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

[HereWeGoAgain]

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.

The guys in Oregon havent killed anyone that I know of.

 

[320 Years of History]

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.

The guys in Oregon havent killed anyone that I know of.

One need not kill another to break a law.

Setting a precedent whereby one can effectively obtain press coverage for one's pet peeve by acting unlawfully and threatening to meet law enforcement efforts to apprehend one for that unlawful act(s) is unacceptable.

Law enforcement officials need to get in there and remove them just as they would any other trespassers. Do you think if a band of armed and supplied protesters against some aspect of federal monetary policy invaded a federal reserve bank facility on a Saturday when nobody was there and refused to leave but didn't kill anyone and took no hostages would be allowed to just hang out there and cook grilled cheese sandwiches, invite the press in for little chit chats, and whatnot? Hell no that is not what would happen. What those folks have done is no different.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

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.

The guys in Oregon havent killed anyone that I know of.

One need not kill another to break a law.

Setting a precedent whereby one can effectively obtain press coverage for one's pet peeve by acting unlawfully and threatening to meet law enforcement efforts to apprehend one for that unlawful act(s) is unacceptable.

Law enforcement officials need to get in there and remove them just as they would any other trespassers. Do you think if a band of armed and supplied protesters against some aspect of federal monetary policy invaded a federal reserve bank facility on a Saturday when nobody was there and refused to leave but didn't kill anyone and took no hostages would be allowed to just hang out there and cook grilled cheese sandwiches, invite the press in for little chit chats, and whatnot? Hell no that is not what would happen. What those folks have done is no different.

No doubt they cant continue with the occupation but what they've done is far less damaging than what happened in ferguson and baltimore.

 

[320 Years of History]

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.

The guys in Oregon havent killed anyone that I know of.

One need not kill another to break a law.

Setting a precedent whereby one can effectively obtain press coverage for one's pet peeve by acting unlawfully and threatening to meet law enforcement efforts to apprehend one for that unlawful act(s) is unacceptable.

Law enforcement officials need to get in there and remove them just as they would any other trespassers. Do you think if a band of armed and supplied protesters against some aspect of federal monetary policy invaded a federal reserve bank facility on a Saturday when nobody was there and refused to leave but didn't kill anyone and took no hostages would be allowed to just hang out there and cook grilled cheese sandwiches, invite the press in for little chit chats, and whatnot? Hell no that is not what would happen. What those folks have done is no different.

No doubt they cant continue with the occupation but what they've done is far less damaging than what happened in ferguson and baltimore.

The extent of damage done has no bearing on the fact that they've broken the law, and need to be apprehended and charged with their crimes, now. They deserve a "free pass" no more than another criminal.

They are standing and walking around in plain sight, passing out oranges and making sandwiches, and law enforcement is doing nothing! When else does that happen? From the report I saw on the news the other day (PBS Newshour), there aren't any law enforcement officials on site; the FBI claims to be monitoring the situation.

 

[TNHarley]

meh idk
they are protesting the govt and took over a government facility. Better than muslims and BLM taking it out on innocent people, IMO.
Better yet, explain how a person serves his sentence then gets re-sentenced for the SAME crime. I would really like to know if that is OK. Im not sure..

 

[9thIDdoc]

Setting a precedent whereby one can effectively obtain press coverage for one's pet peeve by acting unlawfully and threatening to meet law enforcement efforts to apprehend one for that unlawful act(s) is unacceptable.

So you also condemn the assorted Black Lives Matter riots which set that very precedent? Actually that precedent was set repeatedly in the '60's and '70's with the Civil Rights and anti-war riots.

 

[320 Years of History]

Setting a precedent whereby one can effectively obtain press coverage for one's pet peeve by acting unlawfully and threatening to meet law enforcement efforts to apprehend one for that unlawful act(s) is unacceptable.

So you also condemn the assorted Black Lives Matter riots which set that very precedent? Actually that precedent was set repeatedly in the '60's and '70's with the Civil Rights and anti-war riots.

To the extent the protestors/demonstrators failed to get a permit authorizing them to undertake the activities they do/did, yes.

 

[Agit8r]

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.

The guys in Oregon havent killed anyone that I know of.

One need not kill another to break a law.

Setting a precedent whereby one can effectively obtain press coverage for one's pet peeve by acting unlawfully and threatening to meet law enforcement efforts to apprehend one for that unlawful act(s) is unacceptable.

Law enforcement officials need to get in there and remove them just as they would any other trespassers. Do you think if a band of armed and supplied protesters against some aspect of federal monetary policy invaded a federal reserve bank facility on a Saturday when nobody was there and refused to leave but didn't kill anyone and took no hostages would be allowed to just hang out there and cook grilled cheese sandwiches, invite the press in for little chit chats, and whatnot? Hell no that is not what would happen. What those folks have done is no different.

No doubt they cant continue with the occupation but what they've done is far less damaging than what happened in ferguson and baltimore.

Just as not everyone protesting in Burns, Oregon declared war on the U.S., not everyone who protested in Ferguson and Baltimore took part in illegal activities. And yet, peaceful protesters (and even reporters covering the events) in Ferguson were treated with far less courtesy than the insurgents in Oregon. And this, because their are worthless racists who lose the ability to distinguish between criminal and civil as soon as it involves people who are different from them.

 

[Agit8r]

Setting a precedent whereby one can effectively obtain press coverage for one's pet peeve by acting unlawfully and threatening to meet law enforcement efforts to apprehend one for that unlawful act(s) is unacceptable.

So you also condemn the assorted Black Lives Matter riots which set that very precedent? Actually that precedent was set repeatedly in the '60's and '70's with the Civil Rights and anti-war riots.

To the extent the protestors/demonstrators failed to get a permit authorizing them to undertake the activities they do/did, yes.

People don't need a permit to protest. They need only "peaceably to assemble"

 

[koshergrl]

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?

He may (or may not) have been lawfully convicted, but the second sentencing was NOT lawful.

 

[320 Years of History]

Setting a precedent whereby one can effectively obtain press coverage for one's pet peeve by acting unlawfully and threatening to meet law enforcement efforts to apprehend one for that unlawful act(s) is unacceptable.

So you also condemn the assorted Black Lives Matter riots which set that very precedent? Actually that precedent was set repeatedly in the '60's and '70's with the Civil Rights and anti-war riots.

To the extent the protestors/demonstrators failed to get a permit authorizing them to undertake the activities they do/did, yes.

People don't need a permit to protest. They need only "peaceably to assemble"

What the folks in Burns have done requires a permit. They performed an unlawful action: breaking and entering a federal facility and refusing to vacate it when asked to do so. The instant they violated the law, their right to remain where they are ended. If they wanted to protest, they could have stood around outside the facility, at the entrance to the reserve, or taken some other actions that did not include trespassing, breaking and entering, and they would have been well within their rights. They did not do that.

• Your Right to Protest
  "Demonstrators who engage in civil disobedience – defined as non-violent unlawful action as a form of protest – are not protected under the First Amendment. People who engage in civil disobedience should be prepared to be arrested or fined as part of their protest activity."
• Oregon Demonstration Permit Requirements
  
• Know Your Rights -- Oregon
  "You do not have the right to block a building entrance."

Do you know what happened to some non-violent protesters? They were attacked by police dogs and slammed with water cannons.

Be that as it may, that others have had to suffer that injustice isn't the point.

The folks in Burns have performed their act of civil disobedience. They are, unlike other civil disobeyers, unwilling to accept that they must now be arrested. They have asserted that they will defend themselves, with guns and lethal force no less, from exactly that. In making that assertion, they have gone beyond mere civil disobedience.

 

[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?

He may (or may not) have been lawfully convicted, but the second sentencing was NOT lawful.

"He" who?

 

[koshergrl]

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?

He may (or may not) have been lawfully convicted, but the second sentencing was NOT lawful.

"He" who?

They, not he, sorry. The Hammonds.

 

[Tilly]

I don't think they issue permits for occupying buildings, 320.

 

[320 Years of History]

He may (or may not) have been lawfully convicted, but the second sentencing was NOT lawful.

"He" who?

They, not he, sorry. The Hammonds.[/QUOTE]

Believe the Hammonds' sentencing was unlawful or don't. In what regard does having such a belief entitle one, Mr. Bundy or anyone else, to break into a federal facility, and then remain there, resisting arrest by lethal force if necessary?

The nation has a means for dealing with what one believes to be an unlawful judgement/sentence. That means is called "appeal the matter to a higher court," not "break into a federal facility and resist arrest."

 

[sonic]

People don't need a permit to protest. They need only "peaceably to assemble"

Yes. The ACLU has taken this up with the courts and the courts have consistently ruled that the 1st Amendment protects the right of small groups (typically 50 people or less) to protest without requiring a permit. Occupying a building is an entirely different matter.
Now on a more pressing issue:
Y'all Queda
Vanilla ISIS
Or The Dumb and the Restless?

 

[2aguy]

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.

The lefties do it in campus sit ins....these guys should just leave the guns at home, then the cops would feel okay to come in with pepper spray...and that might make more television time.....

 

[9thIDdoc]

Has it escaped everyone's notice that most protests are less than 100% "legitimate"? And that is even more true of the most effective ones.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

It isn't.

This illegal occupation is in no way entitled to Constitutional protections (see Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence (1984)).

 

[FA_Q2]

Has it escaped everyone's notice that most protests are less than 100% "legitimate"? And that is even more true of the most effective ones.

What the government has determined is a 'legitimate' protest is almost always ineffectual for real change. That is the sad truth. Your right to protest was trampled on long ago.