Springfield Posted October 29, 2016 Author Share Posted October 29, 2016 Thanks @PCS, I appreciate any info on the subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCS Posted October 29, 2016 Share Posted October 29, 2016 You bet. It's a bit complex at times. As I stated earlier,most of those timeline subjects are stories in their own right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCS Posted October 30, 2016 Share Posted October 30, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s0crates Posted October 30, 2016 Share Posted October 30, 2016 http://m.democracynow.org/stories/16759 Indigenous Youth Occupy Hillary Clinton Campaign Headquarters to Demand She Take Stand on #DAPL Just minutes before the the police raid on the camp in North Dakota, here in New York City Native American youth flooded the campaign headquarters of Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton to demand that she oppose the Dakota Access pipeline. Clinton’s opponent in the Democratic primary, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, has come out against the pipeline. But Clinton has so far refused to take a stance. "We wanted to bring our songs and prayer to tell [Clinton] that the Native youth of this nation do not want this pipeline," says our guest Daniel Grassrope of the Lower Brule Sioux Nation in South Dakota, who was part of the group who set up a tipi in the entrance to Clinton’s office. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Springfield Posted October 30, 2016 Author Share Posted October 30, 2016 1 hour ago, PCS said: I do not agree with this. I don't think that this is how our nation should be policed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted October 30, 2016 Share Posted October 30, 2016 30 minutes ago, Springfield said: I do not agree with this. I don't think that this is how our nation should be policed. They are not police, they are the National guard...the police seem challenged and overtasked. Natural progression in response to lawless behavior. You do agree with rule of law Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grego Posted October 30, 2016 Share Posted October 30, 2016 did someone say pipeline? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsmarydu Posted October 30, 2016 Share Posted October 30, 2016 12 hours ago, twa said: They are not police, they are the National guard...the police seem challenged and overtasked. Natural progression in response to lawless behavior. You do agree with rule of law if they were protesting running water, you'd be out there with 'em Oh yeah, they are. rule of law or be damned & whatnot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Springfield Posted October 30, 2016 Author Share Posted October 30, 2016 18 hours ago, twa said: They are not police, they are the National guard...the police seem challenged and overtasked. Natural progression in response to lawless behavior. You do agree with rule of law So then, by your logic, they aren't policing. They are taking military action against American Indians. I'm certainly against military actions against Americans... inside America, that's for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted October 30, 2016 Share Posted October 30, 2016 6 hours ago, skinsmarydu said: if they were protesting running water, you'd be out there with 'em Oh yeah, they are. rule of law or be damned & whatnot It's easy to say "rules of law be damned" but what exactly are authorities supposed to do? Law says they can't trespass (or obstruct/intimidate) and so law enforcement is forced to confront them. While I agree that the militarization police is a problem and that police seem all too willing to get violent (a stance I've voiced for years on this site) I fail to see how they can avoid a physical confrontation of any kind and still do their jobs in this situation. How do police force a large group of people to leave when they refuse to do so willingly, or cooperate fully with effort to remove them, without physical confrontation (violence)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted October 30, 2016 Share Posted October 30, 2016 15 minutes ago, Springfield said: So then, by your logic, they aren't policing. They are taking military action against American Indians. I'm certainly against military actions against Americans... inside America, that's for sure. I'm not opposed the using the National Guard in the manner it is designed for.....against Americans or foreigners. I do have a minor issue with using a bordering states though....but just a pet peeve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted October 30, 2016 Share Posted October 30, 2016 59 minutes ago, Destino said: It's easy to say "rules of law be damned" but what exactly are authorities supposed to do? Law says they can't trespass (or obstruct/intimidate) and so law enforcement is forced to confront them. While I agree that the militarization police is a problem and that police seem all too willing to get violent (a stance I've voiced for years on this site) I fail to see how they can avoid a physical confrontation of any kind and still do their jobs in this situation. How do police force a large group of people to leave when they refuse to do so willingly, or cooperate fully with effort to remove them, without physical confrontation (violence)? The way they handled the bird sanctuary? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCS Posted October 30, 2016 Share Posted October 30, 2016 http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/09/493280504/judge-rules-that-construction-can-proceed-on-dakota-access-pipeline Quote Judge Rules That Construction Can Proceed On Dakota Access Pipeline September 9, 20163:38 PM ET Construction on the controversial Dakota Access Pipeline is allowed to proceed, except in one area in North Dakota of particular sensitivity to a Native American tribe. That's the result of two separate developments Friday — a federal court decision, and a statement by three federal agencies. A federal judge denied the Standing Rock Sioux tribe's request for an injunction that sought to temporarily stop construction on the pipeline, set to carry crude oil across four states. Immediately after the ruling, the federal agencies announced a halt to work in one area significant to the tribe. The Dakota Access Pipeline route crosses under the Missouri River near the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation, which straddles the Dakotas. The tribe says this puts its drinking water and sacred lands at risk. Outrage over the pipeline has galvanized Native American tribes and environmentalists across the U.S. *Click Link For More* 57 page ruling. http://earthjustice.org/sites/default/files/files/order-denying-PI.pdf http://www.kfyrtv.com/content/news/DAPL-protesters-reference-1851-Treaty-as-justification-for-Front-Line-camp-399099721.html Quote DAPL protesters reference 1851 Treaty as justification for Front Line Camp MORTON COUNTY, ND - When protesters took up camp along the Dakota Access Pipeline route, they claimed they were taking back Land that was given to them in accordance with the 1851 Fort Laramie Treaty. That treaty was one of several treaties that began to establish where current plains reservations are today. The 1851 treaty established Sioux territories from the Heart River just south of Mandan, well into Montana, Wyoming and Nebraska. In fact, the treaty included almost all of South Dakota west of the Missouri river. Protesters have used that as justification for setting up the camp and roadblocks that led to Thursday's confrontation. Another treaty at Fort Laramie in 1868 moved the northern border of Indian Country to near what's now the North Dakota, South Dakota Border. *Click link For More* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted October 30, 2016 Share Posted October 30, 2016 1 hour ago, Larry said: The way they handled the bird sanctuary? Run people off the road and shoot them? Or was it the dildo thing....both? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCS Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 http://kutv.com/news/local/north-dakota-access-pipeline-protest-in-downtown-salt-lake Quote North Dakota Access Pipeline protest in Downtown Salt Lake (KUTV) More than 100 activists gathered on Main Street Monday morning in protest of the Dakota Access Pipeline. The protest marched down Main Street in front of the Wells Fargo building, when protesters stormed into the building shouting, "Water is life," and "Keep it in the soil, you can't drink oil." *Click Link for More and video* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 They lost. **** off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonniey Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 On 10/29/2016 at 7:39 PM, twa said: They are not police, they are the National guard...the police seem challenged and overtasked. Natural progression in response to lawless behavior. You do agree with rule of law No those are cops. Just dressed in Military style uniforms. It says police on his vest and the commo pattern doesn't match any of the armed services cammo patterns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 On 10/29/2016 at 1:30 AM, BornaSkinsFan83 said: Call it white guilt or whatever you want, but if I'm being honest it would take A LOT for me to not be on the side of Native Americans. I'm talking murder a lot. So that's where I'm at on this. by white guilt I'm going to assume you think you are different than them can you expand on that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 22 hours ago, Larry said: The way they handled the bird sanctuary? The two situations are entirely different. First of all, I didn't see to many people referring to these people are protestors. I know I didn't. In this situation a group of armed lunatics took over empty buildings and entrenched themselves. The situations would only get dangerous if authorities attempted to remove them. The government chose to wait and pick it's moment. They did and what could have been a blood bath ended with only one of the crazies getting killed. Sadly a jury decided to do the unthinkable and they've been found not guilty. In this situation the site is not empty. There are workers and security on site that aren't interested in leaving and those opposed are attempting to prevent them from working. The danger in this situation surrounds private security and workers coming into contact with those opposing the pipelines construction. Police have been called and thus have a duty to defend those parties who are not breaking laws. If police simply let them at eachother there is no reasonable expectation of peace... because that's already happened (warning harsh language, dogs biting people and horses, dogs being struck): Anyone know if it's actually legal for private security to use attack dogs on people? That seems like a thing that shouldn't be allowed for a good number of reasons. Horrible stuff. Anyway, point is that the danger here is these two sides clashing. Both sides stand to get hurt if things get out of control and so unlike the bird sanctuary simply letting things develop isn't a real option for police. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 If the dog is on your property and the person being attacked is not supposed to be there it is generally allowable.(the rules are even more generous for police dogs) If ya visit me ya need to call ahead......and certainly respect fence lines Bunch of idiot protestors Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamebreaker Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 25 minutes ago, twa said: Bunch of idiot protestors Yes, how dare they care about clean water. They should count themselves lucky we didn't make them extinct, amiright? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 1 hour ago, Gamebreaker said: Yes, how dare they care about clean water. They should count themselves lucky we didn't make them extinct, amiright? Caring about water is fine, crossing a fence line then whining about the consequences is not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted November 1, 2016 Share Posted November 1, 2016 3 hours ago, Destino said: The two situations are entirely different. First of all, I didn't see to many people referring to these people are protestors. I know I didn't. In this situation a group of armed lunatics took over empty buildings and entrenched themselves. The situations would only get dangerous if authorities attempted to remove them. The government chose to wait and pick it's moment. They did and what could have been a blood bath ended with only one of the crazies getting killed. Sadly a jury decided to do the unthinkable and they've been found not guilty. In this situation the site is not empty. There are workers and security on site that aren't interested in leaving and those opposed are attempting to prevent them from working. The danger in this situation surrounds private security and workers coming into contact with those opposing the pipelines construction. Police have been called and thus have a duty to defend those parties who are not breaking laws. If police simply let them at eachother there is no reasonable expectation of peace... because that's already happened (warning harsh language, dogs biting people and horses, dogs being struck): Just pointing out that there's other differences, too, though. Both the sanctuary and the pipeline had workers and security impacted by the "protesters". But in only one of them, were the protesters ARMED. And, as far as I'm aware, in only one case did the protesters also send ARMED protesters to go "protest" in the nearby TOWN, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted November 1, 2016 Share Posted November 1, 2016 4 minutes ago, Larry said: Just pointing out that there's other differences, too, though. Both the sanctuary and the pipeline had workers and security impacted by the "protesters". But in only one of them, were the protesters ARMED. And, as far as I'm aware, in only one case did the protesters also send ARMED protesters to go "protest" in the nearby TOWN, too. "a group of armed lunatics" The fact that they were armed wasn't lost on me. In fact the entire reason they weren't all immediately tossed out on their asses was precisely because they were armed. Though I suspect if the armed lunatics had menaced a group of people, the response by law enforcement would have been dramatically different. Still can't believe they weren't found guilty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted November 1, 2016 Share Posted November 1, 2016 12 minutes ago, Destino said: Though I suspect if the armed lunatics had menaced a group of people, the response by law enforcement would have been dramatically different. As opposed to, say, having hundreds of armed people show up in town? For no reason at all, of course. Just to be ready, IN CASE the evil government did anything they objected to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.