Speaking of dumbasses: Sagebrush Rebellion Part deux

The Black Flag Cafe is the place travelers come to share stories and advice. Moderated by Robert Young Pelton the author of The World's Most Dangerous Places.

Moderator: coldharvest

Re: Speaking of dumbasses: Sagebrush Rebellion Part deux

Postby svizzerams » Mon Feb 01, 2016 5:38 pm

ROB wrote:
svizzerams wrote:LaVoy Finicum wrote a book:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01490 ... ext&sr=1-1

Defend your base video stream/archives: http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCNe1Tr7EspiDNeeiJuXC5QA


US Constitution - 1st Ammendment wrote:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


Bringing guns to, calling for more armed guys to show up, preaching overthrow of the government.....not a peaceful demo. Sorry they broke the law. See Ms. Friendlyskies explanation of what a peaceful demonstration looks like.
Joan of Arc went to battle with nothing
but the voices in her head
and a well-sharpened sword ~ Charlotte

...those without swords can still die upon them...

Illegitami non carborundum est
User avatar
svizzerams
Rx Rangerette
 
Posts: 6394
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2004 5:00 am
Location: Drug Goddess of Chelanistan

Re: Speaking of dumbasses: Sagebrush Rebellion Part deux

Postby nowonmai » Mon Feb 01, 2016 5:45 pm

svizzerams wrote:
ROB wrote:
svizzerams wrote:LaVoy Finicum wrote a book:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01490 ... ext&sr=1-1

Defend your base video stream/archives: http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCNe1Tr7EspiDNeeiJuXC5QA


US Constitution - 1st Ammendment wrote:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


Bringing guns to, calling for more armed guys to show up, preaching overthrow of the government.....not a peaceful demo. Sorry they broke the law. See Ms. Friendlyskies explanation of what a peaceful demonstration looks like.


und ze pentalty for breaking ze law is DEATH! Or a ban. Now you silly people are all dismissed. By Order Reichsfuhrer Svizzerammagau
User avatar
nowonmai
BFCus Regularus
 
Posts: 11542
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 8:52 pm

Re: Speaking of dumbasses: Sagebrush Rebellion Part deux

Postby svizzerams » Mon Feb 01, 2016 6:09 pm

http://bearingarms.com/lavoy-finicum-mu ... ice-shoot/ <---analysis of sequence of events by a weapons website who is sympathetic to the Bundy's cause. The website shows the photos discussed in the text below.

LaVoy Finicum Was Not Murdered. He Forced Oregon Police To Shoot Him.
Posted by Bob Owens on January 30, 2016 at 5:28 pm

We covered the death of Oregon “Bundy” protest spokesperson Robert “LaVoy” Finicum during a felony traffic stop earlier in the week briefly, and were rather stunned at some of the responses we received. Because of this, we’ve decided to try to explain this incident in more detail for the purposes of educating our readers.

Background

Since January 2, a group of armed protesters has occupied the headquarters complex of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in remote Harney County, Oregon. The protest was led by Ammond Bundy, a son of Cliven Bundy, who participated in militarized standoff against the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) at their ranch in Nevada after the federal government attempted to forcefully resolve a multi-decade land dispute over grazing rights. That is a story for another time.

Local, state, and federal law enforcement dealt with the situation at the Malheur NWR with great restraint, and let protesters, activists, media and others go in and out of the area virtually unchallenged, merely keeping watch and presumably collecting information. It was not uncommon for different activists to leave and return to Malheur. In fact, Ammond Bundy drove to meet with representatives of the Federal Bureau of Investigation earlier in the week, and returned to the refuge a short time later.

On Tuesday, January 26, government officials apparently decided that they had an opportunity to capture the majority of the protest leadership. Two vehicles were leaving the headquarters at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in order to drive to a public meeting at the John Day Senior Center in Grant County, where hundreds of people were waiting. Some of those in attendance were there to protest the occupation of the Refuge, but it is very worth noting that the bulk of those who came did so to protest the government’s mismanagement of the Maheur forest.

One of those vehicles was driven by Mark McConnell, Ammond Bundy’s bodyguard.

The other vehicle was driven by LaVoy Finicum.

On the two-lane highway between the Malheur NWR headquarters and John Day, officers with the Oregon State Police and agents of the FBI conducted simultaneous felony stops of both vehicles, separated by several hundred yards. Everyone in the vehicle driven by McConnell surrendered peacefully and were detained without issue.

Finicum, however, refused to turn off his vehicle and that is where video from an airplane providing surveillance over the operation picks up. This video is the full sequence of events from that moment on.

After 8 minutes and 12 seconds of the airplane circling a standoff featuring Finicum’s white truck straddling the center line and two SUVs of law enforcement officers dispersed some 25 yards behind them, Finicum’s brake lights go off and he takes off down the two lane highway at a high rate of speed. The road in this section of the forest is a series of gentle curves. Finicum accelerates down a short straight section of road faster than he can control into on-coming traffic, almost completely over the centerline. Fortunately, Oregon State Police had already stopped traffic flowing in the other direction, or Finicum very well could have killed a father and daughter in Jeep who became witnesses to what happened next.

Oregon State Police had thrown several pickups and an SUV across the road in a hasty blocking position, and sent agents into the woods on each flank in positions to catch “squirters.” in case there was a foot pursuit. They clearly didn’t anticipate Finicum driving as fast as he did in questionable conditions. Finicum came flying around the curve at 9:15 into the video—just 1 minute and three seconds into his escape attempt—and turns into the snowbank on the inside of the curve. Some have suggested that Finicum was attempting to drive around the three vehicles blocking the two-lane road. I rather strongly suspect that he was simply attempting to avoid a head-on collision as he was going far too fast to stop.

As the moment Finicum’s truck begins to leave the roadway there are five law enforcement officers ahead of them. One is off-camera in the treeline to the left, posed to head off any foot pursuit. Another is known to be behind the dark gray or black pickup in a blocking position on the inside of the curve. Three more officers are stacked behind tailgate of the silver pickup in the blocking position on the outside of the curve.

The OSP officer behind the tailgate of the dark pickup darts towards Finicum’s truck as it hits the snowbank. While it’s purely speculation on my park, I’m assuming that he expected Finicum’s pickup to carom off the snow back into the pickup, and he was trying to get clear of the vehicle. Instead of bouncing off the snowbank, however, Finicum’s pickup lowed through the snow, and the OSP officer had to throw himself the other way at the last second to avoid being run over. He avoided being hit by a matter of perhaps two feet.

The aircraft camera overshoots the scene, pulls back, catches one of the pursing vehicles closing in, and finally zooms back out to frame the situation at 9:21. At this point, the officer in the treeline to the left is still off-camera. The officer who was almost run over is on his knees, attempting to recover. The three officers who were behind the silver pickup on the outside of the curve on the right are already surging towards Finicum’s truck, which had come to a stop. Finicum’s door is already open and he is several steps out of the vehicle.

Just one second later Finicum is several feet away from his vehicle with his hands in the air, facing the officer in the treeline that we still can’t see from this perspective. It is obviously this officer who told Finicum to raise his hands. That, or he likes raising his hands to squirrels.

The officer who was nearly hit is still recovering, but on his knees. The three other officers are posting up and drawing down on the passengers in Finicum’s truck from a position between the silver SUV and the black pickup. We can’t know precisely what they see, but it’s possible that because the height of the snowbank and the way Finicum’s pickup is tilted that they may not even see Lavoy. If they do, they certainly don’t see much more than his hands in the air, his head, and maybe his shoulders.

Finicum’s hands are still up high and wide as he takes several steps back towards his original direction of travel. There is minor positional movement one of the three officers clustered near the SUV as he begins moving to get behind the OSP officer who was nearly run over, who appears to be on his knees still.

The officer in the treeline is still not clear. The officer who stepped behind the officer who was down continues across towards our left, and has his sidearm drawn and aimed at Finicum. At this moment, Finicum’s hands are still raised.

Finicum catches his right toe in the snow, partially stumbles, recovers, and puts his weight on his right leg as the camera in the airplane zooms in. Finicum can clearly see the OSP trooper on the end of the snowbank by the road who is pointing a handgun at him, and has been aware of the officer still hidden by the treeline since the moment he stepped out of the vehicle and raised his hands. Put bluntly, Finicum knows he has at least two guns on him in a crossfire situation.

Finicum takes several steps forward, turns his head towards the officer with the handgun coming over the snowbank, and drops his hands a second time, his left hand reaching towards the hem of his coat.

Finicum stumbles and quickly re-raises his hands. The officer who had nearly been run over is now on his feet and moving for cover, his back Finicum’s truck. He is no part of the confrontation at all. The OSP officer moving from the snowbank is now directly behind Finicum’s truck. He appears to have his gun extended. We still can’t see the OSP officer in the treeline, but we know he’s moving.

Finicum hesitates. He drops his hands to his side a third time.

Finicum re-raises his hands halfway but only halfway, and turns to square up on the officer with the handgun. He’s in a classic “ready” position, familiar to any competition shooter or defensive handgun student.

Finicum drops his hands a final, and turns towards the officer who is now moving forward out of the treeline. He is making movements consistent with drawing a weapon, what is typically known in legal circles as a “furtive gesture.” He’s doing almost exactly what got Tamir Rice shot in Cleveland.

Finicum pulls his jacket open with his left hand and reaches inside with his right hand as he continues turning towards the officer emerging from the treeline. This is a man who has been told repeatedly to keep his hands up, who knows he is being covered by two police officers with guns, intentionally reaching into his clothing in a motion that anyone with defensive firearms training would consider an attempt to acquire a weapon.

Finicum turns broadside to the officer in the treeline his left hand pulling his jacket open wider as he reaches inside his coat with his right hand. The left-handed officer emerging from the treeline fires from a distance of five yards, strong-hand only.

Let me say this again. He fired from a broadside position, with a clear view of Finicum reaching into his coat. It isn’t clear whether the officer down at the snowbank fires. As the clearing and drawing motion would have been clear to him as well, we would be legally justified if he did. We’ll get an idea of whether he fired (effectively) in the autopsy. Shots from the officer emerging from the treeline will have hit Finicum in the left side. Shots that hit him in the back or right rear quarter will have come from the officer at the bottom of the screen.

If the autopsy shows that Finicum has no shots at all to the front, then the popular conspiracy theory that he was shot, causing hi mto stumble and lower his hands while facing the officers, will have been conclusively debunked.

Finicum immediately begins falling away from the officer emerging from the treeline and his left arm drops. He’s clearly taken an effective hit from the officer emerging from the treeline, and the way he drops, I suspect a central nervous system hit.

Finicum goes down hard and stays there. The officer emerging from the treeline and the officer from the snowbank lower their weapons to follow Finicum to the ground, then go to low ready within a second. It is very obvious from the position of the officer’s muzzles so quickly after Finicum went down that the claims of Victoria Sharp that he was shot multiple times while down are an abject lie. There are simply no guns pointed at him at this time.

The officer emerging from the treeline moves downward towards the bottom of the screen, suddenly apparently aware that there is a vehicle with people and guns that can still see him.

LaVoy Finicum raises his right arm one final time, and then it drops in the snow beside him. He moves no more.

Several seconds later, several flash-bang grenades are thrown, one detonating right beside the passenger side of the vehicle and potentially fracturing the glass on the passenger side. What appears to be 2 shots are fired through the passenger side window, which emerge from the windshield. Presumably, this is when Ryan Bundy was wounded.

The rest of the video from the circling aircraft is routine. There is no sign of any other gunfire at all, though red lasers from carbines occasionally illuminate Finicum’s unmoving body as officers move into a flanking position behind the truck in order to order the passengers out. One-by-one, a man and two women emerge from the truck and are taken into custody without incident. Two officers with heavy body armor (I’m presuming FBI agents) then move forward behind a shield and clear the vehicle.

Once the vehicle is clear, officers and agents then check on LaVoy Finicum’s condition, though he appears to have been deceased from just seconds after being shot. It is later said that a 9mm pistol was recovered from the inside left pocket of Finicum’s coat.

It’s frankly irrelevant whether a weapon was found or not. He made a motion consistent with drawing a weapon, and the officer was forced to respond.

Finicum fled a lawful traffic stop to avoid arrest. He wrecked his vehicle, and after lowering his hands for a third (actually, a fourth, as he never completely raised them beyond a ready position), he opened his jacket with his left hand and appeared to be reaching into it with his right as he turned towards the officer emerging from a treeline in a movement that any reasonable person would interpret as an attempt to draw a weapon.

For those of you who claim that he never carried a weapon on his left side, here’s a clip from a television interview he with Oregon Live on Monday, less than 24 hours before his suicide-by-cop, showing him carrying a weapon in a shoulder holster on his left side for a right-handed draw.

There is a second photo being shown on numerous sites of him showing the weapons he routinely carried other than his .45.

You can see the hilt of the fixed-blade knife he carried on this centerline, and the butt of his 9mm semi-automatic. It is likely this weapon that he was reaching for that was found on his body.

LaVoy Finicum was not ambushed.

LaVoy Finicum was not murdered.

LaVoy Finicum intentionally disobeyed lawful orders from uniformed law enforcement officers and reached for a weapon. This is commonly known as “suicide by cop.”

Mr. Finicum has long stated that he would not be taken alive. His decision to reach for a weapon on his person forced the Oregon State Police officer (or officers) to fire on Mr. Finicum to defend his own life. This was a textbook defensive gun use by the officer (or officers). His hand motions towards his weapon are very similar to the motions we saw in the enhanced security camera footage from the death of Tamir Rice. Both rice and Finicum made what is called a “furtive gesture,” or a movement that reasonable people in that circumstance would agree is what appears to be an attempt to grab a weapon.

Let’s be very clear on this next point, as well: neither law enforcement officers nor “average Joes” have to wait to see a weapon clearly and fully drawn before engaging someone in this circumstance. If you lawfully have reason to have some at gunpoint and they made a sudden movement like this, you would legally, morally, and ethically be able to justify shooting them.

It is also sadly clear from the video that Victoria Sharp, the young woman who claimed that Finicum was shot while his hands were up was lying. It is also clear that her claim that 100 rounds were fired at the truck is also a bald-faced lie. I strongly suspect that less than a dozen rounds were fired in total, and probably more like 5-6, which we’ll discover soon enough. Keep in mind that the officers covering Finicum’s truck are 5-7 yards away, broadside, in positions around the gray/silver SUV. If they fired 100 rounds at that range, there would be no survivors. It would be like the Timothy Russell/Malissa Williams case, where the car was nearly unrecognizable and each passenger was shot more than 20 times.

I personally feel that the Bundy protest at Malheur effectively shown a spotlight on a rogue federal government that sent good men to prison on a terrorism charge for five years over a minor grass fire, and which has been at war with the American people in the western states for a century.

Perhaps the public awareness raised by the standoff at Malheur will eventually force the federal government to begin to turn land the federal government should have no control over to the states.

It’s simply a shame that Robert “LaVoy” Finicum made the decision to commit suicide-by-cop instead of having his day in court.

Update: Various parts of the story were edited Sunday morning (1/31) for clarity, and the photo of LaVoy Finicum’s final interview, showing his shoulder holster on his left side for a right-handed draw, was added.
Tags: LaVoy Finicum, Oregon, Police, Suicide-By-Cop

Bob Owens Author: Bob Owens Bob Owens is the Editor of BearingArms.com. He is an alumnus of Gunsite Academy, is an instructor with Project Appleseed, and is the author of the short e-book, So You Want to Own a Gun. He can be found on
Joan of Arc went to battle with nothing
but the voices in her head
and a well-sharpened sword ~ Charlotte

...those without swords can still die upon them...

Illegitami non carborundum est
User avatar
svizzerams
Rx Rangerette
 
Posts: 6394
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2004 5:00 am
Location: Drug Goddess of Chelanistan

Re: Speaking of dumbasses: Sagebrush Rebellion Part deux

Postby nowonmai » Mon Feb 01, 2016 7:11 pm

too late; too long; didn't read; don't care
User avatar
nowonmai
BFCus Regularus
 
Posts: 11542
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 8:52 pm

Re: Speaking of dumbasses: Sagebrush Rebellion Part deux

Postby nowonmai » Mon Feb 01, 2016 7:51 pm

Scots police teach NYPD how to avoid deadly force
Scottish police officers demonstrate their techniques in handling a man with a knife at the Jackton training centre in East Kilbride. Picture: Kieran Dodds/The New York Times
Scottish police officers demonstrate their techniques in handling a man with a knife at the Jackton training centre in East Kilbride. Picture: Kieran Dodds/The New York Times
CHRIS MARSHALL
19:27Saturday 12 December 2015
13
HAVE YOUR SAY
SCOTTISH police officers have been training their American counterparts in tackling armed attackers without resorting to “deadly force”.

Representatives from famous forces including the New York Police Department (NYPD) visited Police Scotland’s training college at Tulliallan, Fife, recently amid concerns over a spate of fatal shootings in the United States.
Image
Chuck Wexler, left, the executive director of the US Police Executive Research Forum, talks to a Scottish officer. Picture: Kieran Dodds/The New York Times
Chuck Wexler, left, the executive director of the US Police Executive Research Forum, talks to a Scottish officer. Picture: Kieran Dodds/The New York Times
American law enforcement officials are anxious to explore alternatives to police tactics which have led to the deaths of a number of unarmed black men over the past year.


Last year, the city of Ferguson, Missouri, was gripped by a series of protests after a white officer shot dead Michael Brown, an unarmed 18-year-old.

More Stories
How to learn a language day or night – without even realizing it! (Babbel)
Moving Home? We Bet You Won’t Be Taking Any Of This Weird Stuff (MoveHub)
Alan Stubbs: I couldn’t stand in Dominique Malonga’s way
by Taboola Promoted Links
Just a few months later Tamir Rice, 12, was shot and killed in Cleveland, Ohio, after pointing a toy gun at people in a park.

Those who took part in the recent visit to Tulliallan said they had experienced an “epiphany” after learning details of how Police Scotland – a force where 98 per cent of officers are unarmed – manages to deal with those carrying offensive weapons.

While Scotland does not have the same problems with gun violence as the US, lessons have been learned in how to respond to those carrying other weapons without using what the Americans call “deadly force” – a term which does not even enter the lexicon of Scottish policing.

Referring to the black teenager whose death sent shockwaves through UK policing, Chuck Wexler, the executive director of the Washington-based Police Executive Research Forum, said American policing had reached its “Stephen Lawrence moment”.


Wexler, who organised the trip to Tulliallan, said there was a need to “restore public confidence” in US policing.

“We’ve been through this period over the last year where there has been significant concern over the police’s use of force,” he said.

“We need to learn how to handle situations that involve knives, rocks, and other weapons without using deadly force.

“It occurred to me there were lessons to be learnt from police in Scotland.


“Their approach in many ways is the exact opposite of ours. We tend to go to a higher level of force when confronted with a weapon, whereas they go to a lower level.”

Wexler, a friend of the former chief constable, Sir Stephen House, said officers from the NYPD were joined by those from Los Angeles, Chicago and Miami on the visit to Scotland.

Federal agencies including the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives were also in attendance.

“The Americans thought there must be a lot of police getting hurt in Scotland,” he said. “It was a real epiphany for many of them in terms of the different approach. What with the current situation in America at the moment, it was very timely.”

Wexler said principles learned from Police Scotland were now being developed into a new curriculum which will be considered by law enforcement agencies in the US.


Mike Chitwood, the chief of police in Daytona Beach, Florida, said American policing was “missing the boat altogether” in the “respect for human life”.

He told those at Tulliallan that the notion drilled into American officers that it is “better to be judged by 12 than carried by six” is misguided.

Chitwood said he had seen “great cops” destroyed by shootings – even once exonerated – due to the guilt of taking a person’s life.

In contrast to America where police shootings are commonplace, Scottish police have shot civilians only twice in the last decade.

And while more than 30 police officers have died as a result of gunfire and a further three due to assault this year alone in the US, the last policeman killed by violence in Scotland was in 1994.

PC Lewis Fulton, 28, died in the Gorbals area of Glasgow after being stabbed by a schizophrenic he attempted to tackle armed with only a baton.

Assistant chief constable Bernard Higgins, head of operational support for Police Scotland, said the passing of more than 20 years since his colleague’s death showed the tactics work.

“I remember it vividly, unfortunately, because I knew Lewis personally. That doesn’t mean that the officers here aren’t confronted with violence every day of the year; they are.

“Ninety-eight per cent of Scottish police officers are unarmed and they go out and face people on a daily basis with knives and baseball bats and other things.

“As tragic as Lewis’ death was, it did happen in 1994 and thankfully we haven’t had one since. I do know for a fact, however, that we’ve had officers confronted with machetes, axes, all sorts of things.”

Where American officers would likely pull their weapon when confronted with an armed suspect, Higgins said the focus for his officers is on de-escalating the situation by using calming words.

Officers will take a step back and not seek to rush their aggressor. There is also a focus on “tactical relocation”, moving the suspect to an area where he can be better controlled by officers moving “like a boxer in the ring”.

“Aggression will be met with aggression,” he said. “We train our officers to act proportionately and use only the minimum amount of force necessary. We do that from the moment they come into the organisation.

“Policing is policing. How you police in the streets of Chicago might very well be different from how you police in the streets of Glasgow, but the fundamental mission is to deal with those individuals who want to do the most harm in the community and to protect the most vulnerable. A person with a knife in America is no more dangerous than a person with a knife in Scotland, but it’s dealt with completely differently.” Higgins said that while his US colleagues talk of “deadly force”, his own officers speak of “mitigating a threat”. Indeed, he is reluctant to even utter the American phrase.

“There’s a recognition within American law enforcement agencies that there must be an alternative for resolving critical incidents in which there is violence,” he said. “We’ve resolved it using other means, some of them with Tasers some of them with our words. It’s about ­proportionality.”



Read more: http://www.scotsman.com/news/scots-poli ... z3ywomBeMP
Follow us: @TheScotsman on Twitter | TheScotsmanNewspaper on Facebook
User avatar
nowonmai
BFCus Regularus
 
Posts: 11542
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 8:52 pm

Re: Speaking of dumbasses: Sagebrush Rebellion Part deux

Postby ROB » Tue Feb 02, 2016 1:26 am

svizzerams wrote:Bringing guns to, calling for more armed guys to show up, preaching overthrow of the government.....not a peaceful demo. Sorry they broke the law. See Ms. Friendlyskies explanation of what a peaceful demonstration looks like.


1) The did not initiate violence.

2) They have the right to carry guns in your society. It cannot be counted against them.

3) Therefore it was, by default, peaceful.

4) Again, you imply that because they broke a law, they deserved to be shot.

I mean, jesus, I get sometimes you get backed into a corner on a message board to defend stuff you weren't quite 100% on, but you're really doubling down on stupid. Did you support the police against the Fergusson protestors too? The Black Lives Matter protesters? Or do they deserve to be shot cos they "broke the law" too?
User avatar
ROB
BFCus Regularus
 
Posts: 5184
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 3:49 am

Re: Speaking of dumbasses: Sagebrush Rebellion Part deux

Postby ROB » Tue Feb 02, 2016 2:49 am

I'd clarify that I think this is a problem with your police and their masters.

What I cannot fathom is that the propensity of US police to get violent seems to be supported by a large enough portion of the population - people who would consider themselves classically liberal or even libertarian on some limited issues.
User avatar
ROB
BFCus Regularus
 
Posts: 5184
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 3:49 am

Re: Speaking of dumbasses: Sagebrush Rebellion Part deux

Postby nowonmai » Tue Feb 02, 2016 10:14 am

Holy fuckeroony, I agree entirely with ROB.

Particularly this point

2) They have the right to carry guns in your society. It cannot be counted against them.

which is the biggest mote in the eyes of rootin tootin shootin I demand my right to assault weapons 19D20 and 'should I take my .45' tough gal sister act Svizzerammstein.

Logic hole the size of Stephen Hawking's wheelchair battery.
User avatar
nowonmai
BFCus Regularus
 
Posts: 11542
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 8:52 pm

Re: Speaking of dumbasses: Sagebrush Rebellion Part deux

Postby coldharvest » Tue Feb 02, 2016 12:26 pm

Nothing wrong with voting from the rooftops.
I know the law. And I have spent my entire life in its flagrant disregard.
User avatar
coldharvest
Abdul Rahman
 
Posts: 25677
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 2:36 am
Location: Island of Misfit Toys

Re: Speaking of dumbasses: Sagebrush Rebellion Part deux

Postby Hitoru » Wed Feb 03, 2016 5:15 am

nowonmai wrote:too late; too long; didn't read; don't care

Like your cut and paste .
What are you? Some short sighted trigger puller? - RR3 .
Mr.wRong.
User avatar
Hitoru
Arbol Basura
 
Posts: 3549
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2007 8:49 pm
Location: Tejas

Re: Speaking of dumbasses: Sagebrush Rebellion Part deux

Postby ROB » Wed Feb 03, 2016 5:45 am

Dang, girl.
User avatar
ROB
BFCus Regularus
 
Posts: 5184
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 3:49 am

Re: Speaking of dumbasses: Sagebrush Rebellion Part deux

Postby friendlyskies » Wed Feb 03, 2016 4:34 pm

This is like the center for deliberately missed points. No one is arguing (well, I wasn't) that police in the United States aren't infested with a bunch of roided-up sociopaths who think they're playing an Iraqistan-based video game, have been outfitted by the profit-hungry military-industrial complex for a fucking war zone, and have a legal carte blanche to kill you, especially if you are black but also if you are white. Jesus Christ, have you seen the Tamir Rice video? We're dealing with monsters.

The point was, the monsters are reality in the USA. And, if you're planning a protest, it's smart to plan for reality. For instance, people need to eat, so you bring snacks. If you don't, you might starve. Since US police forces are made up of 60% monsters, you plan for monsters. If you don't, the monsters might kill you.

These guys didn't do either. Now one of them is dead. You all can rend your clothes and pull your hair and cry "Injustice, injustice," from the rooftops, but it's not bringing LaVoy back to life. You want do something to change the situation that isn't totally useless? Put your money where your mouth is. Send some money to Bernie Sanders' presidential campaign: https://go.berniesanders.com/page/content/splash.

Or, since I know you won't bother, because fixing the problem isn't nearly as fun as whining about it like a sack of drowning puppies, carry on. When this gets old, you can complain that the sun causes sunburns, instead of wearing a hat!
"4 cylinder Camaro=communism" El Presidente

"You can smoke salmon but it's not quite the same as smoking heroin." nanuq
User avatar
friendlyskies
Vata Loca
 
Posts: 7458
Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 5:36 pm
Location: Atlantis

Re: Speaking of dumbasses: Sagebrush Rebellion Part deux

Postby nowonmai » Wed Feb 03, 2016 7:03 pm

friendlyskies wrote:This is like the center for deliberately missed points.


Followed by

friendlyskies wrote:Send some money to Bernie Sanders' presidential campaign: https://go.berniesanders.com/page/content/splash.


The main issue seems to be the knee jerk fist pumping at the death of an old man and the hypocrisy of people who want everyone to be armed then use the fact that a man was armed as justification for his death. But do carry on missing the point and reverting to a Bernie Sanders plug. What the fuck is that blithering old cunt going to do about anything? He has as much chance of getting elected as Trump.
User avatar
nowonmai
BFCus Regularus
 
Posts: 11542
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 8:52 pm

Re: Speaking of dumbasses: Sagebrush Rebellion Part deux

Postby ROB » Thu Feb 04, 2016 12:24 am

friendlyskies wrote:The point was, the rapists are reality in the USA. And, if you're planning to party, it's smart to plan for rape. For instance, people need to fuck, so you bring condoms. If you don't, you might get raped raw. Since frats are made up of 60% rapists, you don't dress skimpy. If you do, the rapists might rape you.


Imagine the (justified) outrage at this equally stupid logic.
User avatar
ROB
BFCus Regularus
 
Posts: 5184
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 3:49 am

Re: Speaking of dumbasses: Sagebrush Rebellion Part deux

Postby svizzerams » Thu Feb 04, 2016 1:48 am

Maybe it's because I'm an US American, and this militia movement is an uniquely American phenomenon. My perspective is filtered through years of living in close proximity to a segment of the population that likes to play-act out these fantasies. Again dearest nowonmai, my "YES", was for the end of the standoff, not glee at the death of any participant, LEO or civilian. But I get it; rather than engage in a dialogue you have more interest in assigning motivations and attitudes that I don't hold. So, meh, whatever - here's a picture of a Big Horn Sheep I took this afternoon.

Image

This writer's perspective pretty much reflects mine.

http://www.hcn.org/articles/im-not-so-d ... print_view

I have a lot in common with the Bundys. Here's what I'd like to say to them.
Chris Dempsey Opinion Jan. 8, 2016 Web Exclusive


Like the Bundy brothers now illegally occupying the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge near Burns, Oregon, I'm a lifelong rural Westerner, and I believe that if I were to talk with them, we'd most likely find we have a lot in common.

There's the way our lives were shaped by the land, for instance. I was born in Nevada, and I grew up and now live in southwestern Idaho. Though my family worked as carpenters, we lived on small farms where we raised cows and grew hay for the winter. Like the Bundys and many of their allies, I come from hard working, blue-collar folks.

From them I learned to love the land, especially the Northwestern high desert. I've hunted the uplands of eastern Oregon from Juntura to Rome, and from Leslie Gulch to the Imnaha. Much of that country is open range where cattle graze. Thanks to ranchers, I've watered my bird dogs at troughs where ranchers had enhanced a spring, benefitting both cattle and wildlife.

I imagine that if the Bundys and I sat down over coffee, we'd start trading stories about our early years. Pretty quickly, though, our differences would emerge. They'd insist that taking over a wildlife refuge is speaking for "the people" – Westerners frustrated by the federal government. I couldn't let that stand.

I'd respond by saying: That wildlife refuge you're occupying belongs to me and to 320 million other Americans. You are trespassing, taking advantage of the hospitality and tolerance of the rest of the American people. You are abusing the rights you so readily invoke by occupying the refuge indefinitely. I would remind you that you are free to stay a maximum of 14 days, because that is the camping limit in most places, and it was put in place so that everyone can share the land.

If they let me continue, I'd suggest they go home and read Civil Disobedience by Henry David Thoreau and perhaps brush up on their history about Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King Jr. and the civil rights movement. Parks didn't wave guns around and threaten to kill people on the bus.

Then I'd say: "You are carrying firearms and threatening to commit violence if you don't get your way. You say you want this to be a peaceful protest, but in the same breath you warn that you will fight and die for your cause. You bluster, trying to provoke a response, all the while using the media to protect you and further your cause.

"You are abusing your rights as an American. There are legal ways to change systems if you feel that they aren't working. I have heard nothing from you about your responsibilities, only demands about what you want, though ultimately, what you want is to control a resource that belongs to me and to every other American. Public lands are our birthright, and you have no right to commandeer them for your own purposes.

"Frankly, I don't want my land – which includes all the federal land in the West – turned over to people who behave like you. I want to be free to hunt, fish, hike, ride my horse, my mountain bike or all-terrain vehicle, to picnic, camp, and to bird watch on the nation's vast tracts of federal ground, and I don't want to have to ask for your permission to do so.

"Your protest is nothing more than an elaborate tantrum conducted with firearms. If you actually won claim to any public lands, I think you'd intimidate and bully others the way you and your followers did in Nevada, and the way you are doing now. Furthermore, your family owes me and 320 million of my fellow Americans more than a million dollars in back grazing fees for using public land without paying your fair share.

"When I cut firewood on nearby Forest Service land, I purchase my 10-cord, personal use permit. I pay my camping fees. I buy my hunting license. I pay to park and use ramps on wild rivers where I kayak. I pay fees because they are used to improve recreation opportunities for everyone.

So I want you to go home and start paying me and your fellow citizens what you owe us. That's what good citizens and neighbors do. Thanks for the conversation."


Chris Dempsey is a contributor to Writers on the Range, the opinion service of High Country News. He lives in Idaho.
Joan of Arc went to battle with nothing
but the voices in her head
and a well-sharpened sword ~ Charlotte

...those without swords can still die upon them...

Illegitami non carborundum est
User avatar
svizzerams
Rx Rangerette
 
Posts: 6394
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2004 5:00 am
Location: Drug Goddess of Chelanistan

PreviousNext

Return to Black Flag Cafe

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests