150 armed Militia occupy federal property in Oregon.

[Gaidin]

I'm asking them to nut up and treat insurrectionists seriously instead of hanging around letting them do whatever they want. Our government put the kibosh on that shit in 1970 and 1990 in Quebec and at Oka without either incident turning into a bloodbath, or letting the perpetrators walk away, so I don't think it's that unreasonable to expect the US to do the same.

Except your question pertains to a breaking of federal law. At the Bundy Ranch. Not the current situation.

[the atom]

I'm asking them to nut up and treat insurrectionists seriously instead of hanging around letting them do whatever they want. Our government put the kibosh on that shit in 1970 and 1990 in Quebec and at Oka without either incident turning into a bloodbath, or letting the perpetrators walk away, so I don't think it's that unreasonable to expect the US to do the same.

Except your question pertains to a breaking of federal law. At the Bundy Ranch. Not the current situation.

I....know? My point is that I think it's completely baffling how the Bundy's militia were just allowed to tell the federal government to go fuck itself after they'd threatened to mow down their agents for enforcing the law. Pointing guns at federal agents might be legal, but that doesn't mean that fact isn't fucking stupid.

[Joun_Lord]

]I....what? Are you fucking serious?

Yes, quite cereal. The stupid shits at the Bundy Ranch didn't point their weapons at the cops directly. In their general direction, sure, but there is no evidence (that I'm aware of) that they actually aimed at cops directly. If there was evidence I think the fucktards could be charged with possibly assault or threatening a law enforcement officer but without evidence ain't really shit the coppers can do. The Female Boobie Inspectors were investigating the Bundy bitches back in 2014 but as far as I can tell found no evidence.

[the atom]

]I....what? Are you fucking serious?

Yes, quite cereal. The stupid shits at the Bundy Ranch didn't point their weapons at the cops directly. In their general direction, sure, but there is no evidence (that I'm aware of) that they actually aimed at cops directly. If there was evidence I think the fucktards could be charged with possibly assault or threatening a law enforcement officer but without evidence ain't really shit the coppers can do. The Female Boobie Inspectors were investigating the Bundy bitches back in 2014 but as far as I can tell found no evidence.

I seem to remember photos of them doing exactly that.

[Gaidin]

I....know? My point is that I think it's completely baffling how the Bundy's militia were just allowed to tell the federal government to go fuck itself after they'd threatened to mow down their agents for enforcing the law. Pointing guns at federal agents might be legal, but that doesn't mean that fact isn't fucking stupid.

I suppose we can go all Waco on them if you like.

[Rogue 9]

That and if nothing else they were definitely obstructing justice.

[Joun_Lord]

I seem to remember photos of them doing exactly that.

Look at the picture. Dumbass AK sniper dumbass doesn't seem to be pointing at the cops directly but more off to the side. If anything it looks like he is point more at the protesters. Because he is a dumbass.

Its a photo-op, its supposed to looks scary but still remain legal and is generally stupid as fucking fuck considering pointing weapons at cops trying to take cows from a criminal is stupid and its stupid because he couldn't even aim at the cops in the gap of the concrete.

Which I guess if there is one word to sum up all of the Bundy Ranch fiasco it would be stupid.

[Jub]

Obviously, it's impossible to tell where he's aiming with any precision, drawing a line from his weapon isn't that hard. It looks like he could be aiming at, what I presume to be a police cruiser based the line from his cheek rest down the length of his weapon.

In any case, pointing your weapon at a group of people could easily get you brought up on charges.

[Knife]

Your lines are off, follow the leg to the arm and out through the weapon, if anything he is aiming at something off to the right of what your lines are.

I'm with the crowd of siege and let them trickle in when they are hungry and cold. Fuck'em and put em in prison.

[Jub]

Your lines are off, follow the leg to the arm and out through the weapon, if anything he is aiming at something off to the right of what your lines are.

Yeah, I noticed that when I looked at it again. He's probably aiming way closer to the right most line than the other two and probably even a bit further right than that. It's hard to say exactly with the low-quality image and the gun being black, plus his leg might not be exactly in line with his weapon.

In general, I'd peg him as aiming around that cluster of cars.

[the atom]

I....know? My point is that I think it's completely baffling how the Bundy's militia were just allowed to tell the federal government to go fuck itself after they'd threatened to mow down their agents for enforcing the law. Pointing guns at federal agents might be legal, but that doesn't mean that fact isn't fucking stupid.

I suppose we can go all Waco on them if you like.

As I've already said, there are degrees of responses between massacring dozens of people and doing fuck all. Like I've also said, the Canadian Government has managed to deal with these exact situations without resorting to either.

[Lonestar]

And for your information, Lonestar, I believe that if the United States has really sunk to that level then anyone attending a political protest has every right to bring a gun with them for their own protection.

Okay? I feel that way too?

You obviously feel as if I don't. Surprise! I fucking do.

[Lonestar]

We want clowns coming out of there, not martyrs.

So seal off the area now. No one in or out. No supplies. Cut the water. Cut the electricity. Use sound to create sleep deprivation.

Immediately put up a high fence closely encircling the building. Cover the interior of the fence with distorting metal mirrors marked "federal property." Block the lines of sight from inside.

Cut off or block all microwave, wi-fi, radio contact. Run one hard-line phone into the place connected only to feds. Hell, create a no-fly zone.

Charge everyone inside with conspiracy to steal, damage, and illegally occupy federal land. Tell them that even one gunshot from their side leads to a charge of conspiracy to make war upon the United States.

Arrest every incoming wack-job and charge him/her with major-league conspiracy (i.e. conspiracy to violate the terrorism statutes, conspiracy to aid and abet a terrorist, conspiracy to levy war...)

Prosecute them.

No need to "go all Waco on", which some of these fine examples of intellect who also bitch about police brutality in other threads are advocating.

[Gaidin]

As I've already said, there are degrees of responses between massacring dozens of people and doing fuck all. Like I've also said, the Canadian Government has managed to deal with these exact situations without resorting to either.

At the moment this is like a hostage situation without hostages. What. You. Good sir. With your training. Tell us what to do. Because that small ass federal building. I guarantee you, the american media is pretty conflating the crowds "taking it over" due to the claims of the gunmen. Or you know. Let the protesters protest. Nothing wrong with protesting. Then go in. And deal with them.

Or. You. With your training. Tell us what to do. I'm winging it here. Because I think the gunmen are a splinter off the protesters.

[the atom]

As I've already said, there are degrees of responses between massacring dozens of people and doing fuck all. Like I've also said, the Canadian Government has managed to deal with these exact situations without resorting to either.

At the moment this is like a hostage situation without hostages. What. You. Good sir. With your training. Tell us what to do. Because that small ass federal building. I guarantee you, the american media is pretty conflating the crowds "taking it over" due to the claims of the gunmen. Or you know. Let the protesters protest. Nothing wrong with protesting. Then go in. And deal with them.

Or. You. With your training. Tell us what to do. I'm winging it here. Because I think the gunmen are a splinter off the protesters.

First off, stop being a patronizing cunt. You don't have to be a cop to notice the fact that small groups of North American insurrectionists can and have been put down without ending in significant amounts of bloodshed, or walking away and letting rebels seize and claim Federal property. The incidents I have mentioned were also a lot more serious than this one as well. The FLQ was an actual factual terrorist group that murdered a minister, and the Oka crisis involved a small gun battle. Neither ended like Waco, so your contention that a standoff between Federal agents and insurrectionists can only end in a massacre is bullshit.

Secondly, putting periods everywhere just makes you look like a dumbfuck. Stop it.

[The Romulan Republic]

And we apparently have children on the site. Just gets better and better. A bunch of innocent potential human shields. So much for the storming them option. But maybe we can add child endangerment to the charges.

https://qz.com/585239/armed-millitants- ... ey-seized/

Dozens of militants, several of them armed, took over a federal building in an Oregon wildlife refuge in the northwestern US over the weekend, and are now using social media to try to gather more supporters.
The group is led by Ammon Bundy, the son of rancher Cliven Bundy, whose longtime refusal to pay grazing fees in Nevada ended in a clash with federal agents in 2014. It was organized to support the Hammond family, local ranchers who were convicted of starting fires that spread to public land, and due to go back to prison on Monday (Jan. 4), Ammon said in a public video:

The militants took over the federal building after a march on Saturday in Burns, Oregon.

They have pledged to remain until the wildlife refuge land is turned back over to the public. Local media published photos of militants inside a watchtower on the refuge on Sunday afternoon, looking through a scope of some kind.

Protesters were moving freely in and out of the facility and “bringing children onto the grounds,” Maureen Peltier, a member of a self-described “patriot movement” who visited the occupied building on Sunday, told The Oregonian.) The Oregonian said it could not determine whether the children were related to militants. Peltier didn’t immediately respond to a request for an interview.
Peltier also wrote on her Facebook page:
Fear gripping my heart earlier on, but I remain prayerful that God leads them through this peacefully and successfully.
Children are on the refuge now. Good men & women. Please make peaceful, responsible choices. But do not hang them out to dry.
The Hammond ranchers who sparked the protest said they were not connected with the group who had occupied the building in the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, nor did they support them. “I don’t really know the purpose of the guys who are out there,” Susan Hammond told Oregon Public Broadcasting. She added she hoped they had warm clothes. Temperatures were below freezing in Burns at 7pm on Jan. 3 and expected to fall further overnight.

Responding to critics who call the armed occupation a “terrorist movement” and dubbed it #YallQaeda on social media, participants have started to publicly defend their actions.
“Don’t get uninformed and misunderstand what’s going on here,” Melvin Lee, one of the organizers, said in a video posted to Facebook, calling the occupation a “peaceful protest.” There is “nobody in camouflage,” Lee, who was wearing a camouflage jacket, said, adding “well other than my jacket.” Then he called for supporters to join the movement. “But we do need you here, we need bodies, we need people here to support this,” he said.
The younger Bundy said in a later video that occupiers would stay until the land in the refuge could be used by local residents “as free men” and that they would not leave until that happened. The Malheur refuge was established in 1908 by Theodore Roosevelt.
Local schools will be closed all week, and the local sheriff’s department has urged the public to stay away from the situation, caused by “outside militants.”

[Broomstick]

We want clowns coming out of there, not martyrs.

So seal off the area now. No one in or out. No supplies. Cut the water. Cut the electricity. Use sound to create sleep deprivation.

Don't bother with the sleep deprivation. Just cut off anything incoming. Let them stew in their own juices.

Immediately put up a high fence closely encircling the building. Cover the interior of the fence with distorting metal mirrors marked "federal property." Block the lines of sight from inside.

The mirrors are too elaborate. Just cordon off the property. Fence if necessary, but strictly practical, nothing elaborate.

Cut off or block all microwave, wi-fi, radio contact. Run one hard-line phone into the place connected only to feds. Hell, create a no-fly zone.

Overflying is almost certainly restricted by default simply because it's a Federal preserve.

Charge everyone inside with conspiracy to steal, damage, and illegally occupy federal land. Tell them that even one gunshot from their side leads to a charge of conspiracy to make war upon the United States.

Way over the top. First of all, there's no evidence (yet) of damage. You can probably get them on trespassing charges as they entered when the placed was officially closed. The whole one shot=war is also over the top. Just charge then with the standard felonies for threatening a Federal or state employee.

In other words, don't blow this up into a bigger deal than necessary or give them fodder for sympathetic PR.

Prosecute them.

Definitely, but on reasonable charges.

[The Romulan Republic]

The cutting off food and water approach always had big issues, but I don't think its remotely viable for humanitarian and PR reasons if their are children their.

[Edi]

The cutting off food and water approach always had big issues, but I don't think its remotely viable for humanitarian and PR reasons if their are children their.

Yes, it is. There is no reason to give in or negotiate with terrorists. You can always allow the kids out without giving anything else to the asshats in there.

[The Romulan Republic]

I agree with the principle of not giving in to terrorists, of course, but the children are potential innocent victims, and what happens if the group won't let the children out, either out of misplaced possessiveness or because they brought them their for the express purpose of using them as hostages/shields?

And from a purely pragmatic stance, how will it look if this group goes to the media about how their children are starving and freezing because the mean government won't let supplies in? That seems like a great way for these fucks to gain sympathy, if they put a good spin on it, and potentially make this a much bigger crisis.

[Broomstick]

Well, yes, the entire intention of the occupiers is to turn this into a Big Deal.

Make it clear that anyone inside is free to leave at any time. With hands up and unarmed no harm will come to them. Make it clear that it is the protesters who brought the children into the situation and are putting them into danger.

[Thanas]

I agree with the principle of not giving in to terrorists, of course, but the children are potential innocent victims, and what happens if the group won't let the children out, either out of misplaced possessiveness or because they brought them their for the express purpose of using them as hostages/shields?

So what? If you allow food to be brought in for the children it will just get taken away from them and fed to adults. End result is that you either resupply them at governments cost with all food and supplies (fuck that) or that you let nothing get in.

[The Romulan Republic]

Well, yes, the entire intention of the occupiers is to turn this into a Big Deal.

Make it clear that anyone inside is free to leave at any time. With hands up and unarmed no harm will come to them. Make it clear that it is the protesters who brought the children into the situation and are putting them into danger.

Will the government be able to effectively convey that message, especially if Right wing media expresses sympathy for the terrorists?

And will the public care if their are children going hungry and getting dehydrated because the government is cutting off food and water?

We had at least one person here talk about cutting off water. Do that, and it might not be long before you a) have children dying of dehydration on TV or b) have children getting dangerously ill from unclean water on TV.

How will the public react to that? I don't think this is a concern you can just handwave away, even if the idea of children getting ill or dying isn't enough to give you pause.

Now, obviously, we're not at this point yet. But people are advocating a course of action that could bring us to that point, so I feel its important to point out why that might not be the best idea.

Edit: And Thanas, while I think you are overstating things, it is probably true that you won't be able to ensure supplies go only to the children. But why would it be necessary for the state to pay to supply these people? Couldn't you allow a private charity/NGO to bring in humanitarian aid? I mean, we have temporary ceasefires for humanitarian aid in actual warfare, but we can't do that here for some reason?

[Broomstick]

Fuck the rabid right-wing blowhards.

Cut off anything going in. When the kids get thirsty/hungry/cold/whatever have the government state, over and over, you can send out the kids at any time. The only thing causing a threat to the kids are the protesters holding them in the building.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Edit: And Thanas, while I think you are overstating things, it is probably true that you won't be able to ensure supplies go only to the children. But why would it be necessary for the state to pay to supply these people? Couldn't you allow a private charity/NGO to bring in humanitarian aid? I mean, we have temporary ceasefires for humanitarian aid in actual warfare, but we can't do that here for some reason?

Are you fucking serious?

The fact that they cannot stay in there forever, and you can stay outside forever is literally the ONLY bargaining chip you have unless you want to storm the place.

You can totally let the kids out. If they wont let the kids out, that is on them. They permitted their children to die of dehydration while engaged in a criminal act. Tack on murder charges. So long as they dont immolate themselves, you wont get a Waco repeat.