PCS

Assorted Militia/SovCit news,(formerly Bundy thread)

Recommended Posts

So everyone involved in a protest where illegal activity occurs, or where a group is tied to someone committing illegal activity the whole group is culpable?

Now, I can certainly conceive of some situations where that's the case. Where every single person present, is guilty of at least some crime.

I don't really think that a public protest march is one of those cases. But I could see how this situation might be classified as one.

I could see the argument that every single person in that building (I'm assuming it's a building) is guilty of at least obstruction of justice. (Unless they're a hostage, or some such.)

 

Still doesn't justify killing all of them.  But I could see the notion that every one of them is committing a criminal act, right now. 

 

(Although, I could also see the notion that what they're doing is a peaceful protest, protected by the constitution.  Supposedly, they took over an empty building.  IMO, while the constitution doesn't specifically exempt protesters from criminal consequences, I do think that our country should grant some leeway to people who are breaking minor laws, for the purpose of a peaceful, non-threatening, protest.) 

 

Are they protecting two federal fugitives from arrest?  Or are they simply holding a protest? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed, a peaceful solution would be the best solution.  Barring that, the method that causes the least collateral damage should be used.

 

This whole thing started from some morons committing arson.  Whatever does the least damage to the land around the facility makes the most sense here, else there'd be some irony.

 

 

Now, I can certainly conceive of some situations where that's the case. Where every single person present, is guilty of at least some crime.

I don't really think that a public protest march is one of those cases. But I could see how this situation might be classified as one.

 

Right, and if this was resolved quickly peacefully, I think there's a reasonable case for leniency for many of the people down the chain.  Most public protests aren't criminal all the way down, if at all.  This one, being on federal property, ought to be treated as a crime for at least the top people, the building isn't public, but I definitely see reason to give leniency down the chain, assuming things don't escalate.

 

I don't think the Feds should initiate any violence either.  They probably won't have to, if violence happens.

 

The Feds do need to arrest a number of people, and not back down.  If things stay peaceful, I'd argue for a catch-and-release policy.  Bring in everyone, release the lesser ones unless there's a reason not to.

Edited by DogofWar1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well if the Feds and locals decide to wait them out as a way of an attempt at a peaceful resolution,it's a pretty good spot for it. Been near that neck of the woods and it is fairly remote, desolate and can be a rough time of year weather wise. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't ignore that they took part in an organized armed occupation of federal property, but the goal should always be a safe and nonviolent resolution. Always. Law enforcement should never view killing as anything but an extreme option.

This isn't the same as a run of the mill protest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't ignore that they took part in an organized armed occupation of federal property, but the goal should always be a safe and nonviolent resolution. Always. Law enforcement should never view killing as anything but an extreme option.

This isn't the same as a run of the mill protest.

Of course when you have hundreds of armed people holed up inside a building, threatening to kill LEOs and/or Feds that come to remove them from said building, the last resort of killing comes quicker than usual.

It seems inevitable that one of these Bundy related standoffs will result in a lot of bloodshed. If not this one then the next. My only hope is that as few as possible innocent LEOs are killed, and as many as possible of these terrorists. Those left alive will just be able to do this again whenever they are released from prison. They aren't worth the money that would be spent prosecuting and then incarcerating them.

Edited by skinsfan_1215
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course when you have hundreds of armed people holed up inside a building, threatening to kill LEOs and/or Feds that come to remove them from said building, the last resort of killing comes quicker than usual.

It seems inevitable that one of these Bundy related standoffs will result in a lot of bloodshed. If not this one then the next. My only hope is that as few as possible innocent LEOs are killed, and as many as possible of these terrorists. Those left alive will just be able to do this again whenever they are released from prison. They aren't worth the money that would be spent prospecting and then incarcerating them.

 

So the way to oppose a group decrying a tyrannical out of control government is to have the government kill them?  Seems like the wrong approach to me for a free democratic nation that is "for the people".  I think we need to abandon the idea that we need to counter civilian unrest by seeking trying to beat them into submission with force.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A peaceful resolution would be best.  It would be a shame if anyone gets killed because of these ****ers, especially someone in the national guard or law enforcement.  But you can't have a large group of armed men camping out in open revolt of the government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the way to oppose a group decrying a tyrannical out of control government is to have the government kill them? Seems like the wrong approach to me for a free democratic nation that is "for the people". I think we need to abandon the idea that we need to counter civilian unrest by seeking trying to beat them into submission with force.

These are terrorists. They should be viewed exactly the same as Islamic terrorists who plot against the US. And the thing with terrorists is there isn't a lot you can do to appease them outside of just giving into their demands. They chose the "our way or death" viewpoint. So I'm not going to get real upset if they get killed because of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it a bunch of Obamaphobs who think he's coming for their guns?

Because, yeah, this is when you come for their guns.

This doesn't sound like a Waco or Ruby Ridge thing. This is an aggressive act against the government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is an aggressive act against the government.

 

With the demand that two prisoners be released. Coupled with clear threats against the lives of any law enforcement people who attempt to enforce the law.

 

It's the definition of a terrorist act.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With the demand that two prisoners be released. Coupled with clear threats against the lives of any law enforcement people who attempt to enforce the law.

It's the definition of a terrorist act.

I don't feel terrorized. It's not terrorizing me.

Treason would be the better word I think. If they're not American, I'd call it an act of war.

If we're just completely making up new definitions, like the media likes to do, then I guess terror could be used.

If they weren't white Christians, I'm positive it would be all over the news that terrorists are taking over our freedoms.

Edited by Koolblue13
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we're just completely making up new definitions, like the media likes to do, then I guess terror could be used.

 

"Domestic terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:

  • Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
  • Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping; and
  • Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/terrorism/terrorism-definition

Not making up anything... this is the definition of domestic terrorism.

Edited by tshile

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every crime is terror according to that vague description.

 

No it's not. That definition is perfectly clear and concise. It has three requirements.

 

Terrorism is not defined as : Does $randomcitizen feel terrorized.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, they call themselves a militia.

mi·li·tia

a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.

a military force that engages in rebel or terrorist activities, typically in opposition to a regular army.

all able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service.

.....

They aren't supplimenting our military. That's for sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.....

They aren't supplimenting our military. That's for sure.

 

Define 'our"  :)  ;)

 

I'm too distracted to care much about this, but the comments are entertaining.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.