|
Discendo Vox posted:What does it say about FTFY.
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 00:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 19:49 |
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:At that point, you're not doing the gandhi/mlk/jesus thing any more. You're doing something else. It's substantively, mechanically different from nonviolent protest and works along different premises. Note that I'm not saying it can't work. It may even be necessary in some circumstances (how far would MLK have gotten without Malcolm X or the Panthers?) but it's fundamentally different from non-violent passive protest. The problem is that you and others are presenting this as a binary thing where every protest is either a) on par with Gandhi and Jesus loving Christ, or b) treasonous armed revolution, with no middle ground in between. Are these guys dedicated and devoted followers of the pacifistic non-violence movements pioneered by civil rights leaders in the mid-20th century and adopted wholeheartedly by left-leaning protest movements in the 60s and 70s? No, absolutely not. However, they have yet to actually do anything violent or harm anyone, and the lack of real violence makes them "non-violent" in my book in spite of the presence of items that could potentially be used in self-defense. mugrim posted:That seems dumb on so many counts. If you're really afraid of OKC 2.0, why let these guys get their message out constantly and rile up their nutter base? Because a federal judge personally stomped all over a major FBI prosecution of another anti-government militia a few years back. The Hutaree dismissal set a very nasty precedent for the FBI (and a very encouraging one for militia groups), so the federal government is very anxious to avoid the mistakes they made there and build a case that goes well beyond merely being "ironclad". As long as these guys aren't actually hurting anyone, the FBI is more than happy to sit back and let them rack up criminal charges so that when the prosecution finally comes to a head, they'll have plenty of meticulously-documented criminal actions to wave in front of the court so some jackass judge won't declare the whole thing "mere words" and "political speech" and throw the charges out on the spot again. The influence of the Hutaree case on the FBI's handling of this occupation is very apparent; the whole thing was tremendously embarrassing and led to a radical anti-government militia being let off with nothing more than a few gun charges, and there is absolutely no way the FBI is interested in seeing that happen again. To quote the NYT article on the acquittal: quote:Professor Henning predicted that the Hutaree’s acquittal “will make the F.B.I. more hesitant to intervene early on when you’re talking about domestic threats.”
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 00:50
|
|
|
Based on what I can gather from the random quickly deleted videos they put up, and my own personal experience with white trash in the CPS system... it looks like CPS removed the kids from the parents home and gave the custody of them over to the relatives, which is something that happens all the time in white trash families. Usually the stable grandparents get the kids, when the actual parents are deadbeats. I believe Pete had a former police officer with a badge, show up at the relatives house, along with the mother. They blustered their way through getting the kids, and left with them to a chartered plane to wherever lunatic domestic terrorists go to hide. Presumably the goverment wouldn't have too much trouble finding them again, since they're pretty deeply involved in the whole insurrection movement and I have no doubt will be back on social media immediately.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 00:52
|
|
|
kartikeya posted:Yes. Part of my anger at this situation is that there are children there precisely because the Feds adopted a 'let's just wait and see and do nothing' attitude, and when several days passed they brought their families in. Now Cooper's kids are stashed who knows where. As bad as it would be that those kids would be put in danger by any violent action, it would be worse if there were even more kids, or even more dudes with guns to take those violent actions. This is, of course, the entire reason children are there; they're hostages to discourage law enforcement action. You can't use the argument "the kids are being put in danger" as a reason for arrests to be made if the kids aren't there though, can you? Do you honestly not see the problem there? I mean, the dickish way to put this is that your only interest in the kids is that they support your argument but you don't give two fucks about them otherwise, but I genuinely don't think that's true of you. kartikeya posted:I don't agree, however, that they're not in danger by being there though. Surrounded by that many guns, that many paranoid loons, and that much irresponsible gun handling? It's a tragedy waiting to happen. I doubt that this is a particularly dangerous situation in that respect. The expectation would be that everyone's being very well-behaved around their firearms while they're all playing soldier together. Peer pressure, and all that. I suspect that they're in more danger at home. Even if this weren't the case, it would have to be many orders of magnitude greater a risk in order to be anywhere close to the amount of danger caused by a raid.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 01:18
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:The problem is that you and others are presenting this as a binary thing where every protest is either a) on par with Gandhi and Jesus loving Christ, or b) treasonous armed revolution, with no middle ground in between. Are these guys dedicated and devoted followers of the pacifistic non-violence movements pioneered by civil rights leaders in the mid-20th century and adopted wholeheartedly by left-leaning protest movements in the 60s and 70s? No, absolutely not. However, they have yet to actually do anything violent or harm anyone, and the lack of real violence makes them "non-violent" in my book in spite of the presence of items that could potentially be used in self-defense. Literally threatening the lives of law enforcement, intimidating their families, and flouting the rule of law in general is now non-violence? Your book sucks. Main Paineframe posted:The Hutaree dismissal set a very nasty precedent for the FBI (and a very encouraging one for militia groups), so the federal government is very anxious to avoid the mistakes they made there and build a case that goes well beyond merely being "ironclad". What do you define as "well beyond merely being "ironclad""?
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 01:18
|
|
|
Looks like it's back up, wtf? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anStnML7D4s
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 01:55
|
|
|
oh Jesus Christ I'm going to bring that to the next staff meeting. "this is why we lock the doors"
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 01:56
|
|
|
Lmao is that seriously Pete doing a fake voice? They'll never convict him:
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 01:57
|
|
|
Apparently a hot spring will be hosting the community meeting on their land.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 02:23
|
|
|
They're like Segourney Weaver in Aliens trying to save Newt. Except the aliens are the child protective service
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 02:23
|
|
|
I've always hated the way that quote is used. It's not supposed to be a diagnostic aid for Internet Psychiatrists 
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 02:53
|
|
|
Man this is just sad as hell https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNAYI9qGLDU I think he's just happy for a hot meal
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 02:56
|
|
|
Perfectly Safe posted:You can't use the argument "the kids are being put in danger" as a reason for arrests to be made if the kids aren't there though, can you? Do you honestly not see the problem there? I mean, the dickish way to put this is that your only interest in the kids is that they support your argument but you don't give two fucks about them otherwise, but I genuinely don't think that's true of you. I have not once called for a raid. I've called for preventative action, a la a siege, blocking off the roads, etc, something to prevent or at least make it more difficult for the militants to move to and from the refuge. I wanted it from the beginning. In most cases, this is what happens. In this case, it didn't, and because of that, they were able to bring their families in. These are some of the same fucks that were rather gleefully talking about using their families as bullet sponges down in Nevada, so it's not like that was unforeseen (people in this thread were calling it before it happened, I'm going to guess the FBI is at least as well informed). But they're there now, and the situation continues to get more dangerous the more it is ignored, so...what's the solution? Doing nothing isn't working. They just loving kidnapped two kids. They're working on getting this happening in other places. This is a genuine attempt at insurrection, and the only reason it's succeeding is because law enforcement has been utterly toothless. What I'm saying is that I don't want kids caught in the crossfire at Malheur, but I especially don't want kids caught in the crossfire at Malheur and whatever other places they're trying to get this thing to spring up, because you can drat well bet they'll bring kids there too. I want law enforcement to loving do their jobs, basically. I don't actually care about their ironclad cases as much as I care about them stopping people from being terrorized and kids from used as hostages. They're definitely more trained and more well informed than I am. So I want them to do what they were trained to do and protect people. That's it. I don't think that's actually asking for much. And the argument that they're just sitting back and building a case is bullshit. Maybe they are, maybe they aren't, but either way they sure aren't protecting anyone right now, and they're letting this situation grow beyond Malheur. It's loving irresponsible.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 03:25
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:The problem is that you and others are presenting this as a binary thing where every protest is either a) on par with Gandhi and Jesus loving Christ, or b) treasonous armed revolution, with no middle ground in between. Are these guys dedicated and devoted followers of the pacifistic non-violence movements pioneered by civil rights leaders in the mid-20th century and adopted wholeheartedly by left-leaning protest movements in the 60s and 70s? No, absolutely not. However, they have yet to actually do anything violent or harm anyone, and the lack of real violence makes them "non-violent" in my book in spite of the presence of items that could potentially be used in self-defense. So. This is my question. Are you just being deliberately ignorant of the fact that people are in danger and they are causing harm, or does stalking, terroristic/death threats, a great deal of destruction of public property and native sacred and historical sites, violation of privacy of Federal employees (arguably endangering them since this led to some of the stalking and threats), and now what appears to be outright kidnapping not count as 'harm' or 'danger' in your view?
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 03:32
|
|
|
Conrad Wilson is covering the "community meeting", which is happening at a private hot spring resort in the area (it's not fancy, despite the way I'm making it sound). About 30 people are there, and Ammon is trying to teach them sovcit theory. He's livetweeting it, and it's setting up to be comedy gold. "Ammon Bundy is taking about the function of government. Ryan Payne listens on while reading & outlining a pocket copy of the Constitution." https://twitter.com/conradjwilson/status/689272672279117824
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 03:50
|
|
|
This is what it looks like when the terrorists win.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 03:57
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Because a federal judge personally stomped all over a major FBI prosecution of another anti-government militia a few years back. The Hutaree dismissal set a very nasty precedent for the FBI (and a very encouraging one for militia groups), so the federal government is very anxious to avoid the mistakes they made there and build a case that goes well beyond merely being "ironclad". As long as these guys aren't actually hurting anyone, the FBI is more than happy to sit back and let them rack up criminal charges so that when the prosecution finally comes to a head, they'll have plenty of meticulously-documented criminal actions to wave in front of the court so some jackass judge won't declare the whole thing "mere words" and "political speech" and throw the charges out on the spot again. The influence of the Hutaree case on the FBI's handling of this occupation is very apparent; the whole thing was tremendously embarrassing and led to a radical anti-government militia being let off with nothing more than a few gun charges, and there is absolutely no way the FBI is interested in seeing that happen again. To quote the NYT article on the acquittal: If this was in the planning stages I would understand that, but it's full on execution. What's the debate?
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 04:01
|
|
|
Why aren't they livestreaming this poo poo?
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 04:11
|
|
|
Is this the meeting where they're supposed to give their exit strategy?
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 04:13
|
|
|
mugrim posted:If this was in the planning stages I would understand that, but it's full on execution. What's the debate? I think his point is that the Feds now need them to do something so drastic that even that pissant judge cant excuse it away. Like I get it, the things they have already done are more than enough reason to get someone arrested but after that Judge botched the case the Feds literally need them to cross a line and shoot someone/hold someone hostage/act on their violent threats so a sympathetic judge wont declare it all mere words and toss it out which would further embarrass and damage the feds and would empower the militias. So yeah its loving dumb but it looks like the feds are trying to get a case that literally noone will defend. But again, this is all just if I am reading it right.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 04:24
|
|
|
Schizotek posted:I've always hated the way that quote is used. It's not supposed to be a diagnostic aid for Internet Psychiatrists As a schizophrenic who knows schizophrenics, I've seen a whole lot of the whole "capitalizing seemingly random words" thing. What's great is that if you point it out to a schizophrenic, they usually think The Whole Capitalization Thing is pretty funny. Like, you just DO it, and you're doing it purely to get your point across, and most of the time you don't even realize you're doing it. I usually have to give a post 2 or 3 read-throughs to catch them all. Sometimes, you can even hear them capitalize words as they say them out loud. Ever watch a crazy person speak and then they say some word with like a whole heck of a lot of emphasis? Same thing. I'm not suggesting that the people doing this are schizophrenic, but rather they're trying to get very specific ideas across, and they don't really have the capacity to create their own unique term for it. It's kinda like a disconnection between what you mean and what you have available to say. It's weird, but it's just a signal from someone that shows they mean something very specific by using a fairly generic term. Also, Sovereign Citizens sometimes capitalize certain nouns because either a) capitalized words have Magic Powers, or b) they're trying to imitate the writing styles of things like the Declaration of Independence. So, like quote:We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness We've got a series of capitalized words that, while not proper nouns, include meaning beyond what we'd normally throw at them. The difference between The Declaration of Independence, Sovcits and Schizophrenics is that the latter two are a bit worse at it. Though, I'd like to think the Sovcits are the worst.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 04:47
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:The problem is that you and others are presenting this as a binary thing where every protest is either a) on par with Gandhi and Jesus loving Christ, or b) treasonous armed revolution, with no middle ground in between. Are these guys dedicated and devoted followers of the pacifistic non-violence movements pioneered by civil rights leaders in the mid-20th century and adopted wholeheartedly by left-leaning protest movements in the 60s and 70s? No, absolutely not. However, they have yet to actually do anything violent or harm anyone, and the lack of real violence makes them "non-violent" in my book in spite of the presence of items that could potentially be used in self-defense. Just so I'm clear, the relative violence or non-violence of the Bundy militia seems almost irrelevant to me given the delusional nature of their "issues" and the incoherence of their goals. It's not just that they aren't MLK; they aren't even Malcolm X. They're a bunch of stolen-valor rejects playing tactilol dress-up in a white privilege rage spasm. So let's stop pretending that they're worthy of respect because they're protesting actual issues that actually matter. They aren't and they don't. (Yes, you can make an argument that land rights are a real issue, but that has about as much to do with these people as Eric Hoffer did with the Unabomber; such justifications are pretexts, nothing more). That said, the problem with your argument is that violence isn't binary. There can be direct and indirect violence, and the mere threat of violence is also a kind of violence. And the problem with indirect violence or merely threatened violence is that such actions dramatically raise the likelihood of actual direct physical violence. Once you start waving guns around and, good lord, kidnapping children, the odds that someone will doing something stupid and get somebody killed start to escalate, dramatically. Gharbad the Weak posted:As a schizophrenic who knows schizophrenics, . . . .. The difference between The Declaration of Independence, Sovcits and Schizophrenics is that the latter two are a bit worse at it. Sovcits are the worst. Schizophrenics have a legitimate excuse.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 05:12
|
|
|
Gharbad the Weak posted:The Whole Capitalization Thing Whoops, missed one. Hieronymous Alloy posted:Schizophrenics have a legitimate excuse. But yeah. So, it's a big trait in schizophrenics, but for these guys it's either magic words (which they think hold legal power) or it's stylistic. I'm sure it's annoying, but I wouldn't say it's illegitimate. Just, like, don't pin the Oregon dudes on us, we didn't have anything to do with it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 05:21
|
|
|
kartikeya posted:So. This is my question. Are you just being deliberately ignorant of the fact that people are in danger and they are causing harm, or does stalking, terroristic/death threats, a great deal of destruction of public property and native sacred and historical sites, violation of privacy of Federal employees (arguably endangering them since this led to some of the stalking and threats), and now what appears to be outright kidnapping not count as 'harm' or 'danger' in your view? Feel free to disagree, but i don't think the occupiers are the ones doing the stalking. Not that i don't think they're capable, but Pete kept ranting about how that was all a false flag, whereas if they were doing it, i think his argument would be about how stalking doesn't count when he does it
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 06:05
|
|
|
What can we learn from this to make our next protest more viable? Is it more effective than tactics normally used by the left? More well covered? More sympathetically covered? I'm not sure. Most people seem to either treat them as a joke or run from them as fast as they can like Kaisch did. So far, it seems like Occupy and especially BLM have had a much larger impact on the national dialogue. Sovcits, III%ers and the like are oddball curiosity stories. They are bastard children of groups like the Tea Party, the Southern Baptist Convention (the white one) and the Fundamentalist Mormon Church.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 06:15
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:Feel free to disagree, but i don't think the occupiers are the ones doing the stalking. Not that i don't think they're capable, but Pete kept ranting about how that was all a false flag, whereas if they were doing it, i think his argument would be about how stalking doesn't count when he does it Yeah, Pete Santilli seems like a logical guy, I'll go with that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 06:16
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Hmm, seems like your memory reconfigures itself to fit your preexisting, racist narrative! Might want to get that checked out. It actually did the opposite and remembered the police as more brutal, stop witch hunting for racism.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 06:19
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Conrad Wilson is covering the "community meeting", which is happening at a private hot spring resort in the area (it's not fancy, despite the way I'm making it sound). About 30 people are there, and Ammon is trying to teach them sovcit theory. He's livetweeting it, and it's setting up to be comedy gold. Grem posted:Is this the meeting where they're supposed to give their exit strategy? I think this is it: https://twitter.com/conradjwilson/status/689290162124132352 https://twitter.com/conradjwilson/status/689291754659446784 https://twitter.com/conradjwilson/status/689298818349715457 Except ... https://twitter.com/conradjwilson/status/689294059215572992 https://twitter.com/conradjwilson/status/689305677408276481 https://twitter.com/conradjwilson/status/689306961037295616 And ... https://twitter.com/conradjwilson/status/689302947478376448 This could just be bluster, but it could also indicate that they're thinking about packing it up once they realise that not even the ranchers are with them?
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 06:21
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:Feel free to disagree, but i don't think the occupiers are the ones doing the stalking. Not that i don't think they're capable, but Pete kept ranting about how that was all a false flag, whereas if they were doing it, i think his argument would be about how stalking doesn't count when he does it Yeah, uh, I definitely disagree. And I'm not particularly inclined to take Pete's word on anything other than 'I have guns' and 'I'm a dangerous loon'. Quite besides that, if they didn't do it, or people connected with them, then who? Completely random people who just happen to be stalking, harassing, and sending death threats to the people that the militants are pissed at? And they just happen to know where they live and that they're government workers? And none of the people they harassed are able to identify them? Remember, this is an incredibly small town and low population county in general. Your theory makes very little sense and it feels like you're reaching. I get it, and no, none of us can know for sure, but...seriously. You're really reaching.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 06:23
|
|
|
Going into the two poorest counties in Oregon, where people bust their asses for every bit that they have and telling them they should be willing to give up everything they have is one shockingly tone-deaf argument.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 06:30
|
|
|
Lead out in cuffs posted:
Sounds more like they're going to pack up once they realize they can't make any money off of these guys. That literally sounds like any number of Pyramid/Multilevel Marketing/Scam membership presentations. "One time offer"? Really? Are you trying to save your way of life or just give people a good deal on a timeshare?
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 06:35
|
|
|
skaboomizzy posted:Yeah, Pete Santilli seems like a logical guy, I'll go with that. I'm not calling him logical, I'm calling him not smart enough to think of that A person being nuts doesn't instantly mean they have no discernable m.o. Pete reframes everything he does as virtuous, I'd expect nothing different here - he truly believes that the threats are a false flag
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 06:37
|
|
|
The-Mole posted:Going into the two poorest counties in Oregon, where people bust their asses for every bit that they have and telling them they should be willing to give up everything they have is one shockingly tone-deaf argument. The whole thing rests on the assumption that the land can be exploited for more value than the refuge brings the community in terms of federal financial support, tourism, hunting etc. Somehow I doubt extended grazing rights is the only thing holding back a thriving cattle business and it seems the local ranchers are equally skeptical.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 06:37
|
|
|
Anosmoman posted:The whole thing rests on the assumption that the land can be exploited for more value than the refuge brings the community in terms of federal financial support, tourism, hunting etc. Somehow I doubt extended grazing rights is the only thing holding back a thriving cattle business and it seems the local ranchers are equally skeptical. I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that about 10% of the town works for the BLM.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 06:45
|
|
|
kartikeya posted:Yeah, uh, I definitely disagree. And I'm not particularly inclined to take Pete's word on anything other than 'I have guns' and 'I'm a dangerous loon'. Quite besides that, if they didn't do it, or people connected with them, then who? Completely random people who just happen to be stalking, harassing, and sending death threats to the people that the militants are pissed at? And they just happen to know where they live and that they're government workers? And none of the people they harassed are able to identify them? Remember, this is an incredibly small town and low population county in general. Your theory makes very little sense and it feels like you're reaching. I get it, and no, none of us can know for sure, but...seriously. You're really reaching. The ones bothering the sheriff could be literally anybody - they've been unseen or on the phone. I think it's the along-for-the-ride militias, honestly. Also, your small town thing makes my next point for me. Nearly half of the population of the town works for the government, and it's a close knit area. Nobody needs a list of employees, and i challenge the assumption that data found on site is being used to accomplish the harassment. Especially since the harassment was apparently going on for weeks BEFORE the standoff. Things have been brewing in Burns for a while, Bundy just went way further
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 06:46
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:What can we learn from this to make our next protest more viable? Is it more effective than tactics normally used by the left? More well covered? More sympathetically covered? Well, we definitely know that if Black Lives Matter protesters started showing up with guns and painting their skin white they'd probably be allowed to do whatever they wanted.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 07:10
|
|
|
Lead out in cuffs posted:I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that about 10% of the town works for the BLM. 10% is public employees at all levels and parts of government, I think. Same issue, though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 07:12
|
|
|
I've pretty much kept out of posting in this thread but I wanted to elaborate on a point someone made earlier. As a general rule for civil disobedience to work effectively you need to make sure that any attack against the disobedient protesters appears unprovoked. Because anything that looks like provocation will be used against the legitimacy of the protesters. Pointing guns at people, appearing to have a connection to people who are intimidating locals, willingly destroying property, and threatening to kill anyone who tries to arrest them are all provocative acts. Such behavior is closer to an insurrection which is actually a stated goal of several of the occupiers. You might point to the black panther statehouse protest back in the 1967. This act of civil disobedience is problematic because of the presence of loaded weapons. But, and these are key points, the participants did not threaten to shoot anyone, did not point weapons at anyone, accepted the request to leave the premises, and did not resist arrest. They also failed to prevent the passage of legislation they were trying to draw attention too. I'll go back to reading every other page of this thread on the off chance there's a new development or the discussion changes any. Preemptive edit: Even if the occupiers have no connection to the people who are threatening locals the other points still stand. RandomPauI fucked around with this message at 07:15 on Jan 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 07:13
|
|
|
Lead out in cuffs posted:I think this is it: This is the triumphant moment of rejection I've been hoping for, in some sense. The Bundys got to make their pitch on their own terms and appear to have been soundly rejected. I hope Wilson writes this up, because it's a significant point, regardless of whether it's the tipping point-I hope it is. RandomPauI posted:As a general rule for civil disobedience to work effectively you need to make sure that any attack against the disobedient protesters appears unprovoked. Because anything that looks like provocation will be used against the legitimacy of the protesters. RandomPauI posted:Pointing guns at people, appearing to have a connection to people who are intimidating locals, willingly destroying property, and threatening to kill anyone who tries to arrest them are all provocative acts. Such behavior is closer to an insurrection which is actually a stated goal of several of the occupiers. What makes the right fringe difficult, and the way in which they and their target audience rationalize their "protest", is that they believe they are already victims of provocation through state oppression. This may seem crazy, but it's a way that people susceptible to this sort of antigovernment ideology (right or left) view their situations, and a big part of how they're able to accommodate completely nutty beliefs associated with things like sovcit. People who fall into this belief system are desperate for an explanation for the terrible hand life has dealt them, and the conspiracy of pervasive government oppression gives them that delusional escape hatch. This is part of what makes handling this kind of movement tricky- even a situation they provoke or incite will gain them some number of supporters. The goal of law enforcement is to cause the actors to behave in a way that minimizes some balance of a) this appeal, with the implicit violence/harm it will cause in the future, and b) the violence done by the protester in the present. The presence of a local community that's sympathetic to parts of the sovcit ideology is a big factor here. RandomPauI posted:You might point to the black panther statehouse protest back in the 1967. This act of civil disobedience is problematic because of the presence of loaded weapons. But, and these are key points, the participants did not threaten to shoot anyone, did not point weapons at anyone, accepted the request to leave the premises, and did not resist arrest. They also failed to prevent the passage of legislation they were trying to draw attention to. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 07:26 on Jan 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 07:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 19:49 |
|
|
Adenoid Dan posted:Environmental monitoring of any sort is not just wasteful to them any more, it's now actually corruption. OK. Soon as we can find a container that can hold it without dissolving.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 07:43
|
|
