CDZ Oregon "Protest"...since when it what they are doing a legitimate form of protest?

[320 Years of History]

I don't have a problem with the folks in Oregon protesting on behalf of their friend. I do have a problem with their doing so absent a permit. I also have a problem with their taking over a federal wildlife refuge, the act of doing which would not be granted on any protest permit.

Now I see that the FBI is "taking a low profile" as goes the matter. Really? Why? What is lawful about breaking into a federal facility, heck, any facility to which one does not have authorized access at the time? The FBI needs to haul their asses in there, round up those SOBs, charge them with whatever applies, and hold them until they make bail or their trial date arrives.

• The right to protest and Know Your Rights: Free Speech, Protests & Demonstrations
• Oregon law regarding the exercise of the right to protest

Why is the FBI taking a "low profile?" I don't know, but looking at the photo of some of the key players, I'd say it's because they appear to be upper middle class to wealthy white folks who are behind what's going on.

Which amounts to a more casual version of this:

If the folks involved appeared to be and were in fact what the folks below appear to be, the FBI would be all over them like stink on a skunk.

Bottom line:

• If those Oregonians are lawfully protesting, fine. Let them do whatever their permit allows for however long it allows it.
• If those Oregonians are not lawfully protesting, get them the hell out of there and incarcerate/charge them with the appropriate crime.

 

[Stephanie]

lol, I didn't realize there was a book on the standard form on protesting's.

How is it that the BLMs can take over malls, airports, close down the citizens streets of travel etc etc. and that question isn't ever asked.

Is this group taking any skin of anyone's ass? besides protesting and holding off the tyrants of the government? isn't this only civil disobedience? , are they holding Citizens hostage, etc. ?

I'll take their way then have to deal with those thugs (BLM) who involves innocent American citizens in there BS. They aren't protesting they are causing harm and damage to others and they should be jailed. but they won't be because they are blacks leading it

 

[Eaglewings]

I marched in a few protests peacefully and it seems every time people come and make it a ugly mad violent scene, almost like they were put there to discredit the cause.

 

[CremeBrulee]

I think they are taking a "low profile", hands off, wait and see approach because of the negative publicity past situations generated. That is the right decision in my opinion. I don't see any connection to race or socioeconomic status though. If it is a matter of protest, permits, or trespass then a heavy law enforcement presence will only make things worse. That would play into the militia narrative too. The government certainly doesn't want another Waco or Ruby Ridge incident. However, the occupiers/supporters have stated their intention to remain on the site for years. If that is the case, cut any power or water to the buildings and wait. Sounds like winters are harsh there. Eventually they will need food and maybe water. I assume nobody will be allowed to resupply them legally. That leaves hunting which only increases the charges they could face. Arrest anyone that leaves. There is no need to make martyrs of them or create a cause like minded individuals may rally to.

 

[tinydancer]

After Waco anything goes.

 

[Mad Scientist]

So Americans need a "permit" to protest now?

 

[320 Years of History]

I think they are taking a "low profile", hands off, wait and see approach because of the negative publicity past situations generated. That is the right decision in my opinion. I don't see any connection to race or socioeconomic status though. If it is a matter of protest, permits, or trespass then a heavy law enforcement presence will only make things worse. That would play into the militia narrative too. The government certainly doesn't want another Waco or Ruby Ridge incident. However, the occupiers/supporters have stated their intention to remain on the site for years. If that is the case, cut any power or water to the buildings and wait. Sounds like winters are harsh there. Eventually they will need food and maybe water. I assume nobody will be allowed to resupply them legally. That leaves hunting which only increases the charges they could face. Arrest anyone that leaves. There is no need to make martyrs of them or create a cause like minded individuals may rally to.

Why it is that these folks are, in part, protesting the incarceration of a person who's been lawfully convicted of arson is beyond me. Indeed, the Hammods who've been convicted of arson have, through their attorney, have said they want nothing to do with the Bundys.

Brown:
I don't see the FBI's reticence to act decisively as a racial thing; I may be "blind," but I yet don't see it. I do believe the "kid glove" approach law enforcement are taking with them does is a socioeconomically motivated tack. What do you think would happen if someone stormed a federal facility in downtown Dallas or D.C? I seriously doubt anyone would stand around and say "let's just see what happens." The approach would be "you can right now cease, desist, surrender, and walk out with your hands up, or we're coming in to get you in the very near future."

What happens when poor folks take the streets of "pick a city" and riot, which isn't particularly different from forcibly taking over a federal facility? Cops show up in riot gear, start shooting tear gas into the crowd and hitting them with water cannons. Often enough the cops shoot someone with a gun.

Red:
Negative publicity or not. The FBI should not be "gun shy" because of that.

Blue:
Worse than what? Setting and showing to be successful/effective that citizens using criminal means -- in this case storming and occupying a federal facility, but who know what other means other folks seeing the precedent might use -- to get what they want do get what they want?

Purple:
Yes, they are harsh compared to the Ritz Carlton or even the Red Roof Inn. But they aren't that harsh. Inuit people live in Canada and Alaska and annually survive the winter. I think the folks in Oregon will do just fine if they have to endure the winter.

Pink:
It's a wildlife refuge, one that includes "a multitude of birds and other wildlife who make it their home, vast cattail and tule wetlands, lakes..and long corridors of riparian vegetation." I suspect there is ample food and water there. Since it's Oregon and not Chevy Chase that the occupiers came from, and I suspect they have guns and ammo and that over the course of a year, they could figure out how to hunt and forage so as to need neither.

Green:
They may die, and if they are willing and want to give their lives for the beliefs they are defending by having broken the law, well, I'd be more than happy to let them become martyrs if they push it to that point. I don't feel that they need to be destroyed, but if they leave law enforcement no alternative, so be it.

Look at all the folks who've been in the news of late and who did nothing wrong, and certainly nothing to the extent of storming and taking hold of a federal facility, and yet got killed by law enforcement. There was no need to make martyrs of them either, but they are six feet under aren't they?

 

[CremeBrulee]

What do you think would happen if someone stormed a federal facility in downtown Dallas or D.C? I seriously doubt anyone would stand around and say "let's just see what happens." The approach would be "you can right now cease, desist, surrender, and walk out with your hands up, or we're coming in to get you in the very near future."

What happens when poor folks take the streets of "pick a city" and riot, which isn't particularly different from forcibly taking over a federal facility? Cops show up in riot gear, start shooting tear gas into the crowd and hitting them with water cannons. Often enough the cops shoot someone with a gun.

The people in question are in an isolated area. It's not like they came in guns blazing and sent the staff running for their lives. The only thing likely disturbed were some windows and doors that were broken to gain entry to the empty buildings.

Negative publicity or not. The FBI should not be "gun shy" because of that.

They don't need to be trigger happy either.

Worse than what? Setting and showing to be successful/effective that citizens using criminal means -- in this case storming and occupying a federal facility, but who know what other means other folks seeing the precedent might use -- to get what they want do get what they want?

Needlessly putting law enforcement officers at risk. I question the use of the word "storming".

Yes, they are harsh compared to the Ritz Carlton or even the Red Roof Inn. But they aren't that harsh. Inuit people live in Canada and Alaska and annually survive the winter. I think the folks in Oregon will do just fine if they have to endure the winter.

The people in question aren't Inuits. I imagine winter storms at 4000-9000 ft. in the mountains of Oregon will be pretty rough on them. That was the biggest worry of Cliven Bundy in one of his recent statements.

It's a wildlife refuge, one that includes "a multitude of birds and other wildlife who make it their home, vast cattail and tule wetlands, lakes..and long corridors of riparian vegetation." I suspect there is ample food and water there. Since it's Oregon and not Chevy Chase that the occupiers came from, and I suspect they have guns and ammo and that over the course of a year, they could figure out how to hunt and forage so as to need neither.

I think you missed the point. Yes they can hunt but poaching on federal lands (a suspected cause of this mess) probably comes with a heavy price. I doubt these people are prepared to primitive camp and hunt for food to survive for "years". When they do leave/surrender and are taken into custody those charges should be prosecuted to the fullest.

They may die, and if they are willing and want to give their lives for the beliefs they are defending by having broken the law, well, I'd be more than happy to let them become martyrs if they push it to that point. I don't feel that they need to be destroyed, but if they leave law enforcement no alternative, so be it.

They claimed to be peaceful while hinting at the use of force to "protect" themselves. They are are in an isolated area and pose no threat to the public as far as I am aware. As long as this remains the case I see no need to respond in a manner that will almost certainly result in casualties on both sides. They will leave, of their own accord, sooner rather than later I suspect.

Look at all the folks who've been in the news of late and who did nothing wrong, and certainly nothing to the extent of storming and taking hold of a federal facility, and yet got killed by law enforcement. There was no need to make martyrs of them either, but they are six feet under aren't they?

That doesn't mean these individuals should be treated in the same way to prove justice is equal. The government has handled similar situations without the perpetrators or law enforcement losing their lives. The AIM occupation of Alcatraz and the Montana Freemen standoff come to mind. They were isolated and negotiations brought a bloodless end to the predicament. Hopefully that is what happens here.

 

[9thIDdoc]

What's wrong with those people?! Don't they know that for it to be a valid "protest" they are required to set things on fire loot and beat up anyone who doesn't look like them? Highly unprofessional! Black Lives Matter needs to send some instructors

 

[320 Years of History]

What's wrong with those people?! Don't they know that for it to be a valid "protest" they are required to set things on fire loot and beat up anyone who doesn't look like them? Highly unprofessional! Black Lives Matter needs to send some instructors

One doesn't need to do all that, but one does need a permit.

 

[320 Years of History]

What do you think would happen if someone stormed a federal facility in downtown Dallas or D.C? I seriously doubt anyone would stand around and say "let's just see what happens." The approach would be "you can right now cease, desist, surrender, and walk out with your hands up, or we're coming in to get you in the very near future."

What happens when poor folks take the streets of "pick a city" and riot, which isn't particularly different from forcibly taking over a federal facility? Cops show up in riot gear, start shooting tear gas into the crowd and hitting them with water cannons. Often enough the cops shoot someone with a gun.

The people in question are in an isolated area. It's not like they came in guns blazing and sent the staff running for their lives. The only thing likely disturbed were some windows and doors that were broken to gain entry to the empty buildings.

Negative publicity or not. The FBI should not be "gun shy" because of that.

They don't need to be trigger happy either.

Worse than what? Setting and showing to be successful/effective that citizens using criminal means -- in this case storming and occupying a federal facility, but who know what other means other folks seeing the precedent might use -- to get what they want do get what they want?

Needlessly putting law enforcement officers at risk. I question the use of the word "storming".

Yes, they are harsh compared to the Ritz Carlton or even the Red Roof Inn. But they aren't that harsh. Inuit people live in Canada and Alaska and annually survive the winter. I think the folks in Oregon will do just fine if they have to endure the winter.

The people in question aren't Inuits. I imagine winter storms at 4000-9000 ft. in the mountains of Oregon will be pretty rough on them. That was the biggest worry of Cliven Bundy in one of his recent statements.

It's a wildlife refuge, one that includes "a multitude of birds and other wildlife who make it their home, vast cattail and tule wetlands, lakes..and long corridors of riparian vegetation." I suspect there is ample food and water there. Since it's Oregon and not Chevy Chase that the occupiers came from, and I suspect they have guns and ammo and that over the course of a year, they could figure out how to hunt and forage so as to need neither.

I think you missed the point. Yes they can hunt but poaching on federal lands (a suspected cause of this mess) probably comes with a heavy price. I doubt these people are prepared to primitive camp and hunt for food to survive for "years". When they do leave/surrender and are taken into custody those charges should be prosecuted to the fullest.

They may die, and if they are willing and want to give their lives for the beliefs they are defending by having broken the law, well, I'd be more than happy to let them become martyrs if they push it to that point. I don't feel that they need to be destroyed, but if they leave law enforcement no alternative, so be it.

They claimed to be peaceful while hinting at the use of force to "protect" themselves. They are are in an isolated area and pose no threat to the public as far as I am aware. As long as this remains the case I see no need to respond in a manner that will almost certainly result in casualties on both sides. They will leave, of their own accord, sooner rather than later I suspect.

Look at all the folks who've been in the news of late and who did nothing wrong, and certainly nothing to the extent of storming and taking hold of a federal facility, and yet got killed by law enforcement. There was no need to make martyrs of them either, but they are six feet under aren't they?

That doesn't mean these individuals should be treated in the same way to prove justice is equal. The government has handled similar situations without the perpetrators or law enforcement losing their lives. The AIM occupation of Alcatraz and the Montana Freemen standoff come to mind. They were isolated and negotiations brought a bloodless end to the predicament. Hopefully that is what happens here.

Isolation, whether there are few or many others in the vicinity, etc. has nothing to do with the fact that they broke into a facility to which they lacked authorized access.

Green:
The only reason anyone is potentially at risk is because those folks broke into a federal facility without authorization and have subsequently refused to surrender. Had they obtained a permit and held their protest, nobody would have been or be at risk, and they would not be subject to prosecution.

Okay on "stoming." "Breaking and entering" is more accurate to describe what they did.

Red:
Well, if they aren't Inuits or otherwise lack they survival skills necessary to get by over the winter, they should have considered that before intimating that they would not surrender and may stay there for weeks, months or years. Maybe they did consider that and took the necessary supplies in there with them. I don't know. I know only that they are prepared enough to use potentially deadly force to stay there which means that even as they may not have thought to bring food and water, they did think to bring guns and ammo and they did not think of obtaining a permit (authorization) to be there.

Purple:
Perhaps you don't realize how right you are; they have moved beyond posing a threat. I don't know if you've checked the website for the wildlife preserve, but it is "closed until further notice." They have chosen to actively deny every other human on the planet the lawful opportunity to visit a national wildlife preserve. Insofar as that denial applies to U.S. citizens, they have unilaterally chosen to impinge upon your, mine and everyone else's right to enjoy one of the things our tax dollars pay for.

Brown:
You are right. They should be treated in the same way because justice must be meted out equally because that is the right way to execute justice, not in order to prove that such is true. Proving that justice is carried out without favoritism should have nothing to do with it.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Whats good for negroes in ferguson.....
Well not exactly,the white guys in Oregon havent burned anything down yet.

 

[Agit8r]

lol, I didn't realize there was a book on the standard form on protesting's.

How is it that the BLMs can take over malls, airports, close down the citizens streets of travel etc etc. and that question isn't ever asked.

Is this group taking any skin of anyone's ass? besides protesting and holding off the tyrants of the government? isn't this only civil disobedience? , are they holding Citizens hostage, etc. ?

I'll take their way then have to deal with those thugs (BLM) who involves innocent American citizens in there BS. They aren't protesting they are causing harm and damage to others and they should be jailed. but they won't be because they are blacks leading it

It is at best criminal trespass. At worst treason.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

lol, I didn't realize there was a book on the standard form on protesting's.

How is it that the BLMs can take over malls, airports, close down the citizens streets of travel etc etc. and that question isn't ever asked.

Is this group taking any skin of anyone's ass? besides protesting and holding off the tyrants of the government? isn't this only civil disobedience? , are they holding Citizens hostage, etc. ?

I'll take their way then have to deal with those thugs (BLM) who involves innocent American citizens in there BS. They aren't protesting they are causing harm and damage to others and they should be jailed. but they won't be because they are blacks leading it

It is at best criminal trespass. At worst treason.

So what about the negroes in fergytown and baltimorge?
That ought to be a hanging offense for sure.

 

[Agit8r]

lol, I didn't realize there was a book on the standard form on protesting's.

How is it that the BLMs can take over malls, airports, close down the citizens streets of travel etc etc. and that question isn't ever asked.

Is this group taking any skin of anyone's ass? besides protesting and holding off the tyrants of the government? isn't this only civil disobedience? , are they holding Citizens hostage, etc. ?

I'll take their way then have to deal with those thugs (BLM) who involves innocent American citizens in there BS. They aren't protesting they are causing harm and damage to others and they should be jailed. but they won't be because they are blacks leading it

It is at best criminal trespass. At worst treason.

So what about the negroes in fergytown and batimorge?
That ought to be a hanging offense for sure.

Annnnd, somebody indulges in a lynching fantasy. What else would I expect from the right?

 

[320 Years of History]

lol, I didn't realize there was a book on the standard form on protesting's.

How is it that the BLMs can take over malls, airports, close down the citizens streets of travel etc etc. and that question isn't ever asked.

Is this group taking any skin of anyone's ass? besides protesting and holding off the tyrants of the government? isn't this only civil disobedience? , are they holding Citizens hostage, etc. ?

I'll take their way then have to deal with those thugs (BLM) who involves innocent American citizens in there BS. They aren't protesting they are causing harm and damage to others and they should be jailed. but they won't be because they are blacks leading it

It is at best criminal trespass. At worst treason.

So what about the negroes in fergytown and batimorge?
That ought to be a hanging offense for sure.

Annnnd, somebody indulges in a lynching fantasy. What else would I expect from the right?

I would expect that a lynching fantasy is something an individual has and that their having it is unique to them and others. I would not expect that such a fantasy be something an entire political party has "in spades" among its members.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

lol, I didn't realize there was a book on the standard form on protesting's.

How is it that the BLMs can take over malls, airports, close down the citizens streets of travel etc etc. and that question isn't ever asked.

Is this group taking any skin of anyone's ass? besides protesting and holding off the tyrants of the government? isn't this only civil disobedience? , are they holding Citizens hostage, etc. ?

I'll take their way then have to deal with those thugs (BLM) who involves innocent American citizens in there BS. They aren't protesting they are causing harm and damage to others and they should be jailed. but they won't be because they are blacks leading it

It is at best criminal trespass. At worst treason.

So what about the negroes in fergytown and batimorge?
That ought to be a hanging offense for sure.

Annnnd, somebody indulges in a lynching fantasy. What else would I expect from the right?

I would expect that a lynching fantasy is something an individual has and that their having it is unique to them and others. I would not expect that such a fantasy be something an entire political party has "in spades" among its members.

The funny thing is? It really wasnt a slam on blacks but a mention of the old ways of dealing with miscreants.
I would be fine with a firing squad.

 

[320 Years of History]

lol, I didn't realize there was a book on the standard form on protesting's.

How is it that the BLMs can take over malls, airports, close down the citizens streets of travel etc etc. and that question isn't ever asked.

Is this group taking any skin of anyone's ass? besides protesting and holding off the tyrants of the government? isn't this only civil disobedience? , are they holding Citizens hostage, etc. ?

I'll take their way then have to deal with those thugs (BLM) who involves innocent American citizens in there BS. They aren't protesting they are causing harm and damage to others and they should be jailed. but they won't be because they are blacks leading it

It is at best criminal trespass. At worst treason.

So what about the negroes in fergytown and batimorge?
That ought to be a hanging offense for sure.

Annnnd, somebody indulges in a lynching fantasy. What else would I expect from the right?

I would expect that a lynching fantasy is something an individual has and that their having it is unique to them and others. I would not expect that such a fantasy be something an entire political party has "in spades" among its members.

The funny thing is? It really wasnt a slam on blacks but a mention of the old ways of dealing with miscreants.
I would be fine with a firing squad.

Truly, I didn't know what point you were trying to convey by that remark. There were many elements of ambiguity about it.

My remarks were only in response to what I felt was an unfair generalization about people who espouse right wing positions. It had nothing to do with whether I concur with those positions or not; it has only to do with what I think is equitable.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

It is at best criminal trespass. At worst treason.

So what about the negroes in fergytown and batimorge?
That ought to be a hanging offense for sure.

Annnnd, somebody indulges in a lynching fantasy. What else would I expect from the right?

I would expect that a lynching fantasy is something an individual has and that their having it is unique to them and others. I would not expect that such a fantasy be something an entire political party has "in spades" among its members.

The funny thing is? It really wasnt a slam on blacks but a mention of the old ways of dealing with miscreants.
I would be fine with a firing squad.

Truly, I didn't know what point you were trying to convey by that remark. There were many elements of ambiguity about it.

Agitator called what was happening in Oregon criminal trespass or possibly treason.
If she wants to go that far than ferguson and baltimore should warrant the death penalty.
Simple as that.

 

[Agit8r]

So what about the negroes in fergytown and batimorge?
That ought to be a hanging offense for sure.

Annnnd, somebody indulges in a lynching fantasy. What else would I expect from the right?

I would expect that a lynching fantasy is something an individual has and that their having it is unique to them and others. I would not expect that such a fantasy be something an entire political party has "in spades" among its members.

The funny thing is? It really wasnt a slam on blacks but a mention of the old ways of dealing with miscreants.
I would be fine with a firing squad.

Truly, I didn't know what point you were trying to convey by that remark. There were many elements of ambiguity about it.

Agitator called what was happening in Oregon criminal trespass or possibly treason.
If she wants to go that far than ferguson and baltimore should warrant the death penalty.
Simple as that.

Ferguson and Baltimore protesters committed murder? Challenged the sovereignty of the country?

Btw, I'm a man.