The Citizens For Constitutional Freedom (OR standoff) Never Made Any Actual Verbal Threats

For any of you who care to respond:

You are a Park Ranger that lives on site at Tanner State Park in Carroll County Georgia as part of your duties.

I break into your cabin, armed with a pistol, while you are away for a holiday weekend while the park was closed. When you get back home Sunday night, you find me standing in the door barring your entrance, gun on my hip:

"I've taken over this residence as a citizen of the State of Georgia. I am one of nearly 6 million owners of this public facility, and intend to stay here for years while I study the local fauna and flora. I do not acknowledge that the State of Georgia or the Department of Natural Resources have any right keep me from doing so, as my ancestors lived upon and worked this land (I have, like every other Georgian, "Cherokee and Creek blood.") and I have prior claim to and jurisdiction as their natural descendant"

Quite rightly, you tell me to get out of the way, leave your cabin, and leave the Park as the time is outside of Operating Hours. You start to move toward me to pass me, and I stand in your way, now with my hand on my side arm.

"I don't think you want to do that Ranger ... I have established my claim, I'm making my stand, and I will defend myself if you try to dislodge me or force me to leave."

Tell me, in this scenario, am I making a threat? Am I being "civilly disobedient"? Am I protesting?

a reply to: TheBadCabbie

You know what I find contemptible? You crapping on my thread with a bunch of lengthy posts arguing for a point that was conceded in the OP! If I tell you the sky is blue, will you then say to me 'no it's not it's blue!!!' and then present to me a lengthy research paper proving the thing that I already stated as a given to start with?!?
Do you have any documentation of actual threats made by these people? Or did you just stop by to crap on my thread?

Sounds like you're looking for one-liners in agreement with your position? I'm just expressing my opinion — I don't know what you find so offensive about that — perhaps it's the lack of firearms? Maybe you need a safe space, free of opposing views that upset you?

At any rate, I believe I answered the question in one of my posts:

Nobody can deny that the purpose of being armed was anything but an implicit threat that any attempt to remove them would result in bloodshed.

Not all threats are communicated verbally. Consider the reaction of the four on the last night of the occupation.

1. Did anyone from the FBI threaten them verbally? I didn't hear it nor did I read anything about any threats from the FBI. Yet the four sure a shell seemed to feel threatened by the presence of armed men.

2. Furthermore, their own words on that night demonstrated that at least those who remained at the refuge were quite unhinged and were repeatedly saying that if the FBI didn't acquiesce to their demands to stay until the morning, they would have to kill them.

How isn't that a threat?

a reply to: Boadicea

It wasn't a way to force others to your will.

Ironically, that's exactly what the occupiers were doing. I don't know why anyone is debating this but you might care to take a listen to the words of the remaining occupiers on the last night.

"They'll have to kill us"

Why would the authorities have to kill them to take them into custody? Honestly, what do you think that means if not that they would use their weapons to keep the police from taking them into custody?

a reply to: Gryphon66

There were no employees at the reserve.

a reply to: theantediluvian

You're pretty smart. You know the answer. You know the difference between attacking and defending... offense and defense... push and pull. Pretending like there was no previous aggression on the part of the fed agencies, and that this action was not in direct response to that abuse of force and power is intellectually dishonest... and gives support and encouragement to the bullying feds. As long as those Occupiers were not hurting anyone, no one had the right to hurt them. Period. And they do in fact have every natural inalienable right to protect their life and the life of others from those who would harm them, not just including but especially thugs with guns and badges.

How about the authorities use words? Why did the feds refuse to negotiate in good faith with these people? Why did the feds use deadly force to stop these people from using their words? Why did the feds use deadly force to stop these people from attending a public meeting at which they were intending and prepared to offer their EXIT PLAN to the citizens and duly elected sheriff??? Because this was all about force and forcing others to their will up to and including deadly force at the point of a gun.

If you want to protect and applaud murder-by-cop, okay. I won't.

a reply to: greencmp

Barfing aside, I get the impression that you are a fan of double jeopardy and the use of anti-terror legislation against US citizens by a government that should not even possess the land in question.

Have you looked into any of this at all?

Of course I have. We might seldom agree but how often do you know me to have completely uninformed opinions or to not be at least marginally prepared to defend my positions?

There's three separate issues:

1. The prosecution of the Hammonds

I do not agree with mandatory minimum sentences at all so I have a problem with the AEDPA from the get go. As for the Hammonds being charged under the AEDPA, I absolutely do not agree with that either. That said, I do not believe the Hammonds are innocent. Testimony by Dusty Hammond completely contradicts the claims made by the elder Hammonds' defense that the fire was started to destroy invasive plants.

The 2006 fire is a slightly different matter in that I believe it's plausible that they were legitimately trying to prevent the spread of a wildfire into their land. However, BLM firefighters were already fighting the wildfire and if they are to be believed, the Hammonds endangered encamped firefighters and if Glasscock was telling the truth, Steven Hammond threatened to somehow "frame" the firefighters after the fact if there was an investigation. I didn't hear the testimony, I've only read parts of the transcript so it's a little difficult for me to say what I actually believe occurred in this situation.

2. Ownership/regulation of lands by the federal government.

I've read arguments on both sides and my opinion is that the federal government can in fact own land. Specifically, the land in western states acquired by the US through treaty and purchase (and forcible removal of indigenous people) was in the possession of the federal government at the point it became United States territory. So there's absolutely no argument that the federal government CAN own land. The question then is can the federal government own land inside of states. Once parcels of this territory became states, did the federal government loose ownership of the land? This is the crux of the "land grab debate." I refer you to an analysis here.

Take from it what you will. I don't expect that either of us will be changing our minds on this issue any time soon.

3. Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge

Do people have a right to armed occupation of publicly own buildings to express their grievances, however valid those grievances may or may not be? To this, I say, no. There is no Constitutional right protecting those activities.

This is really the issue at hand in this instance — not the Hammonds and not the transfer of public lands.

originally posted by: TheTory
a reply to: Gryphon66

There were no employees at the reserve.

Stunning.

And? ....

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: TheTory
a reply to: Gryphon66

There were no employees at the reserve.

Stunning.

And? ....

No park ranger is necessary in your analogy.

originally posted by: theantediluvian

Sounds like you're looking for one-liners in agreement with your position? I'm just expressing my opinion — I don't know what you find so offensive about that — perhaps it's the lack of firearms? Maybe you need a safe space, free of opposing views that upset you?

At any rate, I believe I answered the question in one of my posts:

No, what I'm looking for (and have yet to see) is actual evidence of actual threats that were made by the occupiers. It should be pretty easy, right? So where are the articles with the direct quotes? Where are the videos documenting all of this damning speech by the occupiers? I could care less about the supportive one liners. I actually started this thread expecting to be proved wrong pretty quickly and soundly. What I've gotten so far in attempted refutations is rhetoric supporting a point that I conceded in the OP, but none of the evidence that would disprove the claim I made in the original post. You can't find it, can you?

You've written the equivalent of a long essay so far, without providing the evidence requested. The evidence that would refute my claim, that The Citizens for Constitutional Freedom never made any threats. Looks like mainstream media distorted the facts again. Imagine that.

There are plenty of other threads where your posts would be interesting to read and perhaps respond to, but this is not the thread for that. Land use is an important issue, but I will not discuss it with you here, because it's off topic. The implied threat argument? Get it, conceded that some would see it that way in the OP. It's also off topic. The Hammonds case? Again, off topic.

My claim should be pretty easy to refute, and I'd like to see us get there (if we're going to) before we get to page 10. Really you're just helping to make my point by disseminating, in that you must respond with rhetoric instead of presenting evidence. Evidence that likely does not exist, if your behavior is any indication. There are plenty of people reading this. Don't you want to disprove my claims before they get tired of reading and decide I'm right?

a reply to: TheTory

Oh, you were addressing my little scenario? How subtle.

Fine, do so; is there threat from the non-Park Ranger, the person who has broken in and made armed demands?

a reply to: TheBadCabbie

The threat posed by the Bundy Gang occupiers has been demonstrated clearly and repeatedly in this thread and others.

First and foremost, they are armed while in commission of several crimes.

Second, they made it very clear that should anyone try to remove them from their illegal occupation they would be met with an armed response.

To resist the execution of law, i.e. resist arrest, with force of arms and a statement of violence is illegal (technically it aggravates the offenses of trespass, keeping Federal employee from their duties, et. al.) and is not "self-defense."

What are you looking for that will meet your requirements for "threat"?

a reply to: Gryphon66

As stated in the original post of this thread, let's see some video or direct quotes of the occupiers making actual verbal threats. Documentation of them pointing their weapons at LEO's would count too, I think. Laws were broken, threats were implied in your opinions, I understand that. That is acknowledged. I'm interested in clarifying the narrative. I want to see the evidence of verbal threats being made, because I think that mainstream media distorted the facts in this regard. Most likely just for the sake of being sensational, I'd guess. Manipulation of public opinion seems to have been another result of this, whether intentional or incidental.

We certainly saw plenty of headlines and articles stating that the occupiers had made threats, and had vowed never to be taken alive, etc. I'd like to see the quotes of them saying these things then. Do you understand the distinction I am making here, then?

a reply to: TheBadCabbie

Ah.

The video of Finicum's death is, to my knowledge the only one that shows evidence of the results of one of the Bundy Gang pointing (or attempting to point) a firearm at a LEO. That ended as expected, for obvious reasons.

What evidence would not be discounted as "mainstream media propaganda"? This makes your request almost impossible to fulfill, because, as we've seen here, everything that is not a Youtube militia propaganda video is "suspect."

You acknowledged that the Bundy Gang illegally seized the Malheur Refugge.

You acknowledged that they shut town normal operations and didn't intend to oblige requests from the local Sheriff or Federal employees who asked them to vacate peaceably.

You acknowledged that they were armed while doing so.

You acknowledged that they stated, in various recordings, that they would "defend" themselves from any attempt on the part of Federal officials, FBI, Oregon State Police and the Country Sheriff to dislodge them or bring them to justice.

Seems to me you've answered your own question.

Best.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I think that you have. You can't provide any direct quotes in print or video evidence of them making actual threats, can you? Not implied threats, actual threats. You can't do it, can you?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
You acknowledged that they stated, in various recordings, that they would "defend" themselves from any attempt on the part of Federal officials, FBI, Oregon State Police and the Country Sheriff to dislodge them or bring them to justice.

I would like to see evidence of this, if you can present it. I have not conceded this point. I am challenging the membership to provide such evidence, if they can.

originally posted by: TheBadCabbie
a reply to: Gryphon66

I think that you have. You can't provide any direct quotes in print or video evidence of them making actual threats, can you? Not implied threats, actual threats. You can't do it, can you?

Maybe I don't understand your understanding of what an "illegal act" is ...

The Bundy Gang broke into the Malfeur Refuge illegally. Do you dispute that?

The Bundy Gang took control of the Refuge illegally. Do you dispute that?

The Bundy Gang stated that if anyone tried to arrest them for illegal acts, they would defend themselves. Do you dispute that?

Are you saying that you believe that if armed criminals "defend" themselves from apprehension and arrest by law enforcement officers, that would be, in your mind "self-defense"?

I'm being honest. You seem to be begging the question. I don't get it.

originally posted by: TheBadCabbie

originally posted by: Gryphon66
You acknowledged that they stated, in various recordings, that they would "defend" themselves from any attempt on the part of Federal officials, FBI, Oregon State Police and the Country Sheriff to dislodge them or bring them to justice.

I would like to see evidence of this, if you can present it. I have not conceded this point. I am challenging the membership to provide such evidence, if they can.

Oregon Live - Militia Members Outline Their Plan

I'm not going to try to transcribe this ... unless you can't view the video.

a reply to: Gryphon66

It is also posted on Youtube, so I will embed it here. Yeah, Blaine Cooper? I guess, totally had his dork face on there. Pretty murky language, though. Sure, he compares the BLM to the school yard bully that you had to kick the crap out of...but it's a far cry from saying: 'We will kill or be killed', or 'you'll never take us alive, coppers!', or something like that. I appreciate the effort, though. Like I said, I expect to be proven wrong on this argument. I don't think this does it, but there's probably some more damning footage or direct quotes in print that will get posted eventually.

www.youtube.com...

a reply to: TheBadCabbie

Blaine Cooper was recently arrested. Wherever he lives? He'd fled the refuge with a whole bunch of other people when they found out about the "ambush" and LaVoy's death. A lot of people were asking, "Where's Blaine Cooper?," after Jan. 26th. He finally surfaced after a number of days, the number of which I don't know. I listened to part of an interview he did with someone after he reappeared because I didn't know much about him but felt bored so clicked out of it.

a reply to: Gryphon66

That pretty much spells out the original plan and that's why so many people who could understand their cause could not support their plan.

I repeatedly came across the statement that someone gave them the keys to the refuge. Did anyone ever find out who it was?