Reports of "Militia Takeover" in Oregon

Status
Not open for further replies.
zincwarrior said:
Again you seem to not understand the lack of relationship between the Bundys and their tax/lease dispute with the BLM and arson.
Click to expand...

Zinc, you been offered a more detailed explanation, but prefer to simply re-assert your position. I don't think this is because you are stupid.

I can describe the relationship to as I already have, but that puts you back at denying having read something you just read. You don't have to like the relationship or any of the characters involved. You can even retain your belief that the underlying land rights dispute is "ridiculous and insane", clearly a position into which you've invested much reflection.

However, you have read a description of the common issues between the Bundys (the same issues present in the Cliven Bundy episode a couple of years ago), the Hammonds and their incarceration that gave rise to the protest and occupation. If they weren't related in any way, no one could have described that relationship for you.

See?
 
Anyone else think it's ironic that the two "Z" guys are arguing?

But, I've determined that there's too many variables in this episode for any one view to come out on top.

The main thing that I am sticking too is this: No past tense actions, public statements, misdemeanors or anything else that can be considered abnormal should be used to determine if deadly force is or was necessary. Only the actions of the person at that moment can be used to make that decision.
 
Of the Z's, there can be only one!


I'd generally agree with that, except for the statements of the militia type that they would go down shooting.

That would undoubtedly be admitted, and should be, in any review.
 
The reference was to Robert Smith in the mid 1990s.
Click to expand...

So how does a dead guy(gone for 17 years) give support to a group of militants in 2016?

Note that both you and zincwarrior purport to know what this thread is about. You maintain that it is about the militants;
Click to expand...


Duh....that's cause the title of the thread is Reports of a "Militia Takeover" in Oregon. Since the title had the word "Militants" in it, I just assumed it was about the "Militants". What do you purport it's about?
 
buck460XVR said:
Duh....
Click to expand...

Is this intended to signal the attention you are prepared to lavish on the explanation?

buck460XVR said:
The reference was to Robert Smith in the mid 1990s.
Click to expand...
So how does a dead guy(gone for 17 years) give support to a group of militants in 2016?
Click to expand...

Since no one suggested that he did, your question doesn't follow anything asserted here.

He had shown support for the Hammonds. They didn't occupy the bird watching site. You may have simply misread post 293.

buck460XVR said:
Note that both you and zincwarrior purport to know what this thread is about. You maintain that it is about the militants;
Click to expand...
Duh....that's cause the title of the thread is Reports of a "Militia Takeover" in Oregon. Since the title had the word "Militants" in it, I just assumed it was about the "Militants". What do you purport it's about?
Click to expand...

Your assumption is incorrect.

Since this thread isn't composed exclusively of its title, and indeed this one has about a dozen pages of text, the thread is also about the nature of the grievances of a number of parties, how they voice those grievances, the nature of riparian and grazing rights, the correct manner in which BLM would administer lands within its jurisdiction and the preference for resolution of disputes in court.
 
Since this thread isn't composed exclusively of its title, and indeed this one has about a dozen pages of text, the thread is also about the nature of the grievances of a number of parties, how they voice those grievances, the nature of riparian and grazing rights, the correct manner in which BLM would administer lands within its jurisdiction and the preference for resolution of disputes in court.
Click to expand...

And if they show up in Oregon and commit crimes, they will be arrested as well. :D
 
Live feeds are popping up on Facebook purporting to show 5 armored personal carriers surrounding the building attempting to negotiate with the 4 remaining members
 
Finally! Sick of these morons and the whole ridiculous episode. Pathetic losers, every one of them. I'm sure they will enjoy their time in another federal facility. On a lighter note, apparently according to the four wimpy thugs, they're not "surrendering", they're "turning themselves in". :confused: Frigging losers.
 
Cliven Bundy must certainly be the most ignorant man in Nevada. He defied the US government with guns: Then he assumed it would be safe to travel to Burns, Oregon.

A stroke of genius by the FBI and the federal prosecutor in Las Vegas. :D
 
Indeed. Its actually perfect. As was argued about other situations, wait until everything dies down and then nab them six months or so later and completely avoid mass bloodshed. Excellent move.
 
Your assumption is incorrect.

Since this thread isn't composed exclusively of its title, and indeed this one has about a dozen pages of text, the thread is also about the nature of the grievances of a number of parties, how they voice those grievances, the nature of riparian and grazing rights, the correct manner in which BLM would administer lands within its jurisdiction and the preference for resolution of disputes in court.
Click to expand...

No, my assumption was correct. This thread was originally about the Militants, their grievances and their illegal occupation of the facility. Kinda why my focus in this thread has always been about the Militants and their actions. Other references are mainly off topic responses, and the drifting away from the original topic, something that happens all the time on forums. Some of the responses are just to somehow justify the actions of the Militants and their illegal actions.


He had shown support for the Hammonds. You may have simply misread post 293.
Click to expand...

He had shown support for them long before the action they took that landed them in jail. Again, he was dead by the time the Hammonds lit those fires to destroy the evidence of their poaching. There is no correlation between the two. Just the grasping of straws.
 
If this "occupation" ends without more violence, it will be a lot better for everyone. Little to nothing has been nor will be accomplished by this brouhaha. One man dead, several in jail, cost lots of money.

One thought. These occupiers were costing taxpayers money every single day of this ordeal. And will continue to cost tax payers money into the future. Cliven Bundy had not paid his grazing fees for years and years. Tax payers shafted. All of this recalcitrant behavior is like stealing from every one of us.

Will be a good day when they are all out of the wildlife refuge---finally. Law enforcement has done an admirable job of dealing with people that thought they were above it all, made verbal threats, carried guns, stated they would die before giving up, etc.
 
buck460XVR said:
Just the grasping of straws.
Click to expand...

That's a fine summary or your post.

buck460XVR said:
Duh....that's cause the title of the thread is Reports of a "Militia Takeover" in Oregon. Since the title had the word "Militants" in it, I just assumed it was about the "Militants". What do you purport it's about?
Click to expand...
Your assumption is incorrect.

Since this thread isn't composed exclusively of its title, and indeed this one has about a dozen pages of text, the thread is also about the nature of the grievances of a number of parties, how they voice those grievances, the nature of riparian and grazing rights, the correct manner in which BLM would administer lands within its jurisdiction and the preference for resolution of disputes in court.
Click to expand...
No, my assumption was correct. This thread was originally about the Militants, their grievances and their illegal occupation of the facility. Kinda why my focus in this thread has always been about the Militants and their actions. Other references are mainly off topic responses, and the drifting away from the original topic, something that happens all the time on forums. Some of the responses are just to somehow justify the actions of the Militants and their illegal actions.
Click to expand...

That you believe that other posts are "off-topic" should not suggest to you that they are not a part of this thread or not what the thread is about.

Moreover, you may have misunderstood discussion of some of the problems of BLM management. To note that BLM management is problematic is not to write in justification of the specific methods of the occupation and protest.

buck460XVR said:
He had shown support for the Hammonds. You may have simply misread post 293.
Click to expand...
He had shown support for them long before the action they took that landed them in jail. Again, he was dead by the time the Hammonds lit those fires to destroy the evidence of their poaching. There is no correlation between the two.
Click to expand...

Emphasis added.

Note your own agreement on the substance of the point. Your attempt to address an assertion not made, The same error I pointed out to you in post number 306, employs a fallacy known as a straw man argument.

It is true that there is no correlation between a discussion of these topics and the absurdities that only you have inferred.
 
Fox reporting three of four have surrendered, but last one not turning himself in.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/02/1...-theyll-turn-themselves-in.html?intcmp=hplnws


Published February 11, 2016 FoxNews.com


Three of the last four holdouts of the armed protest group that has occupied a federal wildlife refuge in Oregon for the past 40 days apparently turned themselves in peacefully Thursday afternoon.

One of the protesters was holding an American flag as the group went out to meet authorities. Another protester said on an audio webcast that officials were not being rough and did not have guns pointed at the group.

But the fourth protester, David Fry, said on the webcast that he was "feeling suicidal" and would "die a free man."

"I'm taking my stand, this isn't something I'm going to back away from," Fry said.
Click to expand...
 
He appears to be angling for suicide by cop. I wouldn't want to be the in PoPo shoes. I doubt any want to oblige him unless they are forced to.

I wonder if they could put a quickie chain link fence and just out of rifle range (or behind something bullet proof and just wait him out?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top