150 armed Militia occupy federal property in Oregon.

[Patroklos]

they are other examples of peaceful protestors taking over government buildings by black people and by leftists that did not meet with instant state violence as many claimed would happen. You have also indicated that the impediment of government business is at least a partial justification for a violent solution. While it's funny listening to you guys exaggerate the importance of this site despite the government itself abondoning if for months at a time, surely you would find the occupying of the primary administration buildings of a university or a state legislature, both functioning, to be far more desserving of intervention on those grounds, yes? But they weren't. Is that an injustice to you?

I will not again that in all three instances there is no violence involved (we will disregarding calling to beat up journalists in Missouri for now).

[Thanas]

Are those guys walking around with rifles and threatening to resist with armed force if removed? No? Then your point has no value.

[Patroklos]

Is walking around with guns illegal? Nope. Until they do something with those guns they are irrelevant as the equation of why they have to be removed in the first place as you advocate. They only matter regarding how you can remove them once that decision has been made. It's almost like you WISH these guys were violent.

And yes in both of those instances each one indicated they would physically resist attempts to remove them. In at least one case they actually tried to use violence against innocents unlike the current situation. But despite this I doubt you were all about their violent suppression. Why?

[Gaidin]

Aside: Firearms in federal facilities is typically illegal. Although I have no clue how that applies to a special case of a place where wildlife may or may not be an issue. Not that that's relevant to the greater argument of taking places over in protest.

[Patroklos]

Oh I am sure it is in that specific instance, but it is not as a matter of course. Just like protesting isn't but doing so by occupying a government building is. I don't think most would say the mere fact that you are protesting, a nominally legal activity, in an illegal way instantly justifies government violence against you unless they way you are doing it is inherently dangerous or onerously disruptive. I would say the same applies to simply being armed. It's just an excuse to get indulge in some authoritative head cracking fantasies.

And they should be held accountable for violating whatever carry laws they are btw, just like all those who shut down the legislature should have been charged for trespassing and disobeying lawful orders. It's they act of doing this illegal thing, being disobedient, that lends power or at least attention to your cause. Avoiding and whining about facing the repercussions of your protest waters down your message. I doubt we will get such consistency from you typical SDN poster however because it's not the actions they object to, it's who is doing them.

[Thanas]

Is walking around with guns illegal? Nope. Until they do something with those guns they are irrelevant as the equation of why they have to be removed in the first place as you advocate. They only matter regarding how you can remove them once that decision has been made.

Are you daft? Of course it matters if a group with weapons says they won't leave or if a group without weapons say it.

It's almost like you WISH these guys were violent.

Quit assigning motives.

And yes in both of those instances each one indicated they would physically resist attempts to remove them. In at least one case they actually tried to use violence against innocents unlike the current situation. But despite this I doubt you were all about their violent suppression. Why?

I am against the violent suppression of everybody. I am however all for starving them out.

[General Zod]

they are other examples of peaceful protestors taking over government buildings by black people and by leftists that did not meet with instant state violence as many claimed would happen. You have also indicated that the impediment of government business is at least a partial justification for a violent solution. While it's funny listening to you guys exaggerate the importance of this site despite the government itself abondoning if for months at a time, surely you would find the occupying of the primary administration buildings of a university or a state legislature, both functioning, to be far more desserving of intervention on those grounds, yes? But they weren't. Is that an injustice to you?

I will not again that in all three instances there is no violence involved (we will disregarding calling to beat up journalists in Missouri for now).

Peaceful protestors don't normally protest with semi automatic rifles.

[Edi]

Nor threaten federal employees with violence just for doing their jobs. Newsflash, when you make threats of violence against someone while carrying weapons, you're committing a crime and there is every reason for the law to come down on your ass like a ton of bricks. Never mind all the other reasons.

They should have cut off access, power, water and everything else already two weeks ago and starved the motherfuckers out. Hopefully they will grow enough balls to do that and then toss them in prison once they get their hands on the bastards.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Is walking around with guns illegal? Nope. Until they do something with those guns they are irrelevant as the equation of why they have to be removed in the first place as you advocate. They only matter regarding how you can remove them once that decision has been made. It's almost like you WISH these guys were violent.

And yes in both of those instances each one indicated they would physically resist attempts to remove them. In at least one case they actually tried to use violence against innocents unlike the current situation. But despite this I doubt you were all about their violent suppression. Why?

When a university building (or whatever) is occupied, they are protesting a policy or state of affairs. They might resist being removed, but they will also eventually leave on their own. They never say "this building and the land it sits on belongs to us now" like the Bundy assholes have done. They dont encourage others to occupy OTHER government buildings using the same or similar tactics

There is a line between peaceful protest and seditious conspiracy. These fuckers have crossed it.

18 U.S. Code § 2384 - Seditious conspiracy

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

Emphasis added

That is exactly what they are doing. They are not temporarily occupying that building. They have occupied that building, renamed that building, started building roads on the surrounding territory, and stated that they will not leave until the federal government cedes it to them for their use and cedes all federal land to the county so it can be sold to private interest.

And many of them are guilty not only of that but of federal obstruction charges (to say nothing of criminal contempt of court) for the Bundy Ranch incident.

18 U.S. Code § 1505 - Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees

Whoever, with intent to avoid, evade, prevent, or obstruct compliance, in whole or in part, with any civil investigative demand duly and properly made under the Antitrust Civil Process Act, willfully withholds, misrepresents, removes from any place, conceals, covers up, destroys, mutilates, alters, or by other means falsifies any documentary material, answers to written interrogatories, or oral testimony, which is the subject of such demand; or attempts to do so or solicits another to do so; or

Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States, or the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress—

Shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both.
2014 for which no one has been charged, despite

[Joun_Lord]

Nor threaten federal employees with violence just for doing their jobs. Newsflash, when you make threats of violence against someone while carrying weapons, you're committing a crime and there is every reason for the law to come down on your ass like a ton of bricks. Never mind all the other reasons.

They should have cut off access, power, water and everything else already two weeks ago and starved the motherfuckers out. Hopefully they will grow enough balls to do that and then toss them in prison once they get their hands on the bastards.

The problem with bricking most of these morons is its more likely to cause violence then the cowshit happening meow.

Currently most of the militia retards are fat and happy with slim jims and wifi at the refuge. All their ire and god ol' boy anger is directed at fences and shrubbery and online trolls sending them bags of dicks as reinforcements. There is no reason for them to do anything rash, no reason for any of the stupid shitsucking pieces of human garbage who deserved to be lined up and kicked in the nuts by steel toed boot wearing Natives, Refuge workers and me for being such horribly annoying cunts to go out in a blaze of glory, no desperation at all.

Those that are leaving and found to be committing crimes, like the idiots with the stolen vehicle, can and should be arrested. There should be more cops brought in town likes theres a donut convention going on to help keep secure the locals and arrest any that are harassing or threatening them.

But the ones at the refuge, the ones who could do the most damage, should still be given their mail service and power so they will remain fat and happy, not becoming martyrs for the Flannel Fighters and not doing anything more harmful then destroying the heritage of the people who actually have the most claim to the land, making the comparisons between these fucks and ISIS all the more apt.

The problem with this whole thing is there is no right answer.

Going in with APCs and FBI SWAT High Speed Low Drag Tier 1 OPERATORS is its liable to get police officers and the militia idiots killed, not to mention innocent bystanders and possibly children. Even if you think Bundy and bunch are a bunch of absolute twats you probably don't think they deserve to die and the cops certainly don't deserve to die (especially for such a stupid affair).

Leaving them be but cutting off supplies makes it a total siege situation that pretty much always ends badly thanks to making the people in the siege do stupid shit in desperation. Again, nobody deserves to die especially the children and cops but thats what might happen Under Siege starring Steven Seagull.

Just being completely hands off is the current situation which is unarguably a not ideal situation with the militia idiots able to go around unimpeded doing whatever. However compared to the other two scenarios it is also the least violent option.

I can't think of any superior options unfortunately.

[Thanas]

Honestly, I would not give that much attention to it were it not for the fact that the assholes are damaging native artifacts, which the natives have placed into the trust of the US Government - the same government which is still providing mail service to the assholes. Those people have already lost so much of their culture and their people (mostly due to assholes with similar attitudes like Bundy) and now the racist nutjobs are getting mail service while desecrating and destroying even more of their history. To me, those artifacts are worth more than the lives of Bundy and his ilk, should it become an either or situation.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Nor threaten federal employees with violence just for doing their jobs. Newsflash, when you make threats of violence against someone while carrying weapons, you're committing a crime and there is every reason for the law to come down on your ass like a ton of bricks. Never mind all the other reasons.

They should have cut off access, power, water and everything else already two weeks ago and starved the motherfuckers out. Hopefully they will grow enough balls to do that and then toss them in prison once they get their hands on the bastards.

The problem with bricking most of these morons is its more likely to cause violence then the cowshit happening meow.

Currently most of the militia retards are fat and happy with slim jims and wifi at the refuge. All their ire and god ol' boy anger is directed at fences and shrubbery and online trolls sending them bags of dicks as reinforcements. There is no reason for them to do anything rash, no reason for any of the stupid shitsucking pieces of human garbage who deserved to be lined up and kicked in the nuts by steel toed boot wearing Natives, Refuge workers and me for being such horribly annoying cunts to go out in a blaze of glory, no desperation at all.

Those that are leaving and found to be committing crimes, like the idiots with the stolen vehicle, can and should be arrested. There should be more cops brought in town likes theres a donut convention going on to help keep secure the locals and arrest any that are harassing or threatening them.

But the ones at the refuge, the ones who could do the most damage, should still be given their mail service and power so they will remain fat and happy, not becoming martyrs for the Flannel Fighters and not doing anything more harmful then destroying the heritage of the people who actually have the most claim to the land, making the comparisons between these fucks and ISIS all the more apt.

The problem with this whole thing is there is no right answer.

Going in with APCs and FBI SWAT High Speed Low Drag Tier 1 OPERATORS is its liable to get police officers and the militia idiots killed, not to mention innocent bystanders and possibly children. Even if you think Bundy and bunch are a bunch of absolute twats you probably don't think they deserve to die and the cops certainly don't deserve to die (especially for such a stupid affair).

Leaving them be but cutting off supplies makes it a total siege situation that pretty much always ends badly thanks to making the people in the siege do stupid shit in desperation. Again, nobody deserves to die especially the children and cops but thats what might happen Under Siege starring Steven Seagull.

Just being completely hands off is the current situation which is unarguably a not ideal situation with the militia idiots able to go around unimpeded doing whatever. However compared to the other two scenarios it is also the least violent option.

I can't think of any superior options unfortunately.

Then you are a short-sighted idiot. The standoff approach has not worked. It has not worked with Cliven Bundy, it has not worked with the rest of the militia sons of bitches across the western states. Not coming down on them like a ton of bricks just makes it worse.

Martyr or no, they feel persecuted. Martyrs or no, they reject the jurisdiction and authority of the federal government. Martyrs or no, they still do things like seize federal land and worse, attack federal scientists and other USFWS and BLM employees. Up to and including bombing and attempted murder (I am speaking of the movement in general here, because this is a thing that happens with this movement).

Do you think letting this shit slide is going to encourage or discourage other such assholes from doing similar things or worse? How long do you think it is before they leave a small garrison at the refuge and move on to some other wildlife refuge or a national park and forcibly occupy it? Would you counsel the same inaction then?

How much do they have to steal from the entire country? How much damage must they do to conservation efforts, to say nothing of the authority of the courts, before it becomes acceptable to treat them like the criminals and terrorists that they are? Do we want to reward holding their own children hostage and let every other nutbar with an ax to grind know that those tactics get them something?

The long term consequences of permitting the Bundy Bullshit to continue is worse than a few people dying, because it is an attack on the rule of law itself. If we want to live in a civilized society, we cannot accept such attacks.

[Joun_Lord]

Then you are a short-sighted idiot. The standoff approach has not worked. It has not worked with Cliven Bundy, it has not worked with the rest of the militia sons of bitches across the western states. Not coming down on them like a ton of bricks just makes it worse.

Martyr or no, they feel persecuted. Martyrs or no, they reject the jurisdiction and authority of the federal government. Martyrs or no, they still do things like seize federal land and worse, attack federal scientists and other USFWS and BLM employees. Up to and including bombing and attempted murder (I am speaking of the movement in general here, because this is a thing that happens with this movement).

Do you think letting this shit slide is going to encourage or discourage other such assholes from doing similar things or worse? How long do you think it is before they leave a small garrison at the refuge and move on to some other wildlife refuge or a national park and forcibly occupy it? Would you counsel the same inaction then?

How much do they have to steal from the entire country? How much damage must they do to conservation efforts, to say nothing of the authority of the courts, before it becomes acceptable to treat them like the criminals and terrorists that they are? Do we want to reward holding their own children hostage and let every other nutbar with an ax to grind know that those tactics get them something?

The long term consequences of permitting the Bundy Bullshit to continue is worse than a few people dying, because it is an attack on the rule of law itself. If we want to live in a civilized society, we cannot accept such attacks.

So we kill them to make an example? To tell the other militia morons to stay in line or else they'll get murdered?

I'm sorry but that is flipping retarded, that is stupid. We live in a civilized society and that applies to both sides. A civilized society doesn't just kill reprehensible people no matter how reprehensible they are. Its wrong when cops murder black people for being black, wrong when mentally ill people are put down like dogs, and it would be wrong now.

The Bundy Bunch are a bunch of criminals, a bunch of stupid shits who need to be hit with the full extent of the law. Not arbitrarily executed, not taken in over a pile of dead kids or cops, and not made a worse problem then they are.

Yes I'm okay with inaction right now. They are vile, they are destructive, they are a nuisance but so far they are pretty much non-violent.

Saving lives is the most important thing, even their useless lives, and this cowboy kill em all attitude you and others have where you want to kill a bunch of what are essentially a bunch of fuckheaded political activists you don't agree with is frankly sickening.

I hate Bundy, I hate what he stands for, I hate the patriarch and his many children, I even hate his cow, I hate every single douchenozzle destroying the refuge at their behest. But I certainly don't want them to die if it can be avoided.

[biostem]

No... we tell them to lay down their arms and come out in a peaceful manner. If they don't do that, we cut off the utilities to the building, and apply pressure to get them to comply. At that point, if they continue to resist, the the point that they starve or so forth, then it is their own fault.

If you came into my house, uninvited, and carrying a gun, and told me that you aren't violent, but similarly won't leave, then I am justified in resorting to force if you won't comply in leaving, (not necessarily directly attacking you, but definitely in making it uncomfortable for you to remain there and/or calling in the authorities that are so authorized).

[Simon_Jester]

The problem with bricking most of these morons is its more likely to cause violence then the cowshit happening meow.

There comes a point at which violence is inevitable. What the goons occupying the buildings on the refuge doing is already an act of violence, because they are stealing things and threatening people and using armed force as their defense to protect their right to do so.

Taking definite steps to force them to leave is quite reasonable, and I think cutting utilities is a responsible act here.

_______________

Moreover, as Alyrium points out, there is a line between peaceful protest and armed sedition.

Basically, these goons are saying that they have a right to occupy and steal government property just by sitting on it. At that point, "armed rebellion" is an accurate description, and if there really are thousands of Americans ready to engage in armed rebellion against the state...

Maybe it is time they learned the result of doing so.

Remember the Buchanan administration? How by refusing to fight or mobilize to stop the early secessions, Buchanan enabled the formation of the Confederacy and made it far more certain that the Civil War would be long and gory?

[Alyrium Denryle]

So we kill them to make an example? To tell the other militia morons to stay in line or else they'll get murdered?

No, shit for brains. As satisfying as that would be, no. Cut off utilities and prevent anyone from entering and exiting by way of the simple expedient of armed men. No one in, no one out, until such time as they surrender, then arrest all of them and lock them in prison for multiple consecutive terms for everything from trespassing and property destruction to sedition. If they try to force their way out, THEN shoot them. If they try to use their children as human shields, snipers are good for that.

Yes I'm okay with inaction right now. They are vile, they are destructive, they are a nuisance but so far they are pretty much non-violent.

Stealing land, destroying property, and threatening federal employees is not non-violent.

Saving lives is the most important thing, even their useless lives, and this cowboy kill em all attitude you and others have where you want to kill a bunch of what are essentially a bunch of fuckheaded political activists you don't agree with is frankly sickening.

No. It is not. Enforcing the law is at this point. If you are NEVER willing to do that if it risks lives (risks, not outright consign to oblivion) then we are doomed to repeat performances until the law becomes a joke.

Your line of logic is fucking ridiculous. Imagine a jewel thief who robs safety deposit boxes. You know he is armed and has threatened to use the weapon but not actually shot anyone, and attempting to arrest him at the door could risk lives. So you dont do it. You could arrest him later, but you dont want to risk lives (including his, or the officers) if he resists arrest. So you dont.

When, precisely, will the law be enforced and the jewels he has stolen returned to their rightful owners? If this becomes policy, what exactly is the point of having laws against theft? Do you not politely inform every other thief in the country that so long as they are armed they wont be touched?

What about other crimes? "Non-violent" home redistribution? Tax evasion?

[Joun_Lord]

There comes a point at which violence is inevitable. What the goons occupying the buildings on the refuge doing is already an act of violence, because they are stealing things and threatening people and using armed force as their defense to protect their right to do so.

Taking definite steps to force them to leave is quite reasonable, and I think cutting utilities is a responsible act here.

Taking things is theft, breaking things is vandalism, threatening people is the threat of violence, and just being armed isn't violent. They are not terrorists or the start of Civil War 2 Electric Boogaloo, they are a bunch of idiots camping out in a glorified shed with their penis compensators. Penis compensators they have yet to use except to offend the delicate sensibilities of people deathly afraid of inanimate objects.

No, shit for brains. As satisfying as that would be, no. Cut off utilities and prevent anyone from entering and exiting by way of the simple expedient of armed men. No one in, no one out, until such time as they surrender, then arrest all of them and lock them in prison for multiple consecutive terms for everything from trespassing and property destruction to sedition. If they try to force their way out, THEN shoot them. If they try to use their children as human shields, snipers are good for that.

That right there moron would lead to violence and death by driving these retards to desperate measures, would get public support behind them because the big bad gubmint is mistreating non-violent "patriots" who "didn't do nothing", and would do far more to help this bowel movement then just letting them have their pissy sissy fit until they get tired and we can give them a time out. With handcuffs.

Stealing land, destroying property, and threatening federal employees is not non-violent.

See above. At most its the threat of violence. But either way its splitting hairs, the fact is SO FAR the situation both at Bundy Ranch and at the Refuge have ended with no one beyond the feelings of butthurt bloodthirsty shits being hurts. Now that isn't to say the situation is ideal but its a touch better then stacking up bodies.

No. It is not. Enforcing the law is at this point. If you are NEVER willing to do that if it risks lives (risks, not outright consign to oblivion) then we are doomed to repeat performances until the law becomes a joke.

The law is important but needlessly risking or expending lives is also important. You don't send in a SWAT team to deal with a hostage situation because of the possibility of lives lost same with alot of siege situations, police chases are being considered for banning by some because of the risk to lives far outweighs the benefits of catching the criminal, people here (rightfully) bitch and moan when non-violent criminals are apprehended with deadly force.

Currently at the refuge there is no immediate danger. There is no real risk of the people escaping justice save if the government foolishly refuses to prosecute after the situation is dealt with. The risks with going in and ending the standoff far outweigh the need for immediate justice.

If you weren't so bloodthirsty and depraved you'd see that.

Your line of logic is fucking ridiculous. Imagine a jewel thief who robs safety deposit boxes. You know he is armed and has threatened to use the weapon but not actually shot anyone, and attempting to arrest him at the door could risk lives. So you dont do it. You could arrest him later, but you dont want to risk lives (including his, or the officers) if he resists arrest. So you dont.

When, precisely, will the law be enforced and the jewels he has stolen returned to their rightful owners? If this becomes policy, what exactly is the point of having laws against theft? Do you not politely inform every other thief in the country that so long as they are armed they wont be touched?

You take him down when there is the least risk towards the officers and others, preferably when he can be taken alive, or when he starts being a actual risk. That is not rocket science.

Just going in guns blazing after a thief is what results in calls of police brutality, police militarization, and people bitching about innocent bystanders being caught in the crossfire.

Or do you think cops blowing away little kids, shoplifters, and shit like that is a good thing? Considering you probably aren't actually a bloodthirsty depraved person as I accuse you to be probably not. Which is why its good for police to practice restraint, whether it is with a bunch of stupid as fuck rednecks, some kid with a toy gun, or whomever.

What about other crimes? "Non-violent" home redistribution? Tax evasion?

Do you think squatting or tax evasion should be met with violence? I should think there should be a proportional response.

Also fuck you right in your fucking dickhole for making me defend fucking goddamn Bundy.

[Thanas]

So...assuming the asshats continue destroying historical artifacts, what do you suggest to stop them giving the items involved are both irreplaceable as well as the last remains of a culture that has almost ceased to exist? Just do nothing and hope they stop?

[Joun_Lord]

So...assuming the asshats continue destroying historical artifacts, what do you suggest to stop them giving the items involved are both irreplaceable as well as the last remains of a culture that has almost ceased to exist? Just do nothing and hope they stop?

I honestly don't know what to do. Many would argue that even irreplaceable artifacts are less important then human lives. Certainly the people who seemed to care more about ISIS blowing up irreplaceable artifacts then murdering and enslaving thousands would disagree. While it does seem callous such an attitude is logical. You can easily make more people, monuments and artifacts from thousands of years ago cannot be replaced. When they are gone they are gone.

But possibly killing people over this stuff is not a good solution. Human life does have value but whether or not it has more value then these artifacts is a question I cannot answer.

Anyway though, the Paiute tribe for which these artifacts have the most meaning seem to be fine with waiting them out and have backed the police response.

[Dominus Atheos]

In a more serious note the Bundy shitheads are damaging historical artifacts by operating bulldozers.

So can we start calling them Vanilla ISIS yet?

[Edi]

Then you are a short-sighted idiot. The standoff approach has not worked. It has not worked with Cliven Bundy, it has not worked with the rest of the militia sons of bitches across the western states. Not coming down on them like a ton of bricks just makes it worse.

Martyr or no, they feel persecuted. Martyrs or no, they reject the jurisdiction and authority of the federal government. Martyrs or no, they still do things like seize federal land and worse, attack federal scientists and other USFWS and BLM employees. Up to and including bombing and attempted murder (I am speaking of the movement in general here, because this is a thing that happens with this movement).

Do you think letting this shit slide is going to encourage or discourage other such assholes from doing similar things or worse? How long do you think it is before they leave a small garrison at the refuge and move on to some other wildlife refuge or a national park and forcibly occupy it? Would you counsel the same inaction then?

How much do they have to steal from the entire country? How much damage must they do to conservation efforts, to say nothing of the authority of the courts, before it becomes acceptable to treat them like the criminals and terrorists that they are? Do we want to reward holding their own children hostage and let every other nutbar with an ax to grind know that those tactics get them something?

The long term consequences of permitting the Bundy Bullshit to continue is worse than a few people dying, because it is an attack on the rule of law itself. If we want to live in a civilized society, we cannot accept such attacks.

So we kill them to make an example? To tell the other militia morons to stay in line or else they'll get murdered?

I'm sorry but that is flipping retarded, that is stupid. We live in a civilized society and that applies to both sides. A civilized society doesn't just kill reprehensible people no matter how reprehensible they are. Its wrong when cops murder black people for being black, wrong when mentally ill people are put down like dogs, and it would be wrong now.

The Bundy Bunch are a bunch of criminals, a bunch of stupid shits who need to be hit with the full extent of the law. Not arbitrarily executed, not taken in over a pile of dead kids or cops, and not made a worse problem then they are.

Yes I'm okay with inaction right now. They are vile, they are destructive, they are a nuisance but so far they are pretty much non-violent.

Saving lives is the most important thing, even their useless lives, and this cowboy kill em all attitude you and others have where you want to kill a bunch of what are essentially a bunch of fuckheaded political activists you don't agree with is frankly sickening.

I hate Bundy, I hate what he stands for, I hate the patriarch and his many children, I even hate his cow, I hate every single douchenozzle destroying the refuge at their behest. But I certainly don't want them to die if it can be avoided.

Put them under an actual siege in order to force them to comply with the law. If they have enough conviction, they can go right ahead and starve or freeze to death. If they don't, they can come out and surrender. That's all there is to it.

If they come out and start violence, then deal with them as is necessary, up to and including killing them. The thing here is that it just needs to be made sure that if and when violence starts, it's the militia idiots who start it. The state is more than capable of ending it in that situation. Whether anyone gets killed is entirely up to the fuckwits there, but letting them just continue as they have done is not an option unless you want this same shit to replay all over the country again and again.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Also fuck you right in your fucking dickhole for making me defend fucking goddamn Bundy.

I am not making you do jack shit.

Taking things is theft, breaking things is vandalism, threatening people is the threat of violence, and just being armed isn't violent

You dont seem to understand a few things. The building they have taken over is not a glorified shed. It is an actual building that serves as the administrative and research center for a federal wildlife refuge. They have compromised computer security at that site. They have paved roads in a protected wildlife refuge, and also cut fences permitting cattle to damage the region. That is more than vandalism. They are stealing landmarks, and destroying property that has a value that cannot actually be monetized. They have entered Carmen Sandiego territory with respect to the type of crime they are committing.

As I have already laid out, they are committing Sedition, as a direct challenge to the authority of the federal government. The intent matters. It is one of those offences that no state that wants to preserve its own sovereignty can permit to continue. And, as I predicted in 2014 when the soft-approach was used (by the way, it has been two years and Cliven Bundy et al are still at large despite instigating their own road blocks on national highways and driving off BLM employees using the threat of force, which is a federal Obstruction charge by the way. These are not petty crimes. I will bring this up again.)

They are not terrorists or the start of Civil War 2 Electric Boogaloo

Actually, that is exactly what they are. They are insurrectionists. They reject the authority of the federal government. Going back to 1860 is exactly what they want. They have stated as much if you were paying attention.

Hint: If you are threatening to use violence to enact policy or prevent the enactment of policy THAT IS FUCKING TERRORISM. The fact that they are there, armed, thus creating the worry that evicting them will create a blood bath while using their children as human shields, is itself terrorism. They are holding their own children hostage for fucks sake. You dont reward that behavior by giving them what they want, because that is exactly what is being done right now.

And people wonder why precisely zero people here have any respect for your intellect.

That right there moron would lead to violence and death by driving these retards to desperate measures, would get public support behind them because the big bad gubmint is mistreating non-violent "patriots" who "didn't do nothing", and would do far more to help this bowel movement then just letting them have their pissy sissy fit until they get tired and we can give them a time out. With handcuffs.

There are two goals.

1) Regain control of the wildlife refuge
2) Minimize the risk of death

Being completely passive means you dont regain control of the refuge. Bundy sr proved this. He is still grazing his cattle all up and down BLM managed land, including protected areas, because he STILL has motherfuckers with guns patrolling that territory and preventing federal authorities from acting for fear of a blood bath. Two years in.

The BLM has given up management of large swaths of the state of Nevada, because OTHER ranchers are following his lead. Court actions have been taken, but do you think the Militias wont help them out and prevent the court's judgements from being enforced? Pretty sure they will.

They have not gotten tired of their hissy fit in two years on the Bundy Ranch, and so long as they are comfortable and able to come and go as they please, they will stay in the refuge.

So unless you are willing to de facto cede large parts of the western states to them, taking active steps to enforce the law--and be seen to enforce the law--is absolutely necessary.

As Edi so eloquently put it:

Put them under an actual siege in order to force them to comply with the law. If they have enough conviction, they can go right ahead and starve or freeze to death. If they don't, they can come out and surrender. That's all there is to it.

If they come out and start violence, then deal with them as is necessary, up to and including killing them. The thing here is that it just needs to be made sure that if and when violence starts, it's the militia idiots who start it.

If they surrender peacefully cool. But if they get desperate and come out shooting, they are NOT going to get any sympathy.

The reason Waco and Ruby Ridge went poorly is because it was perceived at the time that the feds did violence first. This was an incorrect perception, but the majority of the population already hates these people, and with cameras fucking everywhere, if they start shooting it will be really obvious.

You dont get to be a martyr if everyone sees you shoot first.

Set up the siege at a bit of a remove so there is no chance of an accidental first shot being fired by federal agents. That way, if they do get desperate and try to use force to break out they have to very intentionally Attack. Done.

You don't send in a SWAT team to deal with a hostage situation because of the possibility of lives lost same with alot of siege situations, police chases are being considered for banning by some because of the risk to lives far outweighs the benefits of catching the criminal, people here (rightfully) bitch and moan when non-violent criminals are apprehended with deadly force.

Gee. It is a good thing that I am not advocating the use of SWAT teams or chasing them in the streets, or arresting them violently until they use violence.

These people are an armed militia. ANY attempt to arrest them made by the feds is going to be met with resistance. Forcing them to surrender by cutting off their utilities is the least force that can be used to affect arrests, because they WILL stay on that refuge forever (just like they have on the Bundy Ranch). Arresting them in dribs and drabs for other crimes when they leave is insufficient, and wont end their occupation.

There is no real risk of the people escaping justice save if the government foolishly refuses to prosecute after the situation is dealt with.

Cliven Bundy is still free because he still has armed guards. 2 years in. That is the precedent you would set?

Just going in guns blazing after a thief is what results in calls of police brutality, police militarization, and people bitching about innocent bystanders being caught in the crossfire.

You will cease your ridiculous strawman immediately.

Do you think squatting or tax evasion should be met with violence? I should think there should be a proportional response.

If the tax evader bunkers down in his house and hires mercenaries to prevent his arrest, yes. Yes it should be.
At the very least, his assets should be frozen, his utilities cut, and a few federal agents posted outside the house to arrest him if he leaves.

Right now, the Bundy assholes can come and go as they please. They can go to town hall meetings and not face arrest, they are not paying the power and water bills on the building they have stolen.

[the atom]

http://www.opb.org/news/series/burns-or ... occupation

Looks like some refuge employees are talking.

-snip-

TL:DR

Yes, they have threatened federal employees.

Yes, they are attempting to induce local ranchers to cancel their grazing leases while continuing to graze by promising to protect them from repercussions by way armed militants.

I seriously hope the government is compensating these poor people, and providing for their security in some fashion. The travesty of the government's inaction only seems to get worse by the day.

[the atom]

Being completely passive means you dont regain control of the refuge. Bundy sr proved this. He is still grazing his cattle all up and down BLM managed land, including protected areas, because he STILL has motherfuckers with guns patrolling that territory and preventing federal authorities from acting for fear of a blood bath. Two years in.

The BLM has given up management of large swaths of the state of Nevada, because OTHER ranchers are following his lead. Court actions have been taken, but do you think the Militias wont help them out and prevent the court's judgements from being enforced? Pretty sure they will.

They have not gotten tired of their hissy fit in two years on the Bundy Ranch, and so long as they are comfortable and able to come and go as they please, they will stay in the refuge.

Holy fucking shit, I haven't heard about any of this. Do you know any articles about this?

[Simon_Jester]

One issue that's happening here is that Joun is seeing the acts committed by the armed goons themselves (and is underestimating them). But Joun is not seeing the other issue at stake. Which is whether the government even has the power to hold accountability over private citizens who are willing to use armed force to avoid the consequences of their actions.

"Contempt of court" is an entire category of crime that exists precisely because it is a lawless act to run around ignoring or rebelling against the legal system of the state.

When someone is sent to arrest you and you say "I'm not going with you, leave or imma shoot you in the face," you are committing a crime. It's a crime even if you phrase it in some mealy-mouthed way like "I regard you as a trespasser on my private property and I believe I have the right to use deadly force to defend my property."

If we do not enforce laws against contempt of court, in a real sense we don't have a system of laws at all. If ignoring the law is made legal, all would-be criminals will ignore the law. If the law therefore has no effect on criminals, then for all practical purposes there is no law. Or worse yet, there are laws that restrain law-abiding citizens but which in no way restrain the actual criminals. So the criminals gain a competitive advantage and get to enjoy doing as they please.

In this case, we have a very obvious case of a bunch of goons doing something they would normally get arrested for (logging into other people's computers, vandalizing property, interfering with lawful operations of the government, making threats). But because they're organized and willing to make death threats, we're not doing anything about it. As in, doing literally nothing. Not stopping people from reinforcing them, even, as far as I know.

This is exactly the sort of situation that leads to criminals deciding they can break the law at will.

Taking things is theft, breaking things is vandalism, threatening people is the threat of violence, and just being armed isn't violent.

Threatening people is violence, which is why you can get arrested for "assault" just for pointing a gun at someone regardless of whether you pulled the trigger. Threatening people with violence is a serious, non-petty crime.

So is committing 'vandalism' on a scale that costs millions of dollars to fix, and frankly the Oregon bozos are running up into that level.

They are not terrorists or the start of Civil War 2 Electric Boogaloo, they are a bunch of idiots camping out in a glorified shed with their penis compensators.

They are definitely idiots, they are definitely camping out with their penis compensators, they are definitely terrorists because threatening armed force to make the government change its policies is terrorism.

They are probably not the start of Civil War 2 Electric Boogaloo, but they would like to be! They've said as much themselves!

They are also, as Alyrium points out, not camping in a glorified shed. This is a substantial office complex and the people who would be working there if not evicted by terrorists have meaningful jobs. This building is the administrative center for the protection and management of a large stretch of land, and land can be damaged if it is not protected.

Penis compensators they have yet to use except to offend the delicate sensibilities of people deathly afraid of inanimate objects.

Only because no one has yet been willing to challenge them in any way. They've made it clear that they'll commit attempted murder the first time anyone actually tries to stop them by force.

In other words, if a policeman tries to come up and tell them they're under arrest, they'll threaten to shoot him. If a force of police large enough to credibly threaten to shoot back shows up, they will, based on their own words, shoot.

They are attempting to use violence to become immune to the law. We wouldn't tolerate that in a bunch of gangsters or criminals. We wouldn't let some lunatic take his son hostage so that he could get custody returned to him or something. Why are we letting a group of organized lunatics with a political agenda do it?
____________________

No, shit for brains. As satisfying as that would be, no. Cut off utilities and prevent anyone from entering and exiting by way of the simple expedient of armed men. No one in, no one out, until such time as they surrender, then arrest all of them and lock them in prison for multiple consecutive terms for everything from trespassing and property destruction to sedition. If they try to force their way out, THEN shoot them. If they try to use their children as human shields, snipers are good for that.

That right there moron would lead to violence and death by driving these retards to desperate measures...

What desperate measures? What are they going to do, threaten to come out shooting unless someone turns the water main back on? If they do, then of necessity they will be coming out into the open and traveling a considerable distance in order to start their violence, in which case it will be relatively easy to give them one last chance to surrender. If they refuse to surrender then, they end up firing the first shot, and are obviously not martyrs from the point of view of normal Americans.

Because you can't be a martyr if you throw a hissy fit, charge someone else, refuse to stand down when given a last chance to obey the law, and then pull a gun on them.

See above. At most its the threat of violence. But either way its splitting hairs, the fact is SO FAR the situation both at Bundy Ranch and at the Refuge have ended with no one beyond the feelings of butthurt bloodthirsty shits being hurts. Now that isn't to say the situation is ideal but its a touch better then stacking up bodies.

As noted, the Bundy Ranch situation has not been resolved except insofar as the rebels have won and gotten what they want- cattle grazing on federal land without compensation to the government, private citizens using federal land as they desire, with the federal government unable to manage this land.

Even if you happen to think that this is the right policy, that there shouldn't be any federal lands and that the federal land has no right to stop the would-be cattle barons from grazing those lands to bare dirt if they so choose...

The fact that this result was achieved through the threat of force should be troubling. Because if random goon squads can stop the police from arresting you as a punishment for stealing federal property, what other laws have you declared yourself immune to?

No. It is not. Enforcing the law is at this point. If you are NEVER willing to do that if it risks lives (risks, not outright consign to oblivion) then we are doomed to repeat performances until the law becomes a joke.

The law is important but needlessly risking or expending lives is also important. You don't send in a SWAT team to deal with a hostage situation because of the possibility of lives lost same with alot of siege situations, police chases are being considered for banning by some because of the risk to lives far outweighs the benefits of catching the criminal, people here (rightfully) bitch and moan when non-violent criminals are apprehended with deadly force.

If these particular criminals are nonviolent, then we really should be able to just send a few beat cops up to the wildlife refuge and arrest them. They'll come peacefully, right? They're nonviolent!

Oh, no, wait, they'll threaten to shoot the beat cops. Right.

What exactly do you do with criminals who say "we're willing to kill law enforcement to avoid having to obey the law?"

If you keep saying "I have no idea," then the default response is to go back to the traditional answer, which is to say "very well, criminals, you have declared open rebellion against the state," and be prepared to fight a battle. By all means, you may allow the criminals the first shot, if that's needed to make it clear who decided to initiate violence. But you have to uphold the law.

It is impossible to have justice in society unless there is law, and it is impossible to have meaningful law unless order is maintained. If people violate the social order on a regular basis, order breaks down, and laws turn into jokes.

Your line of logic is fucking ridiculous. Imagine a jewel thief who robs safety deposit boxes. You know he is armed and has threatened to use the weapon but not actually shot anyone, and attempting to arrest him at the door could risk lives. So you dont do it. You could arrest him later, but you dont want to risk lives (including his, or the officers) if he resists arrest. So you dont.

When, precisely, will the law be enforced and the jewels he has stolen returned to their rightful owners? If this becomes policy, what exactly is the point of having laws against theft? Do you not politely inform every other thief in the country that so long as they are armed they wont be touched?

You take him down when there is the least risk towards the officers and others, preferably when he can be taken alive, or when he starts being a actual risk. That is not rocket science.

So... when does that happen? If the Bundy Ranch situation is any guide, the criminals may remain camped out here for years, randomly doing miscellaneous stuff on the refuge however they please. Are we supposed to keep waiting forever?

Remember that there are TWO ways for an isolated incident to turn into a general trend. One is to make the people who commit the incident into martyrs and inspire copycats. The other is to leave those people unpunished and immune to consequences, for long enough that the news forgets about them, so that the rest of the idiots in the country take away the lesson "you can do this and get away with it."

It doesn't do a lot of good to arrest someone five years after the fact, because by that time they've already inspired dozens of copycats who are thinking "we'll get away with it!"