|
Discendo Vox posted:I'd argue the threat of violence is almost always implicit in bearing arms in civil disobedience. It's a but-for analysis; why else would you carry a firearm in that situation? The alternative explanations are limited, even when (as in the case of the black panther protest) it is a bluff. The goal is still intimidation. I won't disagree with you on that. I brought it up because in this thread it's been invoked as if it was an identical situation.
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 07:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 17:18 |
|
|
Adenoid Dan posted:I don't understand why a rancher of all people would want to live in an unregulated industrial hellscape. These buttfuckers don't realise this. These people are grown up 2 year olds throwing a shitfit because big daddy government won't give them what they want. You could sign a bill today that allows them to use the fed land unregulated and they'd still throw a shitfit because they want something else. Horking Delight posted:I'm still boggling that these guys haven't figured out why a federal wildlife refuge that does research on wild animals (SUCH AS COUNTING FROGS) would have federal cameras set up in the area. It's not that they don't know. The retards think they were set up over night since their takeover to spy on them....because they're psychos SocketWrench fucked around with this message at 08:06 on Jan 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 07:58
|
|
|
I kinda hope the FBI raids the place only to be taken down by Home Alone style traps made entirely from dildos and lube.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 08:25
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted: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. Motive? Bundy and company were planning this for weeks, the protest went off before the occupation, and all of this started around the time they started making a fuss. You're suggesting that multiple people from a very small town just up and decided to do exactly what the militants would do, with their rhetoric, against their targets, but they're totally and completely unrelated to the guys making death threats and talking repeatedly about hanging the sheriff and government employees at the refuge. But you think it's the 'along-for-the-ride' militias. Who are somehow not a part of this despite being, as you describe, along for the ride, and also aren't local and thus wouldn't have information on the people in Burns who work for the government. Come on, man. This is not a court and you're not their defense attorney. I concede that there may be a slim chance that somehow in some way this is not related to the militants at the refuge, but this is a ridiculously slim chance and you're bending over backwards and twisting in a knot to push it. Even if it is some militia group that just happens to be in Burns 'for the ride', they're there because of Bundy's pals and if they're stalking and harassing government employees it's pretty clear they're sympathetic to the SovCit cause, and regardless this isn't a thing where you just go 'oh well, guess some people get driven out of town, nothing can be done!' if you're law enforcement. Is it really so much to ask that they put in at least a tiny bit of effort to protect people here?
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 09:01
|
|
|
I've had a poo poo year so far, seriously poo poo and this pisses me off so bad. These guys have life so loving easy they can do this. The entire history of the United States has lead up to this point: chickenshit bullshit manbabies acting out their need for a struggle, their need to be "warriors" without, you know, actually being in danger. If the US never had all the bullshit they are currently trying to get torn down they never would have been comfortable enough to try to tear it down in the first place. It's like trying to get the government to stop giving out vaccines because a disease hasn't killed a bunch of people in years (oddly enough since they started the vaccines). I wish I could go camping for a few weeks on the government's dime.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 09:36
|
|
|
Duke Igthorn posted:I've had a poo poo year so far, seriously poo poo and this pisses me off so bad. These guys have life so loving easy they can do this. The entire history of the United States has lead up to this point: chickenshit bullshit manbabies acting out their need for a struggle, their need to be "warriors" without, you know, actually being in danger. If the US never had all the bullshit they are currently trying to get torn down they never would have been comfortable enough to try to tear it down in the first place. It's like trying to get the government to stop giving out vaccines because a disease hasn't killed a bunch of people in years (oddly enough since they started the vaccines). I wish I could go camping for a few weeks on the government's dime. Buy some camo PJs and a tactic-lol AR-15, drive out there with some melodramatic YouTubes about THE CAUSE, be able to string together two spoken sentences without sounding like an idiot. You'll make $20K easily. Then drive back home with your money from those idiots, publicize that you're giving $500 to Bernie Sanders, and watch the tears roll in.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 09:53
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted: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. Oregon Live wrote it up: http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/01/oregon_standoff_leaders_urge_l.html quote:The signing ceremony – now set for Saturday -- is "a once in a lifetime opportunity," Ammon Bundy said. The next time such an opportunity arises, he said: "It'll be war." Well, two things -- "a once in a lifetime opportunity" is now a bit more sinister, and Saturday should be fun.  quote:The occupiers tried to allay their concerns by offering quotes from the Founding Fathers and reading aloud from pocket-sized copies of the U.S. Constitution. The passages, they argued, proved the federal government can't lawfully control land in the West. No, don't worry about being arrested, we have magical Consitution spells. quote:The federal government's sole role, they said, is to protect U.S. citizens from the outside world, including national defense, international trade, border security and almost nothing else. Well, they've stated their position, anyway. I guess this is basically the SovCit line? Also: quote:The occupiers have organized a "rapid response team" tasked with defending ranchers who agree to stop paying their grazing fees, he said. Welp.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 10:51
|
|
|
Lead out in cuffs posted: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? They promised to leave earlier if the people of Burns wanted them gone, then the people wanted them gone, then they stayed because they found a reason. They aren't going to leave, they beat the BLM, they probably expect the FBI to do the same thing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 14:08
|
|
|
kartikeya posted: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). Well yeah, you're calling for arrests. At some point, that means going into the refuge, unless you're thinking of starving them out with the siege. If you're starving the adults, you're starving the kids too. If you're laying siege, then you're creating the dangerous internal situation that you apparently want to avoid. I just can't help thinking that you want several things, all of which are understandable, but they're inconsistent with each other. The way I see it is that an immediate strong response from law enforcement carries a bunch of risks with it, and they're all worse than the current situation. Is there a reference to the "using family members as meat shields" strategy from Nevada that's not from that sheriff who made the "we're strategizing..." comment? He stepped back from that the very next day, you see. It's difficult to see it as anything more than something some dumbshit said once. kartikeya posted: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'm afraid that I don't believe that this situation is especially dangerous right now. I think that pretty much all of the strategies proposed in this thread risk significantly more dangerous situations than the current one. There's no reason to expect these fuckwits to be any more successful in Utah than they have been here. I am puzzled as to why anyone outside of the SovCit bubble sees this as anything other than a dismal failure. "They just loving kidnapped two kids" - you must surely know that I know that that's a case of parents taking their own children out of (allegedly) CPS custody. And yes, assuming that they actually were in CPS custody and actually were removed illegally - something that we don't know about right now - then that technically constitutes kidnapping. Trying to characterise it as straight-up kidnapping and as an escalation, as if they just drove into Burns and grabbed a couple of kids to use as hostages, is disingenuous. Of course, the only information that we have outside of the video is from Pete anyway, and Pete's bound to say that the evil government took the kids and that they were rescued from the feds' clutches no matter what the truth is. kartikeya posted: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. No you don't - you want law enforcement to do its job in a specific way. You want these people to be demonstrably stood up to. Law enforcement will tend to, and should, take the lowest-risk opportunity to make an arrest unless there's an urgent need to do so. That the people of Burns are uneasy about the whole thing is not a good enough reason - anyone who's not a SovCit is going to be uneasy around these people. It blows my mind that an aggressive rear end in a top hat can openly carry a firearm in a town and not be breaking any laws in some parts of the US, but that's how it is. Law enforcement in the US has earned a bad reputation for unnecessarily escalating situations. They're actually doing the right thing on this occasion by not escalating it. As I've said many times before, it will be a massive miscarriage of justice if no arrests ever come of this.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 14:10
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I'd argue the threat of violence is almost always implicit in bearing arms in civil disobedience. It's a but-for analysis; why else would you carry a firearm in that situation? The alternative explanations are limited, even when (as in the case of the black panther protest) it is a bluff. The goal is still intimidation. In the case of the Black Panthers protests, I would say they were arming themselves to prevent being lynched or otherwise attacked by a mob of racist white assholes. Thus why they didn't resist police or the request to leave.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 14:35
|
|
|
There's also a fundamental difference between an oppressed minority using guns to establish some sort of parity during a protest against their oppressors and a right-wing majority group using guns to terrorize local townsfolk. Punching up vs punching down kind of thing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 15:01
|
|
|
Listen up
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 15:04
|
|
|
Wouldn't it just be easier to roll up a M109 and lob a M687 in there and call it quits? Let the animals have at it, nobody wants to go in there after that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 15:21
|
|
|
Spacman posted:Wouldn't it just be easier to roll up a M109 and lob a M687 in there and call it quits? Yeah, you don't get the elite mission bonus if you do it like that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 15:35
|
|
|
It would be easier if you established a perimeter with a kill line and only one entrance/exit which could only be approached through a metal detector. But since that poo poo ain't happening, we'll just wait around for everyone to go home.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 15:36
|
|
|
kartikeya posted:Motive? Bundy and company were planning this for weeks, the protest went off before the occupation, and all of this started around the time they started making a fuss. You're suggesting that multiple people from a very small town just up and decided to do exactly what the militants would do, with their rhetoric, against their targets, but they're totally and completely unrelated to the guys making death threats and talking repeatedly about hanging the sheriff and government employees at the refuge. But you think it's the 'along-for-the-ride' militias. Who are somehow not a part of this despite being, as you describe, along for the ride, and also aren't local and thus wouldn't have information on the people in Burns who work for the government. Other groups have come to Burns with similar ideas who are not staying at the refuge. This isn't conjecture, it's fact. Stop pretending it isn't. Also, they formed a "Committee of Safety" FROM LOCALS weeks before the occupation started. That's SovCit nonsense. There are random crazy SovCits in the area (like fire whatever Beihl). Yes, they're part of this whole swirling mess going on in Harney County. But they exist! The Bundys ALSO had a barbecue recently that was apparently provided by two local ranchers. There is a small(10% or less), but real, number of supporters among the locals.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 15:41
|
|
|
I kinda figured carpeting the place in some kind of anaesthetic would be the safest way to end the situation and the mental image of them laughing around a table and then the next thing they know they're waking up in a cell with no idea how they got there is pretty funny to me. But I'm aware that a) that's just going to stoke the fires of right-winger rage and b) there are now kids in there who can't safely consume a similar amount as an adult.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 15:46
|
|
|
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? I said "as long as they're not actually hurting anyone", which I think was a pretty clear set of goalposts, so I don't know why you're trying to shift it to something nebulous like "harm" or "danger", other than the fact that you can't possibly stretch the line I offered to include damaging public property. mugrim posted:If this was in the planning stages I would understand that, but it's full on execution. What's the debate? Whether a judge will call it "trespassing and damaging federal property, six months in jail for a few of them" or "criminal sedition and conspiracy to overthrow the government, fifteen-plus years for everyone". The occupiers are still racking up crimes, still attracting more crazies, have got to be thoroughly infiltrated by undercover agents by now, and have yet to physically harm anyone. Given that it is now much more difficult than it used to be for the feds to extrapolate nonviolent crimes in court up to something like sedition, they're just helping the militia if they stop this early. At this point it's basically just a honeypot, and considering the Hutaree precedent, the FBI is in no hurry to say "okay, we've got enough evidence, let's break this up". Hieronymous Alloy posted: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). I don't think that either I or anyone else has argued that they or their stupid idiot cause deserves respect. However, no matter what their cause is, how valid their arguments are, or how much "respect" we think they deserve, they still have the right to make those arguments. I don't have one iota of respect for the loving KKK or their views, but that doesn't make it legal to declare a Klan march inherently violent based on their political views and indiscriminately shoot it up. RandomPauI posted:I've pretty much kept out of posting in this thread but I wanted to elaborate on a point someone made earlier. Sure, but that doesn't mean it isn't civil disobedience - it just means it's lovely, incompetent, ineffective civil disobedience. They have no idea what they're doing, and it shows. Turtle Sandbox posted:They promised to leave earlier if the people of Burns wanted them gone, then the people wanted them gone, then they stayed because they found a reason. Oh, they're absolutely going to leave at some point - they're probably starting to look for an excuse to ditch the place by now. For all their bluster about a "permanent occupation", it was pretty clear from the very beginning that they never expected to be there more than a couple of days (which is why they were so poorly stocked on food and other essentials). I doubt they're seriously under the impression that the federal government is going to surrender all federally-owned land if they just occupy that wildlife sanctuary long enough, and they're running out of antics to engage in way sooner than I expected them to. I doubt this'll even last till spring before they declare victory and go home, just like the Occupy camps that were left alone eventually did. Cantorsdust posted:There's also a fundamental difference between an oppressed minority using guns to establish some sort of parity during a protest against their oppressors and a right-wing majority group using guns to terrorize local townsfolk. Punching up vs punching down kind of thing. Morally, maybe, but legally, not really. I know arguing legality rather than morality is often frowned upon, but when it comes to asking why federal law enforcement isn't doing anything, legality matters! The cops didn't shoot the Black Panthers for bringing guns to a protest, and they're not going to shoot these assholes for bringing guns to a protest.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 15:48
|
|
|
I don't think anyone's calling for the police to shoot them for brandishing weapons, I think they just want something to be done and feel that the tensions mean that violence is going to be inevitable unless something is done. In which case they feel it's better to do this sooner rather than later to prevent any other bad poo poo happening as a knock-on effect. Which, obviously, doesn't stop any knock-on effects.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 15:50
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:I kinda figured carpeting the place in some kind of anaesthetic would be the safest way to end the situation and the mental image of them laughing around a table and then the next thing they know they're waking up in a cell with no idea how they got there is pretty funny to me. Anaesthetists are specialised medical professionals who still very occasionally kill people even though they have pretty perfect real-time control over dosage. There isn't such thing as knock out gas - you can easily kill people by trying to put them under using a generalised distribution system, kids or not.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 15:55
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:I kinda figured carpeting the place in some kind of anaesthetic would be the safest way to end the situation and the mental image of them laughing around a table and then the next thing they know they're waking up in a cell with no idea how they got there is pretty funny to me. The thing about anesthetic is, there's a very small window where someone is harmlessly unconscious, and that window is in a wildly different place from one person to another. There's a reason it takes a trained specialist in a controlled environment to do it. Magic knock-out gas doesn't exist.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 15:55
|
|
|
Perfectly Safe posted:Anaesthetists are specialised medical professionals who still very occasionally kill people even though they have pretty perfect real-time control over dosage. Somebody should ask them to provide weights and medical histories for everyone inside the compound, and straight-up tell them it's so they can get correct dosages for tranquilizer guns.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 15:57
|
|
|
Ratoslov posted:The thing about anesthetic is, there's a very small window where someone is harmlessly unconscious, and that window is in a wildly different place from one person to another. There's a reason it takes a trained specialist in a controlled environment to do it. Magic knock-out gas doesn't exist. I'm baffled how many people think this is a thing. If it was, you'd think you would've heard something about it being used succesfully, ever, at some point. It would be like the first go to option for basically any military raid or SWAT response.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 16:09
|
|
|
Perfectly Safe posted:Anaesthetists are specialised medical professionals who still very occasionally kill people even though they have pretty perfect real-time control over dosage. This happened in Russia, by the way. It isn't theorycraft. Spetznaz gassed a theater wherein people were being held hostage by Chechen militants, killed a bunch of people with fentanyl OD.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 16:12
|
|
|
I believe Russia tried it once during a hostage crisis and ended up killing everybody. Which is a very Russian way of handling things, I suppose. e: blyat
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 16:14
|
|
|
I was aware that anaesthetic varies by body weight (hence my mentioning small kids) but I wasn't aware it was quite so deadly even in an open environment.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 16:16
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:This happened in Russia, by the way. It isn't theorycraft. Spetznaz gassed a theater wherein people were being held hostage by Chechen militants, killed a bunch of people with fentanyl OD. Sure, although they still haven't revealed what it was that they used and presumably never will. I mean, they managed to kill 130 hostages - it's still not clear that they didn't just think "gently caress it, let's kill 'em all". Although even if that were the case, they didn't manage to kill everybody. So you can still take away from that that gas attacks are unreliable.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 16:20
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:I was aware that anaesthetic varies by body weight (hence my mentioning small kids) but I wasn't aware it was quite so deadly even in an open environment. Yeah, the flip side is that you don't knock everyone out and then you have paranoid lunatics with firearms who aren't thinking straight.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 16:22
|
|
|
Perfectly Safe posted:Yeah, the flip side is that you don't knock everyone out and then you have paranoid lunatics with firearms who aren't thinking straight. Welp, guess it's enterotoxin B for my wildly overblown method of getting at them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 16:25
|
|
|
How about elephant tranquilizer darts?
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 16:26
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:I was aware that anaesthetic varies by body weight (hence my mentioning small kids) but I wasn't aware it was quite so deadly even in an open environment. The problem would be that especially in open air you would really have to up gas concentration to dose someone outdoors. At that point there is no way even a trained anesthesiologist could measure out a controlled enough dose to put multiple people of varying ages, genders, and weights out without killing most of them at the absolute bare minimum. Hell even CS gas is not without it's potential side effects. quote:In August 2013, Egyptian police killed 37 prisoners after firing tear gas into a loaded van, causing the victims to suffocate in excruciating pain. Four police officers, including a Lieutenant Colonel, were convicted of manslaughter over the incident.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 16:30
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:How about elephant tranquilizer darts? Tranq darts do exist, but they take time to knock things unconscious like 4-5 years ago a guy in Ohio released a few dozen tigers and then shot himself, police and animal control had to release statements saying "tranq darts don't work that way - if you shoot a tiger with one the tiger's not going to fall asleep for like 15 minutes" so they shot almost all the tigers with regular bullets
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 16:34
|
|
|
Teddybear posted:I believe Russia tried it once during a hostage crisis and ended up killing everybody. Which is a very Russian way of handling things, I suppose. They killed only about 150 out of 800 hostages actually, which is pretty good considering the terrorists were going to blow the place up if rescue was attempted. It was just a bad situation with no good answer. They may have had fewer deaths if the Russians had let the first responders know they needed to have naloxone on hand to treat the gas.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 16:48
|
|
|
It's also noteworthy that the majority of deaths were attributed to the victims falling asleep in theater seats with their heads falling backwards, or were transported on their backs by medics, allowing for tongue prolapse to suffocate them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 17:05
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Whether a judge will call it "trespassing and damaging federal property, six months in jail for a few of them" or "criminal sedition and conspiracy to overthrow the government, fifteen-plus years for everyone". The occupiers are still racking up crimes, still attracting more crazies, have got to be thoroughly infiltrated by undercover agents by now, and have yet to physically harm anyone. Given that it is now much more difficult than it used to be for the feds to extrapolate nonviolent crimes in court up to something like sedition, they're just helping the militia if they stop this early. At this point it's basically just a honeypot, and considering the Hutaree precedent, the FBI is in no hurry to say "okay, we've got enough evidence, let's break this up". A honeypot would require them to eventually do something with all the evidence they collected. This never happened with Cliven Bundy, it won't happen with his sons. It's too politically controversial to go after the Bundy family.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 17:10
|
|
|
Mormon Star Wars posted:A honeypot would require them to eventually do something with all the evidence they collected. This never happened with Cliven Bundy, it won't happen with his sons. It's too politically controversial to go after the Bundy family. I don't think it is anymore, really. and it's a lot less popular to occupy federal land than it is to keep the government off of your own land
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 17:24
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:Tranq darts do exist, but they take time to knock things unconscious Well, gentle citizen, some of us do have tranq rifles but we have to gauge the amount of sedative based upon bodyweight (which we have to visually do since getting them on a scale is not happening) and species, then hit a most likely moving target in an appropriate area like the haunch or shoulder while taking into account the drop rate of a tranq dart which is pretty severe and also then worry about being able to recover the dart so idiot people or children don't pick it up and then get their hands on a potentially lethal controlled substance. It ain't the movies.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 17:52
|
|
|
Mormon Star Wars posted:A honeypot would require them to eventually do something with all the evidence they collected. This never happened with Cliven Bundy, it won't happen with his sons. It's too politically controversial to go after the Bundy family. The Hutaree investigation, which was an investigation of a centrally-organized militia group which was infiltrated by an undercover agent, took two years and change. It's only been, what, a year and a half since the Bundy Ranch standoff? And I'm not sure why you'd expect an investigation of a decentralized, unorganized, spontaneous one-time group to take less time, especially in the post-Hutaree legal universe where far more evidence is needed to convict a militia group on anything meaningful. Modern federal law enforcement, as a general rule of thumb, prefers to take it slow and thorough and not jump the gun - someone might run around unpunished for a few years, but the federal government always wins in the end.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 18:19
|
|
|
Yeah, even in institutional facilities they need to be able to restrain patients as needed until an emergency tranquilizer/antipsychotic kicks in. There's no drug that really takes someone (or a tiger or whatever) down on anything not measured in minutes. If you have an IV in and something is being delivered via drip that's delivery right into the vein and not a hypo into an asscheek or whatever avails itself, so it isn't like what people experience during surgery where you could back from 10 and maybe make it to 5. If someone is thrashing around you don't exactly have the ability to find a vein and calmly inject. You're probably going for the butt or the thigh, hopefully avoiding bone. (My brother and his wife were quasi-institutional foster parents before they got pregnant a few months back - family teachers is the official term - and they had this stuff drilled into their heads but relied mainly on deescalation by talking. The wife is an institutional counselor for adolescents and deals with the kids who have court ordered meds and essentially aren't emotionally capable of handling the outside world absent long-term facility treatment, she's had to hold kids down and have them tranquilized on a couple occasions but even in that setting it's rare because of how unreliable it is - at best it's going to just calm them down so they aren't a danger to themselves and then they talk with them - and that doesn't even have the crazy amount of variables gassing someone does.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 18:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 17:18 |
|
|
The average citizen will look at this situation and think that these guys have a screw loose. If anything has been gained it is the perspective of viewing people with extreme right-wing ideas and just how wrong they are. Sure a lot will side with the Bundys but let's face it, they aren't going to change their minds for anything. People who were on the fence now have a pretty good idea what's behind this particular door.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 18:32
|
|