Militia In Burns (law, dangerous, legal)

[KaaBoom]

Originally Posted by BLAZER PROPHET

Here's the thing...


I lived in Eastern Oregon for 10 years and worked harvest... It's a different world than the valley or The People's Republic of Multnomah County. In Eastern Oregon the feds own huge tracts of land managed by the BLM. The ranchers work the land, unabated, for decades at a time and never see the BLM. They hunt to eat. Yes, there are grocery stores, but this is their way. Then when there is a 30-year policy shift or something like this happens the BLM comes around. But it's like taking their land or way of life from them.


Here in the Portland area it's also different. Here the norm is blowing weed all day, sucking off the government illegally for food stamps..., men dressing like girls, people riding bikes naked and begging to raise taxes. They think we are odd and we think they are odd. But it's just different cultures.


But these are hard working people and I hope they find a peaceful solution.

Maybe they should get over their sense of entitlement and just be grateful that they were able to suck off the government for free land for the last hundred years.

[smpliving]

Originally Posted by KaaBoom

Maybe they should get over their sense of entitlement and just be grateful that they were able to suck off the government for free land for the last hundred years.

Don't forget all the farm subsidies these guys get from the government. They don't want to give that up.

[jjpop]

Originally Posted by ormari

I think so, yes. Perhaps evidence that they have concrete plans to harm innocent people without provocation would be enough, though. Again, I think what they have done has now crossed the line into a criminal act. But I withhold judgment that it is terrorism without further evidence.

I think the provocation is the question here. Just like Muslim terrorists view incursions into their lands by the West as a provocation, these militia groups see the impending jailing of the Hammonds (along with a long history of what they perceive to be "occupation" on federal lands by the government) as a provocation. They are so married to their ideology they view the legal proceedings. the court judgement, and the ongoing "occupation" as going against their core belief system.

Certainly it's not a one-for-one comparison, but there are common threads. I'm comfortable with calling it domestic terrorism.

[Silverfall]

Originally Posted by jjpop

By the way, those leased lands are still open to multiple uses such as logging and recreation. But when I did field work in grad school on some central and eastern Oregon streams, we were told by BLM and USFS that we should call the rancher leasing the land to "ask permission" even though the land was federal. That's the mentality.

It might not be a mentality, but a right. Leases come with rights so it just depends on what those specific rights were in the terms of the lease. It might be that you don't have a right to be on the land they lease for grazing without their permission per the lease arrangement. Just like landlords need to give 24-hour notice to tenants. I can see a rancher with grazing rights wanting to know if people will be on the land or not so they can protect their livestock. That seems reasonable to me.

[BLAZER PROPHET]

Originally Posted by Podo944

It's what they should have done at Waco in my opinion. I truly hope this doesn't end tragically.

I think lessons were learned in Waco such that the same mistakes won't be repeated.

[ormari]

Originally Posted by jjpop

I'm comfortable with calling it domestic terrorism.

What specifically would you call out as a domestic terrorist act?

[PNW-type-gal]

Originally Posted by ormari

What specifically would you call out as a domestic terrorist act?

Seizing public property and threatening to use force to hold it.

[ormari]

Originally Posted by PNW-type-gal

Seizing public property and threatening to use force to hold it.

Is there a legal precedent for applying the term terrorism to a similar act?

[jjpop]

Originally Posted by ormari

Is there a legal precedent for applying the term terrorism to a similar act?

You want to apply the term to a very narrow definition. Certainly your prerogative. I would say that when people (federal employees) can't go about their normal course of business because of fears for their safety, that's terrorism.

[Larry Caldwell]

ODOT has closed 60 miles of highway 78 and highway 205 south of Burns.

BURNS: ODOT: Highways closed at law enforcement request | Elkhorn Media Group