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

[FA_Q2]

I don't fully understand the OP's position here. What do you want the federal government to do?

It is not as though these people are going to 'get away' with this action. It is not as though they are getting a free pass. What is happening is that the government is being prudent and taking the correct course of action - they are going to wait them out. Going in there and kicking the door down only servers one purpose - putting the lives of all involved at risk. That is a terrible idea.

This was compared to taking a building in the center of a major metropolis and that comparison is silly. If they had taken over a building in the center of a city or any populated area then there are people who are being put at risk. in that case the government must act immediately for the safety of the general populous. Here, they are in the middle of nowhere and well armed. No one is at risk considering that there is no one in the area and the police would be in extreme danger attempting to root them out.

I would not say that they are being treated with 'kid gloves.' I would say the feds are simply keeping themselves safe.

 

[OldLady]

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.

I thought the reason the cops are being careful is because these demonstrators are quite heavily armed. Am I wrong? We don't need another Waco, or another Ohio State, or the shooting of anyone on either side for the sake of a civil protest.

 

[OldLady]

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

Are the BLM protestors still at the mall? The airport? Were they carrying weapons? I don't really think you can compare them. And yes, they were protesting, whether you agree with them or not.

 

[320 Years of History]

I don't fully understand the OP's position here. What do you want the federal government to do?

It is not as though these people are going to 'get away' with this action. It is not as though they are getting a free pass. What is happening is that the government is being prudent and taking the correct course of action - they are going to wait them out. Going in there and kicking the door down only servers one purpose - putting the lives of all involved at risk. That is a terrible idea.

This was compared to taking a building in the center of a major metropolis and that comparison is silly. If they had taken over a building in the center of a city or any populated area then there are people who are being put at risk. in that case the government must act immediately for the safety of the general populous. Here, they are in the middle of nowhere and well armed. No one is at risk considering that there is no one in the area and the police would be in extreme danger attempting to root them out.

I would not say that they are being treated with 'kid gloves.' I would say the feds are simply keeping themselves safe.

Red:
I want law enforcement officials to enforce the law in a timely manner -- essentially ASAP -- just as they would with any other law breakers. The last news report I heard about the matter indicated that law enforcement officials weren't even present on the site at the time.



You watched that video above? When the hell have law enforcement ever allowed an armed group to hold a press conference? Hold a damn press conference!!! Really? So if nothing else, I want law enforcement officers to secure the place and keep everyone away from close proximity to Ammon Bundy and his militia. The only people with whom Mr. Bundy should have any direct contact should be law enforcement personnel.

Blue:
What exists up there in that partk is a siege situation. When have law enforcement ever allowed a siege to endure indefinitely?

Law enforcers may be keeping themselves safe, but that's not what they are paid to do. They are paid to put their lives on the line if need be in the course of enforcing the law.

Green:
??? How is it dissimilar? If the siegers conduct themselves in the same way and the only thing that differed is that the building is in a city, there would be no difference. Would the siegers be allowed to remain in place, hold press conferences, and light bonfires (roast marshmallows, perhaps LOL)? I don't think so.

Although there were no law enforcement folks present, there were news crews and "regular" citizens who support Ammon Bundy present. Tell me, were a group to take over a federal facility in a city, would the press and general public be mulling around attending press conferences hosted by the siegers, or would they be required to stay behind a perimeter, line of demarcation, barrier, etc?

 

[FA_Q2]

I don't fully understand the OP's position here. What do you want the federal government to do?

It is not as though these people are going to 'get away' with this action. It is not as though they are getting a free pass. What is happening is that the government is being prudent and taking the correct course of action - they are going to wait them out. Going in there and kicking the door down only servers one purpose - putting the lives of all involved at risk. That is a terrible idea.

This was compared to taking a building in the center of a major metropolis and that comparison is silly. If they had taken over a building in the center of a city or any populated area then there are people who are being put at risk. in that case the government must act immediately for the safety of the general populous. Here, they are in the middle of nowhere and well armed. No one is at risk considering that there is no one in the area and the police would be in extreme danger attempting to root them out.

I would not say that they are being treated with 'kid gloves.' I would say the feds are simply keeping themselves safe.

Red:
I want law enforcement officials to enforce the law in a timely manner -- essentially ASAP -- just as they would with any other law breakers. The last news report I heard about the matter indicated that law enforcement officials weren't even present on the site at the time.

Essentially, you want law enforcement officials to put peoples lives at risk. You are part of a small minority. Most people IMHO prefer the cops and the idiots in the building not be placed at risk for the sake of 'doing something.'

You watched that video above? When the hell have law enforcement ever allowed an armed group to hold a press conference? Hold a damn press conference!!! Really? So if nothing else, I want law enforcement officers to secure the place and keep everyone away from close proximity to Ammon Bundy and his militia. The only people with whom Mr. Bundy should have any direct contact should be law enforcement personnel.

They allow it when they are 'occupying' a place that is so remote that no one anywhere is put in harms way. in order to keep the news agencies away they would have to deploy hundreds of officers costing piles of money to accomplish what? Keeping them away from news? Not really as that would get a LOT more coverage. They would be all over the news for months after a shootout occurs as well. What they are doing right now is getting the smallest amount of attention that is really possible AND no one is being placed at risk.

Blue:
What exists up there in that partk is a siege situation. When have law enforcement ever allowed a siege to endure indefinitely?

Law enforcers may be keeping themselves safe, but that's not what they are paid to do. They are paid to put their lives on the line if need be in the course of enforcing the law.

No, they are not. They are paid to keep the peace and keep us safe. Neither is really threatened in this extremely remote place hence why they are not willing to go get shot for nothing.

Seriously, you are talking about placing officers at risk without any real gains.

Green:
??? How is it dissimilar? If the siegers conduct themselves in the same way and the only thing that differed is that the building is in a city, there would be no difference. Would the siegers be allowed to remain in place, hold press conferences, and light bonfires (roast marshmallows, perhaps LOL)? I don't think so.

Although there were no law enforcement folks present, there were news crews and "regular" citizens who support Ammon Bundy present. Tell me, were a group to take over a federal facility in a city, would the press and general public be mulling around attending press conferences hosted by the siegers, or would they be required to stay behind a perimeter, line of demarcation, barrier, etc?

Again, they are vastly different. No one is in harms way out there in the middle of the forest. THOUSANDS of people are placed DIRECTLY at risk if there is a siege in a building in a metropolis. As long as you are holding onto the false notion that waving guns around in the middle of a crowded street and doing so in the middle of a forest where the nearest person is 50 miles away you are not going to understand the situation. You do not enforce the law or approach a DANGEROUS situation with a hard line set of rules that ignores the circumstances. You look at a situation like this and act according to those circumstances.

Someone mentioned WACO and what you are advocating is essentially repeating that fiasco here for the sole sake of making things happen faster. That is really a horrific idea. Sure, that situation ended rather quickly. It also ended in the deaths of many innocents and placed all of the officers there in direct danger. It was a horrible conclusion to a 'problem' that really did not even exist and that was a worse situation than this by far. Aside from people trying to support them and the news crews, there is essentially no one that is anywhere near the facility in question.

 

[OldLady]

"Law enforcers may be keeping themselves safe, but that's not what they are paid to do. They are paid to put their lives on the line if need be in the course of enforcing the law."
They're keeping the Bundy crowd safe, safe from themselves. You WANT to see these guys mowed down? They might not be your breed of cat, but really?

 

[320 Years of History]

I thought the reason the cops are being careful is because these demonstrators are quite heavily armed. Am I wrong? We don't need another Waco, or another Ohio State, or the shooting of anyone on either side for the sake of a civil protest.

But for the fact that what Mr. Bundy and his militia outstripped the meaning of civil protest the instant he broke into a federal facility. One might, in a stretch, call his actions "civil disobedience," but given his threat to use force to secure his position, he's gone beyond what qualifies as peaceful civil disobedience. I would feel differently were Mr. Bundy to have initiated his siege and then peaceably submitted to arrest for having broken into the facility.

 

[320 Years of History]

"Law enforcers may be keeping themselves safe, but that's not what they are paid to do. They are paid to put their lives on the line if need be in the course of enforcing the law."
They're keeping the Bundy crowd safe, safe from themselves. You WANT to see these guys mowed down? They might not be your breed of cat, but really?

Excuse me? Mr. Bundy and his militia risk being mown down only if they resist arrest, which, by the way, is another crime. Mr. Bundy's actions will determine whether he is at risk of that happening. He could have initiated a peaceful and nonthreatening protest. He did not do that. Period.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

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.

Because you're a lemming. If a group wants to protest their oppressor, they needn't ask permission.

 

[OldLady]

"Law enforcers may be keeping themselves safe, but that's not what they are paid to do. They are paid to put their lives on the line if need be in the course of enforcing the law."
They're keeping the Bundy crowd safe, safe from themselves. You WANT to see these guys mowed down? They might not be your breed of cat, but really?

Excuse me? Mr. Bundy and his militia risk being mown down only if they resist arrest, which, by the way, is another crime. Mr. Bundy's actions will determine whether he is at risk of that happening. He could have initiated a peaceful and nonthreatening protest. He did not do that. Period.

I'll continue to hope no one gets hurt and this is resolved peacefully. The Bundy crowd is trying hard to tweak the Feds' nose, and I suppose you're right, they deserve whatever they get, but we sure don't want to turn them into martyrs, either.

 

[SingleVoyce]

...
I'll continue to hope no one gets hurt and this is resolved peacefully. The Bundy crowd is trying hard to tweak the Feds' nose, and I suppose you're right, they deserve whatever they get, but we sure don't want to turn them into martyrs, either.[/QUOTE]

You are 100% correct. These people just want attention. If the press stops covering them and the authorities basically ignore them, they will, in all likelihood, just give it up. The authorities need to keep an eye on them to make sure they don't carry out any activities that would put innocent parties in danger but, lacking such activity, ignoring them is the best way to go.

 

[Staidhup]

I didn't know the 99% occupy groups trashing our city parks across the country had permits to protest? I guess if its in the best political interest of the progressive wing of the DNC its acceptable and tax payers cover the clean up bill?

 

[320 Years of History]

You are 100% correct. These people just want attention. If the press stops covering them and the authorities basically ignore them, they will, in all likelihood, just give it up. The authorities need to keep an eye on them to make sure they don't carry out any activities that would put innocent parties in danger but, lacking such activity, ignoring them is the best way to go.

Red:
That's true to a point, for attention isn't the sole thing they want. They have articulated that they want more than visibility, specifically Mr. Bundy et al have identified two action items:

• Mr. Bundy and his cohorts want the Malheur refuge and millions of federally owned acres in the West transferred back to “the people.”
• They also want two local ranchers — Dwight Hammond Jr., and his son Steven — released from federal prison.

Blue:
Sooner or later, they'll have no choice but to yield. The point is that Mr. Bundy's course of action so far has gone beyond peaceful civil disobedience, which is a mode of behavior that would have been more than sufficient for bringing visibility to his cause. Quite simply, civil disobeyers commence their deed knowing they'll be arrested, possibly charged with a crime, and soon thereafter released; they don't resist arrest. And they certainly don't resist arrest so demonstratively that they assert they will meet law enforcement's actions with equal or greater force, thereby committing the crime of threatening (bodily harm to) an officer of the law.