Protesters including children mauled by attack dogs let loose by private merc's

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: poncho1982

do you even realize how illogical that sounded?

Actually, no.

Why don't you fill us in.

They could not exactly go out there and dig for evidence when they don't own the land anymore. (remember, this land was taken from them in one of the many shady "treaties" the US Government forced upon many Tribes)

So, I reverse the question, do you even know how illogical YOU sound?

a reply to: poncho1982

The court papers claim they did exactly that. The papers claim that on Friday Sep 2nd they found an ancient burial site right where the protest would be happening. They provided no physical evidence of such a site, only a hearsay statement.

They also have had months to make such a claim in the courts and they NEVER have. I am baffled how you are not understanding what they have done here. They have lied in court papers in such a way that someone cold just say "oh, I guess I overheard wrong".

You also keep claiming they suddenly decided to work on a weekend, yet apparently this work was scheduled in advance. You sound illogical because you are making up entire swaths of information to circle around the facts.

Still no comment from Rez: Cite the time stamp of a woman being thrown down. Comment on the fact that no dogs were lose in the video except when the guard was sucker punched. Comment on the fake mace victim. Comment on the fake dog bite victim. Comment on the dogs being viciously attacked.

a reply to: raymundoko

As I said all along the judge ruled against the tribe. Their paperwork was total bull#.

Lying is not the way to garner support.

Again, the original lawsuit claims that the river crossing will affect the water of the reservation. No claim has been made previously in court of having proof of burial sites.

a reply to: RainbowPhoenix

is this type of tactic legal?
if so, what permit do you need to allow a trained attack dog to bite and maul civilians?

if the protesters are breaking the law for being there, then why aren't they all arrested?

this is such a crazy story.

a reply to: subfab

Considering nobody got bit or mauled I would say it was totally legal...

An authority (a federal judge) has ruled against the protestors.
The protestors, being only protestors when they are protesting,
must respect the findings of the court the same as any other
protestors.

If they think they can defy any judge in this land they are sadly delusional.

I just want everyone to know also, that I very much hated having to write that.

a reply to: subfab

I believe it's legal to keep guard dogs on your own property. Have you watched the video? Those supporting the protesters seem to be really twisting the facts.

a reply to: randyvs

But there is this!

www.justice.gov...

Lets hope they keep their word, this is good news. Despite what the judge ruled, logic prevailed.

originally posted by: poncho1982
How can they provide evidence, when the land was taken from them YEARS ago?

How can they provide evidence when they filed a motion to stop construction, and then they proceed anyway, possibly destroying any evidence?

The whole point of the filing was to stop them so they could determine what was and was not a sacred site.

This pipeline process started over 2 years ago. They had plenty of time to request exploratory excavations in areas of concern.

It would appear that this wasn't 'sacred land' until it suited a current purpose.

originally posted by: poncho1982
Lets hope they keep their word, this is good news. Despite what the judge ruled, logic prevailed.

Why would you expect them to keep their word? With this document, they just broke their word to others.

It is called placation.

Good news. We know there's nothing more shady than our Big Oil and Coal companies. It's been that way for over a Century going back all the way to when Rockefeller had his way with whatever they want.

a reply to: poncho1982

Just so you are aware of my motivations on this, one of my competitors is losing money every day that this farce continues.

So, I really don't mind...

But, there is certainly no 'righteous side', just greedy vs greedy. dressed up as corporate vs the little guy.

a reply to: peck420

You don't know the half of what's going on up there. I was privy to some video calls to the people involved, so I know the scope of the issue, and what people don't realize is this was so important to the Sioux and the rest of the Native Peoples supporting them that they were willing to die for it. That's why the Government caved despite the Judges ruling. They didn't want Wounded Knee all over again. Bad PR.

Tribes from Canada, and all over this country were there. This was a big deal and has been going on for as long as the pipeline was planned to cross this land. They had no issue with it when it was supposed to cross the Missouri River north of Bismark, ND. It wasn't until that plan changed, and they found out the land they were going to cross/destroy that this started to blow up.

originally posted by: poncho1982
a reply to: peck420

You don't know the half of what's going on up there. I was privy to some video calls to the people involved, so I know the scope of the issue, and what people don't realize is this was so important to the Sioux and the rest of the Native Peoples supporting them that they were willing to die for it. That's why the Government caved despite the Judges ruling. They didn't want Wounded Knee all over again. Bad PR.

Tribes from Canada, and all over this country were there. This was a big deal and has been going on for as long as the pipeline was planned to cross this land. They had no issue with it when it was supposed to cross the Missouri River north of Bismark, ND. It wasn't until that plan changed, and they found out the land they were going to cross/destroy that this started to blow up.

I've been digging into this too. This is just the tip of the Iceberg. There are some real hardcore activists up in Canada itself working to stop pipelines up there. NO media coverage though.

a reply to: amazing

They were also gathering at the source of this pipeline.

This was definitely not a one location thing.

a reply to: poncho1982

Oh, you've been privy to calls? Were they on a toy phone? Because it's overly obvious you have zero clue what's going on...

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: poncho1982

Oh, you've been privy to calls? Were they on a toy phone? Because it's overly obvious you have zero clue what's going on...

Thanks for that, but I think we all know it's painfully obvious that it's YOU who has zero clues about the reality of this situation.

But, go on with your drivel.

a reply to: poncho1982

I have shown that I know more about what happened the day of violence (Saturday). I have shown I know more about the court case initially filed and the BS paperwork filed the Friday before this took place. Unlike you, I've been following this since it started. Unfortunately everything done so far by both construction crews and the US government has been completely Legal and on the up and up. Even this "changed schedule" of work on Saturday was apparently known about ALL WEEK prior to them working on Saturday. So this whole narrative of "they swooped in to destroy evidence" is just more confused lies by people like you who did not understand that the paperwork filed in the courts was total BS.

You and Rez have still not commented on the points I brought up about the videos. You ignore them each time they are brought up.

a reply to: raymundoko

Keep telling yourself that.

a reply to: raymundoko

Yeah, when things are said that contradict available evidence, I become hyperskeptical of things that don't have evidence. That comment was childish and beneath you though. You could have responded with a lot more substance and class back there.