Wednesday, January 27, 2016
Bundy arrested. One killed
So, Ammon Bundy was finally arrested and one of his group was killed. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/01/27/1-killed-1-injured-during-arrest-ammon-bundy-leader-oregon-standoff.html This has been a shit show from the start and the response was way overdue. Imagine if some black radical group stormed a Southern white Republican legislature to arrest a governor for some ridiculous charge, or if some pro choice group set up machine gun nests outside of an abortion clinic and said they do not recognize the authority of some local government to restrict abortion. Further, imagine if in the middle of either example the leaders of the group openly walked around, went to dinner and basically held the entire community hostage. It would not be tolerated. I think the FEDs made a bad choice in allowing this guy to run the show.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
It will be interesting to see if Trump reflects on this.
ReplyDeleteMeh, candidates can say what they want, it really doesn't mean anything. What are your reflections on this William?
DeleteDennis Michael Lynch
ReplyDeleteLike This Page · 13 hrs ·
BUNDY SHOT
Just got off the phone with a Bundy brother. Here is the story he shared.
Aamon Bundy, his brother Ryan, and a few protestors went to meet with the FBI. They were pulled over and told to get out of the car. They did so with their hands up. AZ Rancher Lavoy Finicum informed FBI and local authorities he did not have a gun. Something happened, not sure what, but whatever it was shots were fired at Finicum. He is dead. Ryan Bundy was shot as well. Aamon Bundy says they were peaceful and there was no reason for the gun fire. Apparently, ABC NEWS has it all on video. I will be covering this story tomorrow on UNFILTERED and will keep you up to date throughout the day.
Hopefully they do have it on camera.
DeleteMultiple sources are reporting the Oregon militiaman whom was shot by police is Lavoy Finicum. Some claim Finicum was unarmed, and had his hands up when he was shot.
DeleteBy Hannibal Smith -
January 26, 2016
Esther Libenschek This is heartbreaking and maddening at the same time. Occupy Wall Street, Black Lives Matter...no FBI and not a single shot is fired when they are disrupting traffic, shutting down businesses and basically terrorizing people in public places. Police are told to stand down during looting, arson etc... What is happening to this country? These men are in the middle of nowhere defending their rights and it's treated very differently. Why.
DeleteThat's a disingenuous statement. The occupy wallstreet crowd was not walking around with firearms. In Ferguson, there was an overwhelming police response, curfew and so on. This group WAS disrupting local life in the community despite being the middle of nowhere. They were given quite a bit of time to make their statement and have their protest. As to them defending their rights, near as I can tell, they were all carpetbaggers so to speak who arrived to defend the rights of some locals, locals who said they in no way wanted the support of this group.
DeleteTo me, the statement they wanted to make was that they were in full control of the straw man situation they created daring the FBI to confront them. Basically, it's your typical Saul Alinsky move tactically and philosophically
I just watched the press conference with the FBI, federal prosecutor and the local sheriff. What the sheriff had to say was very moving, he was visibly upset. Contrary to what is being said by the Bundy crowd, the Sheriff said that this group hasn't just been staying on the property where they could be waited out. Instead, they have been coming into town and in his words, "They've been stirring up trouble there". This group HAS disrupted the local community and all of them were given the opportunity to leave the property and go home and start their legal process in their own communities. Per the sheriff, (paraphrasing) "This cannot happen in America. You cannot just arm up and go occupy property. If you don't like how things are, you work within the system to make it change"
ReplyDeleteFinicum was quoted earlier as saying he would die before he would allow himself to be arrested.
ReplyDeleteThe Sheriff was right. You just don't occupy property that's not yours and when the Occupy movement was forced to vacate Zuccotti Park they went rather peaceably on their way.
ReplyDeleteThe Bundy gang openly carried weapons and contrary to what they said they got just what they wanted a confrontation.
The government of this country cannot and will not stand for open contempt of it's authority and IMHO waited more then long enough to put an end to this ridiculous foolishness. If the Bundy gang means what they say then they do need to work within the system, they should be out campaigning for the presidential candidate and congressmen who can work on solving the concerns they have. that is what NORMAL people do. And by the way the old man Cliven still owes us about a million dollars in uncollected and unpaid grazing fees. Who is doing anything about that asshole?
http://www.live-news24.com/2016/01/28/oregon-pioneer-bundy-advises-remaining-dissenters-to-go-home/
ReplyDeleteI'll admit, when I see people showing up with guns, I immediately think the point is intimidation. I've tried to look at this from an open minded perspective, and I really don't get the point of Bundy and his group. The people whose rights they were allegedly defending wanted nothing to do with them, and near as I can tell, those people were arrested for trespassing and damaging federal land. It seems that Bundy, his dad, and their followers believe the government has no constitutional right to set aside land that everyone can use that is to be kept free of development or use for profit. We aren't talking about stealing land to give a developer like that horrible case the Supremes fucked up. This is something different.
ReplyDeleteThis is kind of a scary precedent to me. These guys were actually given quite a bit of latitude and they were allowed, seemingly, to walk around the nearest town like they owned it while brandishing their firearms. One viewpoint I've heard is that the Feds did this be design to give them a false sense of security that they could do anywhere they wanted without fear of being taken into custody. I'm not sure I buy that. I think the Feds were terrified that they are going to get drawn into a shoot out where they would have little choice but to kill everyone. I give Bundy credit for telling the "left behind" to give themselves up and the Feds have basically said they will be allowed to leave, though I don't think they have guaranteed immunity. This event may be winding down, but I worry about what's next. Is there another yahoo confrontation coming?
Max go outside. Better yet take an hour ride out of town and look around. Then ask yourself, why the fuck does the Federal government need to own 84.5% of your State?
DeleteTo keep the methheads from setting up meth labs? That's reason enough for me. Ideally, I'd hope the FEDs would keep the land the clean and natural. I'll admit, after having driven up and down the state a few times to Reno and then to LA and to Utah in the other direction, there's a lot of flat, empty desert that is basically barren. Also in between, on the sides of the highway, there are little areas of just plain junk that look like barter town from a mad max movie. If I had a choice between seeing barren, but natural desert and Joshua trees versus squatter communities, I'll take the former.
DeleteAgain, I'll admit, there's a lot of flat out empty space. That said, there are a lot of really cool areas off the beaten path where the BLM thankfully keeps away the types who like to go four wheeling and shoot highway signs with shotguns. There are petroglyphs, slot canyons, and even odd patches of lushness, like where that freeloader poppa bundy lives. I just don't get it William why this is such a big deal. For the vast majority of people who live here, and that's basically Las Vegas and Reno, this issue honestly does not have an ounce of personal impact. Philosophically, I get your point, sorta. But in practice, the people this seems to bother the most don't seem to really want to participate with anyone in society but others that think they do.
I am waiting for the government to call these people what they really are. You know, the T word, TERRORISTS.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteExactly how many people have these so called "T"errorists killed to date? Hummmm?
DeleteI have to admit, the definition can be fuzzy. This isn't wiki, but I think it's good "the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims." The people fighting for ISIS fit this full bore and go the extra mile for to qualify for psychopath given their love of finding the most gruesome ways possible to murder someone. The Bundy group is a little different.
DeleteTo me they are sort of terrorists in waiting. The don't come at you with violence as a first measure, but they clearly intimidate with their display of firearms and basically unspoken promise that they will shoot you if you try to stop them. So while they can claim they aren't violent, the truth is they probably won't be violent as long as you let them run the show. In this case, they broke existing law and they stomped around the local town stirring up dissent. I saw the video of the dude getting shot, and all's I can say on that score is that black kids in Chicago and elsewhere get gunned down for less than that.
Some protests get right on the border of being terrorism by definition. That said, when protestors are NOT armed and the police holding the line are, I think there is still an acknowledgement of who is in control, hence the term protest. I saw the protestors in Chicago getting in the face of the police taunting them and basically daring them to retaliate. Thankfully they largely did not and there was not warfare. For as long as these people feel the need to show up carrying weapons with their fingers less than an inch from the trigger, I'm going to continue taking that to be a message that they are willing to kill anyone they believe is threatening their political agenda. Hence, terrorists
The war on terror is an excuse for not actually declaring war on a faction, international or domestic, and eliminating them. Therefore endless war: Afghanistan.
DeleteThat is a really good point, William.
Delete"Terror" itself is a tactic. Declaring war on "terror" is like declaring war on "divide an conquer" or "outflanking your opponent".
I've aways hated the "War On" terminology. It's stupid, and in conjunction with your point William, it's so broadly meaningless that it can be applied to anyone allowing for perpetual war.
That is indeed a really good point. The vagueness of that term allows a lot of latitude to take military action without congress actually having to debate those actions. The war on terror, as has been said, is a war on an ideology. Had we said our only goal in Afghanistan was to go and take out Bin Laden, that would have kept us from setting up shop and nation building.
DeleteIt's how lawyers make war. Decisions are avoided, therefore no one is held accountable if things go badly, and most importantly, no one loses their job. Perpetual ruling class.
DeleteAgree again. Whether the president is a lawyer, or is acting heavily on the advice of lawyers around him, the result is kind of the same.
DeleteI don't like it when you and the magpie are so agreable. Kumbaya, I'm almost ready to send Bernie a check even without a bet. Honestly, I respect him, even though I know he is dead wrong and dangerous on many issues, one hundred times more than the female half of the Clinton-ian cartel.
Delete