150 armed Militia occupy federal property in Oregon.

[Lonestar]

"Reaching for his waistband" has always been a bullshit reason to shoot someone, most notably Tamir Rice. Yes, police need to wait until the suspect actually has the gun in his hand before they kill him.

Tamir Rice was shot by a cop who just hoped out of his car and started shooting, without trying to put him on the ground. As it is I happen to think it wasn't as unjustified as some people make it out to be, but that right there is a significant difference compared to what happened in Oregon.

Go look at the video of Tarp Guy's shooting. Start at around 9:15. He's out of the car, it looks like multiple LEOs are holding guns on him, and he drops his hands at least twice that we can see before he is unambiguously shot.

This was not a random traffic stop. There were known targets, who were known to be armed, with at least a few having stated an intent to not be taken alive. If he had been standing still with his arms up and his hands had even twitched wrong, it wouldn't have been unexpected that he got shot.

It's worth noting that EVERYONE's initial narrative was wrong. He (probably, maybe it appeared different on the ground) did not charge at the LEOs. But he also wasn't shot on his knees like some of the Bundy crowd was claiming.

[Haminal10]

Especially since the people who supposedly saw him get "executed on his knees with his hands up" were about two miles away and around a big curve in the road. Releasing the video was a smart thing to do.

[Thanas]

Well-executed operation by the FBI, very well done. I'll eat my crow now.

[Lord Revan]

While I don't intend to practice corvid eating I agree with Thanas about how this was handled, it went pretty much as well as it could have realistically went. Since lets be realistic here, no-one ever would accept "get shot possibly killed" as standard policy in these kinds of situation and that's what "wait until you're certain they have a gun" really boils down to, while there have been situations with cops having too sensitive trigger finger this doesn't seem like such a case.

[Borgholio]

Well-executed operation by the FBI, very well done. I'll eat my crow now.

Don't be too hard on yourself. We all got the wool pulled over our eyes. They wanted the militas and everyone else to think nothing was happening and make them let down their guard. It worked brilliantly.

[cosmicalstorm]

Might be fake, but lol.

[Borgholio]

...might?

[jwl]

Yeah, why would the Democratic People's Republic of Korea have a twitter page when they've banned the Internet?

[ndryden]

Might be fake, but lol.

That Twitter account is a parody run for years by the same people who write Popehat.

[Haminal10]

The best part about how this went down was that the "brave patriots defending their freedoms" now look like a bunch of bumbling cowards that are only interested in saving their own skin like the rugged individuals that they are.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/oregon ... li=BBnb7Kz

Fry has been posting live videos from the refuge for several weeks.

“We’re asking them just to just drop the charges and we’re willing to go — and nobody dies,” he said on a video early Wednesday. “But if they’re not willing to do that, we’re all just kind of willing to stay here.”

Fry said that in the chaotic two days since one of the occupiers was killed by law enforcement during a traffic stop, many people had been allowed to leave without arrest — some departed so quickly they left behind their guns — and that the same option should be offered to those who remain.

“Everybody feels it’s unfair,” Fry said. “Right now, we’re trying to tell the negotiator guy: Why don’t you just give us the other option, that first option, just let us leave if we’re willing to leave?”

So when the chips are down and the government decides to actually bring the hammer down, "I'll give you my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead hands" quickly morphs into "I will throw my gun into the cold snow and run for the hills".

Behold the brave defenders of the US Constitution!

[Borgholio]

Behold the brave defenders of the US Constitution!

These guys never understood that the government being reluctant to use force does not = cowardice. It means they don't want bloodshed. There is a difference.

[Lord Revan]

The best part about how this went down was that the "brave patriots defending their freedoms" now look like a bunch of bumbling cowards that are only interested in saving their own skin like the rugged individuals that they are.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/oregon ... li=BBnb7Kz

Fry has been posting live videos from the refuge for several weeks.

“We’re asking them just to just drop the charges and we’re willing to go — and nobody dies,” he said on a video early Wednesday. “But if they’re not willing to do that, we’re all just kind of willing to stay here.”

Fry said that in the chaotic two days since one of the occupiers was killed by law enforcement during a traffic stop, many people had been allowed to leave without arrest — some departed so quickly they left behind their guns — and that the same option should be offered to those who remain.

“Everybody feels it’s unfair,” Fry said. “Right now, we’re trying to tell the negotiator guy: Why don’t you just give us the other option, that first option, just let us leave if we’re willing to leave?”

So when the chips are down and the government decides to actually bring the hammer down, "I'll give you my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead hands" quickly morphs into "I will throw my gun into the cold snow and run for the hills".

Behold the brave defenders of the US Constitution!

Quite frankly I'm not at all surpriced by this from the start these guys seemed like the type that would act all though as long there was no real harm to themselves but moment it became clear that US goverment had become tired of their shit and was willing use deadly force if that was what it took their "courage" ran out, since in the end their goals were selfish in nature.

[LaCroix]

I'm waiting for the "only dropped once" jokes to start...

[Adam Reynolds]

Well-executed operation by the FBI, very well done. I'll eat my crow now.

The FBI is a fair bit more elite than the average police department. Don't forget that the two major clusterfucks from the 90s weren't actually started by the FBI. They were started by the US Marshals(Rudy Ridge) and ATF(Waco).

This is not to say that the FBI doesn't have problems, as it is likely that nearly every single agent has committed perjury to conceal the use of illegal wiretapping in court, but they tend to be fairly competent when it comes to operations like this.

[Broomstick]

Fry said that in the chaotic two days since one of the occupiers was killed by law enforcement during a traffic stop, many people had been allowed to leave without arrest — some departed so quickly they left behind their guns — and that the same option should be offered to those who remain.

“Everybody feels it’s unfair,” Fry said. “Right now, we’re trying to tell the negotiator guy: Why don’t you just give us the other option, that first option, just let us leave if we’re willing to leave?”

Well, to be fair, that was basically the offer at the end of the Civil War to the losing side: put your gun down here and go home. So, sure - any of you yahoos want to put down your guns and any pointy sticks on your person and go home without 'em - sure.

[Simon_Jester]

The reason this offer was made at the end of the American Civil War is that it was that or spend the next five years fighting a guerilla war against what would have been an even nastier version of the Ku Klux Klan (which proved a very vicious terrorist insurgency as it was).

I see no reason to guarantee these people immunity from prosecution and hope they don't receive it. There are nowhere near enough of them to make that necessary, and making an example of them through the legal process will hopefully ensure that there never are enough to make it necessary.

[Broomstick]

I think you were over-thinking my reply just a bit.

Also - allowing the stragglers to go home will become divisive within their ranks, as some will be punished very heavily and some not at all. Divide and conquer and all that. Also, hard to maintain the myth of persecution when the Big Bad lets you go home unmolested.

But mainly - these folks fancy themselves big time rebels and patriots, and having some of them lay down their guns and slink home with their tails between their legs will make that harder to justify.

[Civil War Man]

So when the chips are down and the government decides to actually bring the hammer down, "I'll give you my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead hands" quickly morphs into "I will throw my gun into the cold snow and run for the hills".

Behold the brave defenders of the US Constitution!

You know, many of these groups are prone to compare themselves to the minutemen and militia of the American Revolution.

What isn't talked about much in American history classes is that the militia were notoriously unreliable. They talked a big game, bragging about how they were going to take on one of the most powerful and influential governments in the world, but were often the first to abandon the fight at the first sign of trouble, often fleeing in such haste that they leave their guns behind.

So their comparison might actually be quite apt.

[Broomstick]

I read David Crockett's autobiography last year. Of the many things he talks about, one of them is his service in the local militia. It's not particularly flattering, but yes, there is a definite resemblance.

[Thanas]

I read David Crockett's autobiography last year. Of the many things he talks about, one of them is his service in the local militia. It's not particularly flattering, but yes, there is a definite resemblance.

What do they say about his part in the ethnic cleansing and killing of civilians?

[Ziggy Stardust]

What do they say about his part in the ethnic cleansing and killing of civilians?

What part? I don't believe there is any evidence he killed civilians (at least, I haven't been able to find it through some admittedly cursory Google searches). And he was a very outspoken and vehement opponent of Andrew Jackson's Indian Removal Act and related policies, so I think attributing ethnic cleansing to him is also a stretch.

[Flagg]

Well, he died fighting (or after surrendering, that's a bit muddy) in the pointless battle of the Alamo for Texas secession from Mexico and that was over slavery, same as the US Civil War. So he's not exactly a peach, that one.

Still, I've never heard of him being particularly anti-Indian or that he was ever involved in killing civilians.

[Thanas]

What do they say about his part in the ethnic cleansing and killing of civilians?

What part? I don't believe there is any evidence he killed civilians (at least, I haven't been able to find it through some admittedly cursory Google searches). And he was a very outspoken and vehement opponent of Andrew Jackson's Indian Removal Act and related policies, so I think attributing ethnic cleansing to him is also a stretch.

Wasn't he a part of the Creek War and had no problem with Bowie (who was one of the more darker figures of that time)?

[Broomstick]

Keep in mind, this was an autobiography - it's not "they" said, it's "he" said.

As far as killing Indians/Natives and civilians - keep in mind that there were several "nations" of Indians in the area at the time, some allied with one faction of whites and some with another. He did spend some time talking about his involvement in the various wars of the time, and his wording was plain. He entered a war where the Creek Indians were the enemy and let's just say neither side was nice about it. One thing that gets lost in romanticizing Native Americans is that some tribes had a tradition of torturing prisoners of war.

Yes, he and his allies did commit what we'd now call atrocities, up to and including burning people on the other side alive although it wasn't a primary tactic. Absolutely, there were women and probably what we'd consider children involved in the killing as both killers and victims. Would we consider any of those people civilians? Probably some - among other things, they would burn down enemy towns, I'm not entirely sure they were too careful about making sure all buildings were empty prior to the application of fire. I would say he didn't sugar-coat or deny some of the nasty things that went on, so give him a point or two for honesty, for as much as that is worth.

He DID oppose the Indian Removal Act, in no small part because the Indians being removed were people he saw as allies, neighbors, and friends - people he absolutely was willing to defend, help, and even take risks to help. He didn't have a problem living next to or even among Indians of some tribes, even as he helped kill members of other tribes. For the time, that was open-minded thinking, in that he distinguished between the various tribes/nations and was willing to deal with Indians as individuals - as opposed to Jackson, who clearly believed the only good Indian was a dead Indian regardless of group membership, allegiance, or anything else.

Actually, Crockett never cared much for killing people and spent as much time as possible during his service hunting for the troops and supplying meat to his side. Make of that what you will.

By the standards of our day there were several deplorable things about Crockett (I could go on about what I perceive as his lack of hunting ethics, for example) but he didn't live in the 21st Century, he lived in the late 18th/early 19th Century.

If you're interested, the book is on Project Gutenberg and it's not a difficult or long read (Crockett was barely literate, so really, he wasn't going to go for flowery language or intricate passages). While I'm positive a few bits are exaggerated/embellished, he's also pretty up front about mistakes he had made as well. If nothing else, it's interesting as the viewpoint of someone who actually lived in that time and place.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Thanks for all the details, Broomy. I read PART of the book on Project Gutenberg (you posted a link to it a few months ago, IIRC), so my memories of the details were hazy.

I guess when it comes right down to it we are both (me and Thanas) correct. He does deserve some degree of moral condemnation, but not to the same degree as many other people of the same time period and situation. He's neither a folk hero nor a villain, he's just a long dead hillbilly who wasn't quite as big an asshole as some of his contemporary hillbillies