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?
