Danzo Posted October 28, 2016 Posted October 28, 2016 24 minutes ago, snowflake said: Oregon is an "open carry" state. Most people who live out in Burns Oregon are of a gun-toting 2nd amendment loving crowd. BTW. So driving around in pickups and "packing heat", people there don't even bat an eye. were you responding to Daren or to me?
Darren10 Posted October 28, 2016 Posted October 28, 2016 2 minutes ago, Danzo said: were you responding to Daren or to me? Either way, it was a good post!
Danzo Posted October 28, 2016 Posted October 28, 2016 39 minutes ago, rongo said: It's definitely the Marcus Mumford I grew up with. When interviewed, he has a very bad stutter, and he did growing up. He also mentions growing up on a dairy farm. He looks much older than I am, even though we're both in our 40s. I think using excessive and unnecessary force on an attorney asking to see documents shows the frustration of the feds at blowing this round. It definitely if going to look bad on the government, even if he was being annoying. The Judge could have just cited him for contempt and wait him out. Unfortunately, law enforcement these days seems to be quite trigger happy. I can just see this one going to trial. "We had to tackle him, you honor he was pointing his finger at me!"
snowflake Posted October 28, 2016 Posted October 28, 2016 8 minutes ago, Danzo said: were you responding to Daren or to me? sorry, responding to Daren.
The Nehor Posted October 28, 2016 Author Posted October 28, 2016 (edited) 4 hours ago, provoman said: Good to know that one individual, who does not know the law, does not know the facts, does not know the standard of evidence....is willing to convict and at the same time condemn those WHO DO know the facts, the standard of evidence, AND those things were explained to them by a minimum of 3 experts in the law - Prosecutor, Defense Attorney, Judge via jury instructions. It is ironic that I am told to trust the judicial system in this case by the same people who rail against 'judicial activism' and how judges are destroying the country with even less of a clue. I did read up on the standards for the charges and I am arguing that their actions did qualify. If you are trying to argue that in Oregon marching onto land without permission and trashing the place for over a million dollars in damage while turning it into an armed camp is not impeding the people who work at that location then I never want to live in Oregon for fear of what could be done to my house or business. Please throw more charges at these idiots! Edited October 28, 2016 by The Nehor
The Nehor Posted October 28, 2016 Author Posted October 28, 2016 3 hours ago, Danzo said: The problem is that they were not charged with trespass They were not charged with vandalism. They were not charged with terrorism. True, and that makes the prosecutors idiots too. Idiots all around. Something in the water in Oregon perhaps? I made that statement to fight people who argued these people were conducting an innocent peaceful protest. They were not. Legal considerations are somewhat different of course. You can morally condemn what you cannot legally prosecute. I think if the DA had any idea what they were doing they would have thrown in more charges. 2
Calm Posted October 28, 2016 Posted October 28, 2016 (edited) My understanding totally gained from watching TV is prosecutors don't include lesser charges because they want to force jurors choosing the stronger penalty...which seems a waste of taxpayer money in this case. I assume they can retry on somewhat different charges now, which also seems against the spirit of double jeopardy. Could a judge throw the case out? I could see retrying a case on lesser charges until they get one that sticks. Is that possible? Would be bad PR, but if they felt they had to get a charge to stick no matter what and were too overconfident in what they could prove, so this happens multiple times? Edited October 28, 2016 by Calm 1
rongo Posted October 28, 2016 Posted October 28, 2016 53 minutes ago, The Nehor said: . . . then I never want to live in Oregon for fear of what could be done to my house or business. Whatever you do, don't open a cake-baking business in Oregon . . . 4
Darren10 Posted October 28, 2016 Posted October 28, 2016 1 hour ago, The Nehor said: It is ironic that I am told to trust the judicial system in this case by the same people who rail against 'judicial activism' and how judges are destroying the country with even less of a clue. I did read up on the standards for the charges and I am arguing that their actions did qualify. If you are trying to argue that in Oregon marching onto land without permission and trashing the place for over a million dollars in damage while turning it into an armed camp is not impeding the people who work at that location then I never want to live in Oregon for fear of what could be done to my house or business. Please throw more charges at these idiots! People who rail against judicial activism by and large have a great respect for the Judiciary, which is why they take care for it to not be abused. Everything Danzo exerted you to do is correct. His words even made me self reflect to make sure I am not jumping to pre mature conclusions. It's easy for anyone to do.
Darren10 Posted October 28, 2016 Posted October 28, 2016 13 minutes ago, rongo said: Whatever you do, don't open a cake-baking business in Oregon . . . Bwahahahahaha!!!
The Nehor Posted October 28, 2016 Author Posted October 28, 2016 3 hours ago, Darren10 said: Once again, I have NEVER justified their occupation. It was wrong and Robert Finicum getting shot by a police office was 100% justifiable. There's no disagreement here between you and I. The disagreement is the nature of the occupation. You label a group "domestic terrorists" and crazy "idiots" who take up arms and ready to kill people. Yet the only person that was ever shot was in the Bundy group. The only person who ever had a firearm pointed at them was the Bundy group. The LDS Church expressed grave concern over this protest and that people may die. Well, people are dying, uniformed police officers are being targeted and killed over a lie. A huge luie. You, like the LDS Church, express little to no concern over this yet grave concern over the Bundy group. Nobody is "dangerous" or a "terrorist" just because they carry guns. That includes to a protest. You arms, feet, rocks, sticks and other objects can also be deadly. it's not a matter of what you have on your possession but what your intent on using them for which makes you "dangerous" and a "terrorist". Yes, they were ready to kill people. Remember, I listened to their ramblings. They were psyching themselves up to kill people. Guns do not inherently make you a terrorist. Occupying a building that is not yours, digging defensive fortifications to use to defend it with firearms (no matter how ineptly), and calling for revolution does make you a terrorist. I would have had no moral problem with the police and/or FBI moving in immediately and killing them all. I am glad fewer people died but it would have been justifiable. 3 hours ago, Darren10 said: You're getting very close to openly threatening me, sir. If you point a gun at me my reaction will be one of a variety of choices including shooting you dead. Chill out with the hyperbole. I have no desire to "go there" with you or anyone else. This is a discussion on philosophical matters, not personal. Yes, a clearly hypothetical situation is a threat. I find it hilarious that you imagine my post is a threat but activists with firearms in foxholes on stolen land are not threatening. You may want to work on consistency there. 3 hours ago, Darren10 said: If I make plans for a private paid vacation, no you may not prevent me from passing through. No, you may not point a gun at me. Nobody in the Bundy group pointed a gun at anyone at any point so far as I know. The only one who had guns pointed at them were those in the Bundy group. Again, it was 100% justified for law enforcement to point their guns at them and to shoot Finicum. Why do you keep returning to contend on a point we agree on? focus on whether or not the Bundy group "pointed their guns" at anyone then we can go from there. Here is a different case but directly connected to not allowing others to pass through a rout the are perfectly in the right to do so and should be completely welcome to do so. Is this domestic terrorism? Did Berkley students make life dangerous? Or since it was against white people, it's not to worry? On the latter, Duncan may think so. You may think so and I think it was BlueBell or BlueDream I called out on this in my original thread, she may think so, but I think police should have broken this protest line and could have done so very easily instead of assisting white students to safely go around. http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=8301 That was not terrorism. That was a violent protest. Also illegal and (resources allowing) arrests should be made if plausible but not terrorism. They did not threaten to kill any law enforcement that showed up. You seem hung up on directly pointing guns at people. They were building defenses and making "tactical plans" (again, moronic plans) to defend the place. They were openly confessing they would defend the place which means they are saying they will attack and kill people. 3 hours ago, Darren10 said: Yet before that he was going to take up arms against his government for the suffering he (Moroni) supposed they inflicted upon his men. Yeah, Moroni threatened to launch a military coup at one point. Moroni threatened a lot of things. He was a bit of a hothead. Look at how that screwed up his prisoner exchange. Did Moroni have legitimate reason to overthrow the government? Here, you get into debates about legitimacy. In any case neither the government nor the occupiers are comparable. 3 hours ago, Darren10 said: That does fit Moroni, but so does my statement directly above. Now, for the umpteenth time, the FBI acted justifiably, even "righteously" you can say, against the Bundy group. There is no disagreement between you and I on this. But, Moroni was going to use "the sword" to protect the well-being of his men from government neglect. That seems to describe a person willing to openly fight his government when they do wrong. Said fighting includes violence and death inflicted upon government parties. And? I never argued there was never a good revolution or revolt. I am arguing this is a bad revolt. In any case expecting the government you are revolting against to recognize that some revolts are legitimate and legal is the height of stupidity. It would be suicide to any government. 3 hours ago, Darren10 said: No, I did not ignore it. I assume charges may be filed against the culprits. There's even video of them committing the vandalism. For the love of all that is running full circle. No one is defending terrorism here. Need I repeat yet again that the Bundy group acted in the wrong and that killing one of their own was 100% justified? Obviously it's probably my fault I have not been clear enough on the matter so here: the Bundy group acted in the wrong and killing of one their own was 100% justified. And it was terrorism. 1
The Nehor Posted October 28, 2016 Author Posted October 28, 2016 11 minutes ago, rongo said: Whatever you do, don't open a cake-baking business in Oregon . . . I would serve cakes for a gay wedding as long as their credit card was good. I wouldn't take checks though. Just now, Darren10 said: People who rail against judicial activism by and large have a great respect for the Judiciary, which is why they take care for it to not be abused. Everything Danzo exerted you to do is correct. His words even made me self reflect to make sure I am not jumping to pre mature conclusions. It's easy for anyone to do. I am saying that this was a travesty for the judicial system. I am not sure what Danzo exerted me to do.
Darren10 Posted October 28, 2016 Posted October 28, 2016 1 hour ago, The Nehor said: Yes, they were ready to kill people. Remember, I listened to their ramblings. They were psyching themselves up to kill people. Guns do not inherently make you a terrorist. Occupying a building that is not yours, digging defensive fortifications to use to defend it with firearms (no matter how ineptly), and calling for revolution does make you a terrorist. I would have had no moral problem with the police and/or FBI moving in immediately and killing them all. I am glad fewer people died but it would have been justifiable. Yes, a clearly hypothetical situation is a threat. I find it hilarious that you imagine my post is a threat but activists with firearms in foxholes on stolen land are not threatening. You may want to work on consistency there. That was not terrorism. That was a violent protest. Also illegal and (resources allowing) arrests should be made if plausible but not terrorism. They did not threaten to kill any law enforcement that showed up. You seem hung up on directly pointing guns at people. They were building defenses and making "tactical plans" (again, moronic plans) to defend the place. They were openly confessing they would defend the place which means they are saying they will attack and kill people. Yeah, Moroni threatened to launch a military coup at one point. Moroni threatened a lot of things. He was a bit of a hothead. Look at how that screwed up his prisoner exchange. Did Moroni have legitimate reason to overthrow the government? Here, you get into debates about legitimacy. In any case neither the government nor the occupiers are comparable. And? I never argued there was never a good revolution or revolt. I am arguing this is a bad revolt. In any case expecting the government you are revolting against to recognize that some revolts are legitimate and legal is the height of stupidity. It would be suicide to any government. And it was terrorism. There you have it. Take over an empty federal building with guns, plan for a revolution, send in the FBI to kill them all immediately and those who dug in are terrorists.
Darren10 Posted October 28, 2016 Posted October 28, 2016 The Nehor; Quote I find it hilarious that you imagine my post is a threat but activists with firearms in foxholes on stolen land are not threatening. You may want to work on consistency there. Quote Here's what I said, "you're getting very close to openly threatening me, sir. If you point a gun at me my reaction will be one of a variety of choices including shooting you dead. Chill out with the hyperbole. I have no desire to "go there" with you or anyone else. This is a discussion on philosophical matters, not personal." I did not say it was a rhreat, just getting close to being one. For example, you like to personalize hypotheticals. You did so in this thread by scenarioing (if that's a word), you pointing a gun at me. If I were to merely say, "go for it" then that would be an online threat between us using guns. I could very easily have taken your hypothetical as threatening, yes. It's a realm best to avoid. What is important to me is that people are not identified as "terrorists" just because they have guns. No matter the situation. It's people's intent that matters and in the case of guns, what they actually do with it. Go to a gun range and you should not feel threatened by anyone there. However, if anyone points their gguns at you, even by accident which does happen, you very well should feel threatened. Same goes for protests. Who cares if protesters have guns. Now, if they start pointing the, at others, then that's a real problem, even if they truly mean no harm in doing so. That's the nature of having a firearm on your person. Quote You seem hung up on directly pointing guns at people. They were building defenses and making "tactical plans" (again, moronic plans) to defend the place. They were openly confessing they would defend the place which means they are saying they will attack and kill people. And that aspect is definitely worthy to explore. That is threatening and that is the promise of violence. As I pointed out, Moroni did the same thing regarding raising an armed revolt against his government. Was he a terrorist? Legitimate question to be consistant with your standards via Mormon standards and beliefs on morality. Quote Yeah, Moroni threatened to launch a military coup at one point. Moroni threatened a lot of things. He was a bit of a hothead. Look at how that screwed up his prisoner exchange. Did Moroni have legitimate reason to overthrow the government? Here, you get into debates about legitimacy. In any case neither the government nor the occupiers are comparable. So, Moroni was a hothead? OK, but was he a terrorist? And. As I recall, Moroni came up with a much better result than a prisoner exchange, he actually got his men back at no cost. At least that what I get from Alma 55. And this is consistant to Moroni's superior planning. So, was Moroni a terrorist for desiring to take up arms against his government? You know Moroni would also have dug trenches to do so. Quote And? I never argued there was never a good revolution or revolt. I am arguing this is a bad revolt. In any case expecting the government you are revolting against to recognize that some revolts are legitimate and legal is the height of stupidity. It would be suicide to any government. Good thing I never legitimized their revolt but I do have empathy for their cause. Lots of it in fact. And, Nehor, are you trying to bring up my supporting the Bundy group and you condemning it when I do not support what they did in the first place? AGAIN, there is no disagreement between you and I on dencouncing their takeover efforts.
The Nehor Posted October 29, 2016 Author Posted October 29, 2016 1 hour ago, Darren10 said: There you have it. Take over an empty federal building with guns, plan for a revolution, send in the FBI to kill them all immediately and those who dug in are terrorists. Its the only way they will learn. 52 minutes ago, Darren10 said: Here's what I said, "you're getting very close to openly threatening me, sir. If you point a gun at me my reaction will be one of a variety of choices including shooting you dead. Chill out with the hyperbole. I have no desire to "go there" with you or anyone else. This is a discussion on philosophical matters, not personal." I did not say it was a rhreat, just getting close to being one. For example, you like to personalize hypotheticals. You did so in this thread by scenarioing (if that's a word), you pointing a gun at me. If I were to merely say, "go for it" then that would be an online threat between us using guns. I could very easily have taken your hypothetical as threatening, yes. It's a realm best to avoid. No, if you had done that I would have laughed. You taking it as a threat or 'close to a threat' is silly. 53 minutes ago, Darren10 said: What is important to me is that people are not identified as "terrorists" just because they have guns. These people would have been terrorists if they were armed with slingshots. It would have made them even dumber (hard to imagine) but they would still be terrorists. 54 minutes ago, Darren10 said: And that aspect is definitely worthy to explore. That is threatening and that is the promise of violence. As I pointed out, Moroni did the same thing regarding raising an armed revolt against his government. Was he a terrorist? Legitimate question to be consistant with your standards via Mormon standards and beliefs on morality. Unfortunately things like when it is appropriate to be involved in armed revolt against one's own government is not subject to pat answers that will appear consistent at all times. Pahoran recognized that sometimes submission to an aggressor is sometimes appropriate and sometimes it is appropriate to fight in his epistle to Moroni when he says that if we are commanded by God to submit we submit. If we are commanded to fight we fight. Remember, the reason he was paralyzed with indecision was whether it was right to fight the rebels in that instance. 57 minutes ago, Darren10 said: So, Moroni was a hothead? OK, but was he a terrorist? And. As I recall, Moroni came up with a much better result than a prisoner exchange, he actually got his men back at no cost. At least that what I get from Alma 55. And this is consistant to Moroni's superior planning. So, was Moroni a terrorist for desiring to take up arms against his government? You know Moroni would also have dug trenches to do so. I would not call Moroni a terrorist. Moroni did manage to rescue the prisoners but he also initiated the prisoner exchange. He botched it because he wasn't a very good diplomat. Fortunately the war was winding down (you can see in how the Lamanites fought towards the end that their morale was WAAAAY down) and rescuing the prisoners was accomplished pretty easily. I am guessing if they had traded prisoners there would have been a similar result but who knows? Moroni never did take up arms against his government. His government was exiled and he restored it. He also did not desire to take up arms. He did not want to but felt it was his only option. These idiots did want a confrontation at least at first. Then when they realized they were all going to die or go to prison they showed their true colors....cowards. 1 hour ago, Darren10 said: Good thing I never legitimized their revolt but I do have empathy for their cause. Lots of it in fact. And, Nehor, are you trying to bring up my supporting the Bundy group and you condemning it when I do not support what they did in the first place? AGAIN, there is no disagreement between you and I on dencouncing their takeover efforts. You were much more supportive in the first thread about the occupation. Perhaps you have changed your mind since then. I have no empathy for their cause. I find it sad that people would empathize with them.
Recommended Posts