They shouldn’t be put in jail for their political beliefs. They should be put in jail because they used threat of deadly force to stage the armed takeover of a Federal facility.
19 Likes
You may have also not examined any images or coverage where they maintained it with pointed firearms and threats.
8 Likes
No, it was the offices of the federal employees who oversaw the nature refuge. They think that all land needs to be exploited and used by men, consequences to the earth be damned.
15 Likes
Oh that must be why occupying the pipeline is going so well.
14 Likes
Did see the guns, didn’t see any pointing of the guns.
Isn’t the pipeline on private property?
Did listen to them being interviewed on tv.
2 Likes
Didnt you brag that it would benefit Occupy, or are you just being a contrarian?
If you redefine “private”.
6 Likes
“If you attempt to remove us we will shoot you” = taking over property via threat of deadly force.
If a bank teller hands over a bag of money to an armed robber the robber doesn’t get to claim it was a “donation” just because he didn’t pull the trigger.
19 Likes
I think most people disagree with their motivations and cause, but also want to err on the caution when there is a possibility that the issue is one of protest, especially when it occurs on government land. The charges were federal, and the Judge in this case is a Clinton appointee. They are apparently facing other charges.
It was a stupid protest, but still a protest. Occupying various places that don’t belong to you is not an unusual practice. What made this one unusual was that they were armed, and that they were not leftists. There have been plenty of armed protests in the past, Including the Black Panthers and the American Indian Movement. 
I still have more to learn about the Malheur protest. But I think it matters that no shots were fired, and nobody was hurt, at least at the protest itself.
2 Likes
It’s called jury nullification. You should use it too.
I wish the folks in North Dakota received the same leave care and leniency. The problem is they are not conservative, business friendly, and white. If you are all three of these things you can run around with guns and point them at non-whites if you like.
5 Likes
Didnt you brag that it would benefit Occupy
No wasn’t bragging just posing the thought. But you do have to chose your battles carefully.
My original comment was directed at the charges which they were acquitted for. They should have been charged and convicted for the lesser crimes they did commit. But the state lost on its conspiracy charge, which is a good thing imo.
Personally I think there’s a world of difference between “you’ll have to arrest us if you want us to leave” and “if you try to make us leave we’ll blow your fucking brains out.”
20 Likes
11 Likes
But they did leave, and did not fire at the police of Federal Agents. Which is what makes this one different than the Wounded Knee occupation.
2 Likes
In the case of AIM at least, they have a different view on the land in question, yeah? With some justification, given the history of the US? When much of the AIM protests were happening, violence against their people was within living memory. Their parents and grandparents suffered from removal from their lands.
And how did the Panther’s fair when using guns? They got infilitrated and at times assasinated. Much of our modern gun laws happened in part because of the panthers emerging out of the nascent black power movement.
And honestly, I think we are talking apples and oranges here (and a bit offensive too). On one hand, we are talking about people who suffered incredible systemic injustice (and still do). On the other hand, we are talking about people who have been incredibly privileged and are refusing to pay fines for lands that their animals were grazing on that was meant to be for the collective good.
22 Likes
I was not debating the substance of the protests. I was referring to the act of protest itself. The panthers had armed but peaceful protests on a number of occasions. 
When a protest turns to actual violence, it is a different thing.
You are arguing about who has a just cause, and who is “incredibly privileged”, and linking the right to protest with whether you feel the cause behind the protest is right. It is not supposed to work that way.
4 Likes
I’m unaware of any instance of the Black Panthers threatening to kill anyone for attempting to enforce the law.
The last time the Black Panthers did anything remotely analogous to the Oregon occupation was in 1967 when a group of armed protesters entered the California State Capitol building. They didn’t directly threaten anyone, they didn’t try to force any of the public or the legislators to leave, and it’s not even clear that they broke any laws. It’s not like they broke in at night; the public is SUPPOSED to be able to enter that building.
11 Likes
I really am not trying to make the argument that there have been protests in the past that were exactly like the Malheur protest. I am not defending the Bundys. except in their right to protest. I find it a little disturbing that their right to protest is controversial.
The Panther protest at the state house resulted in charges of disturbing the peace, as they disrupted the scheduled business at the capital. They were not charged for being armed, because they were armed legally.
It is not their right to protest that is in question. They can stage peaceful demonstrations all day long. What is in question is their right to use threat of deadly force to illegally occupy a federal building.
21 Likes
