Bundy group arrested. One dead.

[ERayR]

An eyewitness account

 

 

https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=Y92PvMFL0Eg

[volgadon]

I don't have much sympathy for the Bundy bunch (I always have a birding guide handy if that tells anything), but they were not domestic terrorists. Terrorism is not a value-judgement term meaning extremists that we dislike, nor is it a pejorative. It is a technical term which although defying a precise definition, can be defined well enough. You don't see the Bundy bunch using violence as tool like that in Oregon. LaVoy Finicum seems like he was genuinely honourable and god-fearing, even though misguided here. A pity that he was killed.

[Senator]

4 minutes ago, volgadon said:

I don't have much sympathy for the Bundy bunch (I always have a birding guide handy if that tells anything), but they were not domestic terrorists. Terrorism is not a value-judgement term meaning extremists that we dislike, nor is it a pejorative. It is a technical term which although defying a precise definition, can be defined well enough. You don't see the Bundy bunch using violence as tool like that in Oregon. LaVoy Finicum seems like he was genuinely honourable and god-fearing, even though misguided here. A pity that he was killed.

I do too. My heart goes out to this family right now.

[Calm]

10 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Just got some footage of the gun battle

 

Should have known better by now.

[Darren10]

13 hours ago, The Nehor said:

They have the name of the deceased now. Finicum, one of their spokesmen. He left behind 11 children. I am sure they will take some comfort from the fact that their dad thought playing cowboy was more important then being in their lives.  

Or, if ERayR's link has any credibility (it seems credible to me though at this point I'm not entirely sold on it) perhaps you, Nehor, can find comfort knowing a terrorist is dead...your kids can take the same comfort as well.

Edited January 27, 2016 by Darren10

[Senator]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

Should have known better by now.

Quite distasteful, actually.

[BlueDreams]

1 hour ago, Darren10 said:

What place was raided "at gun point"? Those arrested, which they should be, were not "raided" neither. They were pulled over in a traffic stop and ten the shootout happened thereafter. Ammon's brother was released from the hospital after being wounded in the shootout and those in the federal building were told they were free to go. Those who oppose what these occupiers are doing, I myself do not support everything they have done despite having lots of empathy for their overall plight against federal overreach f private property, frequently make it sound like a chaotic wild west scenario. That was Ferguson with *no* federal enforcement, not this Oregon incident.

I wasn't aiming for accuracy in my description, but using similar words as JLFHProf to make my main point. If I was trying to make a solid technical point, I usually wouldn't include concepts of Karma as well. I don't have an ounce of empathy for their plight. I won't even pretend to. I don't want anyone to get shot and I feel sad for those children who are now fatherless.....but he put himself in a situation where the outcome had a high likelihood of not ending well. Instead of a quick crack down, they had 3 weeks before anything even happened and it was still in a way to try to avoid a massive and bloody conflict.  

And Ferguson didn't have federal enforcement....because no one took over a federal building with guns in tow. They're on federal property, so the jurisdiction would fall on federal enforcement as well. And it's also treated like something out of the wild west....because it feels like something that could realistically only happen in the west. Both in terms of concerns, assumptions about what constitutes a "peaceful" protest, and even the amount of time they had sitting it out in that place.

 

With luv,

BD

[BlueDreams]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

 

Oh I agree.  I am not really familiar with this case, and it is probable that the FBI did exactly right.

But I still cringe at such actions.
(And let us not forget that Mormons in Utah during the time of Johnston's Army were also considered by many to be treasonous cultists who ignored the laws of the land and resided in a Federally controlled territory.)

Heck, George Washington et al were considered domestic terrorists on British land back in 1776.

I do cringe when it's warranted. But this doesn't feel like one of those moments. To me it's overreach in a cause they may have had some legitimate grievances in but went too far in sticking with their point. I put it in the same area of harassing women entering abortion clinics (and/or worse). Or looting in circumstances of crisis, anger, and/or protest. They may have a point, but it doesn't actually help their cause and the actions committed in said name of whatever cause isn't actually justifiable behavior.

 

With luv,

BD

[ERayR]

2 hours ago, Darren10 said:

What place was raided "at gun point"? Those arrested, which they should be, were not "raided" neither. They were pulled over in a traffic stop and ten the shootout happened thereafter. Ammon's brother was released from the hospital after being wounded in the shootout and those in the federal building were told they were free to go. Those who oppose what these occupiers are doing, I myself do not support everything they have done despite having lots of empathy for their overall plight against federal overreach f private property, frequently make it sound like a chaotic wild west scenario. That was Ferguson with *no* federal enforcement, not this Oregon incident.

According to the source that I posted it was a pretty one sided shootout with all the shooting coming from law enforcement officials.  It was one of those where law enforcement shot someone who had their hands in the air.

[Darren10]

25 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

I wasn't aiming for accuracy in my description, but using similar words as JLFHProf to make my main point. If I was trying to make a solid technical point, I usually wouldn't include concepts of Karma as well. I don't have an ounce of empathy for their plight. I won't even pretend to. I don't want anyone to get shot and I feel sad for those children who are now fatherless.....but he put himself in a situation where the outcome had a high likelihood of not ending well. Instead of a quick crack down, they had 3 weeks before anything even happened and it was still in a way to try to avoid a massive and bloody conflict.  

And Ferguson didn't have federal enforcement....because no one took over a federal building with guns in tow. They're on federal property, so the jurisdiction would fall on federal enforcement as well. And it's also treated like something out of the wild west....because it feels like something that could realistically only happen in the west. Both in terms of concerns, assumptions about what constitutes a "peaceful" protest, and even the amount of time they had sitting it out in that place.

 

With luv,

BD

I agree the situation the occupiers placed themselves in was and is volatile. The outcome not likely to be pretty for anyone. But, hasn't the federal government as well? There's a reason the Founders of this nation placed into the Constitution the 10th Amendment. They did not want a central powerful government controlling the lives of individuals. when the federal government begins to control, "micromanage" if you will, the lives of people, individually and/or collectively, the result is an uprising of the people against the government primarily because the people no longer are free. When the federal government begins to aggressively capture private land, conflict will result. Hopefully the conflict will proceed and end peacefully but that's hardly guaranteed. For decades the federal government has taken people's properties. That's constitutionally granted for them to do under specific circumstances but it's been happening more and more. We live in a time when the Supreme Court has ruled that government, local or federal, may take private property and give it to private owners for private development. Under the original framing and use of the Constitution I would have no problem granting the constitutional right f local governments to do so. I'd oppose it, but they may do so if the proper representatives voted to do so. However, that view of the constitution is long past us. We live in a time where the constitution is supreme, period. That on one may violate it. That said, and the fact that the Supreme Court has ruled that government may take private land, where's the balancing point? These occupiers are protesting years of government making life hard on them so they'd sell their land to the government and move out. I do not fully support the action taken by these occupiers but I have great empathy for them.

When would you?

Regarding Ferguson, when people's civil rights are violated, the federal government has intervened regardless of federal interest or not. This is in line with our modern-day thinking of the Constitution being supreme above all. It is up to the state to use force to put down violence if said violence is against the state and not the federal government but outright calls to burn down a city and then following it up with burning it down does warrant, under our modern-day view of the Constitution, federal intervention. It was clearly blacks asserting violence against white control. That placed whites in danger simply because they were white. Churches were burned. That violates religious liberty. It's a federal hate crime to do so. There's definite reasons for the federal government to have gone in and shoot the protestors, yet none did. Not even local police were called to put the riots down. Yet because people in Oregon occupy a vacant federal building we are to conclude that they are some sort of terrorists simply because they are armed and willing to die for their cause? That alone justifies shooting them by the federal government?

Lots to think about here.

[Darren10]

43 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

I do cringe when it's warranted. But this doesn't feel like one of those moments. To me it's overreach in a cause they may have had some legitimate grievances in but went too far in sticking with their point. I put it in the same area of harassing women entering abortion clinics (and/or worse). Or looting in circumstances of crisis, anger, and/or protest. They may have a point, but it doesn't actually help their cause and the actions committed in said name of whatever cause isn't actually justifiable behavior.

 

With luv,

BD

"Harassing women entering abortion clinics (and/or worse)"?

Huh???

"Or looting in circumstances of crisis, anger, and/or protest."

Ummmm, doesn't this justify sending in federal agents to put down riots in Ferguson? Also, aren't you saying they are dangerous *just because* they had guns? In other words, just because they have guns they are in the same league as violent rioters?

[Darren10]

7 minutes ago, ERayR said:

According to the source that I posted it was a pretty one sided shootout with all the shooting coming from law enforcement officials.  It was one of those where law enforcement shot someone who had their hands in the air.

As I said, it does seem credible, I'm just not sold on it. No conclusions from me until more information is released.

[ttribe]

4 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

I agree the situation the occupiers placed themselves in was and is volatile. The outcome not likely to be pretty for anyone. But, hasn't the federal government as well? There's a reason the Founders of this nation placed into the Constitution the 10th Amendment. They did not want a central powerful government controlling the lives of individuals. when the federal government begins to control, "micromanage" if you will, the lives of people, individually and/or collectively, the result is an uprising of the people against the government primarily because the people no longer are free. When the federal government begins to aggressively capture private land, conflict will result. Hopefully the conflict will proceed and end peacefully but that's hardly guaranteed. For decades the federal government has taken people's properties. That's constitutionally granted for them to do under specific circumstances but it's been happening more and more. We live in a time when the Supreme Court has ruled that government, local or federal, may take private property and give it to private owners for private development. Under the original framing and use of the Constitution I would have no problem granting the constitutional right f local governments to do so. I'd oppose it, but they may do so if the proper representatives voted to do so. However, that view of the constitution is long past us. We live in a time where the constitution is supreme, period. That on one may violate it. That said, and the fact that the Supreme Court has ruled that government may take private land, where's the balancing point? These occupiers are protesting years of government making life hard on them so they'd sell their land to the government and move out. I do not fully support the action taken by these occupiers but I have great empathy for them.

When would you?

Regarding Ferguson, when people's civil rights are violated, the federal government has intervened regardless of federal interest or not. This is in line with our modern-day thinking of the Constitution being supreme above all. It is up to the state to use force to put down violence if said violence is against the state and not the federal government but outright calls to burn down a city and then following it up with burning it down does warrant, under our modern-day view of the Constitution, federal intervention. It was clearly blacks asserting violence against white control. That placed whites in danger simply because they were white. Churches were burned. That violates religious liberty. It's a federal hate crime to do so. There's definite reasons for the federal government to have gone in and shoot the protestors, yet none did. Not even local police were called to put the riots down. Yet because people in Oregon occupy a vacant federal building we are to conclude that they are some sort of terrorists simply because they are armed and willing to die for their cause? That alone justifies shooting them by the federal government?

Lots to think about here.

You jump to soooo many conclusions without evidence, here.

1 - The building wasn't "vacant" of use.  It was "vacant" when they went in.  There are people who work there.  Security video shows the Bundy Idiot Brigade going through their desks and files.

2 - No one was shot "by the federal government" simply because of their occupation of the building.  Remember - these men PROMISED to use their guns against law enforcement.  That heightens the alert status of all law enforcement officers who might come in contact with them.  One youtube video is not sufficient evidence to reach conclusions on the justification of the shoot.  Let's wait to see more, please.

3 - Where's the evidence the Bundy Idiot Brigade had their lives made difficult by the Federal Government?  Did even one of them have any land subject to dispute in the area?  These guys have been living off Federal subsidies for most of their lives and they turn around and do this over a preserve area?  Really?  The Federal Government is the Big, Bad Enemy thing is being way overblown here.

4 - IMO, the Feds have shown tremendous restraint in letting this go on as long as it has.  They hijacked government property in an armed takeover. 

I'm confident that most of us here get that you're a sympathizer.  Do you really think you are going to convince people here to jump on the bandwagon?

[Darren10]

13 minutes ago, ttribe said:

You jump to soooo many conclusions without evidence, here.

1 - The building wasn't "vacant" of use.  It was "vacant" when they went in.  There are people who work there.  Security video shows the Bundy Idiot Brigade going through their desks and files.

2 - No one was shot "by the federal government" simply because of their occupation of the building.  Remember - these men PROMISED to use their guns against law enforcement.  That heightens the alert status of all law enforcement officers who might come in contact with them.  One youtube video is not sufficient evidence to reach conclusions on the justification of the shoot.  Let's wait to see more, please.

3 - Where's the evidence the Bundy Idiot Brigade had their lives made difficult by the Federal Government?  Did even one of them have any land subject to dispute in the area?  These guys have been living off Federal subsidies for most of their lives and they turn around and do this over a preserve area?  Really?  The Federal Government is the Big, Bad Enemy thing is being way overblown here.

4 - IMO, the Feds have shown tremendous restraint in letting this go on as long as it has.  They hijacked government property in an armed takeover. 

I'm confident that most of us here get that you're a sympathizer.  Do you really think you are going to convince people here to jump on the bandwagon?

1) I could be wrong. What video are you referring to? Is there a link to it?

2) I have said those very things right here on this thread. In fact that was pretty much my first response to Blue Dreams. Furthermore, I have explicitly said twice before you posted here that I've reached no such conclusions over a you tube video.

3) The evidence that the lives were made difficult by the federal government was published and I linked them in my original thread over this topic.

Original thread: http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/66726-church-condemns-peaceful-protest/#comment-1209574751

Post with news link on fed government making ife difficult: http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/66726-church-condemns-peaceful-protest/?page=4#comment-1209575243

4) I agree they've shown restraint. Strange though if these are "domestic terrorists", eh?

I've hid nothing of my sympathies. Did you read this thread before you posted?

[RevTestament]

3 hours ago, Darren10 said:

Won't tell you why *I think* they are buying up land but here's this:

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341bfae553ef014e87f3e653970d-800wi

Here is a fella who seems to think the BLM is being used to channel land grabs to a select few: 

Does anyone "in the know" have anything to say about this?

 

[Darren10]

ttribe;

 

This is from my National Review link ("with video evidence") that you'll find from my second link in my first response to you. The 3 minute 15 second mark may be of some interest to you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zvrrQbjepc

Edited January 27, 2016 by Darren10

[Doctor Steuss]

3 hours ago, ERayR said:

An eyewitness account

 

 

https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=Y92PvMFL0Eg

We will all probably have to wait for the official reports, and review of dash cams to know what truly happened.

The bodyguard of Ammon Bundy (Mark McConnell) gave a slightly different account of events:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxJJKgX_2iY

Edited January 27, 2016 by Doctor Steuss

[ttribe]

6 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

ttribe;

 

This is from my national Review link ("with video evidence") that you'll find from my second link in my first response to you. The 3 minute 15 second mark may be of some interest to you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zvrrQbjepc

Discussion of the offices they are occupying.  It's all the time I have at the moment: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/armed-militia-says-it-has-accessed-government-files-at-oregon-refuge/

And, yes, I've read the thread.  I believe I've read everything you've said about this situation since it first broke a number of weeks ago. No need to condescend.

[Doctor Steuss]

42 minutes ago, ttribe said:

[...] Remember - these men PROMISED to use their guns against law enforcement.  [...]

Indeed, it was only a few weeks ago that Finicum himself stated he would rather die than be taken into federal custody.

[why me]

1 hour ago, ERayR said:

According to the source that I posted it was a pretty one sided shootout with all the shooting coming from law enforcement officials.  It was one of those where law enforcement shot someone who had their hands in the air.

Well, this does seem to be the  case. What is amazing is the lack of sympathy with this man who was killed. If he did have his hands up, and was not a threat to anyome, then he was murdered by the state troopers. And yet, there is very little news about it. I think that americans need to start reflecting just what is exactly happening in the USA. And why this is happening. If this man was not a threat and if he was compliant with the trooper, then the trooper needs to be charged with murder. And the man's family needs compensation. I will bet that his family does not have that much money for lawyers.

[Darren10]

7 hours ago, ttribe said:

Discussion of the offices they are occupying.  It's all the time I have at the moment: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/armed-militia-says-it-has-accessed-government-files-at-oregon-refuge/

And, yes, I've read the thread.  I believe I've read everything you've said about this situation since it first broke a number of weeks ago. No need to condescend.

Thanks for that. From your link:

 

Quote

BURNS, Ore. -- The leader of a small, armed group occupying a national wildlife refuge in southeastern Oregon said Monday he and his followers are going through government documents stored inside refuge buildings.

What I was referring to was the initial building they took over while guns. Wasn't that building vacant?

Edited January 28, 2016 by Darren10

[Darren10]

7 hours ago, Doctor Steuss said:

We will all probably have to wait for the official reports, and review of dash cams to know what truly happened.

The bodyguard of Ammon Bundy (Mark McConnell) gave a slightly different account of events:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxJJKgX_2iY

Thank you for that video. It's a good counterpoint to consider. 

[The Nehor]

I spent way too much time staying up late last night and this morning listening to the livestreams coming from the refuge and reading everything I could find.

What did I observe:

Complete lack of any grasp of military tactics: Their livestream this morning showed them digging trenches at the bottom of hills with an excavator (which also constitutes difficult to repair vandalism). Pointless. If the FBI wanted to take them out there: one sniper. Furthermore they only started building defenses today. The ideas that their being armed is protecting them is a joke. The only thing holding the FBI back is their own desire not to kill everyone. They walk around using military ranks but it is clear they have no idea how to fight. Then you look at some of their weapons. Some of them brought peashooters. Several times they thought there were drones and were ready to try to shoot them down. I guess they imagine predator drones would fly low enough to be taken down by small arms fire? Better hope ISIS doesn't figure that out. And sending all their leaders out so they could get caught at a traffic stop? Also why did they not bring a real quantity of supplies? The sheer stupidity of these people. I imagine anyone smart enough to operate that place effectively was also smart enough not to show up.

Intelligence Failures: I have met spy-riddled online video game groups that have more intelligence security then these guys. They tweet and post on Facebook things they should not be sharing if they want to survive an actual conflict. Add to that them livestreaming their actual military (and I use the term very loosely) preparations. Add in that they are recording themselves on the internet talking about how they are ready to kill and they sure shot any legal cases they may face straight to hell.

Beliefs: These people are nuts. One of their livestreamers embarked on a long rant about chemtrails, fake Jews (still not sure what these are), the JFK assassination and other conspiracy gobbledygook. One guy also felt a need to explain how much he loved video games and which he played and how he wishes he were at home playing them but this duty is here. Combine that with constantly talking about how they are ready to fight. Their belief that reinforcements are on the way is ridiculously quixotic. At one point they heard a helicopter and seemed to think it might be on their side. Others were calling for military personnel from Iraq and elsewhere to come help. I am not sure if they meant people who fought there or people there now. If the latter and they thought the troops could show up in time to help......bwahahahahahaahah. These people are seriously deluded. Their demands seemed to degenerate to sending out the guy who killed their leader. There was rambling about all kinds of weird sovereign citizen garbage and one minute they were wrapping themselves in the Constitution and the next going on about the superiority of frontier justice. The line between politics and mental illness is razor thin here. I also have to wonder if their endorsement of Trump might help his campaign. The childish bravado was also laughable in a gallows kind of way. Listening to them talk about taking on roadblocks and how they will die before surrendering is hilarious, again in a dark dark way.

Not Survivors: At the risk of being offensive I was amazed at how obese almost everyone involved is. These are not commados or the kind of people I would want to be around in a situation requiring lots of physical action. These are out of shape wannabe weekend warriors.

Lavoy: While painted as a harmless old kook I am not so convinced. It came out that he got $115,343 from charity organizations for fostering children. It was his main income source. In other words this guy is in many ways a welfare sponge. “That was my main source of income. My ranch, well, the cows just cover the costs of the ranch. If this means rice and beans for the next few years, so be it. We’re going to stay the course.” Why is it that the worst most rabid anti-government types are the ones eating off the table of government-supported charities? And there is going to be a vigil for him. Worst martyr ever.

Local Sheriff: The sheriff seems like a good guy. He was involved in the traffic stop that was planned to arrest the leaders to bring about a peaceful resolution and looked devastated that it ended in having to shoot Lavoy. In the press conference he looked shell-shocked. "This can't happen anymore. This can't happen in America, and it can't happen in Harney County." I also feel bad for the officer who had to shoot him.

Internet: It was fun watching trolls and supporters clash on social media all over every bit that the occupiers posted. The occupiers do need better tech skills. They are horrible at shooting video and doing audio recordings. Fake accounts abounded. I hear there was a parody livestream at some point. One prankster sent anonymous tips to the FBI about the militants as if the FBI was unaware. 

Miscellaneous: I found it funny that after the militia put out a call for supplies some happy soul sent them a shipment of sex toys. The guy driving the excavator is a klutz and was banging it up pretty bad, kind of hoping he gets charged for damaging the property. The holdouts smoking weed around the campfire while sleep-deprived seemed odd; guess they do not care about nightvision; also smoking weed on federal property is still a crime. Also, why was the pregnant woman smoking....bad mommy.

Here is a sample livestream:

 

Just fast forward to whenever someone's face is in the camera.

 

My Conclusions:

These people are idiots.
The government acted with remarkable restraint.
The occupiers did not have a consistent ideology to rally behind, they have vague catchphrases, inconsistent contradicting positions, and no real rallying cause.
They seemed emotionally and mentally unstable and had no coherent command structure once they lost their leaders (I am not sure they had one before) and no coherent plan.
I expect that many of those who went home will later be served with federal warrants and all of these people are going to prison for at least a few years. The ringleaders possibly a decade or more.

[thesometimesaint]

Nehor:

Pretty much my feelings too.

[VideoGameJunkie]

I just wish no one had to die.