Reports of "Militia Takeover" in Oregon

Status
Not open for further replies.
COZ--exactly what is the reasoning behind Bundy's occupation of a fed facility? I Google-fooed but did not find any detailed description of exactly what the grievances are. I know the re-sentencing of the Hammonds was part of it, but the Hammonds didn't even want them there. Before making any more comments about these guys I would like some credible facts about what these people want.

Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...

Honestly, I do not know. Basically there is no real news agency's doing any investigative reporting on this issue.
If these people were progressives taking over a federal facility. The main stream media would be digging deep to provide details and background information.
Basicaly the main streams take is " A bunch of old whacko white guys with guns" and leave it at that.
So we are kind of left on our own to figure it out. Lots of sites on the net spreading Rumors, some facts, false facts. all kinds of poop you have to filter to try to get a handle on whats happening.
So I am still filtering poop. But I am convinced if they were just Whacko's the News media would be digging that out with examples to shut every one up.

But if one of our Gov agencies is intimidating and forcing American citizens off and away from land that some how will end up in some huge mining or solar power concerns.
I have a problem with that.
 
Last edited:
...what is the reasoning behind Bundy's occupation of a fed facility?
Click to expand...
There were links provided several pages ago that lead to court documents that showed BLM has clearly overstepped regularly at this location. Very childish vindictive behavior by the BLM people towards some of the ranchers involved. Whether the ranchers did illegal things first is irrelevant in my mind. The BLM people are paid salary, provided legal services at no cost to themselves for issues that arise, and there to provide services to all citizens, locals foremost. Blockading roads, cutting herds off from water with fences, and other actions which clearly did take place according to generally uncontested court documents are inexcusable.
 
It used to be that most of the people working for BLM or other land management agencies were folks who grew up on ranches or farms in rural communities, went to college, and returned to work on the public lands. They were empathetic to the locals, and knew what the concerns were, because they were of the same stock. If they needed to fence off the creek to protect it from cattle, they'd let you pump water to a tank nearby. Now there is an issue with even doing that. That irrigation system permitted back in 1940 can't be used now, there's an issue with water temperatures harming benthic organisms. So you're trucking in alfalfa rather than growing it on your own ranch.

Now a lot of the hires are urban-raised young people on a mission to save the planet, over and beyond the job requirements to administer the laws fairly and equitably for both permitees and the agency.

It used to be asked in the office, 'what is an acceptable level of environmental degradation that can be allowed to ensure the people get full use of their lands and the environment be protected at the same time'? The answer to that question was the guide to how far either party could go in their practices.

Now, it seems to be that in some places the answer to the question is 'None'. Either 'None', as in no degradation is allowable, on the Agency side, or 'None', as in no regulation on the permitee side. It's a management issue that can be changed.

With only 2% of the nation's beef coming from public land grazing, it's not going to be long before there is a real push to end it entirely. These folks in Burns did nothing but make that easier for an urban public to agree with, a decade or two down the road.
 
As a former Texas land owner, I have seen how government officials on local levels, (county) can be very abusive with their power. Some with a clear goal such as obtaining land for a civil project, but usually it's for a profitable commercial venture that comes under the guise of civil project first. Other times the officials just like to exert control. Some will inflate fees just for the individual that they are targeting, not much a person can do that can't afford a lawyer.
Any entity can overstep their authority. Happens in private sector as well. Unfortunately government persons can have the force of LEO behind them and some rule or law they can use or interpret as needed.
 
The alleged history between the Hammonds and the Federal Government is interesting, and if true is certainly provocative. The truth is hard to find sometimes, and in this case, depending on the source of information, sounds like there are some discrepancies.

When the feds backed off of Cliven Bundy, this gave an opening to people that think the way to deal with these issues is with guns and confrontation. In my experience working for more than 30 years in government, if a government agency gets out of line, contacting federal legislators is very effective.

A short story:
A ranch owned by a couple of brothers and their children, sold a chunk of land to the county, willingly, and the land became open space. As such, it is now the property of the county government. They own it lock stock and barrel. Well, a couple of the sons saw no reason they couldn't continue grazing their livestock on that land they sold. They cut fences frequently, threatened the county employees including sheriff's deputies, tore gates down, and were generally a pain the butt. This story is one that I was lightly involved with, as the organization I worked for had rights-of-way through that ranch. The boys cut fences into our canal R-O-W's. They had cattle get into the canal and drown, and they also lost some draft horses. I was the target of much yelling and threatening from those guys. After the cattle were lost in the canal, one of the older members of the family called a news station in Denver and ranted about how he had been wronged by the various government agencies. The news people called our organization and found out our side of the story. Then they called the county and got their side. Then the whole issue was trash canned. Had the news people decided they would get mucho air time by representing the grievances of the rancher, it would have gotten pretty ugly.

So, I tend to take these stories with a grain of salt. If there is a true grievance, then get a lawyer, go to the legislature, contact the head of the agencies that are supposedly doing you wrong. Guns? Not the brightest move, IMO.
 
I think overall the Feds playing this pretty well. Sit back and wait for the TalliBundy Yeehawdists to defeat themselves with their own stupidity.

You're occupying a federal facility, threatening an all-out shooting war with local and federal agents if they try to remove you, and you think a road trip to a town 90 miles down the road is a good idea? Really? Use the government vehicles at the facility to run errands into town? What could go wrong?
 
I think its funny how people quake in their shoes at the term "Federal"
Like federal property has more value. Some yes. Bird watching sites? Somehow trespassing on a "Federal" birdwatching site suddenly strips you of due process. So a closed down Federal birdwatching site carries more weight than a Private or city birdwatching site.
The Ridgefield Wildlife area put up signs stopping hunting for the weekend due to all of this as a precaution, yet people ignored the signs and duck hunted anyway.


This disrupted things a bit, cost government, corporations and private citizens big. Took a lot public resources to deal with it, I don't recall outcrys for people to shoot them.

150729-portland-activists-bridge-1214p_cfcd0e82a50b22ef8feb0fde1d937047.nbcnews-ux-2880-1000.jpg
 
From Robert Heinlein

"Stupidity cannot be cured with money, or through education, or by legislation. Stupidity is not a sin, the victim can’t help being stupid. But stupidity is the only universal capital crime; the sentence is death, there is no appeal, and the execution is carried out automatically and without pity."

The crusty old cynic who was Robert Heinlein is depressingly and sadly correct in this case. Regardless of how you feel about their cause the reality of the situation is that one man is dead, and the conclusion from the facts as we have them now his death could have been a peaceful surrender instead. Sickening.
 
I think overall the Feds playing this pretty well. Sit back and wait for the TalliBundy Yeehawdists to defeat themselves with their own stupidity.

You're occupying a federal facility, threatening an all-out shooting war with local and federal agents if they try to remove you, and you think a road trip to a town 90 miles down the road is a good idea? Really? Use the government vehicles at the facility to run errands into town? What could go wrong?
Click to expand...

Its like a Benny Hill episode without the saxophone soundtrack.
 
Without audio, the video is worthless. He appears to falter, then reaches for his pocket. Was he shot, then reached for a weapon? We'll probably never know. Big question here is how did the other man get wounded? That has gotten lost in the uproar. Were those men that bad a shot, or did they light up the truck as the girl inside claimed? What reason did they have to do that? I have a theory, and it is only a theory. Man exits vehicle with hands up and has verbal exchange with officer. Officer tells man to stop. Man continues on toward officer. Officer puts a round in the man. Man reaches into coat. Others killed the man outright. They must have fired at the truck in order for the other man to have ended up wounded. They gave no reason for that. I would bet the only rounds fired were by the officers. If my reasoning is correct, then it was a bad shoot. They claim to have found a 9mm in his coat. Unless it was in his hand, there was no reason to shoot. Only if the weapon had emerged in hand out of the pocket would there be a valid reason to shoot. That's exactly how it would have gone down for you or I in a self defense situation. Any one of us would have been facing jail time. The key is they found the pistol in his pocket. I also considered the possibility of suicide by cop, but if that were his intention he probably would have emerged from the truck gun in hand. Much more to this story than we are being told.
 
Yep, the Bundy bunch was emboldened by the failure of the US government to enforce the law in episode one. Then along came episode two and the Bundy bunch overplayed their hand full of trash.

BTW: The Bundy buncher who called himself "Captain Moroni" and others have surrendered peacefully since Finicum was killed.

UPDATE: (2:23 p.m.) The federal government outline its charges against three additional militants in federal court Thursday. Jason Patrick, Duane Ehmer and Dylan “Captain Moroni” Anderson were all taken into custody Wednesday. Their arrests bring the total number of armed militants in federal custody to 11.
Click to expand...

http://www.opb.org/news/series/burn...pdates/oregon-malheur-refuge-militants-leave/
 
I believe they lit up the vehicle as it sped toward the police barricade and at the last second swerved off into the snow bank. Law Enforcement will shoot if you proceed in their direction with a dangerous weapon, and in this case it was a vehicle.
 
Moroni, according to the Book of Mormon, was the last Nephite prophet, historian, and military commander who lived in the Americas in the late fourth and early fifth centuries. He is later known as the Angel Moroni, who presented the golden plates to Joseph Smith, who said he translated the plates upon which the Book of Mormon was originally written.
 
roni posted

He appears to falter, then reaches for his pocket. Was he shot, then reached for a weapon?
Click to expand...

If you mean by "falter" he dropped both hands down and then was shot, that is what the video shows.


They claim to have found a 9mm in his coat. Unless it was in his hand, there was no reason to shoot. Only if the weapon had emerged in hand out of the pocket would there be a valid reason to shoot.
Click to expand...

Nonsense!
 
Last edited:
Just so we are clear

These ,uh, lets just use the word people and go on, are not following the principles of the LDS (Mormon) religion. The LDS faith specifically believes in "obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law".

This is the release from the church leadership about these people specifically
While the disagreement occurring in Oregon about the use of federal lands is not a Church matter, Church leaders strongly condemn the armed seizure of the facility and are deeply troubled by the reports that those who have seized the facility suggest that they are doing so based on scriptural principles. This armed occupation can in no way be justified on a scriptural basis. We are privileged to live in a nation where conflicts with government or private groups can — and should — be settled using peaceful means, according to the laws of the land.
Click to expand...

The LDS church, somewhat like Catholics, have clear lines of authority that lead back to a single source. Once the church leadership has spoken the matter is settled as to official policy. It is then up to you to follow or not.

My intention is not to turn this into a religious debate but rather to remove and explain that aspect of the situation.
IMHO you find people who are, lets just be polite, and say slightly off their rocker any where. These people may at times even have good points, but their actions leading from their opinion just leave you shaking your head.

In this case they are leaving tragedy in their wake. One person is dead, however he got that way. One or more people are involved in killing another human. None of this was something that couldn't have been avoided.
 
If my reasoning is correct, then it was a bad shoot. They claim to have found a 9mm in his coat. Unless it was in his hand, there was no reason to shoot. Only if the weapon had emerged in hand out of the pocket would there be a valid reason to shoot. That's exactly how it would have gone down for you or I in a self defense situation. Any one of us would have been facing jail time. The key is they found the pistol in his pocket. I also considered the possibility of suicide by cop, but if that were his intention he probably would have emerged from the truck gun in hand. Much more to this story than we are being told.
Click to expand...

No, the BG does not have to draw his weapon and aim it at a cop for it to be a good shoot. If cops waited for this to happen every time they attempted to apprehend a criminal they would all be dead. The cops knew the dead guy was most probably armed and had made multiple statements about being willing to die for his cause.. One cop had been almost run down already by the perps. The victim was probably told to kneel or stop along with keeping his hands in the air. He did neither. All of those actions were just an invitation for the cops to shoot him.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top