It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Oregon Sheriff Accuses Armed Protesters of Intimidation, Harassment by TIM STELLOH

page: 2
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 12 2016 @ 12:02 PM
link   
It seems to me the occupiers have become exactly what they are protesting against. Any credibility they may have had in the beginning is being lost,imo. Had they not acted by illegally taking over (same thing they accuse the govt of) and intimidated people...just their presence can be intimidating to locals, they might have a better chance of making progress.

Could be all the govt has to do is wait for the locals to run them out of town.




posted on Jan, 12 2016 @ 12:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic




My viewpoint is that we live in a country of laws. That's how a society functions. These people are breaking several laws. They should have to face the justice system just as any other citizen would (and does, every day). My viewpoint is neither backwards nor forward. It is my viewpoint.


Would you say the same about what Rosa Parks did on that bus?



posted on Jan, 12 2016 @ 12:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t




This isn't a philosophy discussion. It's a discussion on the rhetoric used by these people (who happen to be heavily armed)


and yet you made it one by taking the leap that saying they are willing to die for something , immediately makes them extremist.




It's hard to compare a riot to a protest like this, but it's not like arrests weren't made and they DEFINITELY had riot equipment deployed to stop them.


especially when they have not been violent or destroyed anything other than moving a few fences, yet again people are advocating for a full on tactical force against these people which would surely lead to much much worse.





It's more than just that though. It's the fact that they are heavily armed, some are actual veterans of the first Bundy standoff, and what they are doing is highly illegal.


And the actions taken by the rioters and protesters destroying police property, setting fire to buildings, stealing things causing physical violence, were also highly illegal, yes arrests were made, most after the fact, but we didnt hear left end of the spectrum calling for intervention the same that they are with these men.

I try to stay neutral but its really plain to see whats going on here, the main difference being that these men are armed and the left side views that since they have guns, they are crazies.

Nevermind the fact that they havent acted crazy or violent what so ever. And on numerous occasions have engaged in civil discourse and negotiations without violence.

its the typical stereotype=irrational overreaction scenario and its nonsensical , it does however point the glaring hypocrisy by some on the left end of things.

Hell im voting Sanders and even I can see the blatant hypocrisy on this by people who are going to be voting with me, its sickening really

Its funny I hear one side from my boyfriend whose a conservative and another from my side, really gives you some different perspectives

Love Love,
AlienSupernova


edit on 12-1-2016 by AlienSupernova because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2016 @ 12:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
Would you say the same about what Rosa Parks did on that bus?


Rosa Parks was not sitting in the bus with rifles aimed at the bus driver, daring him to make her move.

The fact that you would, in ANY way, equate a person fighting for their equal rights against a system that was rife with racist laws... well, it doesn't amaze me at all, to tell you the truth.



posted on Jan, 12 2016 @ 01:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic




Rosa Parks was not sitting in the bus with rifles aimed at the bus driver, daring him to make her move.

The fact that you would, in ANY way, equate a person fighting for their equal rights against a system that was rife with racist laws... well, it doesn't amaze me at all, to tell you the truth.


It doesn't surprise me that you would hold your "it's against the law" principle to people you disapprove of, but not to others.



posted on Jan, 12 2016 @ 01:08 PM
link   
a reply to: ReadLeader

You saw this right?



Oregon Victory – Judge and 2 US Marshals in Route to Restore Constitutional Rule of Law
BY VOICE OF REASON · TUESDAY, JANUARY 12TH, 2016


thelastgreatstand.com...



posted on Jan, 12 2016 @ 01:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: AlienSupernova
a reply to: Krazysh0t
And the actions taken by the rioters and protesters destroying police property, setting fire to buildings, stealing things causing physical violence, were also highly illegal, yes arrests were made, most after the fact, but we didnt hear left end of the spectrum calling for intervention the same that they are with these men.


Completely different circumstances though.


I try to stay neutral but its really plain to see whats going on here, the main difference being that these men are armed and the left side views that since they have guns, they are crazies.

Nevermind the fact that they havent acted crazy or violent what so ever. And on numerous occasions have engaged in civil discourse and negotiations without violence.

its the typical stereotype=irrational overreaction scenario and its nonsensical , it does however point the glaring hypocrisy by some on the left end of things.


Illegally taking over a wildlife refugee with guns and a willingness to die for your beliefs is pretty damn crazy in my book.


Hell im voting Sanders and even I can see the blatant hypocrisy on this by people who are going to be voting with me, its sickening really

Its funny I hear one side from my boyfriend whose a conservative and another from my side, really gives you some different perspectives

Love Love,
AlienSupernova



If you say so. I see the things you are comparing to be apples and oranges.

I live in Baltimore. I know EXACTLY what happened here, what was called for, and if the response was the correct one. The mayor actually took a stance of backing off with the protesters and not hitting them with heavy handed tactics which caused the debacle in Ferguson (you might recognize this is as the same tactic currently being used in Oregon). As a result the riots lasted far less than they would have if they hit them as hard as they could.

One more thing. I really have no cares about WHAT they do with these idiots in Oregon anymore. Let them sit in the cold and freeze for all I care, at this point. No one in the country cares about their cause anyways and most think they are just idiots.
edit on 12-1-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2016 @ 01:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t




Illegally taking over a wildlife refugee with guns and a willingness to die for your beliefs is pretty damn crazy in my book.


youre trying to change the narrative here a bit by suggesting that they busted in with guns, making it sound like something its not......

yes they had guns but this BLM building is in the middle of no where, and as far as im aware there wasnt even anyone that was ousted from the premises, they are just occupying the building.......more like squatters than an armed rebellion coming in guns drawn and kicking people out, like youre trying to make it out as.



posted on Jan, 12 2016 @ 01:47 PM
link   
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Sure. let's go with that. As I just said in another thread, at this point after all is said and done, I just hope they are in jail. If they want to freeze in the cold protesting their cause that no one in the country cares about, let them. Though once they leave, there better be charges being levied against them.



posted on Jan, 12 2016 @ 01:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
It doesn't surprise me that you would hold your "it's against the law" principle to people you disapprove of, but not to others.


Rosa Parks was ARRESTED for breaking the law. These people should be, too. That's all I'm saying.

www.archives.gov...
edit on 1/12/2016 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2016 @ 01:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Sure. let's go with that. As I just said in another thread, at this point after all is said and done, I just hope they are in jail. If they want to freeze in the cold protesting their cause that no one in the country cares about, let them. Though once they leave, there better be charges being levied against them.


Im sure there will be, I cant imagine that they wont have to stand for breaking the law in that aspect, especially if they are expecting the law to change and be just in relation to some of the things the BLM is doing

but i could be wrong



posted on Jan, 12 2016 @ 01:59 PM
link   
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

I'm not so sure. The perpetrators of last years' Bundy standoff are still walking free and no charges have been brought down on them for that craziness. Heck some are even in Oregon right now.
edit on 12-1-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2016 @ 02:07 PM
link   
a reply to: AlienSupernova

You know when it all goes down there will be people defending the right of the USgov to send people to the fema camps. Like the Gladiator games, the Christians to the Lions and the like.



posted on Jan, 12 2016 @ 03:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic
Rosa Parks broke the law. By your words,


My viewpoint is that we live in a country of laws.

she should have been jailed rather than becoming a heroine for her actions.

Same with Rev. King when he held marches without getting all the required permits!

The Cherokee Nation tried to do things the legal way, taking their case all the way to the Supreme Court, where they won. So how did they end up being marched by the military all the way to Oklahoma?

My great-great grandmother broke the laws against teaching slaves to read, write and cipher. A real outlaw that one!



posted on Jan, 12 2016 @ 03:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t




It's hard to compare a riot to a protest like this,


Yep, difficult indeed since this isn't a riot, no vandalism, no setting of fires, just people saying they've had enough and need to bring their grievances to the light of day.
They say they are ready to die for freedom because they are. They have convictions.

But you want them in jail. I heard rhetoric like yours during the '60s civil rights marches. "Throw 'em in jail if they won't bend over and take it!" And indeed, many were jailed. Many were abused. Some were killed. Because they were willing to die for their convictions.



posted on Jan, 12 2016 @ 04:11 PM
link   
These narcissistic wannabe commandos are so typical as to be parodies of themselves, with camo clothing and open carry sidearms doing the tough guy strut in front of their adoring 'wimmin' while showing their children their undying "patriotism." Then, they walk around town worrying the locals with what they'll do next and playing at being hard and intimidating.
I see this as the Feds building a case all the while knowing that the invaders are angling for a fight. As a first step, I would wait until after they were relaxed and used to going into town and when a goodly number were bored and went to town, I would block vehicle access to the preserve with BFV's a few miles out. This will ensure that those who are in stay there and that those who are out stay out. As vehicles stopped at the road block, they would be handed subpoenas to show up in Federal court for cost recovery proceedings and sent home. This would be by confiscating their lands and personal property [including valuable gun collections] to auction off. This would happen on an individual basis which will isolate the invaders from each other and help pay for damages to the Federal property we all pay to maintain while also requiring them to show up near their homes. This would be option A. Should they refuse, option B would be criminal proceedings for trespass, damage to Federal property, and theft in addition to option A.

As to intimidation, sending in an Oregon National Guard tank platoon for maneuvers that end with tanks blocking the roads and with tubes pointed at the compound for a few hours might let those who remain inside taste a little of what they are dishing out.



posted on Jan, 12 2016 @ 04:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: diggindirt
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic
Rosa Parks broke the law. By your words, she should have been jailed rather than becoming a heroine for her actions.


She actually did go to jail. She was arrested and went through the legal system. This is just another time I'm calling for equal treatment under the law... Something I'm always harping about.


The law doesn't control who becomes a hero. The people do. The fact that Parks became a hero has NOTHING to do with law. Many think these whack-jobs in Oregon are heroes.

So... what's your point?



posted on Jan, 12 2016 @ 06:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

My point is that I truly thought we'd made a bit of progress on the "Throw 'em in jail if they have issues with bad laws." mentality.

One of every 110 people in the US today is either incarcerated or on parole. The cost per person incarcerated is about $30k/yr.



Judicial, police, and corrections costs totaled $212 billion in 2011 according to the U.S. Census Bureau.[176] In 2007, around $74 billion was spent on corrections according to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics.[174][175] In 2014, among facilities operated by the Federal Bureau of Prisons, the average cost of incarceration for federal inmates in fiscal year 2014 was $30,619.85. The average annual cost to confine an inmate in a residential re-entry center was $28,999.25.[177]

en.wikipedia.org...

Yet you want to add another two dozen or so to the prison rolls because you don't approve of their methods of having their complaints heard. They are using their 2nd Amendment rights to defend the 1st Amendment rights. Isn't that pretty much what the Founders had in mind?
Do you really believe that people must give up their 2nd Amendment rights in order to exercise their right to free speech and redress of grievances?

Now, you want to address the issue of how the Cherokees did the right thing, had their issues addressed legally and were still marched across the country by the military?

You want to address all the folks who have been imprisoned on the say of federal agents who lie and all the "altered" lab reports for three decades? www.nationofchange.org...

You want to address how one citizen or every half a dozen citizens can legally oppose the entire resources of the federal government?



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 08:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: diggindirt
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

My point is that I truly thought we'd made a bit of progress on the "Throw 'em in jail if they have issues with bad laws." mentality.


Maybe the problem is that you're assuming that that is my mentality... If you look over my posts in this thread, I have said that they should "be held accountable to the law", "I want to see it end peacefully", "They should have to face the justice system just as any other citizen would", and "They should be arrested".

Now, where did I say they should be thrown in jail???



Yet you want to add another two dozen or so to the prison rolls


Yep. You're assuming, all right.



You want to address all the folks who have been imprisoned on the say of federal agents who lie and all the "altered" lab reports for three decades?


If this were a thread about prison reform, I'd be right there with you! You have no idea how I feel about prison reform! Yet all your assumptions have led you to pigeonhole me and think you have me all figured out... You've taken my position to the extreme, thinking I want to throw everyone in jail! Give me a break!



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 07:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic
So you don't want them to go to jail, just be arrested for federal offenses so they can pay lawyers to plead their case against a government that can change its mind about how severe punishment should be for imagined crimes.
I do sincerely hope that you never have the power of the feds brought down on you.
You're upset because they are armed? Seriously? Don't you know that the 2nd amendment was put there to protect the 1st amendment?
Nobody is trying to "overthrow" the government. They are attempting to have their grievances heard. It's not a sound bite issue despite what msm talking heads are telling you.
You speak of violence, vandalism and intimidation. The first two haven't happened and it's long past time for citizens to stand up and intimidate the tyrants in government---all the branches. It seems to me that setting fire to the range with cattle in a corral is the violence that has occurred and it wasn't the ranchers who were out intentionally killing livestock.
This is about the tyranny of government agencies. Part of that tyranny is shown by the fact that those agencies have been forced to admit that they have given false testimony---as they did in the Hammonds case. It's not about prison reform it's about making government live by the law. Perjury is perjury whether it is concerning who had sex with whom or about private property rights.
I'm truly sorry that you can't seem to understand that these folks are no different than the ones who marched for civil rights in the '60s. I heard the very same arguments made against them back then as you are making now.




top topics



 
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join