The Oregon Wingnut Army isn't the 2nd Whiskey Rebellion
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Other/Misc2/i-fDZbNTN/0/L/download-L.jpg)
Read More: http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2016-jan-the-oregon-wingnut-army-isnt-the-2nd-whiskey-rebellion
You can't simulataneously pretend to be upholding democracy while taking unilateral, armed, undemocratic means to do so. Or maybe you can - the irony of this appears to be lost on these guys.
It's pretty clear Y'allQaeda's intentions. They'll continue their Yeehad until they've united our west in a new Cowliphate.
Have you no sympathy for the vast oppression these folks are suffering over being asked to pay a small fee when grazing their animals on public land?
Quote from: finehoe on January 07, 2016, 09:11:29 AM
Have you no sympathy for the vast oppression these folks are suffering over being asked to pay a small fee when grazing their animals on public land?
That's no way to talk about people who are protecting your Constitutional rights for you!
Isn't this "news" article actually an opinion piece?
http://www.wearethemighty.com/articles/one-oregon-militiamen-valor-thief
QuoteOne of the Oregon militiamen guilty of semi-stolen valor, Ranger-style
by David Nye - Jan 5, 2016 3:06:59 pm
As everyone watches the event in Oregon, which so far isn't really a standoff, reporters are trying to figure out who the 12-150 people in the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge headquarters building are.
Ryan Payne, a former soldier, is among them. He has been a prominent presence in the buildup to the occupation of the buildings in Oregon and claimed to have lead militia snipers who targeted — but didn't fire on — federal agents during the showdown at the Bundy ranch in Nevada in 2014.
Payne claimed to be a Ranger on internet forums and during interviews early in the Bundy ranch standoff, but it's been pointed out by a number of stolen valor sites that Payne never earned a tab.
"It's all in the Ranger handbook," Payne once said. "The Ranger handbook is like the quintessential fighting man's story. You know, how to do this—everything to be a fighting guy. And having served in that type of unit, that was my Bible. I carried it around on me everywhere I went."
The only Ranger-type unit Payne was in was the West Mountain Rangers, a militia that is likely not associated with the 75th Ranger Regiment.
Payne did serve in the Army and likely did some awesome stuff as a member of the 18th Airborne Corps Long Range Surveillance Company during the invasion of Iraq. The LRS is comprised of paratroopers who move behind enemy lines and conduct reconnaissance on enemy forces. But any paratrooper knows the difference between being Airborne and being an Airborne Ranger.
The difference is at least two months of grueling training, longer for the 34 percent of graduates who have to recycle at least one phase of the 61-day course. The difference is an assignment to one of the three battalions of the storied Ranger Regiment. The difference is earning the scroll, tab, and beret that are worn by actual Rangers.
It was after members of the Ranger community called him out that Payne switched from touting his fictional credentials as a Ranger to his actual "achievements" of targeting federal police officers with sniper rifles.
Per Reuters:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-oregon-militia-idUSKBN0UM2ED20160109 (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-oregon-militia-idUSKBN0UM2ED20160109)
Militia groups meet with leaders of Oregon occupation, pledge support
(http://s2.reutersmedia.net/resources/r/?m=02&d=20160109&t=2&i=1108250995&w=&fh=&fw=&ll=644&pl=429&sq=&r=LYNXMPEC0718F)
Members of self-styled militia groups met on Friday with armed protesters occupying a federal wildlife refuge in Oregon, pledging support for their cause, if not their methods, and offering to act as a peace-keeping force in the week-long standoff over land rights.
During the 30-minute meeting at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, a leader of the occupation, Ammon Bundy, told about a dozen representatives of such groups as Pacific Patriots Network, Oath Keepers and III% that he had no immediate plans to abandon the siege.
"I was asked to do this by the Lord," said Bundy, a Mormon, as some of the militia members nodded in understanding. "I did it how he told me to do it."
Earlier on Friday the Pacific Patriots Network called on its members to establish a safety perimeter around the refuge in remote southeastern Oregon to prevent a "Waco-style situation" from unfolding.
In 1993 federal agents laid siege to a compound in Waco, Texas, being held by the Branch Davidians religious sect for 51 days before the standoff ended in a gun battle and fire. Four federal agents and more than 80 members of the group died, including 23 children.
The Pacific Patriots Network has previously said that while it agrees with Bundy's land rights grievances, it does not support the occupation, a position leader Brandon Rapolla reiterated during the meeting.
Bundy thanked Rapolla and handed him a small roll of bills, which he said came from donations.
"We're friends, but we're operating separately," Rapolla, a former Marine who helped defend the Bundys in 2014 in their standoff with the U.S. government at their Nevada ranch, told Reuters in an earlier interview.
The militia members are not joining the occupation, but are sleeping in their vehicles or in hotels in Burns, he said.
Rapolla said he had also taken Sausage McMuffins to FBI agents who are stationed at nearby Burns Municipal Airport to monitor the occupation and had coffee with deputies from the county sheriff's office on Thursday.
The meetings were friendly, he said, and he told them that they were there to make sure neither side escalates the dispute.
"That's really the point of militias: it's community involvement," Rapolla said. "If something happens in your community, that's what militias are for."
Some two dozen armed protesters have occupied the headquarters of the refuge since last Saturday, marking the latest incident in the so-called Sagebrush Rebellion, a decades-old conflict over federal control of land and resources in the U.S. West.
The move followed a demonstration in support of two local ranchers, Dwight Hammond Jr. and his son Steven, who were returned to prison earlier this week for setting fires that spread to federal land.
A lawyer for Hammond family has said that the occupiers do not speak for the family.
Ammon Bundy met briefly with Harney County Sheriff David Ward on Thursday but rejected the lawman's offer of safe passage out of the state to end the standoff.
During a press conference on Friday morning, Bundy seemed to soften his position, saying: "We will take that offer but not yet and we will go out of this county and out of this state as free men."
Following Bundy's press conference on Friday morning, a lands right activist opposed to the occupation spoke to the media.
"This is about furthering an extremist right-wing agenda," Barrett Kaiser, a Montana resident and a representative of the Center for Western Priorities said, as supporters of Bundy tried to interrupt him and argue with him. "They need to be charged and prosecuted."
Local residents have expressed a mixture of sympathy for the Hammond family, suspicion of the federal government's motives and frustration with the occupation.
Federal law enforcement agents and local police have so far kept away from the occupied site, maintaining no visible presence outside the park in a bid to avoid a violent confrontation.
The real problem is that the federal government owns the vast majority of the land in the western states. This should not be. Short of state parks, the land should be tuned over to the individual states. There have been a lot of disputes about grazing because the farmers have to graze on federal land. When the federal government decides against more grazing, they are messing with people's livelihoods. This is why all that land should be turned back over to the states.
Quote from: Redbaron616 on January 10, 2016, 04:10:40 PM
The real problem is that the federal government owns the vast majority of the land in the western states. This should not be. Short of state parks, the land should be tuned over to the individual states. There have been a lot of disputes about grazing because the farmers have to graze on federal land. When the federal government decides against more grazing, they are messing with people's livelihoods. This is why all that land should be turned back over to the states.
Why should it be turned over to the States? It's Federal land and it's owned by the people of the USA - not just the people of Nevada or Oregon or whatever. These States wouldn't even exist if the Federal government hadn't taken the steps to acquire the territory in the first place.
None of this is about the States anyway - these are criminals who broke the law and are being punished. The whole State vs Federal Government is just a convenient story to use as misdirection. What if the ranchers had burned State land and had landed in State prison for five years. Would Bundy and his racist/paranoid/inbred buddies be okay with that? We have no way to know, of course.
None of this changes the fact that in a democracy, we change things we don't like at the ballot box, not with guns.
Quote from: Apache on January 10, 2016, 05:02:19 PM
It's off topic of the Bundy wingnuts that are taking over the headlines. BUt there is a little lot of gray to this story regarding the background of the Hammonds. Depending on where you can find the history of the actual incident. I'm sure the truth lies in the middle as always.
To me...it sounds like the government has been pretty much strong arming the Hammonds and others to buy them out of their land so they can expand/protect the national park area.
The govt has arbitrarily revoked grazing licenses or increased the fees for such to an amount that the ranchers can't afford. Ranching is what these people have done for generations.
Now, the Hammonds are convicted of arson. But if one is trying to make a case for them, the first fire, while set on federal land, was a backfire set to prevent a forest fire from spreading to their property and destroying it. By most accounts, while illegal, this was a proper prescribed burn that was necessary and did save their property and livestock. They didn't have authority to do it, but some argue that the gov't should have done it but did not.
The second fire is sketchier. It's claimed they set the second fire to hide their dumping grounds of poached animals. If this is true, they should also be held accountable for this also. Although, I'd be shocked if they were poaching for profit but rather for food. Thats just a guess on my part and it doesn't make it less illegal. But I'm more inclined to give them a moral pass if they were hunting, in a desolate area, on land which some of it they used to own, for food.
It's an interesting story. Wish I could find an unbiased account of it.
Perhaps - from what I understand, they didn't notify the government of the first fire until after they had set it. If it were truly a back fire that was set to prevent a fire spreading to their land, they'd have a bit more sympathy from me if they had actually contacted the government first to ask for assistance. I also believe there were BLM firefighters nearby who were threatened by the fire - so it seems likely the government was attempting to fight the fire in the first place.
As far as poaching goes - it makes no difference to me if it was for food or profit.
Also, (again) from what I've read, the had previously got into trouble for illegally setting fires and had been warned.
They were convicted in a court by a jury of their peers. And none of this really makes a difference - because as I said, in a democracy, you don't take up arms to get your way.
They claimed to be US Marine and various military combat veterans. Now that they're locked up, as a REAL wartime veteran I'm predicting that some marine, soldier, sailor or airman is going to teach them the fear of GOD!
surprised? I actually am. The Oregon Wingnut Army was found NOT Guilty...
(http://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/newshour/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/RTX2495O-1024x649.jpg)
Quote
Ammon and Ryan Bundy have been found not guilty of conspiracy. Their five co-defendants Jeff Banta, Shawna Cox, David Fry, Kenneth Medenbach and Neil Wampler have all been found not guilty as well.
Jurors were unable to reach a verdict on Ryan Bundy's theft of government property charge.
The jury returned its verdict after some six weeks of testimony followed by less than six hours deliberations, and the last minute replacement of a juror after an allegation surfaced that he was biased.
The jury was instructed to disregard their previous work and to re-consider the evidence
The charges stem from the 41-day armed occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge near Burns in eastern Oregon's high desert. The armed protest began Jan. 2 and ended when the final four occupiers surrendered to the FBI on Feb. 11.
Prosecutors initially charged Ammon Bundy, his brother Ryan Bundy, and 24 others with conspiracy to prevent Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Fish and Wildlife employees from doing their jobs at the wildlife refuge in Harney County. Some defendants named in the indictment faced weapons charges for carrying firearms in a federal facility, as well as theft of government property.
Only seven defendants went to trial in September. Others have pleaded guilty or are scheduled to go to trial in February 2017.
Through the government's case, prosecutors attempted to show the jury evidence about when the alleged conspiracy began, as well as how the occupation unfolded and ultimately ended.
The government relied heavily on testimony from law enforcement, including Harney County Sheriff David Ward, as well as dozens of FBI agents who responded to the occupation or processed evidence at the Malheur refuge after the occupation ended.
"At the end of the day, there is an element of common sense that demonstrates the guilt of these defendants," Assistant U.S. Attorney Ethan Knight said during his closing arguments during the trial. "These defendants took over a wildlife refuge and it wasn't theirs."
Conversely, the defense sought to make its case about a political protest – one about protesting the federal government's ownership and management of public lands.
"The people have to insist that the government is not our master; they are our servants," Ryan Bundy said during his closing statement to the jury.
Bundy added the occupation had "nothing to do with impeding and preventing the employees of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge."
The occupation in rural eastern Oregon fueled a long running debate about the role of the federal government when it comes of managing public lands, especially for ranching and other natural resource-based professions.
Throughout the armed protest, occupation leader Ammon Bundy frequently said their goal was to shift the federally-owned land to local control. During presses conferences and interviews, Bundy frequently said he wanted to "get the ranchers back to ranching, get the loggers back to logging and miners back to mining."
While federal prosecutors worked to keep their case focused on conspiracy, the trial quickly came to symbolize the growing divide between urban and rural America.
"How did any of these people benefit from protesting the death of rural America?" Attorney Matt Schindler, hybrid counsel for defendant Ken Medenbach, said during his closing statements to the jury.
Five of the seven defendants took the stand in their own defense during the trial. Occupation leader Ammon Bundy's testimony stretched over the course of three days and included stories about growing up on a ranch and his family role in the 2014 armed standoff in Bunkerville, Nevada.
With the first Oregon trial concluded, the Bundy brothers and several other defendants who participated in the Malheur occupation will now travel to Nevada, where they face charges for their roles in the Bunkerville standoff.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/bundys-found-not-guilty-oregon-standoff-trial/ (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/bundys-found-not-guilty-oregon-standoff-trial/)
Interesting that a group of men who defended themselves in court defeated local, state and federal evidence in court represented by professional counsel.
Wingnuts? Seems like they are pretty smart guys to me.
It pains me to say it, but perhaps stickers in their windows that say "Rural Life Matters" is in order.
Ultimately the GOVT won, as these guys are no longer on the disputed real estate. They all left.
I'm guessing that the jurors were all from the area and sympathetic to the cause?
Quote from: fsquid on October 28, 2016, 09:15:16 AM
I'm guessing that the jurors were all from the area and sympathetic to the cause?
That would be a jury of their peers...
I know, I just couldn't tell if the Feds tries to move it to another locale or not.
Sorry, I just can't help thinking that the outcome would be vastly different if a group with a bit more melanin committed the same act and for the same exact reasons.
I'm not a proponent of "punishment" as a means of detouring crime but it's a big deal when we look the other way when an armed group takes over a federal facility.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification
Quote from: TheCat on October 28, 2016, 09:58:45 AM
Sorry, I just can't help thinking that the outcome would be vastly different if a group with a bit more melanin committed the same act and for the same exact reasons.
I'm not a proponent of "punishment" as a means of detouring crime but it's a big deal when we look the other way when an armed group takes over a federal facility.
Read through some of the transcripts, they asked the accused if they ever obstructed anyone from BLM or Law Enforcement, answer was "No".
Question to law enforcement, did the accused ever threaten you or attempt to deny you access to BLM or any government facility? Answer was "No".
This was a protest, like marching down a street except in this case they were carrying thier sidearms. Which apparently they wear them everyday, since that is a part of ranch life and perfectly legal.
It seems the sight of weaponry spooked the law enforcement people into fear and they called reinforcements, because after all, if one is carrying, then a crime is about to occur. Right?
Technically, BLM managed land belongs to the taxpayers. If the ranchers have a legal permit to graze, there shouldnt be an issue. But if BLM overreached by revoking grazing rights for everyone because 1 rancher was abusing it, then I can see why they were protesting.
I think there is more nuance here than what the press is reporting. Incidents with BLM have been growing since 1992 and not just in Oregon.
A Clinton appointee to BLM tried to ban all motor vehicles through many BLM lands in California for environmental reasons. No one told him that there was an Interstate highway running through said lands. Oops.
Another BLM crony tried to wipe out 4 years of negotiations for offroad motorcycle access on park lands by banning ALL motorcycles. Oops. 3 state highways pass those park lands and after a threat of lawsuit, the BLM ban was lifted.
By design, these lands are "public" and should be managed with access in mind. By denying taxpayers access, you get protests.
Quote from: spuwho on October 28, 2016, 02:04:28 PM
...and not just in Oregon.
Interestingly, the Bundy's and their compadres live and ranch in Nevada.
Seems the local BLM rangers felt stuck, between goofy enforcement policies out of DC, and being able to work with the local ranchers. Their lives were in danger? How many BLM staff have been shot and killed in a protest? (None) How many protesters have been shot and killed? (1, and not by BLM)
Per the WSJ:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/federal-officials-worry-ammonbundys-acquittal-could-lead-to-more-land-occupations-1477689168 (http://www.wsj.com/articles/federal-officials-worry-ammonbundys-acquittal-could-lead-to-more-land-occupations-1477689168)
Federal Officials Worry Ammon Bundy's Acquittal Could Lead to More Land Occupations
Interior Secretary Sally Jewell said the acquittal of seven people who took over an Oregon wildlife refuge last winter reinforces her concern over the safety of her employees and reminded them to remain vigilant for any more such trouble.
"I am profoundly disappointed in this outcome and am concerned about its potential implications for our employees and for the effective management of public lands," Ms. Jewell said in a message to Interior Department employees that was publicly released Friday.
A federal jury in Portland on Thursday acquitted Ammon Bundy and six others, including his brother Ryan, on charges including conspiracy, in connection with the armed occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.
The comments reflect a sense of uneasiness among federal officials and some local communities in the West that the acquittals may encourage other groups to stage land takeovers of their own.
Mr. Bundy, 41 years old, and dozens of other activists upset with federal land policies in the West had converged on the Malheur refuge in remote Harney County with weapons last Jan. 2 in an occupation that lasted 41 days.
"My greatest worry is that this verdict puts a target on the backs of the public stewards who manage our public lands," said Char Miller, professor of environmental analysis at Pomona College in Claremont, Calif. "It is now open season on them."
One of the acquitted defendants, Ken Medenbach, said in an interview Friday the verdict will encourage him to continue seeking a return to states' control much of the land the federal government now controls in the West.
"I'm going to approach the state and say, 'Hey, you guys have to do something,' " said Mr. Medenbach, 63, a wood carver from Crescent, Ore. "If they don't, the people will have to step up."
But some other occupiers said they weren't likely to stage a takeover like this again. The occupation ended soon after Ammon Bundy and seven others were arrested in a highway showdown with state and federal officers during which one occupier, Robert LaVoy Finicum, was shot and killed by a law-enforcement officer.
"I don't think people are going to do armed protests like this again," said Jeff Banta, 47, a carpenter from Elko, Nev. who also was among the acquitted defendants. "It scared the bejesus out of all of us, really."
J. Morgan Philpot, an attorney for Ammon Bundy, said the acquittals "don't give anyone a license to do anything unlawful." Rather, he said they should serve as a message to the federal government to treat rural Westerners better, and would give a boost to legal efforts in Utah and some other states to return more land to local control.
Other federal officials said they were still hopeful for convictions in other trials set to start in February of seven others involved in the occupation.
The Bundy brothers and five others from the Oregon occupation, along with their father, Cliven Bundy, have also been separately charged in a 2014 armed confrontation with federal officials near the family's ranch in southern Nevada. That federal trial is set for next year.
"We must send a strong message of deterrence to those who would seek to replicate the occupation or perpetuate the toxic myths that sustained it," Dan Ashe, director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, said in a message to his employees.
Mr. Ashe said some of the 16 employees of the Malheur refuge were relocated during the occupation for their safety and had their lives disrupted. Although many employees have returned, some have chosen not to, he said.
"Many of their friendships, and their sense of belonging in the community, have been damaged or destroyed," he said.
Residents in Harney County, meanwhile, say they are ready to move on. "I'm just really glad it's come to an end," said Harney County Judge Steve Grasty.
Seems to me that the prosecutor went with the wrong charge/allegation.
Quote from: stephendare on October 29, 2016, 12:18:12 PM
http://crooksandliars.com/2016/10/how-government-lost-its-case-against-yall
What happened at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge earlier this year was no whodunit.
Many of the men and women in the 41-day protest in rural Oregon were filmed and photographed taking over and occupying the facility. Some were even captured there. Some had guns.
At trial in federal court in Portland — where seven defendants stood accused of weapons charges and conspiracy to intimidate federal workers — some presented legal theories that experts called wrongheaded and laughable.
All this, in a federal legal system in which the overwhelming majority of defendants charged with a crime are convicted.
Yet if there is a single sentence that sums up the disastrous loss federal prosecutors experienced in Oregon on Thursday — when all seven defendants were found not guilty — it's the story of Kenneth Medenbach, who was also charged with stealing government property:
"My client was arrested in a government truck, and he was acquitted of taking that truck," said defense attorney Matthew Schindler, who still sounded in disbelief Friday morning.
Thursday's acquittal brought celebration among the occupation's right-wing supporters and sent shock waves through the legal profession. Three of the seven defendants chose to represent themselves, and the government's six-week trial had largely been viewed as an easily winnable case.
Bundy's attorney, Morgan Philpot, said if his client and fellow protesters believed they were pursuing a legal process, they couldn't have been criminally intending to intimidate federal workers.
When a television reporter first informed Lewis & Clark criminal law professor Tung Yin of the not guilty verdict, Yin responded, "Wait — what?"
"Look at the indictment and the list of charges," Yin told the Los Angeles Times on Friday, noting that the government's evidence included video footage and social media posts from occupiers about their armed takeover of the refuge.
"You've got these yahoos taking videos of themselves with their guns probably, and they're clearly on a federal facility by their own admission, so that seemed like proof beyond any doubt of their factual guilt," Yin said. "That's why it seemed to me it would be a slam-dunk case."
Yet the government's case was more challenging than it seemed. Defense attorneys in the case say that prosecutors became overconfident, electing not to file lesser charges that would have resulted in easier convictions — and likely little, if any, jail time.
The occupation began in January as a protest against the imprisonment of two Oregon ranchers who had been convicted of setting fire to federal lands.
The leaders, which included brothers Ammon and Ryan Bundy, were far-right land-rights advocates who believe in arcane legal theories that the federal government doesn't have the constitutional authority to own federal wildlands.
The weekslong occupation, which was covered widely in the national media and drew protesters from across the U.S., ended after state and federal law enforcement arrested the occupations' leaders on a nearby highway. One leader, LaVoy Finicum, sped away in a truck, and police shot and killed him after he got out of the vehicle and reached for his gun, officials said.
After the occupation was abandoned, dozens of guns and thousands of rounds of ammunition were found at the refuge. Charges against many of the occupiers soon followed, with almost a dozen people pleading guilty to related charges before trial.
The most significant of the charges against the occupation's leaders was a count of felony conspiracy to intentionally intimidate government workers and prevent them from doing their jobs.
The conspiracy count was actually a double-whammy: If the defendants could convince the jury that no criminal conspiracy had occurred, then they could not be convicted of the accompanying weapons charge — which requires the government to prove the guns had been brought on federal property to commit a crime.
The defendants said they were not trying to intimidate or hurt anyone by occupying the refuge. Ammon Bundy claimed that he was trying to take ownership of the land by way of "adverse possession" — a legal process of gaining ownership of something by occupying it.
That's an unusual legal argument, and one that prosecutors disputed at trial. But ultimately, the jury agreed that the government was unable to prove the intent required to establish criminal conspiracy.
"All 12 jurors felt that this verdict was a statement regarding the various failures of the prosecution to prove 'conspiracy' in the count itself — and not any form of affirmation of the defense's various beliefs, actions or aspirations," Juror 4 wrote in an email to the Oregonian.
Juror 4 also scolded prosecutors for being overconfident and exuding an "air of triumphalism" and denied critics' claims that jurors were supporting the defendants' actions.
"Don't they know that 'not guilty' does not mean innocent?" the juror wrote to the Oregonian. "It was not lost on us that our verdict(s) might inspire future actions that are regrettable, but that sort of thinking was not permitted when considering the charges before us."
The U.S. attorney's office in Oregon did not respond to interview requests Friday.
Medenbach's attorney, Schindler, was stunned by the verdict. His own client had been arrested while driving around in a U.S. Fish and Wildlife truck. Medenbach, a right-wing activist who had been convicted previously for other protests, had even planned on being found guilty.
"His point in this case was to be convicted. His point was to go to the Court of Appeals and make legal arguments about the United States' ability to own land," Schindler said. "The notion of being acquitted never entered his mind. I told Ken over and over and over, 'You're going to be convicted.' "
Yet Medenbach was found not guilty, along with his six co-defendants.
"It's extraordinary, completely unprecedented, without a doubt the biggest loss for the federal government in the District of Oregon, ever," Schindler said.
Ammon and Ryan Bundy still face similar charges in Nevada for a 2014 armed standoff with U.S. Bureau of Land Management agents near their father Cliven Bundy's ranch. But Thursday's verdict was seen as a ray of sunshine for Ammon Bundy's Las Vegas attorney.
"When the jury down here hears the full story of what the BLM put the Bundys through," said Dan Hill, "I expect the same result."
Interesting. I am not into the Bundy's federal land ownership argument, but I have read a lot on BLM (mis)management issues and how many BLM bureaucrats have come to loggerheads with fair use. The Bundy's have succeeded in making it more public than the rest.
While the protesters who took over the Malheur National Refuge are still being prosecuted......it seems that there is evidence of FBI agent malpractice in the works.
When the protest leaders were ambushed while on their way to court, "someone" shot into Finicum's Truck while he had his arms up in surrender. Finicum saw it and reached for his loaded pistol in defense and was killed instantly by the other agents and Oregon State Police.
Video evidence shows the FBI agents looking for the shells (which went mysteriously missing later). Now they are being prosecuted for perjury.
Is it possible in the US to have law enforcement act with a higher standard anymore?
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-fbi-oregon-shooting-20170628-story.html (http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-fbi-oregon-shooting-20170628-story.html)
Quote from: spuwho on June 29, 2017, 07:58:53 AM
While the protesters who took over the Malheur National Refuge are still being prosecuted......it seems that there is evidence of FBI agent malpractice in the works.
When the protest leaders were ambushed while on their way to court, "someone" shot into Finicum's Truck while he had his arms up in surrender. Finicum saw it and reached for his loaded pistol in defense and was killed instantly by the other agents and Oregon State Police.
Video evidence shows the FBI agents looking for the shells (which went mysteriously missing later). Now they are being prosecuted for perjury.
Is it possible in the US to have law enforcement act with a higher standard anymore?
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-fbi-oregon-shooting-20170628-story.html (http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-fbi-oregon-shooting-20170628-story.html)
You're editorialising and adding something that isn't in the story. Nowhere does it say Finnicum reached for his revolver in defence as a reaction to the mystery gunshot. In fact, it doesn't even indicate he was aware of the gunshot. He had already been shot at three times and had almost killed a police officer with his truck:
QuoteThen, a moment after Finicum staggered out of the truck with his arms in the air, a video taken by one of the passengers inside the truck shows an apparent shot hitting the roof of the vehicle and striking a window.
Afterward, Finicum moved toward officers and appeared to reach toward his jacket, under which was a loaded gun, and was fatally shot by state troopers.
Quote from: Adam White on June 29, 2017, 08:14:08 AM
Quote from: spuwho on June 29, 2017, 07:58:53 AM
While the protesters who took over the Malheur National Refuge are still being prosecuted......it seems that there is evidence of FBI agent malpractice in the works.
When the protest leaders were ambushed while on their way to court, "someone" shot into Finicum's Truck while he had his arms up in surrender. Finicum saw it and reached for his loaded pistol in defense and was killed instantly by the other agents and Oregon State Police.
Video evidence shows the FBI agents looking for the shells (which went mysteriously missing later). Now they are being prosecuted for perjury.
Is it possible in the US to have law enforcement act with a higher standard anymore?
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-fbi-oregon-shooting-20170628-story.html (http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-fbi-oregon-shooting-20170628-story.html)
You're editorialising and adding something that isn't in the story. Nowhere does it say Finnicum reached for his revolver in defence (and as a reaction to the mystery gunshot):
QuoteThen, a moment after Finicum staggered out of the truck with his arms in the air, a video taken by one of the passengers inside the truck shows an apparent shot hitting the roof of the vehicle and striking a window.
Afterward, Finicum moved toward officers and appeared to reach toward his jacket, under which was a loaded gun, and was fatally shot by state troopers.
Glad you read it.
Well, it's very interesting. And very concerning - I agree with you about law enforcement. Who knows what the FBI agent's gunshot led to - but now it just looks really bad.
I am even more concerned about the possibility that other agents helped destroy evidence.
Quote from: Adam White on June 29, 2017, 08:54:17 AM
Well, it's very interesting. And very concerning - I agree with you about law enforcement. Who knows what the FBI agent's gunshot led to - but now it just looks really bad.
I am even more concerned about the possibility that other agents helped destroy evidence.
Agreed, that was my biggest concern.
If the guy stumbled out with his arms up in front of an armed group of law enforcement, why (if what they said was true) would he be compelled to reach for his weapon?
I am not looking for a reason to justify the actions of the rancher here, I am suspect of the story in general. Either its poorly written, or the facts dont line up.
Quote from: spuwho on June 29, 2017, 11:50:48 AM
Quote from: Adam White on June 29, 2017, 08:54:17 AM
Well, it's very interesting. And very concerning - I agree with you about law enforcement. Who knows what the FBI agent's gunshot led to - but now it just looks really bad.
I am even more concerned about the possibility that other agents helped destroy evidence.
Agreed, that was my biggest concern.
If the guy stumbled out with his arms up in front of an armed group of law enforcement, why (if what they said was true) would he be compelled to reach for his weapon?
I am not looking for a reason to justify the actions of the rancher here, I am suspect of the story in general. Either its poorly written, or the facts dont line up.
Who knows. Given his views (and considering he was carrying a loaded weapon), I'm not shocked that he reached for a gun. If he had been just anyone, it would seem more suspect.
If there is a cover-up, then that's really bad news for the FBI. That does little more than feed into the narrative those wingnuts buy into.
This whole thread was more Stephens rodeo than anything else, but in case anyone cares. The case was thrown out with prejudice, the FBI and BLM crapped all overthemselves.
https://www.westernjournal.com/clive-bundy-ordered-released-judge-dismisses-government-case/