Oregon Occupation: Man on Way to Join Bundys Threatens to Kill Officers on Camera

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: LSU0408

I'd side with the police here regardless of where his ultimate destination. He was an idiot and driving drunk. There is nothing to hold against the police. Heck, they even maintained restraint after he started getting out of hand.

Let's pretend that he wasn't heading to Oregon. Do you disagree with anything the police did here?

I don't disagree with anything they did, period. The cops did exactly what they were supposed to do, as they always do.

a reply to: LSU0408

No one is disagreeing with what the police did or how crazy this man is.

The the thing is he tried to tie this to the protestors or militia group and put responsibility off on them in an attempt to make them look bad when in fact this guy is just a nut and has nothing to do with them really.

It also doesn't represent the macro cosm of support for them either.

That's what this poster doesn't understand and it won't be accepted.

a reply to: LSU0408

And I did too. The police did everything correct in this situation. I'm also glad that is one less yahoo who is going to be taking up space at that nature preserve.

Closed for Staff review.

Reopened -

Any further tit for tat will result in posting bans so be forewarned. If you can't get along or stay on topic I suggest you move on to a different topic.

Do not reply to this post.

Blaine91555
Moderator

Silver lining for the country is that the longer the keystone militia fumbles about the more right wing christian nuts it brings out of the bush & into the light for treatment.

There's a whole lot of crazy in this country, lets hope this flushes more of them out before they can do any real harm.

That & just imagine the intel goldmine this must be, what with all the twitter chatter, net & phone traffic.
Bonanza!

K~

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
Also, I can't help noticing how calm the law enforcement were when arresting him. Dude repeatedly threatened to kill them, to shoot them, to get out of jail & shoot them, and that he wouldn't kill state troopers but he'd kill the police. Yet in the video, they treated it almost like a joke. I'm glad they didn't shoot him, but I also don't see how anyone can claim LEOs treat everyone the same. Because if that were me, I'd be dead or beat down. Oh well, that's for another conversation.

This is by far the funniest part of this whole standoff. The extremists want SOOO badly for the police to come in and do a Waco so that they can effectively martyr themselves. Meanwhile the police are like, "meh, we'll let them run out of steam first then round them up." Clearly this mentality has extended to this guy as well.

How can you demonize the police and the government when they act more maturely than you do?

I agree. I actually prefer this method of policing over the cowboy, beat-up-or-shoot-if-they-don't-comply-fast-enough crap. Lethal force should be a last resort. But I also think the guys in Oregon should have the power shut off, and be barred from coming & going into town. Then again, I think they have/had women & kids there. I think the Feds are waiting with them because they're building individual cases against each member (or it's a psyop mission, lol).

a reply to: aethertek

Chairman Mao had a policy called the "100 Flower Campaign". Basically, it did exactly as you just posted. He allowed open dissent & for activists to organize against his policies. Then a year later, he crushed them & had the people who spoke up or joined imprisoned, "reeducated" or worse. (The 100 flowers were supposed to represent the various grassroots groups that would grow and flourish.)

It's also similar to one of the "Honeypot" techniques. The most famous "honeypot" deals with getting an agent or asset to seduce a target. But the most effective & probably least known "honeypot" technique deals with setting up an organization & attracting like minded individuals to it. That makes it easier to keep tabs on people with those views. Some notable examples are when law enforcement, intelligence agencies, and/or defense contractors run "dark net" or "underground" websites or services.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Indigo5

Yea, that was pointed out earlier in the thread. Though I think it was later pointed out that they aren't the same guy.

It's him. Same hometown and name and age etc..

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: LSU0408

No one is disagreeing with what the police did or how crazy this man is.

The the thing is he tried to tie this to the protestors or militia group and put responsibility off on them in an attempt to make them look bad when in fact this guy is just a nut and has nothing to do with them really.

I would say since the militia has publicly called for people of the anti-government mindset to come join them...this man responding to the call is precisely relevant to the militia and yes the militia is responsible for those that come to join them, because they have loudly and repeatedly called for anti-government militants to do just that.

This is also the precise reason the town wants the militia gone...

a reply to: enlightenedservant

Yea, they should totally turn the power off on them. And this nonsense about letting them come and go has got to stop. It's not a vacation. It's an illegal occupation. Having children with them is one thing, but having women with them doesn't make me want to be more lenient. Women can be just as big of troublemakers as men and giving sympathy to them just because they are women will get you into trouble.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yea, they should totally turn the power off on them. And this nonsense about letting them come and go has got to stop. It's not a vacation. It's an illegal occupation. Having children with them is one thing, but having women with them doesn't make me want to be more lenient. Women can be just as big of troublemakers as men and giving sympathy to them just because they are women will get you into trouble.

Strange, but inevitable turn of events. It will be interesting to find out how this turns out.

I'm not usually one for comparing this to any other movement, but their occupation is not much different than the Occupy Wall Street protest in its legalities. Would you think that a fair assessment?

originally posted by: TheTory

I'm not usually one for comparing this to any other movement, but their occupation is not much different than the Occupy Wall Street protest in its legalities. Would you think that a fair assessment?

The Occupy people didn't have guns.

originally posted by: TheTory
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yea, they should totally turn the power off on them. And this nonsense about letting them come and go has got to stop. It's not a vacation. It's an illegal occupation. Having children with them is one thing, but having women with them doesn't make me want to be more lenient. Women can be just as big of troublemakers as men and giving sympathy to them just because they are women will get you into trouble.

Strange, but inevitable turn of events. It will be interesting to find out how this turns out.

I'm not usually one for comparing this to any other movement, but their occupation is not much different than the Occupy Wall Street protest in its legalities. Would you think that a fair assessment?

The Bundy group took over the facilities so the actual workers couldn't go to work for weeks. Then the Bundy group commandeered the facilities, the government computers and the government cars that were still on site. They then removed the surveillance cameras on site and could freely go through the workers' desks, the office equipment, and everything else for weeks. And they had guns, with members repeatedly claiming they were ready to kill or be killed (the Bundy leader's brother & the tarp guy who got killed both said this). Oh yeah, and the townspeople, a close Native American tribe, and the state Governor all wanted them to leave. They cut down the fence on one rancher's land, and he claimed he knew nothing about it (and had his workers rebuild the fence).

The Occupy protesters were unarmed, stayed in the open areas like parks (instead of taking over actual places of business like the Bundys), and didn't commandeer any government vehicles or facilities. They were basically long term sit in protests, though the tactics varied (like building tent cities).

a reply to: enlightenedservant

Thanks cousin but I'm familiar with intel ops.
That's why I just have to laugh at these morans(sic), they don't have a clue.
Bunch of dumb-ass amateurs, couldn't militia their way out of a wet paper bag.

K~