Beginning of the end in Burns?
- Thread starter TIDE-HSV
- Start date
So how would you rate them next to the thugs that burn down their cities over a police shooting or some other perceived injustice?fixed the link for you
these folks are freaks
So peaceful protesters occupying a government building but otherwise, from what I can tell, are not destroying property v. looting thugs burning down millions of dollars of property.
One group gets multiple federal, state and local police agencies involved to shoot the homegrown terrorists while the other group continues to loot, rob, assault and commit arson.
Is that fair?
Last edited:
We should send a seal team into Burns and show these play soldiers what the real ones are capable of
as for the looters you don't go in with guns blazing there as you as most of the people in those neighborhoods at innocent, ignorant and in many cases have some legit issues (Many but not all of which are brought on by themselves if you want to discuss this point start a new thread and I will be glad to expand, but not here) that they don't often get the chance to express. There are also quite a few violent and awful people in their midst that don't care about much of anything and use this time as an excuse to break, steal, pillage and cause general mayhem as they know the odds of them getting caught are slim to none.
The difference here of course is that the looters are not organized and are not trying to take on the federal government
So you allow destruction of property and ruin livelihoods because people are ignorant? Have these people in Burns caused any harm to anyone or damaged property? If not, why the show of force to root them out? Seriously, the government is playing into their hands by creating an "armed" standoff that really isn't and in Burns, OR no less. This isn't the suburb of St. Louis or Baltimore where there are millions if not billions (depending on the area) of property to protect.
And yes, you do shoot the looters...and hopefully keep those "ignorant" genes from passing on.
So shoot the people in Burns for protesting? Granted, they armed, but my understanding is they took over an unoccupied building. I don't recall them threatening any federal agents to get out of the building or they would get pumped full of lead.
they were armed and took control of a federal building. then they had members saying (and doing) they would rather die than give up. for months, they had been harassing and intimidating the locals. that is not peaceful. the folks that did occupy the federal building did destroy a lot of public property. the folks that have now shown up, are doing so in support of that. yes they are all freaks.
you can keep making whatever comparisons that you feel that you need to make.
im not necessarily in favor of shooting (with lethal rounds) looters and vandals, but i have no issues with the use of force to make them stop. if folks are committing arson, yeah, jack them up
Last edited:
Armed means it is not a peaceful protest. I have trouble understanding how you can equate the two. If they had left their guns at home, the story would be different, but they chose to use the threat of violence to get the attention they desired.
I can walk down the street armed whether it be with my CHL or open carry and still protest peacefully can't I?
it was all over the news and in the arrest warrant for the ones that got arrested. some of these guys had been in town for the few months prior to the protest/building occupation harassing and threatening locals. they also destroyed quite a bit of the property during their 24 days and were threatening the feds. not to mention the entire episode keeping the whole town on edge wondering whether or not these freaks were going to get in a shootout.
Remember that this all started with an illegal "burn". While "protesters" didn't get prosecuted these "ranchers" did.
I have no problem with the prosecution and believe they all should be punished for their crimes.
I do have a problem with the fact that they had served the punishment decreed by the people and then the almighty government deciding it wasn't enough and sent them back to prison for the same crime they had already served time for. Double jeopardy without a trial by your peers is a violation of Amendments Xlll and
XlV. That should have been the fight instead of armed conflict by BOTH parties.
I have no problem with the prosecution and believe they all should be punished for their crimes.
I do have a problem with the fact that they had served the punishment decreed by the people and then the almighty government deciding it wasn't enough and sent them back to prison for the same crime they had already served time for. Double jeopardy without a trial by your peers is a violation of Amendments Xlll and
XlV. That should have been the fight instead of armed conflict by BOTH parties.
it was not double jeopardy. i think this was discussed (by earle and others) earlier in this thread.
Yes, I actually asked Earle about that. He was kind enough to explain it to me, which I agree with his summation.
New Posts
-
SIAP there was an article that Joe K interviewed for assistant coach
- Latest: mlingerfelt31
-
-
-
-
-
Latest threads
-
SIAP there was an article that Joe K interviewed for assistant coach
- Started by mlingerfelt31
- Replies: 5
-
Final Home Midweek for Alabama Brings Samford to The Joe- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
-
