The Malheur Occupiers, Do They Have Any Legitimate Reasons to be there? (Portland: dangerous, legally)

[bler144]

Even if one wants to strip out the racial/religious components, it's interesting to compare not just the LE response but how both sides view this as compared to, say, WI teachers holding a sit-in at that state's capitol a few years back.

Flipped views, at least for some.

I do tend to agree that once spring arrives, it seems it would be harder to displace them, since even blockading the road won't prevent x-country access.

[Larry Caldwell]

Originally Posted by KaaBoom

All things considered, that would not be a bad idea. Because so far tax payers are out millions of dollars, because Daddy Bundy doesn’t want to pay his grazing fees, and he has guns, and we don’t want to cause any problems with people with guns.

Now his sons just stole 187,757 acres of government land at the point of their guns. Can we afford not to take military action against them? It should be pretty obvious by this point that they are going to keep robbing us.

That's pretty much up to congress. It has been illegal to use the military for police action on US soil for longer than I have been alive, which was one of the big issues when the National Guard started shooting students at Kent State. The military is not a police force. They are trained to kill people until the area is pacified.

Meanwhile, there is no need to get in a big hurry. The authorities can interdict the area any time they want, but nobody wants to force the Teahadis to go out and start killing pronghorns for dinner. So far their vandalism has been fairly minor, but they could do real damage to the wildlife.

[CanuckInPortland]

Originally Posted by Vacanegro

Most if not all of the locals want a peaceful solution. The Feds don't want another Branch Davidian Compound massacre. The big brains know that, deserve it or not, killing a bunch of armed anarchists would only create more (sort of like killing radical muslims).

Arresting them is a peaceful solution unless they're dumb enough to shoot back. They're only going to be killed if they go all Die Hard on cops/feds coming in. I say give them an ultimatum, surrender peacefully within 48 hours or you'll be removed forcefully. It was dumb enough to just allow Bundy and his pal to drive into Burns for a meeting and not arrest them.

It's just going to set a precedent that certain armed groups can seize federal property and just get to play things out while everyone else just sort of stands put. Just like the City of Portland didn't do initally with the Occupy goons who took over the park in downtown Portland, you have to deal with this sort of thing quickly before it gets out of hand, once you let it linger it becomes a real mess.

I'd bet money though that they're not bold enough to start firing on officers when push comes to a shove.

[Cryptic]

Originally Posted by KaaBoom

Lets see a bunch of armed radicals take over a government building. They stream it live on the internet and call for more of their supporters to come and join them? The feds don't block roads to prevent these people from coming, but then are surprised that it grew so fast? I don’t buy it. The Facebook ride share page, should have been more then enough clue for the FBI. The FBI knew exactly what was going to happen.

Those are some good points. During the stand off at the Bundy ranch, internet "news broadcasts", SOS messages, and "town halls" resulted in dozens, then scores, then maybe a hundred or more juiced up militia guys floating in and out of the scene. Yes, the feds should have seen the potential for a repeat. Why didn't they?

Originally Posted by KaaBoom

The Bundy’s are not smart. They have the IQ of the shoe leather in their boots.

I disagree here. The collective average of the Bundy IQs is low, but he has a big family so one might "buck the norm" (get it, get it buck, buckaroo, ranch) IQ wise.
In short, I would not understimate his intelligence. For example, he has:

- banned alcohol at the site He is mormon, but most of his followers are not. No alcohol reduces drunken arguments followed by drunken shootings amongst thirsty militiamen with few social skills
- told his followers not to openly brandish fire arms, and distanced himself from another group that did
- does not carry a cell phone (harder to track his location)
- accepted and implemented technical advise regarding accessing government computers, social media outreach etc.

[Cryptic]

Originally Posted by bler144

it's interesting to compare not just the LE response but how both sides view this as compared to, say, WI teachers holding a sit-in at that state's capitol a few years back.

Flipped views, at least for some.

For a certain number of people, it is not occupation as a concept, but rather who is doing the occupying and why makes alot of difference.

Heck, CSNBC was getting giddy giving favorable interviews to the butt hurt union guys and lefty followers occupying the Wisconsin state house. Somehow, I dont think free air time will be fothcoming from them (are they even still in business) for butt hurt ranchers and rightwing nuts occupying a nature preserve.

[Metlakatla]

I don't think it's as simple as LE just walking in and arresting them. They've made it clear they'll use deadly force. They have the advantage out there, and whatever else they are, they're probably fairly good shots. Some of them also seem highly unstable. They weren't expected or welcome at the recent meeting in Burns.

Oregon Armed Protest Leader Says Group Will Defend Occupied Building - WSJ

[CanuckInPortland]

Originally Posted by Metlakatla

I don't think it's as simple as LE just walking in and arresting them. They've made it clear they'll use deadly force. They have the advantage out there, and whatever else they are, they're probably fairly good shots. Some of them also seem highly unstable. They weren't expected or welcome at the recent meeting in Burns.

Oregon Armed Protest Leader Says Group Will Defend Occupied Building - WSJ

Well if they are making it clear they'll use deadly force, then they must taken out and sent away for a long time. I mean in what other scenario could someone say, "Hey cops, don't come near us or I'll shoot you" and just be coddled for three weeks? That doesn't happen at any other time.

That's sort of the big difference between this and a "peaceful" protest.

[ringwise]

Originally Posted by warptman

Why are they still there? Why hasn't the local government or the feds go up and remove them from the property?


They're morons for sure.

The same reason they allowed the Occupy Wall Street folks to stick around. Not worth the potential headache to move them.

[ringwise]

Originally Posted by KaaBoom

So you propose that we let them keep the wildlife refuge? Just turn public land over to them, because we don’t want any trouble?

Hilarious. I bet you had no problem with the Occupy crowd taking over city parks with their tents and bongs.

[Metlakatla]

Like I said, I'm not interested in pretending I have the answer to this. Like Larry said, the U.S. military can't be used against its own citizens. There's probably more wingnuts out there right now than there are law enforcement officers in the entire county, and expecting them to just go out there and peacefully arrest these guys is unrealistic. I do wish they'd block access the way they said they were going to. I also have a feeling that when this is over, we'll find out there were some good reasons for the way it's being handled right now.