Hence the plural. I concede you didn’t originally cite it. You just continued to argue it after I’d explicitly said that I thought they were terrorists, just perhaps not domestic terrorists under the Act.
And then this drags on forever because we’re arguing two different points. At least we both agree they’re terrorists. But so far they’re more Four Lions than Al Qaeda.
Well that’s the fucking truth in a nutshell.
Man, that was a depressing movie.
The confusion is also that there is a photo of a sniper from the last Bundy protest, AS WELL AS a photo of a sniper from THIS Bundy protest.
Standard procedure for non-terrorist protesters. UNITE totally has this on like page 19 of their organizing manual. /s
When did the BBS turn into a fucking seminary?
So many fucking apologists in here.
I’m all for siege tactics. Law enforcement should be about using deadly force only when deadly force is required.
It’s worth it to wait them out if it saves lives.
And right now no one has died. Which is unusual for law enforcement stories nowadays. I know.
But the point is not killing people.
Or shit. Maybe the federal government is seeing them exactly as terrorists. Completely. 100%. Welcome to the only excuse they need to justify the use of intelligence gathering on these creeps. Find them and all their friends.
Maybe they’re saving it for some crazy primary shenanagins. Or perhaps they’ll say they did.
The convicted arsonists don’t even want this support and have already reported to jail t serve their terms.
Is this still goin on? Gubmints still ignoring them? Poor varmints er doing all they can but they keep lookin stupid n ineffectual.
Imma torn, I mean, shur the glaring contrast of what would happen was they brown is offensive, but probably if they were brown the federalis would go all Waco on their asses and roll over them with a tank.
So… i don’t want governments to do that… but I don’t want them not to do that based on skin tone… I don’t think terroriss of any stripe warrant the war on the terror used to strip civil liberties and look in my ass, where I don’t keep nuthin… so the response to this group of guys, cause middle aged white guys capable of securing 6 figure loans are so very much the victim of the US govt tis well known…
What would make this all easier is if some Black Panthers would capture a police station that is harboring cops that murder in the neighbourhood, and if THAT caused the government to roll over these people in Oregon with a tank… to send a message to the Black Panthers, thus bringing about a peaceful resolution for the police/Black Panther event… I suppose that’d be alright?
No… that wouldn’t quite do it. Shit.
Pretty sure I know what line this hypocritical Tea Terrorist is going to use:
See, everyone else is sucking from the teat of Big Government. If I don’t, then I and my small business are at a competitive disadvantage. I have to suck at that teat also. I don’t want to. But I have to.
The counter to that is: “Nobody put a gun to your head.”
‘Terrorism’ is a politicized word whose misuse distorts our thinking about social and geopolitical issues and whose legal definition can put people in prison for years, even decades. You’d better believe I have a microscope ready— at all times and in all instances where I read, hear, or see it used.
Let’s get started, shall we?
Case #1: Michael Wade Page
40 year-old white male, neo-Nazi, and white supremacist who shot and killed 6 people at a Wisconsin Sikh temple before being wounded by police after which he shot and killed himself.
✓ (1/3) Acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law
✓ (2/3) Acts appear intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population
✓ (3/3) Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.
Conclusion: Acts appear to meet criteria for domestic terrorism
—–
Case #2: Dylann Roof
21 year-old white male and self-avowed white supremacist who shot and killed nine people at a South Carolina church.
✓ (1/3) Acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law
✓ (2/3) Acts appear intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population
✓ (3/3) Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.
Conclusion: Acts appear to meet criteria for domestic terrorism
—–
Case #3: Robert Dear
57 year-old white male who shot twelve people, killing three of them, at a Colorado Planned Parenthood clinic, and who protested ‘no more baby parts’ afterwards while still at the scene of the shooting.
✓ (1/3) Acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law
✓ (2/3) Acts appear intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population
✓ (3/3) Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.
Conclusion: Acts appear to meet criteria for domestic terrorism
—–
Case #4: whoever the hell this guy is
One of many civilian gunmen who created an armed stand-off between themselves and federal agents during Cliven Bundy’s occupation of federal lands in Nevada in 2014.
✓ (1/3) Acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law
✓ (2/3) Acts appear intended to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion
✓ (3/3) Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.
Conclusion: Acts appear to meet criteria for domestic terrorism
————
Do I need to go on?
The only thing I’ve tried to articulate in this thread are my doubts as to whether that first criterion can apply to Bundy’s crew. On this situation, I know only what the media report (and unless you live there, so do you) and so far I haven’t read any reports of them appearing to have put anyone in their line of fire or otherwise put anyone in danger. That gunmen with similar melanin content got away with doing just that last year (see above photo) may give them enough of a sense of impunity to be stupid enough to do just that here, in which case it’s plausible that the definition of ‘domestic terrorism’ would apply to them, too.
I argue that it’s plausible, rather than certain. That’s all I’ve ever been trying to articulate. That you and others see this as a defense of the Bundy crew makes me suspect that the Bush administration’s Orwellian language has had a sleeper effect on discourse in this country.
Armchair lawyering. Yeah, that never happens here on BB:
I’ve made it abundantly clear that I’m only concerned with whether the charge of ‘domestic terrorism’ would apply given 18 US Code § 2331 5(A), not whether I personally feel that they’re terrorists.
From the previous comment it’d look like the other half of the judicial ruling (the half concerned with case law, precedent, and prosecutorial choices) are racist and that the functional definition of terrorism no longer coincides well with the written definition. Which is such infuriating bullshit that needs to be fixed.
Fun fact: In the UK, if you threaten someone with a a firearm, even if it turns out afterwards to be empty, or a fake then you can be sentenced to ten years under section 16a of the Firearms Act 1968.
Motive is very important to law. That’s kind of the difference between manslaughter and the various degrees of murder. Sure, someone’s dead in every case, but whether the death was intentional, or was intentional but not planned really matters.
Well, you conveniently left out in your response the part from my post where I put in my thoughts that bringing weapons as self defense as being “(Still a very bad justification)”
They said the would “posture defensively” and that it didn’t automatically mean open fire on law enforcement. The guy/criminal also chastised the reporter thinking she was part of the media that is trying push for a violent situation to happen; which he doesn’t want. (I don’t think people in the media are doing such a thing.)
I thought the reporter was asking appropriate questions, and I like that she pushed back when he didn’t like her types of questions.
As you read this please remember that I do not support what these criminals are doing. I am only defending my position that I think we should be cautious to quickly labeling people as terrorists. (Please see my other posts here as to why.)
This is how I interpreted your post…
Curb your speech and fall in line with the rest of us. Or, become labeled and mocked for not conforming.
Oh, I’m not mocking you for not conforming. I’m mocking you because you and your ilk are bending over backwards to prevent us calling a bunch of gun-toting, anti-government loons terrorists.
Why are you doing that?
What from my previous posts makes it unclear to you?
