Reports of "Militia Takeover" in Oregon

Status
Not open for further replies.
ronl said:
I will say again that if a weapon is not presented, there can be no threat of bodily harm, especially to trained officers with weapons pointed at the suspect.
Click to expand...

And you are just as incorrect this time as you were all the previous times you said it.

Repeatedly making a false statement does not make it true.
 
Originally Posted by ronl

"I will say again that if a weapon is not presented, there can be no threat of bodily harm, especially to trained officers with weapons pointed at the suspect. "

That legal hypothesis has been tested at trial in every state of the union, including cases where teenagers reached for air pistols, drunks picked up rocks, etc., etc., and found by prosecutors and juries to be without foundation.
 
Look closely at the vid. Are there any people in the direction taken by the driver?
Click to expand...

Did you not see the cop that had to dive out of the way?

Let this be a lesson to anyone who thinks about going against the government!
Click to expand...

The lesson is there is a right and wrong way to protest civilly. They all chose the wrong way by occupying a building that would have no difference in solving their problem. Maybe if they sat down in front of the doors of the legislature without the guns they would have made a bigger impact.
 
Last edited:
And the second he veered off to avoid the roadblock that would have proved that assumption wrong.
Click to expand...

Did you not see the cop that had to dive out of the way?
Click to expand...


Using ronl's reasoning, that could be construed as an attempt to run over the cop, a much more viable way to kill an officer than ramming their vehicle, thus attempted murder. IMHO, the stoppage of the Bundy vehicle for 4 minutes before it took off again, was the time it took for the folks in that vehicle to decide whether to have a violent confrontation or just give up. You make your bed, you lie in it.
 
I could buy that.

To me, his actions at the roadblock don't even need additional qualifiers. Enough cause was present.
That's the point I'm trying to make.
We can't justify deadly force by saying people are political dissidents, nut-job, whacko, hillbilly or tinfoil hat wearers; so we should not add these statements when deciding if deadly force is justified.

How would it look if a police professional was asked why deadly force was justified and his response was:
"he was a conspiracy theorist, wore a tinfoil hat, I thought his reason for protest was invalid, he's a yeehawdist, he fled from a traffic stop. Oh, by the way, he ran a roadblock and reached for his gun"
We shouldn't respond like that either.
The answer is, he crashed through a roadblock in a dangerous manner and reached for a gun. That's it. And maybe made threatening statements could be added as well.
Click to expand...

excellent. We are on the same page then.
On review, further I did not intend to make my post sound hostile, only that the avowed mens rea of the diseased, if known would have been legitimate factor in any trial/inquiry of the police involved in a hypothetical review/trial.
 
Are there any people in the direction taken by the driver?
Click to expand...
He came within a foot of an officer.

I believe someone got out of the vehicle when it first stopped. Anyone who chose to stay in the vehicle, not under duress, was an accessory to everything that followed. I would be very surprised if additional charges aren't made after the 4 still on the refuge are in custody.
 
jw062 said:
Anyone who chose to stay in the vehicle, not under duress, was an accessory to everything that followed.
Click to expand...

An accessory to being shot? Given the circumstance, hopping out of the truck seems to be more dangerous than staying inside it.
 
I'll say one other thing, if there is a civil case to arise from this, the taxpayers should be ready to pony up at least a few million hard earned dollars.
Click to expand...

This statement lacks credulity.

*Suspect had made statements about his willingness to die and kill. highly likely the police knew this.

*Suspect left vehicle despite orders.

*Suspect did not follow police orders related to presenting himself for arrest and being a non-threat to the officers arresting him.

*Suspect reached TWICE into his pocket.

*Suspect had a loaded weapon in the same location.

Absent additional evidence discovered that somehow shows him to be in compliance with police orders, no unbribed jury in the US would find that the officers did not have a reasonable fear for their lives or the lives of the other officers on seen.

Any conclusion other than that is not supportable in the US.
 
Let this be a lesson to anyone who thinks about going against the government!
Click to expand...

I'm sure what you really meant to say was 'let this be a lesson to anyone who thinks about drawing down against multiple police officers after having been lawfully stopped while attempting to evade arrest.'
 
all the gov and BLM wants is the land and they don't care how they get it. Its a land grab plain and simple
 
No they are not.

The Hammond's were convicted of arson. The issue revolved around whether their sentencing was appropriate. All else is irrelevant to their conviction.
 
Regarding "land rights"

Those issues are for a court of law to determine. We here, AFAIK are basing our opinions on second or fifth hand information that may or may not be reality. Also, the idea that the federales cannot own or administer lands is, again, a legal issue that should be settled in court, if there is any true basis for a case.

In the Bundy Sr. (Cliven) case, there was not anything that substantiated his claims. Again, just my observation. The stories, the opinions, etc were just stories and opinions. The only reason that was not resolved in a civil manner was because of the "militia" that arrived to "make a stand" and the low class politics and news media blowing it out of proportions with disregard for the truth or the consequences of not taking Bundy's livestock.
 
Most of the time when someone makes a stand.... Probably not going to have a lot of people and officials in agreement with you.
If the legal matters were in you favor and you have widespread public support, support of your contemporaries, then you probably don't find yourself wanting to protest.
Most of the protest in history didn't have a legal leg to stand on. Most likely there's a law that is working against you, so going to court would be a waste of time. The court should concur with the law, just or unjust.

I can think of several laws and government rules that I don't like so much, but going through the legal system to avoid them wouldn't help me much. Not worth standing up to, so I take it and comply.
 
there is no land being grabbed here.
Click to expand...
Note posts 30 and 183. Land rights are an underlying issue.
Click to expand...

zincwarrior said:
No they are not.

The Hammond's were convicted of arson. The issue revolved around whether their sentencing was appropriate. All else is irrelevant to their conviction.
Click to expand...

Your second, third and fourth sentence are not supportive of the first sentence.

That the Hammond's can be convicted of arson doesn't suggest that the underlying issue of land rights isn't present. If you want a more detailed explanation, let me know.
 
rr said:
I can think of several laws and government rules that I don't like so much, but going through the legal system to avoid them wouldn't help me much. Not worth standing up to, so I take it and comply.
Click to expand...

That is certainly the position in which I find myself on several matters. Speed limits and some tax rules vex me. I comply with tax rules to the letter so the government doesn't ruin my life. I tend to comply with local custom on speed limits.

I don't take a stand on either in any way that really costs me, but I also don't believe that my people were delivered onto the interstates by divine will.
 
The "Sagebrush Rebelion" has been going on for a least 30 years. A lot of folks have reached the breaking point. Some think, and arguable so, that there is no justice to be found in the government courts. I can see both sides of the argument, but there ought to be some middle ground somewhere.

I live in the east and things have changed pretty drastically, forestry management wise, in the last few decades. Got to be much worse in the western states.

Much the same here Zuki, but at what point are we just paying "protection money" just to left alone?
 
Last edited:
Much the same here Zuki, but at what point are we just paying "protection money" just to left alone?
Click to expand...

At almost every point.

The federal scope and size and the resulting bill bugs me. I acknowledge that I owe income tax, particularly for armed forces and intelligence work. A bunch of the bill I pay goes to things I see as much less legitimate, but I pay it just the same because the alternative can work out very poorly.

"Protection money" is provocative not because paying for real protection is objectionable, but because it is a euphemism for a shake down without any legitmacy.

As much as I don't like much of the federal government's activity for which I pay, I not only admit parts of its legitimacy, but affirmatively support those parts.

To return to the traffic analogy: I used to live near the old original Rockefeller grounds that had a winding road running through it. The city set the speed limit at 25mph, a ludicrously low speed. When a PO needed to meet his quota, he would sit on the road and write every car a ticket, even the ones going slower than 25mph.

I disliked that activity as illegitimate, but that doesn't make all traffic regulation illegitimate.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top