A thread that is almost completely dedicated to an argument over a definition. This is like the Superbowl for CorsiHockeyLeague.
Hey, don't blame me. People were arguing about it for about four freakin' pages without me. My initial response was was, "I don't know if they're terrorists, but while this "occupation" is still ongoing who cares? We can haggle over the definition in retrospect."
But I actually do think the meaning of the term is important, because as usual people want to take something with a negative connotation and apply it to anything they don't like, which always ends up making it harder to understand (and therefore address) nuanced problems.
Quote:
Originally Posted by New Era
There's the difference. I already have a clear definition of the term from the ultimate authority on the subject in the US. I'm well past arguing that point. It's kind of like having a climate change discussion where one side is arguing the science isn't in while the other is long past that and is talking about the changes happening or possible to come. If you want to get hung up on definition then maybe violent right wing extremist Malitia members might be more to your liking?
Did you just compare me to a climate change denier?
If your whole conversation is about the question of, "will the FBI deal with these morons as terrorists", that's fine, but that's not what people were talking about in here... so you'll have to forgive us for being confused when you show up and start your own similar, but distinct, conversation with no one in particular.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
I was hoping for something less than 30 years old, I would hope (but sadly don't think) that things had changed in the US.
So the moral is, if you don't want to experience a life and death situation don't bring weapons.
As I alluded to earlier in the thread. If you don't show up to something like this with a tonne of weapons, unless you want it to turn violent. Yes, I believe that a segment of those in the buildings want this to be violent.
Also, to be fair the Philly incident (while unacceptable) wasn't exactly peaceful.
Furthermore if this was there approach to living in the community....
Spoiler!
In short, if you come armed for a fight you will generally get a fight. To me those people in Oregon have come armed for a fight.
Let's get real here for a second. Dudes with afros and guns who have barracaded themselves in a building is not grounds for BLOWING UP said building and the surrounding neighbourhood. Full Stop.
Quote:
In 1996, a federal jury ordered the city to pay a $1.5 million civil suit judgement to survivor Ramona Africa and relatives of two people killed in the bombing. The jury had found that the city used excessive force and violated the members' constitutional protections against unreasonable search and seizure.[19] Philadelphia was given the sobriquet "The City that Bombed Itself."
Second, those examples are by no means comprehensive. You asked for something more recent, well, in 1992 the FBI stormed the Ruby Ridge militia compound:
Quote:
Both the internal 1994 Ruby Ridge Task Force Report and the public 1995 Senate subcommittee report on Ruby Ridge criticized the rules of engagement as unconstitutional. A 1995 GAO report on use of force by federal law enforcement agencies stated: "In October 1995, Treasury and Justice adopted use of deadly force policies to standardize the various policies their component agencies had adopted over the years." The major change was the requirement of a reasonable belief of an "imminent" danger of death or serious physical injury, which brought all federal LEA deadly force policies in line with U.S. Supreme Court rulings (Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1, 18 (1985) and Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989)) that applied to state and local LE agencies.[64]
The surviving members of the Weaver family filed a wrongful death suit for $200 million. In an out-of-court settlement in August 1995, the federal government awarded Randy Weaver $100,000 and his three daughters $1 million each. The government did not admit any wrongdoing in the deaths of Sammy and Vicki.[65][66] On the condition of anonymity, a DOJ official told the Washington Post that he believed the Weavers probably would have won the full amount if the case had gone to trial.[67]
FBI director Louis Freeh disciplined or proposed discipline for twelve FBI employees over their handling of the incident and the later prosecution of Randy Weaver and Harris. He described the incident before the U.S. Senate hearing investigation as "synonymous with the exaggerated application of federal law enforcement" and stated "law enforcement overreacted at Ruby Ridge."[68]
Just like in the Kent State shootings, law enforcement initially argued that they had been fired upon, in the case of kent state, by 'snipers'. As far as I'm aware, in each of the cases I've detailed for you, these claims were later proved false.
As for 'Occupy', millions of dollars has been paid out by the city of New York for lawsuits ranging from violations of freedom of assembly to abuse to journalistic suppression. Most of them are about straight abuse during a peaceful demonstration.
If you've been marginalized by the system in the US and want to take action outside of that system, you're gonna have a bad time.
There's justification for a bank robber or home invader to bring a gun too. Does that make the crimes less violent? No. The threat of force is the violence.
c'mon now, as far as I can tell these guys think they have a legitimate grievance against the government, they didn't break into the building to steal maps and agricultural info (as far as I can tell).
In fact, haven't they explicitly stated they are prepared to use their weapons in self-defense?
Let's get real here for a second. Dudes with afros and guns who have barracaded themselves in a building is not grounds for BLOWING UP said building and the surrounding neighbourhood. Full Stop.
At no time did I ever say it was a justified action. Please don't paint my post as justification or support of those actions.
What I said, and have said before on this website, is violence (or the threat of violence) generally begets violence (or the threat of violence).
You and I have a a difference of opinion on this type of matter. I believe we discussed it in the Police Shooting Mega thread.
I don't believe that violence is justified, by either side when these types of situations arise. Violence is not a path to a peaceful society.
That being said, I find it disingenuous when you have a heavily armed group claiming they are peaceful.
__________________
Captain James P. DeCOSTE, CD, 18 Sep 1993
c'mon now, as far as I can tell these guys think they have a legitimate grievance against the government, they didn't break into the building to steal maps and agricultural info (as far as I can tell).
In fact, haven't they explicitly stated they are prepared to use their weapons in self-defense?
They said they'd kill or be killed if anyone tried to remove them. They also said they plan on being there long term to use it as a base for (in their own words) "future operations". They're urging all other militants to come so they can establish a base to fight the government.
How is that squatting while only bringing weapons as self defense????
They said they'd kill or be killed if anyone tried to remove them. They also said they plan on being there long term to use it as a base for (in their own words) "future operations". They're urging all other militants to come so they can establish a base to fight the government.
How is that squatting while only bringing weapons as self defense????
If they wanted to kill people they already would have. For me, that's a pretty big indicator on what their motivation is.
I don't even know what we're arguing about here. Oregon is an open carry state. Having a gun on you while squatting somewhere doesn't really mean anything. It could be perfectly legal were the building not owned federally.
Did you just compare me to a climate change denier?
Not really, it was an example of people being on different pages while trying to discuss the same thing, but if that is your interpretation of that it explains a lot.
Quote:
If your whole conversation is about the question of, "will the FBI deal with these morons as terrorists", that's fine, but that's not what people were talking about in here... so you'll have to forgive us for being confused when you show up and start your own similar, but distinct, conversation with no one in particular.
The only one left trying to get their head wrapped around a definition appears to be you. Since you entered the thread everyone, except those responding to you, have been focused on motivations and behaviors. They have moved on and are looking at the concrete actions, while you are continuing to try and argue definition. But is that something new? Just an observation, but you have this incredible ability to take a conversation about the specifics of an event and turn it into a debate over the the meaning of a term, then try and turn it into a philosophical debate over whether the term is applicable. I appreciate your love for philosophy and logic, but it gets tiring having to argue over the meaning of one specific word, even though is clearly meets the legal definition. Jesus man, you've argued against whether the FBI has the right to classify a criminal action as terrorism! They ARE the authority on such matters in the United States. Can we move on from the definition and start focusing on why these guys are here, what their intentions are, and how authorities are likely to deal with them? Please???
If they wanted to kill people they already would have. For me, that's a pretty big indicator on what their motivation is.
Again, so does the fact an armed robber says if you give me what I want no one gets hurt. You can't treat this as a non violent event when it has already been violent. "Give me what I want or I'll start shooting" isn't self defense. And what's worse, they're stating they're there to start doing "future operations" once they've got enough people on board.
This isn't John Lennon doing a sit in with a gun here. You're being wilfully ignorant in order to stick with your opinion
Quote:
I don't even know what we're arguing about here. Oregon is an open carry state. Having a gun on you while squatting somewhere doesn't really mean anything. It could be perfectly legal were the building not owned federally.
It would not be perfectly legal. They trespassed and went into a building owned by someone else and said "this is ours now and we'll start shooting if you try to make us leave" . With lots of guns and ammunition. That's very illegal, federal building be damned.
This really seems like a trolling attempt at this point.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Street Pharmacist For This Useful Post:
c'mon now, as far as I can tell these guys think they have a legitimate grievance against the government, they didn't break into the building to steal maps and agricultural info (as far as I can tell).
In fact, haven't they explicitly stated they are prepared to use their weapons in self-defense?
They refuse to pay grazing fees that are already heavily discounted (any sane private land owner would charge far more), they refuse to cooperate for the federally mandated preservation of endangered species habitat, they refuse to pay nearly a million in fines related to their violations of previous court judgments threatening endangered species habitat and set fire to 130 acres of it when denied access (and are arrested for such) and their supporters forcefully seize a government facility, occupy it and prepare themselves for a bloody confrontation. On top of all this they are encouraging others to do the same.
How are their grievances reasonable here? This to me is just as absurd as the Freemen of the Land movement. They don't want to pay the government taxes as it is against their 'rights'. To me they are basically they are squatting and they are armed to the teeth to enforce their ideals. There are plenty of legal means to try to pursue and a land dispute in no way warrants armed threats of occupation and armed violence. What happened to the tried and true American sue everybody approach? Could it be perhaps they have no legal ground to stand on?
If they wanted to kill people they already would have. For me, that's a pretty big indicator on what their motivation is.
I don't even know what we're arguing about here. Oregon is an open carry state. Having a gun on you while squatting somewhere doesn't really mean anything. It could be perfectly legal were the building not owned federally.
Come on Flash. You're a smart guy. Claiming that "if they were going to kill somebody they would have done it by now" is pretty weak. They've made a call for other militants to join them. That can easily be construed as waiting for numbers to achieve critical mass so any attack is successful. That was Bundy's hope in Nevada and it appears his kid is following the same game plan.
And arguing Oregon is an open carry state? Really??? Do you need to be reminded that they ceased a federal building, and all federal buildings comply with a ban on firearms. You are not allowed to carry a weapon into a federal building (court, prison, national cemeteries, Ranger stations or visitor centers) as per federal law.
Again, so does the fact an armed robber says if you give me what I want no one gets hurt. You can't treat this as a non violent event when it has already been violent. "Give me what I want or I'll start shooting" isn't self defense. And what's worse, they're stating they're there to start doing "future operations" once they've got enough people on board.
This isn't John Lennon doing a sit in with a gun here. You're being wilfully ignorant in order to stick with your opinion
It would not be perfectly legal. They trespassed and went into a building owned by someone else and said "this is ours now and we'll start shooting if you try to make us leave" . With lots of guns and ammunition. That's very illegal, federal building be damned.
This really seems like a trolling attempt at this point.
The fact that they are armed is inconsequential. People in Oregon go to Wal-Mart armed. They mow their lawns armed. They go to church armed.
So is the extent of their criminal wrong-doing trespassing?
Squatters have rights, and in this instance what they are doing may not even be illegal.
Quote:
It's surprising when it happens. An absent property owner may be completely unaware that someone is living on his property. When a person lives on the property without having permission by the property owner, it's known as "squatting." In some cases, squatters have been known to live in unoccupied houses and buildings for years before being discovered by the owner. In doing so, they establish a form of ownership over the property. While the true property owner can kick the person out, evicting squatters requires him to go through a legal process. In this article, we'll explore squatters, trespassers and the art of evicting them.
Difference Between Squatting And Trespassing
First, it's important to understand that squatting and trespassing aren't necessarily the same. While trespassing is a criminal offense, squatting is technically a civil matter. By definition, squatting may not actually be illegal in your jurisdiction. Plus, removing a squatter requires the property owner to claim possession and prove ownership. That being said, if there are signs of a forced entry (broken windows, locks, etc.), then the squatter is trespassing and the police have the right to remove that person.
When The Law Works Against You
Surprisingly (to the chagrin of thousands of property owners), evicting squatters can take months. In cases where a squatter has lived on a property for years, it can be nearly impossible to evict them. The law requires the property owner to show proof of ownership. While that may seem a simple matter at first, the fact that years have passed without the owner of a home or building realizing the presence of a squatter can make his case less compelling. If a squatter can demonstrate restricted access (for example, locks on the main entry that only the squatter can open), he may be able to prove legal ownership.
I haven't been following this thing at all really, only what I've read in this thread, I find the whole thing incredibly dull.
However, has it even been shown these guys have broken the law? Has law enforcement attempted to issue a warrant for their arrest? Are they just trespassing in a government building?
I honestly have no idea and assure you I'm not trying to troll.
They refuse to pay grazing fees that are already heavily discounted (any sane private land owner would charge far more), they refuse to cooperate for the federally mandated preservation of endangered species habitat, they refuse to pay nearly a million in fines related to their violations of previous court judgments threatening endangered species habitat and set fire to 130 acres of it when denied access (and are arrested for such) and their supporters forcefully seize a government facility, occupy it and prepare themselves for a bloody confrontation. On top of all this they are encouraging others to do the same.
How are their grievances reasonable here? This to me is just as absurd as the Freemen of the Land movement. They don't want to pay the government taxes as it is against their 'rights'. To me they are basically they are squatting and they are armed to the teeth to enforce their ideals. There are plenty of legal means to try to pursue and a land dispute in no way warrants armed threats of occupation and armed violence. What happened to the tried and true American sue everybody approach? Could it be perhaps they have no legal ground to stand on?
I'm not weighing in on their motivations, if I had to I'd say they are nutters and don't have a leg to stand on.
Not really, it was an example of people being on different pages while trying to discuss the same thing, but if that is your interpretation of that it explains a lot.
It wasn't a very flattering one, but you're clearly frustrated if you're taking shots, so I'll just leave it at that.
Quote:
The only one left trying to get their head wrapped around a definition appears to be you. Since you entered the thread everyone, except those responding to you, have been focused on motivations and behaviors. They have moved on and are looking at the concrete actions, while you are continuing to try and argue definition.
As soon as I entered the thread the four pages of arguing over the definition suddenly shifted? That was not my impression - people were arguing about whether these guys were terrorists for a while, I weighed in on that, and you then said "well they almost meet the FBI definition, and everyone who seems to be arguing about whether they're terrorists makes me suspect that they're trying to justify what these yokels are doing". So I responded to both of those things, which continued the "are they terrorists" discussion that had been going on for pages. Suddenly, you seem upset about this.
Quote:
Jesus man, you've argued against whether the FBI has the right to classify a criminal action as terrorism! They ARE the authority on such matters in the United States. Can we move on from the definition and start focusing on why these guys are here, what their intentions are, and how authorities are likely to deal with them? Please???
Not quite, I just said that what the FBI thinks it means doesn't suddenly become the dictionary definition. But if you want to stop talking about whether they're "terrorists" and instead talk about why they're there, what their intentions are and how they're likely to be dealt with, I'm interested to hear what you and others think about that.
For example, your most recent theory appears to be that they actually do intend to launch some sort of attack - specifically, you say they're calling for recruits to their cause so that they can build up their strength to make that inevitable attack more successful. What do you think they're planning to attack? My sense is they have no plan at all.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following User Says Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
For example, your most recent theory appears to be that they actually do intend to launch some sort of attack - specifically, you say they're calling for recruits to their cause so that they can build up their strength to make that inevitable attack more successful. What do you think they're planning to attack? My sense is they have no plan at all.
"My theory?" This is Bundy's and the militia's own words. From a source that is, shall we say "sympathetic" to the "conservative extremist militia militants" or "squatters." All 150 of them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG
They still haven't met the first test yet in the FBI definition of terrorism. Until a shot is fired they are not terrorists per the FBI.
I actually like Corsi's Militant vs terrorist nuance and applied broadly we be good.
The FBI definition or Corsi's is far better than the media's which is pretty clearly brown people.
Gotcha. So someone on a terror watch list with intent to do harm to innocent civilians or public facilities is just a militant, until they kill someone. I'm glad we cleared that up.
Last edited by Lanny_McDonald; 01-05-2016 at 03:20 PM.
The fact that they are armed is inconsequential. People in Oregon go to Wal-Mart armed. They mow their lawns armed. They go to church armed.
So is the extent of their criminal wrong-doing trespassing?
Squatters have rights, and in this instance what they are doing may not even be illegal.
I haven't been following this thing at all really, only what I've read in this thread, I find the whole thing incredibly dull.
However, has it even been shown these guys have broken the law? Has law enforcement attempted to issue a warrant for their arrest? Are they just trespassing in a government building?
I honestly have no idea and assure you I'm not trying to troll.
Seeing as how the property wasn't vacant, they didn't bring any provisions, any furniture, etc. and since they've made public statements about their purpose, they fall nowhere near the definition of squatting.
The Following User Says Thank You to GioforPM For This Useful Post:
"My theory?" This is Bundy's and the militia's own words. From a source that is, shall we say "sympathetic" to the "conservative extremist militia militants."
Let's assume for the sake of argument that I hadn't watched that youtube clip.
But okay, now I have. I didn't see him suggest they were going to attack anyone; in fact they said the opposite. But you think they will - presumably because they kept saying "bring your arms", which is definitely concerning... I'm asking, what do you think their target is going to be and why?
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
Seeing as how the property wasn't vacant, they didn't bring any provisions, any furniture, etc. and since they've made public statements about their purpose, they fall nowhere near the definition of squatting.
