Militants who seized Federal Wildlife Refuge Acquited on all charges

[Simon_Jester]

I think that gets in the the territory of like when the FBI needles some extremist into a plot, gives them the materials (hopefully always inert) to build a bomb, and then arrests the fuckers, something like the 2009 Bronx terrorism plot. The argument has been put forward that its an FBI plot, that the extremists morons would have just remained extremist morons but non-violent ones without the FBI pushing them into it.

Of course the persons still attempted to commit a crime, wannabe Jihadists or right wing rednecks still tried to blow up whatever even if the bomb was a dud, they did that of their own free will. But after plenty of pushing and incentivizing by the big bad gubmint to do so.

There are good reasons 'entrapment' is banned. Especially in the context of subversive political groups and government infiltrators.

See, a lot of tyrannical governments have secret police who try to subvert peaceful opposition to the tyrant. One way they do this (while keeping up a pretense of lawful government) is by goading them into becoming violent opposition, then arresting them for the violent crimes. There's a reason agent provocateur is a term that dates back to the 1800s or earlier.

Furthermore, entrapment can be a highly effective way to "get" an otherwise innocent person, by artificially creating a situation that will cause a person to commit a crime they would otherwise not have committed.

For example, an undercover police officer posing as a prostitute and arresting someone who solicits them for sex is fine. But an undercover police officer who goes out of their way to seduce someone, then asks for money, is effectively creating the opportunity for the crime and incentivizing the target to commit it. This could fairly easily be used as a way to blackmail someone, or to trump up criminal charges, in the case of people the police cannot otherwise "get."

Similar strategies could be used to "get" a person for fraud, corruption, political subversion, and so forth.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Ahh, America. Where a bunch of armed traitors can seize protected land with little action, but peaceful protestors can't stand on their own land without jackbooted thugs attacking them.

I know, right? I bet that when the cops finally get around to murdering some of the Dakota Access Pipeline protestors, the surviving victims will get convicted of something. (This isn't sarcasm, by the way)

That's an interesting prediction, Zeropoint. Especially when you consider that when the police were shot at by a female on the protesters side the police did not return fire and deadly force hasn't been used against protesters throwing molotov cocktails at police. So next time before you make one of your "predictions" maybe read a bit about it first because so far your prediction is totally without merit. There's a significant divide between pepper spraying someone and shooting them and I'd thank you for not engaging in exaggerations.

As for the whole thing itself. I've read a number of articles that do not make the situation any clearer to me. For example, I've read that the property for the pipeline was acquired legally. I've also read that the eminent domain process in this case was corrupt as fuck. I've read that the protesters are trespassing on private property and blocking public roads. The roads being blocked has been confirmed from the numerous videos and pictures I've seen of cars setup into a barricade and disabled. As for private property I'm not sure if they are actually on private property because like Flagg said there are reports of them being arrested on their own land. So are they on public land or their own land or are they on legally acquired property or illegally acquired property.

[Block]

I've only seen reports of violence on the part of the protesters from the police spokeswoman, and at this point I'm not sure how reliable of a source they are. There's been so much shadyness on the part of the local government, is don't know what's factual and what's propaganda. Especially after arresting journalists for "rioting."
As for the Bundys, obvious jury nullification, they'll probably get the book thrown at them in Nevada, as they deserve.
And Bean, can you prove that these people were FBI and not either CIs or the people who pled guilty and turned State's evidence?

[Kamakazie Sith]

I've only seen reports of violence on the part of the protesters from the police spokeswoman, and at this point I'm not sure how reliable of a source they are. There's been so much shadyness on the part of the local government, is don't know what's factual and what's propaganda. Especially after arresting journalists for "rioting."
As for the Bundys, obvious jury nullification, they'll probably get the book thrown at them in Nevada, as they deserve.
And Bean, can you prove that these people were FBI and not either CIs or the people who pled guilty and turned State's evidence?

Can you provide your source?

[Flagg]

I've only seen reports of violence on the part of the protesters from the police spokeswoman, and at this point I'm not sure how reliable of a source they are. There's been so much shadyness on the part of the local government, is don't know what's factual and what's propaganda. Especially after arresting journalists for "rioting."
As for the Bundys, obvious jury nullification, they'll probably get the book thrown at them in Nevada, as they deserve.
And Bean, can you prove that these people were FBI and not either CIs or the people who pled guilty and turned State's evidence?

Yeah, considering how nonviolent the movement has been I don't buy that police were shot at by a protester. I mean these are essentially deputized thugs who maced elderly women and shot a teenager in the face with a rubber bullet. There's also the issue of how it's supposed to be sovereign land, so if a protester did shoot a deputized thug, it would be repelling a foreign invader. So cry me a fucking river. (Deputized thug apologists, not you, Block)

[madd0ct0r]

a man who North Dakota authorities had said was shot by Dakota Access Pipeline protesters was actually an armed instigator linked to the pipeline company, Standing Rock Sioux tribe members said Friday.

The sheriff’s office, which said Thursday the man was shot in one of two incidents involving gunfire during tumultuous protests against the pipeline, backpedaled on Friday and said the man wasn’t shot.

The conflicting new claims called into question accounts of Thursday’s chaotic demonstration, in which 142 people were arrested as police in riot gear removed protesters from an encampment blocking the pipeline’s path.

The Standing Rock Sioux tribe claimed Friday that the supposed shooting victim drove a truck through a highway barricade set up by protesters, who gave chase and forced him off the road. He then got out of the vehicle and “fired several shots from his assault rifle,” the tribe said in a statement posted to Facebook.

Bureau of Indian Affairs agents detained the man, whose name has not been released, and turned him over to the FBI, according to BIA spokeswoman Nedra Darling. The FBI, in turn, handed the man over to local law enforcement, according to an FBI spokeswoman.

Documents found in the man’s Chevy Silverado pickup suggest he was a Dakota Access Pipeline security guard in a company-owned truck, the Standing Rock Sioux statement said. The tribe posted photos of insurance papers linking the vehicle to the pipeline. Mother Jones reported there was an employee ID badge in the pickup. Protesters, who prefer to be called water protectors, later set the vehicle on fire, according to Mother Jones.

Morton County Sheriff Kyle Kirchmeier on Friday said the man, a contractor providing security, was indeed armed, but “that was more or less in self defense.” The man fired no shots, Kirchmeier said during a press conference, and was not wounded by gunfire.

Friday’s accounts differ in several respects from what authorities said on Thursday. The North Dakota Department of Emergency Services had said the man was a “private individual” who was shot in the hand by protesters. The department’s spokesman said the man was armed, but didn’t indicate whether he’d fired any shots

So I have no fuckibg idea. That's from huff post.

[Flagg]

It's not about vaccines, so 50/50.

[Kelp]

The militants are all going to prison one way or another.
1. The justice system will just lead them around a circle until they bankrupt and enter a plead deal.
2. Some militants are going to implicate others with crimes so they get lighter sentences as part of a plead deal.
3. There were children at the refuge, one wrong wording and... child abuse.

The whole thing look stacked from the beginning.

[Flagg]

The militants are all going to prison one way or another.
1. The justice system will just lead them around a circle until they bankrupt and enter a plead deal.
2. Some militants are going to implicate others with crimes so they get lighter sentences as part of a plead deal.
3. There were children at the refuge, one wrong wording and... child abuse.

The whole thing look stacked from the beginning.

Cry me a river, if they were black the only thing stacked would be the body bags.

[Kamakazie Sith]

The militants are all going to prison one way or another.
1. The justice system will just lead them around a circle until they bankrupt and enter a plead deal.
2. Some militants are going to implicate others with crimes so they get lighter sentences as part of a plead deal.
3. There were children at the refuge, one wrong wording and... child abuse.

The whole thing look stacked from the beginning.

Cry me a river, if they were black the only thing stacked would be the body bags.

You don't actually know that though and frankly I'm tired of seeing these type of comments. They are without merit. There are plenty of examples of police abuse but I have not heard one example of wholesale slaughter by the police in modern times. The best example is likely the one standoff with MOVE but that is very much a grey issue considering all the violence that led up to that point - not the bombing itself that was totally wrong but it also happened back in the 70s. This kind of talk does not advance discussion because it basically devolves into you and others basically being able to claim racism from organizations and individuals when you haven't shown that any existed as if it's a default setting.

The thing is I would say you would be accurate in your assessment if this was back in the 90s you know during the decade where two sieges ended in bloody confrontation with law enforcement and groups composed of white people. But not now because the government has learned the price of those type of failures. It doesn't matter who fired first. All that matters is multiple people died and the government will be left holding the bag. I'm not saying that's a negative outcome (that the government is held accountable) but those of you that continue to say these type of things aren't making these judgement from any factual position. It's all raw emotion that at best is supported by incidents 20 plus years ago.

Yeah, considering how nonviolent the movement has been I don't buy that police were shot at by a protester. I mean these are essentially deputized thugs who maced elderly women and shot a teenager in the face with a rubber bullet. There's also the issue of how it's supposed to be sovereign land, so if a protester did shoot a deputized thug, it would be repelling a foreign invader. So cry me a fucking river. (Deputized thug apologists, not you, Block)

Are you talking about the security guards or the law enforcement agencies?

Also, according to this map; it isn't going through their territory at all.

I will give you one thing though. I find it extremely odd that they haven't identified the woman who shot at the officer or the officer who was shot at especially when they reportedly have her in custody. So, maybe you are correct that the story is fabricated. The other thing to consider is the fact that protesting groups aren't really groups but just individuals who are making their own choices so even if it did happen that doesn't make all the others there violent. As for the pepper spray and rubber bullets...maybe but I've also see video of the police bypassing groups of people praying as they pushed back the crowd so I really don't know if these extremes have actually happened.

[Zaune]

We're only going to get a definite answer when a majority-black group does something like this. And they will, sooner or later; in fact I'm surprised it hasn't already happened.

[Simon_Jester]

When it happened in the Jim Crow South in the '60s, the police responded with attack dogs and firehoses- but generally not with a hail of bullets.

There were deaths, but they were overwhelmingly the result of terrorism on the part of the Ku Klux Klan, or of individual police officers in league with the Klan.

It would surprise me if the police are MORE racist and inclined to shoot black protestors today than they were in Alabama in 1965.

[Kamakazie Sith]

We're only going to get a definite answer when a majority-black group does something like this. And they will, sooner or later; in fact I'm surprised it hasn't already happened.

Right, that would need to happen before we have a definite answer. However, I'll remind people that likely the same people said that black open carry activists would not be tolerated. Yet, they were tolerated in Dallas. Of course, then the bar is raised to "well, it wouldn't be tolerated somewhere else". Okay, maybe. The problem is this is speculation and in my opinion it has one goal. To ensure that credit is never given to police.

[Zaune]

It's still a fair question whether open-carrying BLM marchers would be tolerated most places, though. Dallas PD are supposedly one of the few departments to actually make a serious effort to change procedures and training in response to the movement's concerns.

At the other end of the spectrum we have the NYPD, whose commissioner equated Occupy and BLM to the Mumbai and Paris mass shooting incidents and hinted -maybe unintentionally- at arming SWAT with belt-fed machine guns; or Baton Rouge, where despite the death of Alton Sterling becoming a major political embarrassment, the only officers to suffer any consequences so far are the three who were gunned down in a revenge killing.

[Kamakazie Sith]

It's still a fair question whether open-carrying BLM marchers would be tolerated most places, though. Dallas PD are supposedly one of the few departments to actually make a serious effort to change procedures and training in response to the movement's concerns.

Yeah, a question is a much more reasonable thing than a conclusion in these circumstances.

At the other end of the spectrum we have the NYPD, whose commissioner equated Occupy and BLM to the Mumbai and Paris mass shooting incidents and hinted -maybe unintentionally- at arming SWAT with belt-fed machine guns; or Baton Rouge, where despite the death of Alton Sterling becoming a major political embarrassment, the only officers to suffer any consequences so far are the three who were gunned down in a revenge killing.

Or generally means a range of things. In this case he's talking about the capabilities of this new unit will range from civil unrest to dealing with active terrorist attacks. Not sure I agree with that decision with tasking the same unit to deal with both. The training is different in every way.

Sorry Zaune, but political embarrassments are not crimes and frankly this is the first I've heard of that incident being a political embarrassment. The only reason either of those two officers should suffer consequences is if they committed a crime and the available evidence does not tell us that. We do know Sterling was armed with a gun. We do know he resisted arrest. We have a complaint from a man who claims Sterling pointed a gun at him. We don't know if he actually went for the gun while fighting with the officers. If he did, then the shooting is justified. If he didn't and was submitting to the arrest then it's murder. We simply do not know.

[Gandalf]

When it happened in the Jim Crow South in the '60s, the police responded with attack dogs and firehoses- but generally not with a hail of bullets.

There were deaths, but they were overwhelmingly the result of terrorism on the part of the Ku Klux Klan, or of individual police officers in league with the Klan.

It would surprise me if the police are MORE racist and inclined to shoot black protestors today than they were in Alabama in 1965.

I think the determinant will be media coverage. If the protest gets Ferguson level coverage, then maybe the police will tear gas both crowds and reporters. Until then I think it's just waiting people and trying not to embarrass themselves.

[Simon_Jester]

It's still a fair question whether open-carrying BLM marchers would be tolerated most places, though. Dallas PD are supposedly one of the few departments to actually make a serious effort to change procedures and training in response to the movement's concerns.

It's a fair question, but there is literally zero evidence that the answer is anything other than "yes they would," unless there were a legal issue with the firearms themselves.

[Civil War Man]

Also, according to this map; it isn't going through their territory at all.

To be fair, it doesn't have to be technically in their territory to screw them over. The reason for the protests is that if the pipeline gets built, and something happens, it's going to contaminate the reservation's water supply. And that's definitely in the realm of possibility, since the proposed path is upriver of the reservation, and water tables don't respect human-drawn borders.

Keep in mind that the rejected alternative in that map, the one that runs north of Bismarck, was rejected because the residents there were also afraid of the pipeline breaking and contaminating their water supply.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Also, according to this map; it isn't going through their territory at all.

Multi-faceted. The reservation is one thing. The water rights are another. Oil pipelines have a tendency to spill, which is going to contaminate the reservation water supply. That really is not a question of if, but when.

Then...there is the matter of treaties. The reservation is something they were put on at gun-point, and they have sacred sites scattered all over the area surrounding it, plus a good number owned or previously owned (due to corrupt eminent domain which allows the taking of land from person A and giving it to person B so long as some sort of "public good" rationalization can be used) by their members. It is also close enough that construction can be obstructed from the reservation itself potentially.

[Kamakazie Sith]

To be fair, it doesn't have to be technically in their territory to screw them over. The reason for the protests is that if the pipeline gets built, and something happens, it's going to contaminate the reservation's water supply. And that's definitely in the realm of possibility, since the proposed path is upriver of the reservation, and water tables don't respect human-drawn borders.

Keep in mind that the rejected alternative in that map, the one that runs north of Bismarck, was rejected because the residents there were also afraid of the pipeline breaking and contaminating their water supply.

I understand that is one of their concerns but based off the source the pipeline will have to cross the Missouri River at some point and no matter where you put it it will likely be upstream from someone. I am certainly no fan of big oil but as it stands right now our civilization depends on oil which means we have to transport it and unless anyone has some other input it seems to me that pipelines are the most efficient means of doing so within country

Also, while I recognize the fact that oil spills are a matter of when and not if it seems like the chances of it bursting in a location that effects the Missouri and these people isn't that high especially when you consider the fact that out of the 2.4 million miles of pipeline (gas and oil) we have in this country the number of spills between 2010 and 2015 is 3,300 and two thirds of that is gas and not crude (1,000 crude spills). Source

Multi-faceted. The reservation is one thing. The water rights are another. Oil pipelines have a tendency to spill, which is going to contaminate the reservation water supply. That really is not a question of if, but when.

I agree. Like I said above as it stands right now our civilization runs on oil which means we do have to transport it where it needs to go. Now, from what I understand pipelines are the most efficient way of doing so. This means that the pipeline will be built and no matter where it goes it will likely pose a threat to someone. Now how significant of a threat is that exactly? While pipeline spills are a matter of when and not if the possibility of it happening in a location that will contaminate their water supply seems low especially if they took additional safety precautions (which they fucking should).

Just for the record I was against those people in Utah who have fought against disposing of nuclear waste in Utah because I see it as necessary for the good of the country. If there was a viable alternative in place for oil I would be against the pipeline and any further oil infrastructure expansion.

Then...there is the matter of treaties. The reservation is something they were put on at gun-point, and they have sacred sites scattered all over the area surrounding it, plus a good number owned or previously owned (due to corrupt eminent domain which allows the taking of land from person A and giving it to person B so long as some sort of "public good" rationalization can be used) by their members. It is also close enough that construction can be obstructed from the reservation itself potentially.

I realize that the Native Americans have been treated unfairly by this country and continue to be but is this one of those instances? If there has in fact been a violation of treaty or corruption in the eminent domain process for this pipeline then I want to know. That's why I posted before that there's a lot of conflicting information here.

[houser2112]

Is there a reason the pipeline has to take that route? It seems that it's a few hundred miles longer than it needs to be, just from a distance standpoint; it also crosses the Missouri River twice. It being longer makes it more expensive just to build, and increases the likelihood of a spill just because there's more pipe to fail. Crossing rivers requires bridges, which are more expensive than just pipe. The proposed route is not entirely uninhabited, and seems to include a state park and a wildlife refuge.

So, what am I missing here? NIMBY?

[Civil War Man]

I understand that is one of their concerns but based off the source the pipeline will have to cross the Missouri River at some point and no matter where you put it it will likely be upstream from someone. I am certainly no fan of big oil but as it stands right now our civilization depends on oil which means we have to transport it and unless anyone has some other input it seems to me that pipelines are the most efficient means of doing so within country

I may be confusing it with the Keystone XL, but I was under the impression that much of the oil is actually on the Canadian side of the border, and its ultimate destination is for it to be shipped overseas. So it doesn't necessarily have to cross the Missouri, but that's the proposed path because every other alternative has been rejected due to environmental concerns of people who would be living in the area.

I realize that the Native Americans have been treated unfairly by this country and continue to be but is this one of those instances? If there has in fact been a violation of treaty or corruption in the eminent domain process for this pipeline then I want to know. That's why I posted before that there's a lot of conflicting information here.

I can't say whether or not it would be a treaty violation, since I am not a lawyer nor am I an expert on the contents of said treaties, but it is pretty typical of that historically unfair treatment. When the people of Bismarck don't want the pipeline running near them because of environmental concerns, then it's considered to no longer be an option and there's no point in pursuing the matter further. But when people on the reservation don't want the pipeline running near them because of environmental concerns, suddenly it's time to draw a line in the sand.

[Block]

I've only seen reports of violence on the part of the protesters from the police spokeswoman, and at this point I'm not sure how reliable of a source they are. There's been so much shadyness on the part of the local government, is don't know what's factual and what's propaganda. Especially after arresting journalists for "rioting."
As for the Bundys, obvious jury nullification, they'll probably get the book thrown at them in Nevada, as they deserve.
And Bean, can you prove that these people were FBI and not either CIs or the people who pled guilty and turned State's evidence?

Can you provide your source?

Source for what? The journalist? It was Amy Goodman, I'm on my phone, so can't get a link that doesn't have a bunch of weird formatting. The judge tossed out the charges at her hearing.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Is there a reason the pipeline has to take that route? It seems that it's a few hundred miles longer than it needs to be, just from a distance standpoint; it also crosses the Missouri River twice. It being longer makes it more expensive just to build, and increases the likelihood of a spill just because there's more pipe to fail. Crossing rivers requires bridges, which are more expensive than just pipe. The proposed route is not entirely uninhabited, and seems to include a state park and a wildlife refuge.

So, what am I missing here? NIMBY?[/quote]

Yeah, I wonder why it can't go to the west and then below the reservation.

I may be confusing it with the Keystone XL, but I was under the impression that much of the oil is actually on the Canadian side of the border, and its ultimate destination is for it to be shipped overseas. So it doesn't necessarily have to cross the Missouri, but that's the proposed path because every other alternative has been rejected due to environmental concerns of people who would be living in the area.

http://www.daplpipelinefacts.com/

It says it is 100% domestic oil and is purposed with supporting american energy needs.

I can't say whether or not it would be a treaty violation, since I am not a lawyer nor am I an expert on the contents of said treaties, but it is pretty typical of that historically unfair treatment. When the people of Bismarck don't want the pipeline running near them because of environmental concerns, then it's considered to no longer be an option and there's no point in pursuing the matter further. But when people on the reservation don't want the pipeline running near them because of environmental concerns, suddenly it's time to draw a line in the sand.

Yeah, I've had some difficultly finding it because I do expect the United States to honor each and every treaty it signs and if it is in violation with this proposed route then that needs to be canceled. On the other hand if things are done lawfully then I expect lawful behavior to be respected and backed by the government.

Source for what? The journalist? It was Amy Goodman, I'm on my phone, so can't get a link that doesn't have a bunch of weird formatting. The judge tossed out the charges at her hearing.

Yeah, I saw that. It's bizarre that a warrant was issued for trespassing.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Yeah, I've had some difficultly finding it because I do expect the United States to honor each and every treaty it signs and if it is in violation with this proposed route then that needs to be canceled. On the other hand if things are done lawfully then I expect lawful behavior to be respected and backed by the government.

The problem--even if technically legal*--is at least partially because the blatantly racist application of the law. This what we mean when say things like "environmental racism". Where the negative impacts of our economy hit non-white people. In this case, any negative impacts of the spill will hit the drinking water supply of the Standing Rock Reservation (to say nothing of their historical and sacred sites that may be held in trust by the feds*)

(*)In many cases, both inside and outside the reservation, there are other areas and objects that the federal government holds in trust for the natives. See the burial grounds on the wildlife refuge this thread is actually about. The federal government has a history of selling that land off to private developers in violation of the spirit of those agreements (the Arizona delegation to congress managed to sneak such a sale into a defense bill last year that the Navajo are fighting tooth and nail). In addition, the way land inheritance works for reservation land (and often for natives off reservation IIRC if they are registered members of the tribe) is that it gets divided up by percentages rather than to an heir designate. So if a dude has a farm and 4 kids, when he dies 25% ownership of the whole parcel (it is not even sub-divided) gets granted to the kids. So on down the line. What a developer then needs is the sign-off from only one of them, so they will do things like go after little old ladies with a 5% ownership stake. The Bureau of Indian Affairs is also gob-smackingly corrupt, and will actively help that developer fuck over the natives, so they only get paid a pennies on the dollar for what the land (or more commonly an oil or gas leas) is actually worth. All of this is legal.