Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If this standoff were to end with LEO raiding and killing some/all the militiamen, how would that be any different, from a procedural perspective, than what happened to Eric Garner? Tamir Rice? John Crawford?
The argument that LEO has used to defend their killings, and the argument that Conservative voices accept and repeat, boils down to these three points:
Fact #1: What the victim is doing appears to be illegal.
Fact #2: They are disobeying direct orders from LEO.
Fact #3: They could be dangerous.
Would Conservative media hold these militiamen to the same standards that they hold others to, or would they denounce LEO?
DeCaprio is a good actor, but IMO that is beyond him.
1) Are they doing anything illegal? Burning any buildings, looting businesses, destroying property? At worst they might be disrupting the 2 people a month that might go to the refuge. Not like they are shutting down interstate highways, blocking businesses or occupying public parks or private malls.
2) Moot point since, AFAIK they have not been given any direct orders from LEO.
3) And?
1. How is what they're doing more legal than what Tamir Rice was doing?
2. I'm pretty sure they have been given direct orders to leave the area.
3. And that's the same justification LEO & Conservative media have given to justify lethal force in the past.
If this standoff were to end with LEO raiding and killing some/all the militiamen, how would that be any different, from a procedural perspective, than what happened to Eric Garner? Tamir Rice? John Crawford?
The argument that LEO has used to defend their killings, and the argument that Conservative voices accept and repeat, boils down to these three points:
Fact #1: What the victim is doing appears to be illegal.
Fact #2: They are disobeying direct orders from LEO.
Fact #3: They could be dangerous.
Would Conservative media hold these militiamen to the same standards that they hold others to, or would they denounce LEO?
Start a "conservative lives matter" movement based on lies and protest political gatherings. Perhaps get a license from BLM, not the bureau of land management, for a splinter group sanctionedby and of BLM.
If this standoff were to end with LEO raiding and killing some/all the militiamen, how would that be any different, from a procedural perspective, than what happened to Eric Garner? Tamir Rice? John Crawford?
The argument that LEO has used to defend their killings, and the argument that Conservative voices accept and repeat, boils down to these three points:
Fact #1: What the victim is doing appears to be illegal.
Fact #2: They are disobeying direct orders from LEO.
Fact #3: They could be dangerous.
Would Conservative media hold these militiamen to the same standards that they hold others to, or would they denounce LEO?
Before I answer your questions, I have an issue with the premise. Why do you insist on believing that all Conservatives think what happened to Tamir Rice was acceptable? I saw the video too, I never accepted how it went down. Same question about Garner. Why do you insist on believing that all Conservatives accepted that death? I did not. I was quite vocal about both of these situations, right here on this forum.
I don't necessarily agree (or disagree) with the Oregon militia men's approach to protesting, but since the Feds are squeezing white people who are trying to make a living out on the range land, and the protestors haven't harmed anyone or destroyed any property or blocked the free movement of people and commerce, I would be very opposed to the government harming the protesters or removing them with force.
The government needs to address their concerns. From my perspective, white people can't even try to live independently in the wilderness without the government coming after them.
Before I answer your questions, I have an issue with the premise. Why do you insist on believing that all Conservatives think what happened to Tamir Rice was acceptable? I saw the video too, I never accepted how it went down.
Answer that, first.
It's not all Conservatives, but it's most Conservatives. It's enough Conservatives that you have your Conservative media rallying to defend the very institutions and practices that you say you're vigilant against. I use Conservative's own actions in the past to judge the movement's stance on LEO's use of force.
I've seen Conservatives rally and protest and demand change and be non-stop thorns in the sides of the people and institutions they see misbehaving. I know how Conservative behave when they think they see injustice. I have not seen anything remotely close to that regarding police actions against anyone that wasn't White.
I find it telling that Conservatives still bring up Waco and Ruby Ridge, and completely ignore more recent events like Michael Crawford and Tamir Rice.
I blame Conservatives because you have set the precedent on what you do when you want to tackle injustice, and so far the only people that Conservatives think are being treated unjustly by LEO are Cliven Bundy and the Hammonds.
I'm not saying ALL Conservatives are guilty -- Reason is consistently more opposed to police state than the rest of movement -- but it's enough that it's part of your ideology.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
