so they're being supported by mainstream groups who don't want to admit it.

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

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Jan 11, 2016 4:28 pm UTC

sardia wrote:
morriswalters wrote:
sardia wrote:There's kids on that compound who haven't met anyone not crazy in 15 years? How is this OK in any way?
I never said it was okay, it is what it is. However you had never heard of it had you?

I honestly don't care about any individual person, no matter how tragic it is. However, other people aren't me and are usually concerned about public interest stories, like a cat stuck in a tree or a white girl gone missing. If this has gone on for 15 years, it seems that the public officials have decided to concede their duty because it's easier to give in to right wing extremists. That's much more interesting; the idea that I could avoid charges out there if I threatened enough people with guns. Like if I got a speeding ticket out there, I could just take over the court house, and threaten to take down everyone who approaches me until the charges are dropped.


Alone, you can't do that. People who try that, well, it ends badly.

In a big enough armed group, you can definitely do that. And always have been able to do so. How much is "big enough", and how much backlash groups short of that receive varies. I mean, in Russia, this would probably result in a whole pile of corpses, including any innocents that got in the way of "solving the problem". We take a different route. Generally speaking, I prefer the US approach.

Well, usually we take a different route. There have been instances like Waco, but those are usually viewed as examples of what not to do.

I'm also kind of unhappy about kids being isolated for fifteen years...that seems wildly unreasonable, but it's still better than solutions that result in lots of dead people.

Dauric wrote:
morriswalters wrote:Whoever controls the land will want to exercise that control. Bundy wouldn't be any more happy if the land adjacent to his was turned into a strip mine or an open pit copper mine. Or if a richer cattle operation chose to starve his cattle by denying him access.


I completely agree. However their parochial view of the universe makes them immediately more suspicious of the federal government than their neighbor.


Both entirely correct. The Bundy folks definitely have some self interest at play here...but if that's all that existed, this wouldn't have any traction. You don't get a movement without broader grievances. Distrust of federal government is strong, and poverty is of course an issue as well. Well, a kind of poverty. Lotsa land, but in terms of actual money available to spend on themselves, not a ton.

And, to some extent, that distrust is sort of justified. They often have comparatively little pull, and thus, most interactions involve some new restriction being imposed on them. If every interaction between two groups is negative, you're going to see some animosity there.

sardia wrote:But it's not their land, nor are they trying to buy it. It's always a balancing act between environmental and business concerns, but this isn't it. Like me and my school buddies could have equal claim and say they should save the land for our hiking trip. How is my claim any less valid?


Hiking trips and cattle grazing are not particularly exclusive uses. We're talking about immense areas of land, too. It's not as if there's anything like a shortage of hiking trails out there. Out east, that may sound like a valid thing to be concerned about, but out west, that's just not a scarce resource.

As for the wildlife, well, there are government studies showing that the public parks produce wildlife worse than privately owned stuff. At least, with regards to this area. You have to keep in mind that the park ranger/acre ratio is ridiculously high, and thus, there is only so much they can actually *do*. Things like fencing the land off are things they try to fight because of the time/expense involved. Out east, the idea of fencing being an immense cost is a little strange, but when you're dealing with immense areas of land and very few people, it becomes quite significant.

As for the buying, generally, the federal gov will not sell. There is no "trying to buy", in that it's not listed as for sale. This is exacerbated when the federal government already owns a great deal of the land, and is routinely claiming more for environmental reasons. Land goes into federal ownership, but doesn't come back out. And if you ALSO can't use it for grazing, etc, well...it basically becomes an economic black hole that slowly eats away at the area. From a ranching perspective, anyway. You may well value the environment more highly than them, but it IS implausible that current federal land ownership is driven primarily by environmental needs, given the distribution of federal land ownership. Given that a lot of this land taking is kinda enforced, with compensation being set by the government....yeah, the fed government is about as popular among ranchers as it was with native americans back when it was doing the same to them.

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

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby Djehutynakht » Wed Jan 27, 2016 3:37 am UTC

Ammon Bundy arrested, one killed in clash.

I guess that's progress.


I have to admit, I haven't been following this story well. The article says they were apprehended at a traffic stop. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't he supposed to be, you know, occupying a building or something? How'd he end up at a traffic stop?

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

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby KnightExemplar » Wed Jan 27, 2016 4:37 am UTC

Not necessarily. They could have been taking shifts or maybe it was Bundy's turn to pick up the Internet's shipment of dildos (and other sex toys) to the group.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

KittenKaboodle
Posts: 162
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 6:36 am UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby KittenKaboodle » Wed Jan 27, 2016 4:54 am UTC

It's right there in your link; "According to the Oregonian newspaper, Mr Bundy was en route to a community meeting in John Day, Oregon, where he was scheduled to be a guest speaker, when authorities stopped his vehicle."

If one goes back to the first page of this thread, in between the nerve gas and hellfire missiles, some people have pointed out that the protesters would eventually have to leave for supplies (or publicity), with the implication that the authorities could pick them up on the road without having to resort an armored assault.
It would be funny if the meeting was an FBI fabrication.

Since the possessing the refuge itself was probably not their goal, but rather publicity, a Shakespeare quote might not be out of place:
"For 'tis the sport to have the enginer Hoist with his own petar';"

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

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby KnightExemplar » Wed Jan 27, 2016 6:09 am UTC

Still, since someone died, this is now potentially a "potential police misbehavior" situation. I hope they've had the cameras rolling, and can justify the shooting. Even if it is justified, the militia have a martyr to rally behind...
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
EdgarJPublius
Official Propagandi.... Nifty Poster Guy
Posts: 3726
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:56 am UTC
Location: where the wind takes me

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby EdgarJPublius » Wed Jan 27, 2016 6:24 am UTC

I believe it's been reported previously that members of the occupation had been out gathering supplies, meeting with media and escorting people around the refuge pretty much since the beginning. Although this may be the first time a large enough group was outside the occupied area, or the first time the leader was outside, I don't know.

It's early still, I'm sure more information will be forthcoming.
Roosevelt wrote:
I wrote:Does Space Teddy Roosevelt wrestle Space Bears and fight the Space Spanish-American War with his band of Space-volunteers the Space Rough Riders?

Yes.

-still unaware of the origin and meaning of his own user-title

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

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby leady » Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:16 am UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:Still, since someone died, this is now potentially a "potential police misbehavior" situation. I hope they've had the cameras rolling, and can justify the shooting. Even if it is justified, the militia have a martyr to rally behind...


Can't you just taste the moral consistency?

commodorejohn
Posts: 1197
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 6:21 pm UTC
Location: Placerville, CA
Contact:

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby commodorejohn » Wed Jan 27, 2016 2:43 pm UTC

I wonder if the posters who were advocating human-sacrifice first-strike policy earlier in the thread are disappointed because only one of the protestors was killed?
"'Legacy code' often differs from its suggested alternative by actually working and scaling."
- Bjarne Stroustrup
www.commodorejohn.com - in case you were wondering, which you probably weren't.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby Izawwlgood » Wed Jan 27, 2016 3:01 pm UTC

leady wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:Still, since someone died, this is now potentially a "potential police misbehavior" situation. I hope they've had the cameras rolling, and can justify the shooting. Even if it is justified, the militia have a martyr to rally behind...


Can't you just taste the moral consistency?

If there was police misconduct, I'm sure we'll hear about it. Or maybe we won't, because law authorities are only rarely held accountable.

I'm a bit confused - are you guys angry that... people earlier were right in predicting the Bundyites were going to get violent and result in a shoot out?
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

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

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Jan 27, 2016 3:29 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:Still, since someone died, this is now potentially a "potential police misbehavior" situation. I hope they've had the cameras rolling, and can justify the shooting. Even if it is justified, the militia have a martyr to rally behind...


Police say the guy pulled a weapon. His buds said that he had his hands in the air.

Not surprising, I suppose, but still disappointing.

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

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby KnightExemplar » Wed Jan 27, 2016 3:55 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:Still, since someone died, this is now potentially a "potential police misbehavior" situation. I hope they've had the cameras rolling, and can justify the shooting. Even if it is justified, the militia have a martyr to rally behind...


Police say the guy pulled a weapon. His buds said that he had his hands in the air.

Not surprising, I suppose, but still disappointing.


100% expected. Unless there's camera footage from either side (and Federal officers ought to have the best practices by now...), I'm not going to believe anybody. If the FBI were in charge of the arrest, we might have some hope that they followed proper procedure. It could have been Oregon police forces however, and that's seems to be a crapshot.

Still, the situation remains extremely stressed. The shootout might actually happen now.
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 » Wed Jan 27, 2016 4:17 pm UTC

I'm gonna guess that despite the feds knowing what cameras are, and media being everywhere, there will be a surprising lack of footage. I'm with you in not believing either side here unless footage somehow turns up. Both sides are highly motivated to claim what they are, no real reason to believe either.

And yeah...once there's blood, things often turn ugly. People are going to be a lot twitchier now, and the potential for things turning into a nightmare just got a lot worse. Hopefully there's a bit of a backoff to let things calm down for a minute.

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

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby morriswalters » Wed Jan 27, 2016 5:15 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:Still, since someone died, this is now potentially a "potential police misbehavior" situation.
Actually this is one of the smartest moves the law dogs have made. The Bundy's were either optimists or idiots. As long as they were sheltered in the facility they were safe. Instead they traveled to a public speaking venue. The Feds now have the faces of the occupation in custody, alive and pretty much unharmed. And now that they have moved they can isolate the remainder and starve them out. As for the reports that one was shot with his hands up, for me to accept that as anything approaching the truth, you would have to answer the question of why the Staties or the Feds would? I know the default here is that the police are bloodthirsty, trigger happy morons, but this wasn't off the cuff. They didn't just happen to run into these guys during a random traffic stop.

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

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Jan 27, 2016 5:21 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:Still, since someone died, this is now potentially a "potential police misbehavior" situation.
Actually this is one of the smartest moves the law dogs have made. The Bundy's were either optimists or idiots. As long as they were sheltered in the facility they were safe. Instead they traveled to a public speaking venue. The Feds now have the faces of the occupation in custody, alive and pretty much unharmed. And now that they have moved they can isolate the remainder and starve them out. As for the reports that one was shot with his hands up, for me to accept that as anything approaching the truth, you would have to answer the question of why the Staties or the Feds would? I know the default here is that the police are bloodthirsty, trigger happy morons, but this wasn't off the cuff. They didn't just happen to run into these guys during a random traffic stop.


They've been travelling in and out for a while now. Apprehending folks when they're split up is reasonable, but I'm not going to give too many points for creating a conflict where someone died.

Also, they kinda killed one, dude. And shot another, I hear. That's not exactly a great score for alive and unharmed. And starving the lot out could happen regardless. More mouths are actually harder to feed.

The idea that police are only bloodthirsty, trigger happy morons in off the cuff events is also kind of odd. There are any number of incidents where they deliberately engage in violence because they can. This could be anything from a good shoot, to overly twitchy, to "screw those guys, let's bag 'em if we get an excuse". We just don't have any real way to know.

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

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby KnightExemplar » Wed Jan 27, 2016 5:22 pm UTC

faces of the occupation in custody, alive and pretty much unharmed


One's dead. That's hardly unharmed... far away from a "Waco" but still... that's definitely not how I assess the situation. (And the "Waco" might still happen, as tensions are high in the Wildlife Center). In any case, the official explanation is going to come within an hour or so. Here's to hoping for camera evidence.

In any case, I don't believe anyone is bloodthirsty. Both sides were armed to the teeth, and it just makes a peaceful resolution harder to achieve. The fact that the guy who was killed has Facebook postings saying "he won't be taken to prison alive" isn't helping the case at all (but I can believe that a smart officer would have targeted him). Yes: That's the guy who died. The one all over Youtube and Facebook saying he'll die before getting arrested. That makes me lean towards the Police honestly, but this is 2016 with a case handled by the FBI (the most prestigious of Federal Police Forces) and I expect video proof of the event.

I am patient though. I understand if the FBI will withhold the video evidence until after the public trial of these guys (Prosecutors gotta prosecute. You don't want to reveal what hard evidence you have until the trial). But sometime down the road (in the next year or so), I more or less demand that the video of this event be released (if it exists at all). If it doesn't exist, that's a massive failure on the part of the FBI.

Actually this is one of the smartest moves the law dogs have made. The Bundy's were either optimists or idiots. As long as they were sheltered in the facility they were safe. Instead they traveled to a public speaking venue.


Nominally, the Bundy folk were protesters, and speaking publicly about the issue is their goal. For better or for worse, they have brought attention to the issue of Federal Land Management in Western States. There have been high-level talks airing on CSPAN (sponsored by the Heritage Foundation fyi), and I've been hearing more and more about the issue. So from a protest perspective, the Bundy folk are successful at sending a message and starting the conversation.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby sardia » Wed Jan 27, 2016 6:02 pm UTC

commodorejohn wrote:I wonder if the posters who were advocating human-sacrifice first-strike policy earlier in the thread are disappointed because only one of the protestors was killed?

I wonder if you'll ever recognize the contradiction in how non whites are treated in comparison. Also, I like how coming in to arrest protestors unarmed is terrible. Is it because how bloodthirsty the protestors are? Or more likely it is because you empathize with whites but ignore the plight of darkies.

I'm surprised they let the munchy trips slide for this long. The motivations behind the feds here are long complicated and nuanced. Still preferential compared to how minorities are treated. What explains the care the feds are taking? they have sympathizers in their midst. Note how Indians who also claim land belongs to them. Should we seize all the militia men's assets and put them on reservations? At least we should shoot their trespassing cows.

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

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Jan 27, 2016 6:21 pm UTC

sardia wrote:
commodorejohn wrote:I wonder if the posters who were advocating human-sacrifice first-strike policy earlier in the thread are disappointed because only one of the protestors was killed?

I wonder if you'll ever recognize the contradiction in how non whites are treated in comparison. Also, I like how coming in to arrest protestors unarmed is terrible. Is it because how bloodthirsty the protestors are? Or more likely it is because you empathize with whites but ignore the plight of darkies.


Eh, dude, you're the one using terms like "darkies".

I don't think anyone here was advocating for more violence against minorities. In fact, we have a rather long thread regarding police violence which many of us have participated in, and which definitely includes discussion of improper violence against minorities. You're really, really reaching for that hypocrisy goal here, but the only person using racist terminology is you.

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

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby morriswalters » Wed Jan 27, 2016 6:40 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:They've been travelling in and out for a while now. Apprehending folks when they're split up is reasonable, but I'm not going to give too many points for creating a conflict where someone died.
With all due respect, the Bundy's created the conflict. The Feds have shown massive restraint.
KnightExemplar wrote:Nominally, the Bundy folk were protesters, and speaking publicly about the issue is their goal.
No doubt, but the object of their protest was not on that road. And the Bundy's are in jail now.
KnightExemplar wrote:One's dead. That's hardly unharmed... far away from a "Waco" but still... that's definitely not how I assess the situation.
I was speaking of the Bundy's.
KnightExemplar wrote:So from a protest perspective, the Bundy folk are successful at sending a message and starting the conversation.
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.

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

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby KnightExemplar » Wed Jan 27, 2016 6:44 pm UTC

sardia wrote:I'm surprised they let the munchy trips slide for this long. The motivations behind the feds here are long complicated and nuanced. Still preferential compared to how minorities are treated. What explains the care the feds are taking? they have sympathizers in their midst. Note how Indians who also claim land belongs to them. Should we seize all the militia men's assets and put them on reservations? At least we should shoot their trespassing cows.


Because they're feds and not backwater, underpaid cops. FBI requirements include college education and training for every agent. I expect the typical FBI agent to be better at their job than a random cop from an underpaid 40-person police force with a history of racial issues.

Note that the FBI took the side of Ferguson Protesters in the Michael Brown case. Note that the FBI took the side of Travon Martin. The issue is that murder is a state-crime and therefore the federal prosecutors have no power in either the Michael Brown or Travon Martin cases. The only federal crime is "Hate Crime", so the FBI would have had to prove that Michael Brown / Travon Martin were explicitly racial crimes... beyond a reasonable doubt. But considering that the self-defense pleas worked in the state courtrooms, it seems unlikely that federal prosecutors would have much success in the federal courtrooms.

Taking over a federal building however, is totally a federal crime. So the FBI has the power to arrest (by force) these militia members.
Last edited by KnightExemplar on Wed Jan 27, 2016 6:53 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 » Wed Jan 27, 2016 6:52 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:They've been travelling in and out for a while now. Apprehending folks when they're split up is reasonable, but I'm not going to give too many points for creating a conflict where someone died.
With all due respect, the Bundy's created the conflict. The Feds have shown massive restraint.


You're very focused on the Bundy's. You realize they are not the only protesters there, right?

The guy who was shot wasn't some random, he was the co-leader of the group. You're framing this as if the only people who matter in this narrative are the Bundy folks, but that's not actually the case. Sure, the cowboys started the confrontation overall, but that doesn't necessarily excuse violence. One could say the same about any number of protesters, but we generally accept that a certain degree of restraint and not killing people is preferable, even when protesters confront the government.

Now, if the guy actually drew on the cops, sure. Good shoot. But we're a bit short on evidence for that just yet. All we have is the word of the cops involved. That seems a little insufficient to be jumping to the conclusion that the cops are right. I know that's a thing people often do, but...it's just not right.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby sardia » Wed Jan 27, 2016 7:04 pm UTC

Is this entirely a federal matter? What happened to the local cops?

Part of the restraint shown is due to the show of force by the white militias/protestors. However you are ignoring the long-standing history of minor rebellion in this area.

I thought the Fed's pretty much gave up managing the area already?

Tyndmyr, prejudice and racism today isn't about advocating harm, is about giving preferential treatment to those similar to yourself. That means nonwhites are faced with every rule in the book, and whites get consideration of their special circumstances. A major part of the civil rights movement was to make whites face the uncomfortable truth so whites would be motivated to change things.

I still find it funny that these libertarians were screwed over by their own party. They have a weak local economy but the social safety net was dismantled by conservatives. they are angry at how dependent they are on the government. Except they would never admit that their freedom/independence is a lie funded by the government.

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

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby KnightExemplar » Wed Jan 27, 2016 7:09 pm UTC

sardia wrote:Is this entirely a federal matter? What happened to the local cops?


This is mostly a federal matter, because the alleged crime is occurring on federal property. The rules for federal vs state issues are arcane and mystic... but it seems like this case is explicitly federal.
Last edited by KnightExemplar on Wed Jan 27, 2016 7:10 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3997
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 » Wed Jan 27, 2016 7:10 pm UTC

sardia wrote:Is this entirely a federal matter? What happened to the local cops?


Federal Reserves such as national parks or military bases, aren't covered by "local" cops, they're technically outside the local police force jurisdictions, even if the reserve itself is surrounded by a single local precinct. Crimes that happen on Federal Reserves are handled exclusively by federal agencies.
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.

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

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby Ryan123 » Wed Jan 27, 2016 7:15 pm UTC

Dauric wrote:
sardia wrote:Is this entirely a federal matter? What happened to the local cops?


Federal Reserves such as national parks or military bases, aren't covered by "local" cops, they're technically outside the local police force jurisdictions, even if the reserve itself is surrounded by a single local precinct. Crimes that happen on Federal Reserves are handled exclusively by federal agencies.


Actually many of the reserves/parks/etc being small and without LE will deffer to local cops, but usually the big ones, with their own LE or another Federal LE office being near by, will handle things on the federal level. It's actually kind of a pain for many of the Federal LE's out there because they might have to travel well over 200 miles for an arrainment. The Park Service actually has some of the toughest requirements for Law Enforcement Officers around.

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

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Jan 27, 2016 7:16 pm UTC

sardia wrote:Is this entirely a federal matter? What happened to the local cops?

Part of the restraint shown is due to the show of force by the white militias/protestors. However you are ignoring the long-standing history of minor rebellion in this area.

I thought the Fed's pretty much gave up managing the area already?

Tyndmyr, prejudice and racism today isn't about advocating harm, is about giving preferential treatment to those similar to yourself. That means nonwhites are faced with every rule in the book, and whites get consideration of their special circumstances. A major part of the civil rights movement was to make whites face the uncomfortable truth so whites would be motivated to change things.


It is entirely valid to bring up mitigating circumstances in cases where folks are ignoring them. It's...less sensitive to use perjorative words. Even inserting them into the mouth of your opposition via strawman.

And frankly, folks here are usually willing to entertain the idea that minorities are discriminated against. That isn't news, dude. It's preaching to the choir, but in a way that seems as if you don't realize it.

I still find it funny that these libertarians were screwed over by their own party. They have a weak local economy but the social safety net was dismantled by conservatives. they are angry at how dependent they are on the government. Except they would never admit that their freedom/independence is a lie funded by the government.


What? In your head is there some giant box marked "right wing people" or something that you just categorize everyone into?

Libertarians do not hold a great deal of power. They enjoy the usual electoral success of third parties, which is...not much. Describing the republican party as libertarian is about as correct as describing the democratic party as socialists.

In any case, nobody here is really protesting for more social safety net. That's not the source of the conflict. It's a perceived systemic injustice. Throwing a few more or less dollars into social safety nets would not appreciably alter this conflict.

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

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby morriswalters » Wed Jan 27, 2016 7:27 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:You realize they are not the only protesters there, right?
Yes, however who was the voice?
Tyndmyr wrote:Sure, the cowboys started the confrontation overall, but that doesn't necessarily excuse violence. One could say the same about any number of protesters, but we generally accept that a certain degree of restraint and not killing people is preferable, even when protesters confront the government.
Sometimes, like it or not, violence is what happens. The protesters made a choice, they loudly said that only violence could make them leave, and they had called for help. How much restraint are the people on the scene supposed to exercise? Law enforcement and isolated them and arrested them. And someone died. Until or unless data shows that the officers did something my default assumption, given the lag till they acted and the place they chose, is to give them the benefit of the doubt. Oregon State Police, the local Sheriff and the FBI were evidently at the stop.

commodorejohn
Posts: 1197
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 6:21 pm UTC
Location: Placerville, CA
Contact:

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby commodorejohn » Wed Jan 27, 2016 7:28 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
sardia wrote:
commodorejohn wrote:I wonder if the posters who were advocating human-sacrifice first-strike policy earlier in the thread are disappointed because only one of the protestors was killed?

I wonder if you'll ever recognize the contradiction in how non whites are treated in comparison. Also, I like how coming in to arrest protestors unarmed is terrible. Is it because how bloodthirsty the protestors are? Or more likely it is because you empathize with whites but ignore the plight of darkies.

Eh, dude, you're the one using terms like "darkies".

I don't think anyone here was advocating for more violence against minorities. In fact, we have a rather long thread regarding police violence which many of us have participated in, and which definitely includes discussion of improper violence against minorities. You're really, really reaching for that hypocrisy goal here, but the only person using racist terminology is you.

This is sardia you're talking to, he apparently uses some interesting new definition of "you" that means "not actually you at all, but instead some hypothetical strawman who is posing the arguments that I want to counter even if you yourself actually completely agree on those points."
"'Legacy code' often differs from its suggested alternative by actually working and scaling."
- Bjarne Stroustrup
www.commodorejohn.com - in case you were wondering, which you probably weren't.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby sardia » Wed Jan 27, 2016 7:34 pm UTC

But a few more dollars thrown to land use will? They're hardly paying anything for the land now. In addition, the land management agency is pretty rancher friendly. I dunno about you but you can't eat freedom or raise kids on it alone. They are dependent on government largess. http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/ ... -in-oregon

What makes you think that "freedom" or local control will solve their problems?

These guys are tea party folks, they only claim the libertarian mantle because it sounds better. Remember all the budget battles where the Democrats compromised and cut a bunch spending? This is partly a result.

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

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Jan 27, 2016 7:39 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:You realize they are not the only protesters there, right?
Yes, however who was the voice?


Well, this was the guy they put on the air the day before to act as their spokesman, so...yeah, the one they killed.

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

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby Ryan123 » Wed Jan 27, 2016 8:02 pm UTC

sardia wrote:What makes you think that "freedom" or local control will solve their problems?

These guys are tea party folks, they only claim the libertarian mantle because it sounds better. Remember all the budget battles where the Democrats compromised and cut a bunch spending? This is partly a result.


I agree. I don't get this whole Freedom Argument. Yes its Freedom for the Ranchers, but anyone else who wants to utilize the land, including the local Community, Native Americans, and the rest of America, are apparently not welcome. And even the ranchers living next to the reserve don't want anything to do with this protest. Lets look at this as it truly is... Only a 12 year old would respond to "no you can't have that" by stealing and then hiding it so no one, including themselves, can actually use it.

I'm all for protecting freedom, but not when the end result is the majority of Americans loosing their freedom - public lands are owned by and open to everyone. If you give into these ranchers you will have to give into every other business and organization - do that and North America will be one large strip mine from California to New York. Turn it over to local control - I'm sure that won't lead to sky rocketing taxes, big business taking over (completely restricting access), or anything else like that.

Mutex
Posts: 1491
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby Mutex » Wed Jan 27, 2016 8:06 pm UTC

Yeah, it's a common thing for people to argue in favour of "freedom" when really they mean "the freedom for me and me alone to do what I want". You still get people openly bemoaning the fact they don't have the freedom to stop other people getting married, for example.

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

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Jan 27, 2016 8:14 pm UTC

Ryan123 wrote:
sardia wrote:What makes you think that "freedom" or local control will solve their problems?

These guys are tea party folks, they only claim the libertarian mantle because it sounds better. Remember all the budget battles where the Democrats compromised and cut a bunch spending? This is partly a result.


I agree. I don't get this whole Freedom Argument. Yes its Freedom for the Ranchers, but anyone else who wants to utilize the land, including the local Community, Native Americans, and the rest of America, are apparently not welcome. And even the ranchers living next to the reserve don't want anything to do with this protest. Lets look at this as it truly is... Only a 12 year old would respond to "no you can't have that" by stealing and then hiding it so no one, including themselves, can actually use it.


There is a legit issue with public lands, but...I agree that the particular way they're going about it is sort of odd.

I'm all for protecting freedom, but not when the end result is the majority of Americans loosing their freedom - public lands are owned by and open to everyone. If you give into these ranchers you will have to give into every other business and organization - do that and North America will be one large strip mine from California to New York. Turn it over to local control - I'm sure that won't lead to sky rocketing taxes, big business taking over (completely restricting access), or anything else like that.


Meh. That doesn't seem to follow. We could accept that there's a proper level of US government land, and that it is neither the current level, nor is it zero. Really, I can't think of a plausible reason why so much western land needs to be federal when the same is not true of the east.

As for local control, well...the eastern states do not seem to be a libertarian dystopia. Sure, they tax you, but...everywhere taxes you, honestly. Usually privately owned land is subject to some taxes. Probably not that much, given the lower value of grazing land, in these cases, but whatever. Doesn't seem like a big deal on a financial level.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby sardia » Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:01 pm UTC

By state control of land, that just means the state eats the cost of managing the land and then we have the same ranchers complaining how they cannot afford to pay the state jack booted thugs. What the ranchers really want is wealth. They can't make a profit at current prices, so they need vast quantities of land at fire sale, aka free, prices.

The reason the government owns so much of the land is because nobody wanted it besides the Indians. Iirc, by the time people realized they could sorta make money ranching, it was too late. The reason the feds own it instead of the state is because of efficiency. States can't afford to blow money on a wasteland. The feds can.

Is any of the above in dispute?

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

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:04 pm UTC

sardia wrote:By state control of land, that just means the state eats the cost of managing the land and then we have the same ranchers complaining how they cannot afford to pay the state jack booted thugs. What the ranchers really want is wealth. They can't make a profit at current prices, so they need vast quantities of land at fire sale, aka free, prices.

The reason the government owns so much of the land is because nobody wanted it besides the Indians. Iirc, by the time people realized they could sorta make money ranching, it was too late. The reason the feds own it instead of the state is because of efficiency. States can't afford to blow money on a wasteland. The feds can.

Is any of the above in dispute?


If they are "blowing money on a wasteland", then why shouldn't they sell it instead? Even at fire sale prices, if those are the best available?

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby sardia » Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:19 pm UTC

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.

Spoiler:
[I've heard that I can get free land from BLM, what can you tell me about this?

There is not any free public land. Americans have always had to pay for the land in cash, military service, or in the case of homesteads, by living on and developing the land before they received title. Congress abolished homesteading in 1976 with passage of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, which made it a national policy to retain most public lands in federal ownership. Today, BLM manages these public lands for all Americans, who enjoy numerous economic benefits from these lands, including: revenue from mineral leasing, livestock grazing, forest products, rights of way, as well as recreational opportunities such as camping, hiking, hunting, and fishing.
I've seen an advertisement that says I can buy low-cost land from BLM, is that true?

No. On the rare occasion the BLM - Eastern States Office offers land for sale, it is always at fair market value, as the law requires. Fair market value is determined for each parcel by using established appraisal procedures, based on the value of comparable properties. A private advertisement may ask you to send in money for information about how to buy land for as little as $1.25 an acre. Read the ad carefully, and be cautious about sending money to the advertiser. On that very rare and unusual instance when we actually do offer land for sale, we will provide you accurate information free of charge. Your best source is the BLM Field Office with jurisdiction over the area you are interested in. BLM field offices announce the availability of such land through the local media and on this web site.
Are there any public lands for sale from the BLM - Eastern States Office?

Not at this time. The BLM-managed parcels in the eastern United States are often isolated and unattractive for agricultural use. We sell government lands at or above the appraised fair-market price. This means they are no less expensive than privately owned lands sold through private companies. Also, we do not maintain a mailing list. Lands offered for sale will be listed on this web site.

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

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:49 pm UTC

You're dodging the question. I give zero craps about if the Bundy lot, in particular gets to buy the land.

But why not sell the land?

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby sardia » Wed Jan 27, 2016 10:12 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:You're dodging the question. I give zero craps about if the Bundy lot, in particular gets to buy the land.

But why not sell the land?

They could if they can convince the conservationists to roll over and if the ranchers can afford it.

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

Re: Bundyite militia seizes federal building

Postby morriswalters » Wed Jan 27, 2016 10:25 pm UTC

Look at a map of Nevada. If it is usable, it's being used. When they were giving it away, nobody wanted it. Take a close look at Las Vegas. Blow up the Hoover Dam and kiss that city goodby. They would die of thirst. What is selling the land suppose to accomplish?


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests