Militia takes over Malheur National Wildlife Refuge headquarters in Oregon

[sigh]

There are lots of definitions out there for the word "terrorism", but from a legal view, here within the states, the following information is from the FBI regarding the definition of terrorism in the U.S. Code.:

"Domestic terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:

Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping; and
Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.​

18 U.S.C. § 2332b defines the term "federal crime of terrorism" as an offense that:

Is calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct; and
Is a violation of one of several listed statutes, including § 930(c) (relating to killing or attempted killing during an attack on a federal facility with a dangerous weapon); and § 1114 (relating to killing or attempted killing of officers and employees of the U.S.).​

I'm no lawyer, but the actions of those who occupied the refuge seem to fit the above definition of "domestic terrorism", but don't meet the criteria to be a "federal crime of terrorism" since there was no killing or attempted killing.

So there you go. Clear as mud.

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/terrorism/terrorism-definition

 

[bronzeage]

Okay, snuggles, he's not a terrorist. Substitute criminal if that feels better, or I suppose to be PC, we'd better add "alleged".

I find it interesting how you interpret his driving off the road. You say he was trying to avoid a collision with the cars in the roadblock, but a much simpler way to do that would have been to use the brake. He had plenty of time to stop, and the road was clear and dry, but he didn't stop. Rather, it's more likely that he was trying to drive around the roadblock. He'd already sped away from one traffic stop so his modus operandi (if you will) was already established (at least within the context of this event).

And now that I've watched the video again (and again and again) I DO most definitely see him reaching toward the left side of his coat on two occasions. In that case the police should not be required to hold their fire until he pulls a weapon. He'd already threatened to die rather than be caged, and was known to be armed. He twice tried to avoid capture while in his vehicle and when he pulled off the road into the snowbank he narrowly missed hitting an officer who'd jumped out in front of him, which forced him to swerve farther to the left which is when he got stuck in deeper snow. He edged up the confrontation to the max, and then used others to gain his martyrdom. Suicide by police, with a cause.

Sorry, but the more I see it, the more it looks like that to me. Watch this video between the 37 and 43 second marks (or your own slow-mo version if you'd rather). After dropping his arms, he's clearly reaching for the side of his jacket twice, just as the official report says. And yes, the report also said it was an inside pocket on the left side, which as you say is the only way it would make sense.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-fbi-oregon-state-police-finicum-vid-20160128-premiumvideo.html

I've watched the video several times, and I agree. He was trying to drive around the roadblock. When this fails, he jumps out of the vehicle and runs toward a group of armed men who are mostly likely commanding him to lie down.

The idea that a man would not put a pistol in his coat pocket because that's not the way it's done, is silly on the face of it. What good is a pistol in a holster under a zipped heavy jacket? There's no quick draw if you have to unzip.

Once he stepped out of the vehicle and ran toward the officers, the outcome was inevitable. People can whine about shooting an unarmed man all they want, but that's what happens when you challenge a policeman.

As Earl K. Long said, "How you gonna fight the Feds? They got the atom bomb."

 

[Disgustipated]

We might *hopefully* lose VatAss for a few weeks.

The Oregon Wildlife Refuge Standoff Is Now A Video Game

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

What violence did he commit? Trespassing?

Forced armed occupation of a government facility. Threatening federal (and other) authorities with deadly force should they try to evict him and his merry band of lawbreakers makes them all domestic terrorists.

The Feds should have gone in with tear gas canisters flying around day three and let them try to make good on their threats of violence. Sitting on their hands for several weeks did nothing but encourage the next group of misfits who don't think that the law applies to them to stage an armed "sit in".

 

[RobDownSouth]

What you believe/feel/perceive mean fuck all against the facts.

"Factual accuracy is a luxury America can no longer afford in this age of terrorism" - Que/Queerbait

 

[Aglaopheme]

What violence did he commit? Trespassing?

So people planning to kill or commit violence are not terrorists? They only become terrorists after they carry out their planned violence? Okie dokie.

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/01/ber...ds-move-in-this-is-a-free-for-all-armageddon/

“What you going to do when the militia comes after you, FBI?” a second militant added.

“Get here, get some,” the first militant said, pleading for volunteers with military training. “This is history in the making.”

“There are no laws in this United States now!” the man insisted. “This is a free-for-all Armageddon. Any LEO or military or law enforcement or feds that stand up and f*ck their oath — don’t abide by their oath — are the enemy!”

“If they stop you from getting here, kill them!”

 

[Disgustipated]

So people planning to kill or commit violence are not terrorists? They only become terrorists after they carry out their planned violence? Okie dokie.

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/01/ber...ds-move-in-this-is-a-free-for-all-armageddon/

Pseudo terrorism doesn't count. Fuckin' poseurs.

 

[Aglaopheme]

Pseudo terrorism doesn't count. Fuckin' poseurs.

IKR!

https://thenypost.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/547082297.jpg?quality=80&strip=all&w=600&h=400&crop=1

Not terrorists when this photo was taken I guess. I mean they had yet to kill anyone or set off any car bombs.

 

[phrodeau]

The funeral of Lavoy Finicum will be held in Kanab, UT on Friday 2/5/16. Fellow occupiers are encouraged to attend.

Those who can't attend may send flowers and snacks to the funeral home.

 

[Wrong Element]

Once he stepped out of the vehicle and ran toward the officers, the outcome was inevitable. People can whine about shooting an unarmed man all they want, but that's what happens when you challenge a policeman.

See "Michael Brown." That was the entire basis of the defense of what happened in Ferguson: that Brown (who was undoubtedly unarmed) ran towards the police officer.

 

[Busybody]

See "Michael Brown." That was the entire basis of the defense of what happened in Ferguson: that Brown (who was undoubtedly unarmed) ran towards the police officer.

he also REACHED into the cop car

did you forget that? RACIST THUG?

 

[Busybody]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CaIH3aKUsAEJfcn.jpg

 

[Five_Inch_Heels]

The funeral of Lavoy Finicum will be held in Kanab, UT on Friday 2/5/16. Fellow occupiers are encouraged to attend.

Those who can't attend may send flowers and snacks to the funeral home.

Don't forget the pink dildos.

 

[phrodeau]

Don't forget the pink dildos.

It would be disrespectful of the family to send pink dildos. Far better to send them black ones.

 

[bronzeage]

See "Michael Brown." That was the entire basis of the defense of what happened in Ferguson: that Brown (who was undoubtedly unarmed) ran towards the police officer.

A car full of well armed men approaches a road block manned by well armed police officers. Instead of coming to a stop a good distance away and assessing the situation, the driver tries to bypass the roadblock and is stuck in the snow. The driver gets out and runs toward the policemen.

Does anyone really expect this to have ended any differently?

 

[OjosMojo]

Well, if anything, it is good to read progressives finally agreeing with the Ferguson and Cleveland grand juries who found the shooters of Michael Brown and Tamir Rice completely unindictable.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Well, if anything, it is good to read progressives finally agreeing with the Ferguson and Cleveland grand juries who found the shooters of Michael Brown and Tamir Rice completely unindictable.

They are doing nothing of the sort, but I'm not surprised in the least that you're promoting that canard.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Well, if anything, it is good to read progressives finally agreeing with the Ferguson and Cleveland grand juries who found the shooters of Michael Brown and Tamir Rice completely unindictable.

Not doing that. And would still be happy if this guy was indicted. Someone dies there should be an investigation. PERIOD. He'll be found not guilty but the process exists for a reason.

 

[Five_Inch_Heels]

If they apply a Felony Murder statute, all of the others present could be charged with murder.

 

[bronzeage]

If they apply a Felony Murder statute, all of the others present could be charged with murder.

You would need a tough shoehorn for that one.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

If they apply a Felony Murder statute, all of the others present could be charged with murder.

You would need a tough shoehorn for that one.

Not really, they do it all of the time. According to the federal murder statute if someone is killed in the commision of a felony crime then everyone involved with the commission of that crime can be charged under the federal murder rule.

Atempting to escape from law enforcement (say by trying to run a road block) is a felony over and above those already committed by forceful armed occupation of a federal facility and threatening law enforcement with deadly force if they attempted to evict them.

They should all be charged and locked away for federal murder and domestic terrorism.

 

[snugglestruggle]

So people planning to kill or commit violence are not terrorists? They only become terrorists after they carry out their planned violence? Okie dokie.

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/01/ber...ds-move-in-this-is-a-free-for-all-armageddon/

As far as I know thinking about committing a crime are 2 different things. Until you cross that threshold were your actively doing something which you can be prosecuted for, yes.

Example, the feds know of several radical mosques where violent jihad is preached against America all the time , yet the feds take no action. Why?

We're getting to a point where every crime is looked at to see if it can be prosecuted under terrorism. It's used more and more as a tactic to give the Government more power and curtail civilians rights.

Okay, snuggles, he's not a terrorist. Substitute criminal if that feels better, or I suppose to be PC, we'd better add "alleged".

I find it interesting how you interpret his driving off the road. You say he was trying to avoid a collision with the cars in the roadblock, but a much simpler way to do that would have been to use the brake. He had plenty of time to stop, and the road was clear and dry, but he didn't stop. Rather, it's more likely that he was trying to drive around the roadblock. He'd already sped away from one traffic stop so his modus operandi (if you will) was already established (at least within the context of this event).

And now that I've watched the video again (and again and again) I DO most definitely see him reaching toward the left side of his coat on two occasions. In that case the police should not be required to hold their fire until he pulls a weapon. He'd already threatened to die rather than be caged, and was known to be armed. He twice tried to avoid capture while in his vehicle and when he pulled off the road into the snowbank he narrowly missed hitting an officer who'd jumped out in front of him, which forced him to swerve farther to the left which is when he got stuck in deeper snow. He edged up the confrontation to the max, and then used others to gain his martyrdom. Suicide by police, with a cause.

Sorry, but the more I see it, the more it looks like that to me. Watch this video between the 37 and 43 second marks (or your own slow-mo version if you'd rather). After dropping his arms, he's clearly reaching for the side of his jacket twice, just as the official report says. And yes, the report also said it was an inside pocket on the left side, which as you say is the only way it would make sense.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-fbi-oregon-state-police-finicum-vid-20160128-premiumvideo.html

Well clearly if his intent was to kill agents ramming them with his vehicle was his best option vs using a cross draw of a firearm from under his open jacket, while in knee deep snow.

I agree he had a death wish but at the same time I am of the opinion that no law enforcement agent fed, state or city should be shooting down American citizens unless they're either 1) being attacked or 2) a gun is drawn/pointed in their direction.

 

[Sean Renaud]

As far as I know thinking about committing a crime are 2 different things. Until you cross that threshold were your actively doing something which you can be prosecuted for, yes.

Example, the feds know of several radical mosques where violent jihad is preached against America all the time , yet the feds take no action. Why?

We're getting to a point where every crime is looked at to see if it can be prosecuted under terrorism. It's used more and more as a tactic to give the Government more power and curtail civilians rights.




Well clearly if his intent was to kill agents ramming them with his vehicle was his best option vs using a cross draw of a firearm from under his open jacket, while in knee deep snow.

I agree he had a death wish but at the same time I am of the opinion that no law enforcement agent fed, state or city should be shooting down American citizens unless they're either 1) being attacked or 2) a gun is drawn/pointed in their direction.

Once you take over property you are at the very least trespassing if not worse. The moment you threaten violence you have committed a crime whether or not you shoot anybody or not.

He was reaching for his gun or at least that's how it appears to me. You can't wait until it's pointed in your direction. Bullets are too fast for that. Once they make that move the decision is made. IT has to be.

Now I'm all for people doing everything they can to avoid things escalating. Aside from the fact that it's annoying that I know good and damn well I would have been shot two weeks ago if I pulled this shit it wouldn't have hurt my feelings if the police had retreated to behind their cars and relative safety while negotiating with him. Should they HAVE to do that? Nope. But erring on the side of everybody getting out a live and thus caution is something I can support.

 

[Sean]

Well clearly if his intent was to kill agents ramming them with his vehicle was his best option vs using a cross draw of a firearm from under his open jacket, while in knee deep snow.

I agree he had a death wish but at the same time I am of the opinion that no law enforcement agent fed, state or city should be shooting down American citizens unless they're either 1) black or 2) black

FYP, YW.

 

[thør]

So people planning to kill or commit violence are not terrorists? They only become terrorists after they carry out their planned violence? Okie dokie.

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/01/ber...ds-move-in-this-is-a-free-for-all-armageddon/

They could just be run of the mill murderers.