Jump to content

Malheur Wildlife Refuge Occupier Verdicts


The Nehor

Recommended Posts

Well, an idiotic jury just found seven of the leaders of the occupying 'force' not guilty on every charge.

Good to know twelve American people hopefully selected at random now believe that marching onto federal land with guns, impeding federal operations, and doing hundreds of thousands of dollars in damage to federal facilities is now okay. Should we all start calling dibs on pieces of federal land now or fight it out wild-west style to decide who gets to squat on what land?

Oregon, you make me sad.

Edited by The Nehor
Link to comment
1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Well, an idiotic jury just found seven of the leaders of the occupying 'force' not guilty on every charge.

Good to know twelve American people hopefully selected at random now believe that marching onto federal land with guns, impeding federal operations, and doing hundreds of thousands of dollars in damage to federal facilities is now okay. Should we all start calling dibs on pieces of federal land now or fight it out wild-west style to decide who gets to squat on what land?

Oregon, you make me sad.

I just posted this in Social Hall section. Yet again, those who disagree with you are "idiots". That's tellin' them.

Quote

impeding federal operations

What was impeded? What am I missing?

http://www.bing.com/search?q=ammon+bundy+gropu+impeded+federal+operations&qs=n&form=QBLH&pq=ammon+bundy+gropu+impeded+federal+operations&sc=0-44&sp=-1&sk=&cvid=49BE1E4D99C0442B9DF6E75CE006846C

Quote

and doing hundreds of thousands of dollars in damage to federal facilities

What damage? What am I missing? Am I an idiot? Must be.

http://www.bing.com/search?q=ammon+bundy+group+damaged+federal+facilities&qs=n&form=QBLH&pq=ammon+bundy+group+damaged+federal+facilities&sc=0-44&sp=-1&sk=&cvid=49BE1E4D99C0442B9DF6E75CE006846C

Edited by Darren10
Link to comment
3 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

Like who and for what reason?

um, the members of the Church? an armed standoff for what 40 days with the FBI, giving the Church a bad name so much so the 1st Pres. writes a response to this nonsense, that is acceptable now, as any member of the Church can do that stuff without repercussions?

Link to comment
1 minute ago, Duncan said:

um, the members of the Church? an armed standoff for what 40 days with the FBI, giving the Church a bad name so much so the 1st Pres. writes a response to this nonsense, that is acceptable now, as any member of the Church can do that stuff without repercussions?

My understanding is that the official position of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is that civilians are to exercise their civil duties. What civil duty did this group incorrectly exercise? This isn't Canada who thinks it can control churches and their decisions, it's the United States. Nehor may think the Bundy group and now yet another jury acquitting the Bundy family as "idiotic", but what civil right did this group improperly exercise?

 

As for the church's "bad name". It is true that Ammon did cite joseph Smith to justify occupying the federal buildings, but the Church did rightfully address that. Should they be "exed" for improperly applying Joseph Smith's teachings? After the Church's response, it was no longer an issue so far as I know. no one in this group insisted they (they group) were right and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints were wrong. The latter *would* be grounds for excommunication.

Link to comment
13 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

Do what? Protest while carrying guns? Oh, the dread.

yeah!!!! what good can come from standing off against the FBI-you aren't going to win and it wasn't their fight anyways as I understand it. The government doesn't control Churches here in Canada. A civil duty to take over a bird sanctuary in Oregon? why don't they stay home in Nevada and shoot clay pigeons or something. I think they should be exed, they are white home grown terrorists and I just don't see that as Christ like behaviour

Link to comment
38 minutes ago, Duncan said:

yeah!!!! what good can come from standing off against the FBI-you aren't going to win and it wasn't their fight anyways as I understand it. The government doesn't control Churches here in Canada. A civil duty to take over a bird sanctuary in Oregon? why don't they stay home in Nevada and shoot clay pigeons or something. I think they should be exed, they are white home grown terrorists and I just don't see that as Christ like behaviour

The question was not what good can come from standing off against the FBI. You and I agree completely that it was foolish and ended poorly as predicted. The question was why should any of this group get excommunicated from the LDS Church? So far as I know, standing off against the FBI is not excommunicatable grounds. 

Yes, Canada does control churches. http://news.nationalpost.com/news/religion/alberta-appeal-court-rules-judges-can-overturn-unfair-church-edicts

Who cares why they took over the federal facilities they did? They impeded no federal work nor damaged anything so far as I know. They protested the federal takeover of land which is a story wthat most definitely needs to be heard. Even though I have not condoned their behavior, I have great empathy for their plight. 

If their behavior was not Christlike, what protest behavior beyond picketing on the street has been according to LDS standards? Taking up arms is not inherently unchristlike. Moroni did it and was going to do it against his own duly elected ruler as well. 

Now, be honest, is one of the reasons you disdain their actions and desire excommunication is because they are white? I ask because you brought up their race all on your own. 

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

The question was not what good can come from standing off against the FBI. You and I agree completely that it was foolish and ended poorly as predicted. The question was why should any of this group get excommunicated from the LDS Church? So far as I know, standing off against the FBI is not excommunicatable grounds. 

Yes, Canada does control churches. http://news.nationalpost.com/news/religion/alberta-appeal-court-rules-judges-can-overturn-unfair-church-edicts

Who cares why they took over the federal facilities they did? They impeded no federal work nor damaged anything so far as I know. They protested the federal takeover of land which is a story wthat most definitely needs to be heard. Even though I have not condoned their behavior, I have great empathy for their plight. 

If their behavior was not Christlike, what protest behavior beyond picketing on the street has been according to LDS standards? Taking up arms is not inherently unchristlike. Moroni did it and was going to do it against his own duly elected ruler as well. 

Now, be honest, is one of the reasons you disdain their actions and desire excommunication is because they are white? I ask because you brought up their race all on your own. 

one court case in one province hardly constitutes Canada controlling Churches. Moroni and some delusional guy claiming to be Moroni is a difference. It wasn't their fight to begin with. Not all terrorists are Muslims but home grown people like these guys. I can't see all this mucky muck as acceptable behaviour in the Church and we want members duplicating it all over the Church? These guys weren't protesting on the street, they took over this place with guns

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Darren10 said:

As to what was impeded. There were several projects impeded. There was an ongoing effort to reduce the invasive carp population they estimate was pushed back at least three years, several bird studies were interrupted and may have to be restarted, you know, the WORK the agency does. If someone occupied my office building for a month and a half and asked if that impeded my ability to get my job done I would look at them like they were stupid. Please picture me looking at you like you are stupid.

As to damage they broke open the safes and money, cameras, and computers were stolen. They damaged Native American tribal artifacts on site. They used the excavator on site to illegally dig a new road, partially through a protected native burial site. They tore up the parking lot, dug trenches, destroyed parts of a fence, and removed security cameras. Some of the pipes broke because there was no one on site and they defecated all over the place. They may also have disturbed native graves. Files were searched and tossed and some documents are believed lost.They used a boat launch area for firearms training causing predictable damage. The estimated total cost in damage was estimated to be 1.7 million dollars (out of the 9 million these idiots cost the local, state, and federal government over all).

So yes, you might be an idiot.

2 hours ago, Darren10 said:

YES, we can occupy federal buildings in protest.

Yes, with guns and threatening to shoot anyone who shows up. Why don't you try that at the White House?

1 hour ago, Darren10 said:

Come to think of it, Nehor, Oregon is probably far more aligned with your political thinking tan many other states. So I share your lamentation over Oregon.

I didn't think whether one should be allowed to illegally occupy land, ruin it, and threaten to kill police was a partisan issue. Who knew? Let me know what party that is so I can shun them all.

1 hour ago, Darren10 said:

Do what? Protest while carrying guns? Oh, the dread.

Did you listen to these yahoos? They were not just protesting. Protests are not intended to make the area dangerous to those who live and work in the area. They made the area dangerous. They were threatening to FIGHT THE POLICE AND THE FBI! They were trying to turn this place into an armed camp with ridiculous military fortifications! Replace them with Muslim citizens of the US protesting US military support for Israel and making the same threats and ask yourself if you would still support their right to protest in the same manner. I am guessing you would be demanding that these terrorists be dealt with and sent to Guantanamo.

32 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

Who cares why they took over the federal facilities they did? They impeded no federal work nor damaged anything so far as I know. They protested the federal takeover of land which is a story wthat most definitely needs to be heard. Even though I have not condoned their behavior, I have great empathy for their plight. 

They impeded the work of the Federal agency and broke all kinds of things. How can you feel you can comment without knowing the basic facts?

They were not protesting the federal takeover of land. They were protesting the federal government not letting them use federal land however they want. They didn't seize these people's land. They stopped letting them use government land in a certain way. To prove their point this gaggle of mental incompetents seized federal land and showed exactly why they should not be allowed to use federal land for any reason.

As a side note as a hobby while the occupation was going on and they were broadcasting everything I put it on in the evening when I was going about my life and 'gaggle of mental incompetents' is a charitable interpretation of what they were doing. They were pathetic. Half the time they were talking about their rights and the constitution while not understanding either and the other half they were whining about how persecuted they were as if the FBI were a bunch of bullies for waiting for them to surrender. Occasionally they had interludes about how brave the dimwit who tried to run the barricade and died going for his gun was.

Edited by The Nehor
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Duncan said:

one court case in one province hardly constitutes Canada controlling Churches. Moroni and some delusional guy claiming to be Moroni is a difference. It wasn't their fight to begin with. Not all terrorists are Muslims but home grown people like these guys. I can't see all this mucky muck as acceptable behaviour in the Church and we want members duplicating it all over the Church? These guys weren't protesting on the street, they took over this place with guns

They occupied and unoccupied building. They did not "take it over with guns" in the sense of pointing a gun at snyone nor forcing anyone to leave. The Book of Mormon Moroni, however did have arms and used them against his own people. He was about to usecthem against the highest ruler in the land as well. That's the difference. 

I am seeking some sort of consistent moral standards here. I've yet to find it. 

Link to comment
41 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

They occupied and unoccupied building. They did not "take it over with guns" in the sense of pointing a gun at snyone nor forcing anyone to leave. The Book of Mormon Moroni, however did have arms and used them against his own people. He was about to usecthem against the highest ruler in the land as well. That's the difference. 

I am seeking some sort of consistent moral standards here. I've yet to find it. 

Why bring guns then? if they are so peaceful, they wouldn't need guns. Moroni called Pahoran to repentance in Alma 60, he didn't threaten him with a sword, except for want of food and those Oregon guys didn't even get that right, "Please send snacks". It's your country to find that moral standard, not mine-good luck!

Edited by Duncan
Link to comment

Nehor;

 

Got it. Thanks for the heads up. 

 

http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/09/malheur_national_wildlife_refu_1.html

 

OK...

 

No thanks of the take over the White House invite. Neither you nor I disagree that the regue takeover was not wise and that it justifiably ended poorly for the occupiers. But, bringing up the White House, did not the Founders of this country take up arms against the King of England? Were they idiots? At what point is armed insurrection justified? The occupiers were protesting damage to their own lands via the federal government's enviromental policies. Their own properties, land and livestock, were destroyed without any compensation. So, to personalize the situation, as you like to do, when the federal government destroys your property and refuses to compensate you, which is arguably unconstitutional for the federal ogvernment to do, and did so regularly, would you must comply? Would you protest? If so, how? 

 

Quote

I didn't think whether one should be allowed to illegally occupy land, ruin it, and threaten to kill police was a partisan issue. Who knew? Let me know what party that is so I can shun them all.

Black Lives Matter? Hands up don't shoot in Congress? congress_handsupdontshoot.jpg

"Safe Zones" in Ferguson? Police being told not to intervene? http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-ferguson-protests-police-20150903-story.html

 

Quote

Did you listen to these yahoos? They were not just protesting. Protests are not intended to make the area dangerous to those who live and work in the area. They made the area dangerous. They were threatening to FIGHT THE POLICE AND THE FBI! They were trying to turn this place into an armed camp with ridiculous military fortifications! Replace them with Muslim citizens of the US protesting US military support for Israel and making the same threats and ask yourself if you would still support their right to protest in the same manner. I am guessing you would be demanding that these terrorists be dealt with and sent to Guantanamo.

I responded to this assertion in the original thread I posted on this occupation. If Muslims were treated the same way I absolutely would show must as much empathy for their cause while condemning their chosen course of action. If these were militant Islamist ps found on a battle pfiled, then, yeah Guatanamo sounds appropirate, but if they were US citizens protesting federal overreach and destorying their personal property, then, not so much. 

 

Quote

They impeded the work of the Federal agency and broke all kinds of things. How can you feel you can comment without knowing the basic facts?

It's what I use a dialogue for, to learn from others. Thanks again for the heads up. 

And, oh, yes, they were protesting damage ot their property done by the federal government. Here's this. I posted it on my original thread, I think twice. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/429214/oregon-rancher-protests-civil-disobedience-justified

 

Link to comment
42 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Why bring guns then? if they are so peaceful, they wouldn't need guns. Moroni called Pahoran to repentance in Alma 60, he didn't threaten him with a sword, except for want of food and those Oregon guys didn't even get that right, "Please send snacks". It's your country to find that moral standard, not mine-good luck!

Why guns? Because they are allowed to have guns. Moroni threatened Pahoran when he thought Pahoran governed unrighteously, not "for want of food". 

 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Duncan said:

one court case in one province hardly constitutes Canada controlling Churches. Moroni and some delusional guy claiming to be Moroni is a difference. It wasn't their fight to begin with. Not all terrorists are Muslims but home grown people like these guys. I can't see all this mucky muck as acceptable behaviour in the Church and we want members duplicating it all over the Church? These guys weren't protesting on the street, they took over this place with guns

The court in Alberta followed national Canadian law. 

Link to comment
6 hours ago, Darren10 said:

The court in Alberta followed national Canadian law. 

which as far as I know was only applied in that one case. I got Alma 60:35 showing that if Pahoran didn't give Moroni and his men food he'd come and take it by the sword, what is your verse Pahoran was threatened? I find it odd too in North Dakota the Natives are attacked and all kinds of stuff against them but a bunch of nutter white guys in Oregon , nothing, all acquitted. Find your moral standard there.

Link to comment
8 hours ago, Darren10 said:

They occupied and unoccupied building. They did not "take it over with guns" in the sense of pointing a gun at snyone nor forcing anyone to leave. The Book of Mormon Moroni, however did have arms and used them against his own people. He was about to usecthem against the highest ruler in the land as well. That's the difference. 

I am seeking some sort of consistent moral standards here. I've yet to find it. 

So it is okay to illegally occupy land as long as no one is there. Can you send me your address and dates for your vacation plans. If I point a gun at you to keep you out but not to force you to leave it is okay.

Moroni is not a fit comparison. He was a general taking up arms against armed insurgents conspiring against the government. If anyone fits for a Moroni comparison in this scenario it is the FBI. In both cases dissidents seized the government's property and drove out government officers and were breathing out threats against the government.

You also tidily ignored the vandalism I pointed out that you were ignorant of before and argue the government hurt their stuff first. What? And went off on a bunch of irrelevant tangents. Why? Why are you hellbent on defending terrorism?

Edited by The Nehor
Link to comment
57 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Well at least the defense attorney is in trouble for arguing after the decision was read. 

My guess is the prosecutors didn't do their job, though.  I don't know how else they'd get away with this. 

Could be, I suspect a jury sympathetic to domestic terrorism over these issues. And people are worried about Sharia Law for some reason. :( 

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...