If Salon could understand this then they wouldn’t be Salon, would they?

Armed white men seize a federal building. The government stands down carefully. But a 12-year-old with a toy gun?

Armed, armed there is doing a lot of work. And in fact they’re “well armed”.

Which is why Second Amendment, militias and all the rest. Being well armed means the government has to shut the fuck up and listen to you instead of just crushing you like a bug.

58 thoughts on “If Salon could understand this then they wouldn’t be Salon, would they?”

  1. Also, they probably haven’t stood in the middle of the street, pointing their guns at cops and forcing them to make a split-second decision about whether to risk getting killed or not.

    Unlike that adorable little ragamuffin who would no doubt have grown up to be a rocket scientist.

  2. Also Obummer is trying out his gun control by fiat moves.

    The LAST thing the Fedscum are going to do is stage a massacre–esp an Alamo-type scenario–at the present. They will keep their heads down. The building occupied was empty so there is no excuse for them to act quickly.

  3. “They’d be killed if they were black”

    And ‘Salon’ would be cheering them on if they were black, rather than trashing them.

  4. You know I was almost, not quite but almost, ready to get on board till I saw that it’s the idiot sons of the idiot Bundy. A man so dense he doesn’t seem to have realised that Clive is spelt Clive not Cliven.

    I can imagine guns are jolly good things – go out to a shooting range and blast the fuck out of the targets. Splendid. Likewise, if I lived in some dodgy US hellhole, I wouldn’t mind having a pistol in easy reach.

    But these flabby fucks who hang around outside courthouses, covered in rifles and army surplus webbing are dribblers. I hope the God Emperor Obama sends in his legion of black helicopters to disappear them to the secret Fema death camps.

  5. Waco indeed !

    The Bolshies attacked the Winter Palace, the Irish the main Post Office

    They did this because the idea is that you occupy something the other side want to get back

    Occupying a shed in a park doesn’t seem to fit into this category, what’s even funnier is that they didn’t storm
    the building as they found a set of keys which I assume we’re under the front door mat

    This doesn’t seem to point to the building being critical

  6. Toy gun?

    Let’s check what Wikipedia has to say about that:-

    “Rice’s gun was later found to be an Airsoft replica that lacked the orange safety feature marking it as a replica and not a true firearm.”

    Which as far as the police are concerned, makes it a gun. The orange safety feature being a way for the police to spot, easily, a toy gun. He then walked around with this gun that doesn’t look like a toy, pretending to shoot it, which is why the neighbours called. And when the police draw up, reaches for it.

    It’s a tragic situation. But it sounds far more “Darwin Award” territory than “police racism”. No-one except SJWs is outraged by it.

  7. Dan: Piss up your leg and play with the steam.

    Bundy is worth a thousand like you. The state shits on and robs us all but there are only a few with the balls to do something about it despite the immense risk in confronting brazen killers. Risk to himself and his family. And some turd like you sneers.

  8. Nah, Bundys a loon who can’t spell his name right.

    His sons are making Their Stand to protest about some wankers who fired 140 acres of land to hide the fact they’d been hunting out of season and needed to torch the evidence. HEROES one and all.

    Looking forward to the bit of the film where the SWAT team make their dramatic entrance swooping down on those helicopter rope things, and whoosh bang, GO GO GO, ROOM CLEAR.

  9. @The Stigler:

    Naive question, but have any crims stuck an orange doofer onto a real gun to try to get past the cops? Just wondering how effective it is as a safety measure.

  10. Naive question, but have any crims stuck an orange doofer onto a real gun to try to get past the cops? Just wondering how effective it is as a safety measure.

    I’ve argued this for ages – it doesn’t seem much of a safety feature when viewed the other way does it…?

  11. Dan – why bother? The building wasn’t in use anyway.

    Here’s what I’d do: secure the perimeter, cut off power and water, stop anybody heading in to give them food.

    The problem would solve itself in a few days, no unpleasantness or potential shootout required.

    GlenDorran – I’m going to try to use the word “doofer” in conversations now.

  12. Steve:

    My New Year’s Resolution is to use the insult “hoofwanking bunglecunt” at every opportunity. (Hattip to Brian Spanner for that one)

  13. The occupation of the building is a protest against the Federals antics in the case of the Hammond family–as detailed below:

    “Hammond Family Facts & Events

    (aa) The Harney Basin (where the Hammond ranch is established) was settled in the 1870’s. The valley was settled by multiple ranchers and was known to have run over 300,000 head of cattle. These ranchers developed a state of the art irrigated system to water the meadows, and it soon became a favorite stopping place for migrating birds on their annual trek north.

    (ab) In 1908 President Theodor Roosevelt, in a political scheme, create an “Indian reservation” around the Malheur, Mud & Harney Lakes and declared it “as a preserve and breeding ground for native birds”. Later this “Indian reservation” (without Indians) became the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.

    (a) In 1964 the Hammonds purchased their ranch in the Harney Basin. The purchase included approximately 6000 acres of private property, 4 grazing rights on public land, a small ranch house and 3 water rights. The ranch is around 53 miles South of Burns, Oregon.

    (a1) By the 1970’s nearly all the ranches adjacent to the Blitzen Valley were purchased by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and added to the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. The refuge covers over 187,000 acres and stretches over 45 miles long and 37 miles wide. The expansion of the refuge grew and surrounds to the Hammond’s ranch. Being approached many times by the FWS, the Hammonds refused to sell. Other ranchers also choose not to sell.

    (a2) During the 1970’s the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), in conjunction with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), took a different approach to get the ranchers to sell. Ranchers were told that, “grazing was detrimental to wildlife and must be reduced”. 32 out of 53 permits were revoked and many ranchers were forced to leave. Grazing fees were raised significantly for those who were allowed to remain. Refuge personnel took over the irrigation system claiming it as their own.

    (a3) By 1980 a conflict was well on its way over water allocations on the adjacent privately owned Silvies Plain. The FWS wanted to acquire the ranch lands on the Silvies Plain to add to their already vast holdings. Refuge personnel intentional diverted the water to bypassing the vast meadowlands, directing the water into the rising Malheur Lakes. Within a few short years the surface area of the lakes doubled. Thirty-one ranches on the Silvies plains were flooded. Homes, corrals, barns and graze-land were washed a way and destroyed. The ranchers that once fought to keep the FWS from taking their land, now broke and destroyed, begged the FWS to acquire their useless ranches. In 1989 the waters began to recede and now the once thriving privately owned Silvies pains are a proud part of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge claimed by the FWS.

    (a4) By the 1990’s the Hammonds were one of the very few ranchers that still owned private property adjacent to the refuge. Susie Hammond in an effort to make sense of what was going on began compiling fact about the refuge. In a hidden public record she found a study that was done by the FWS in 1975. The study showed that the “no use” policies of the FWS on the refuge were causing the wildlife to leave the refuge and move to private property. The study showed that the private property adjacent to the Malheur Wildlife Refuge produced 4 times more ducks and geese than the refuge did. It also showed that the migrating birds were 13 times more likely to land on private property than on the refuge. When Susie brought this to the attention of the FWS and refuge personnel, her and her family became the subjects of a long train of abuses and corruptions.

    (b) In the early 1990’s the Hammonds filed on a livestock water source and obtained a deed for the water right from the State of Oregon. When the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) found out that the Hammonds obtained new water rights near the Malhuer Wildlife Refuge, they were agitated and became belligerent and vindictive towards the Hammonds. The US Fish and Wildlife Service challenged the Hammonds right to the water in an Oregon State Circuit Court. The court found that the Hammonds legally obtained rights to the water in accordance to State law and therefore the use of the water belongs to the Hammonds.*

    (c) In August 1994 the BLM & FWS illegally began building a fence around the Hammonds water source. Owning the water rights and knowing that their cattle relied on that water source daily the Hammonds tried to stop the building of the fence. The BLM & FWS called the Harney County Sheriff department and had Dwight Hammond (Father) arrested and charged with “disturbing and interfering with” federal officials or federal contractors (two counts, each a felony). He spent one night in the Deschutes County Jail in Bend, and a second night behind bars in Portland before he was hauled before a federal magistrate and released without bail. A hearing on the charges was postponed and the federal judge never set another date.

    (d) The FWS also began restricting access to upper pieces of the Hammond’s private property. In order to get to the upper part of the Hammond’s ranch they had to go on a road that went through the Malhuer Wildlife Refuge. The FWS began barricading the road and threatening the Hammonds if they drove through it. The Hammonds removed the barricades and gates and continued to use their right of access. The road was proven later to be owned by the County of Harney. This further enraged the BLM & FWS.

    (e) Shortly after the road & water disputes, the BLM & FWS arbitrarily revoked the Hammond’s upper grazing permit without any given cause, court proceeding or court ruling. As a traditional “fence out state” Oregon requires no obligation on the part of an owner to keep his or her livestock within a fence or to maintain control over the movement of the livestock. The Hammonds intended to still use their private property for grazing. However, they were informed that a federal judge ruled, in a federal court, that the federal government did not have to observe the Oregon fence out law. “Those laws are for the people, not for them”.

    (f) The Hammonds were forced to either build and maintain miles of fences or be restricted from the use of their private property. Cutting their ranch in almost half, they could not afford to fence the land, so the cattle were removed.

    Dwight Hammond (Father)

    (g) The Hammonds experienced many years of financial hardship due to the ranch being diminished. The Hammonds had to sale their ranch and home in order to purchase another property that had enough grass to feed their cattle. This property included two grazing rights on public land. Those were also arbitrarily revoked later.

    (h) The owner of the Hammond’s original ranch passed away from a heart attack and the Hammonds made a trade for the ranch back.

    (i) In the early fall of 2001, Steven Hammond (Son) called the fire department, informing them that he was going to be performing a routine prescribed burn on their ranch. Later that day he started a prescribed fire on their private property. The fire went onto public land and burned 127 acres of grass. The Hammonds put the fire out themselves. There was no communication about the burn from the federal government to the Hammonds at that time. Prescribed fires are a common method that Native Americans and ranchers have used in the area to increase the health & productivity of the land for many centuries.

    (j) In 2006 a massive lightning storm started multiple fires that joined together inflaming the countryside. To prevent the fire from destroying their winter range and possibly their home, Steven Hammond (Son) started a backfire on their private property. The backfire was successful in putting out the lightning fires that had covered thousands of acres within a short period of time. The backfire saved much of the range and vegetation needed to feed the cattle through the winter. Steven’s mother, Susan Hammond said: “The backfire worked perfectly, it put out the fire, saved the range and possibly our home”.

    (j1) The next day federal agents went to the Harney County Sheriff’s office and filled a police report making accusation against Dwight and Steven Hammond for starting the backfire. A few days after the backfire a Range-Con from the Burns District BLM office asked Steven if he would meet him in town (Frenchglen) for coffee. Steven accepted. When leaving he was arrested by the Harney County Sheriff Dave Glerup and BLM Ranger Orr. Sheriff Glerup then ordered him to go to the ranch and bring back his father. Both Dwight and Steven were booked and on multiple Oregon State charges. The Harney County District Attorney reviewed the accusation, evidence and charges, and determined that the accusations against Dwight & Steven Hammond did not warrant prosecution and dropped all the charges.

    Steven Hammond (Son)

    (k) In 2011, 5 years after the police report was taken, the U.S. Attorney Office accused Dwight and Steven Hammond of completely different charges, they accused them of being “Terrorist” under the Federal Antiterrorism Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. This act carries a minimum sentence of five years in prison and a maximum sentence of death. Dwight & Steven’s mug shots were all over the news the next week posing them as “Arsonists”. Susan Hammond (Wife & Mother) said: “I would walk down the street or go in a store, people I had known for years would take extreme measures to avoid me”.

    (l) Shortly after the sentencing, Capital Press ran a story about the Hammonds. A person who identified as Greg Allum posted three comments on the article, calling the ranchers “clowns” who endangered firefighters and other people in the area while burning valuable rangeland. Greg Allum, a retired BLM heavy equipment operator, soon called Capital Press to complain that he had not made those comments and request that they be taken down from the website. Capital Press removed the comments. A search of the Internet Protocol address associated with the comments revealed it is owned by the BLM’s office in Denver, Colorado. Allum said, he is friends with the Hammonds and was alerted to the comments by neighbors who knew he wouldn’t have written them. “I feel bad for them. They lost a lot and they’re going to lose more,” Allum said of the ranchers. “They’re not terrorists. There’s this hatred in the BLM for them, and I don’t get it,” The retired BLM employee said. Jody Weil, deputy state director for communications at BLM’s Oregon office, indicated to reporters that if one of their agents falsified the comments, they would keep it private and not inform the public.

    (m) In September 2006, Dwight & Susan Hammond’s home was raided. The agents informed the Hammonds that they were looking for evidence that would connect them to the fires. The Hammonds later found out that a boot print and a tire tracks were found near one of the many fires. No matching boots or tires were found in the Hammonds home or on their property. Susan Hammond (Wife) later said; ” I have never felt so violated in my life. We are ranchers not criminals”. Steven Hammond openly maintains his testimony that he started the backfire to save the winter grass from being destroyed and that the backfire ended up working so well it put out the fire entirely altogether.

    (n) During the trial proceedings, Federal Court Judge Michael Hogan did not allow time for certain testimonies and evidence into the trail that would exonerate the Hammonds. Federal prosecuting attorney, Frank Papagni, was given full access for 6 days. He had ample time to use any evidence or testimony that strengthened the demonization of the Hammonds. The Hammonds attorney was only allowed 1 day. Much of the facts about the fires, land and why the Hammonds acted the way they did was not allowed into the proceedings and was not heard by the jury. For example, Judge Hogan did not allow time for the jury to hear or review certified scientific findings that the fires improved the health and productivity of the land. Or, that the Hammonds had been subject to vindictive behavior by multiple federal agencies for years.

    (o) Federal attorneys, Frank Papagni, hunted down a witness that was not mentally capable to be a credible witness. Dusty Hammond (grandson and nephew) testified that Steven told him to start a fire. He was 13 at the time and 24 when he testified (11 years later). At 24 Dusty had been suffering with mental problems for many years. He had estranged his family including his mother. Judge Hogan noted that Dusty’s memories as a 13-year-old boy were not clear or credible. He allowed the prosecution to continually use Dusty’s testimony anyway. When speaking to the Hammonds about this testimony, they understood that Dusty was manipulated and expressed nothing but love for their troubled grandson.

    (p) Judge Michael Hogan & Frank Papagni tampered with the jury many times throughout the proceedings, including during the selection process. Hogan & Papagni only allowed people on the jury who did not understand the customs and culture of the ranchers or how the land is used and cared for in the Diamond Valley. All of the jurors had to drive back and forth to Pendleton everyday. Some drove more than two hours each way. By day 8 they were exhausted and expressed desires to be home. On the final day, Judge Hogan kept pushing them to make a verdict. Several times during deliberation, Judge Hogan pushed them to make a decision. Judge Hogan also would not allow the jury to hear what punishment could be imposed upon an individual that has convicted as a terrorist under the 1996 act. The jury, not understanding the customs and cultures of the area, influenced by the prosecutors for 6 straight days, very exhausted, pushed for a verdict by the judge, unaware of the ramification of convicting someone as a terrorist, made a verdict and went home.

    (q) June 22, 2012, Dwight and Steven were found guilty of starting both the 2001 and the 2006 fires by the jury. However, the federal courts convicted them both as “Terrorist” under the 1996 Antiterrorism Act. Judge Hogan sentenced Dwight (Father) to 3 months in prison and Steven (son) to 12 months in federal prison. They were also stipulated to pay $400,000 to the BLM. Hogan overruling the minimum terrorist sentence, commenting that if the full five years were required it would be a violation of the 8th amendment (cruel and unusual punishment). The day of the sentencing Judge Hogan retired as a federal judge. In his honor the staff served chocolate cake in the courtroom.

    (r) On January 4,, 2013, Dwight and Steven reported to prison. They fulfilled their sentences, (Dwight 3 months, Steven 12 months). Dwight was released in March 2013 and Steven, January 2014.

    (s) Sometime in June 2014, Rhonda Karges, Field Manager for the BLM, and her husband Chad Karges, Refuge Manager for the Malheur Wildlife Refuge (which surrounds the Hammond ranch), along with attorney Frank Papagni exemplifying further vindictive behavior by filing an appeal with the 9th District Federal Court seeking Dwight’s and Steven’s return to federal prison for the entire 5 years.*

    Hammond Family

    (t) In October 2015, the 9th District Court “resentenced” Dwight and Steven, requiring them to return to prison for several more years. Steven (46) has a wife and 3 children. Dwight (74) will leave Susan (74) to be alone after 55 years of marriage. If he survives, he will be 79 when he is released.

    (u) During the court preceding the Hammonds were forced to grant the BLM first right of refusal. If the Hammonds ever sold their ranch they would have to sell it to the BLM.

    (v) Dwight and Steven are ordered to report to federal prison again on January 4th, 2016 to begin their resentencing. Both their wives will have to manage the ranch for several years without them. To date they have paid $200,000 to the BLM, and the remainder $200,000 must be paid before the end of this year (2015). If the Hammonds cannot pay the fines to the BLM, they will be forced to sell the ranch to the BLM or face further prosecution.

    Notes:

    S* Rhonda Karges – Resource Field Manager for the BLM is the wife of Chad Karges Refuge Manager for the Malheur Wildlife refuge.

    Rhonda specifically deals with all the BLM issues relating to the area in and around Hammonds property including “grazing denial”. Her husband just happens to be the person in charge of all the issues surrounding the Hammonds ranch such as “water and access”.

    b* Soon after the water rights dispute the federal government influenced the State of Oregon to change their water law in favor of federal agencies. Wildlife is now considered in the State of Oregon as an accepted beneficial use for government agencies only.

    k* Being convicted as Terrorist made the Hammonds felons. They have been striped of their right to have guns. The Hammond live 53 miles from the closets town and have no practical way of defending themselves or their cattle. Several times they have watched baby calves be eaten by predators and could do nothing to prevent it.

    Conclusion

    The abuses and corruptions affecting people like the Hammonds are symptoms of a more encompassing problem. Government employees (fulltime & elected) have changed their culture from one of service to, and respect for the people, to the roll of being a masters. On the subject of the land, it is evident that government employees are no longer assisting the people in claiming, using and defending property. Instead, they have become the people’s competitor to the benefits of the land, and are willing to use force on those who they erroneously compete against.

    The federal government adversely controls over 582,000,000 acres of the western lands, 51% of the entire western land mass. They also have recently begun claiming over 72% of western resources such as the sub-surface minerals, forestry and waters. This is in comparison to 4.29% federally controlled land in the east.

    The impact of the federal government controlling the land and resources inside the western states is hard to calculate. The negative impact on the people can be seen economically, politically, and socially. In order for any people to survive, let alone prosper, it takes the land and resources to do it. Everything we eat, the clothing we wear, the homes we live in, the cars we drive, and so on, come from the earth. All physical comfort and prosperity originates from the earth. Individuals composing the federal government, understanding the origination of wealth, are reserving these resources for themselves and are willing to use force to retain them. The ramifications of their action are slowly forcing the people of the west into poverty.

    Due to the fact that people cannot survive without land and resource, the federal government’s action in administering the lands for their own benefit will be the cause of public discontent and unrest until it is corrected.

    The solution is very simple, the land and resources must be made available to its rightful owners, the people. This can be done peacefully if the states & counties would check and balance the federal government as designed. When this happens, the people will begin to prosper and much of the economical, political and social problem of the west will diminish. Prosperity, peace and tranquility will be the results.

    Thank you,

    Ammon Bundy

    Bundy Family

    Links

    Notice: Redress of Grievance:
    http://bundyranch.blogspot.com/2015/12/notice-redress-of-grievance-action.html

    Letter to Harney County Sheriff – David Ward: http://bundyranch.blogspot.com/2015/11/letter-to-sheriff-ward-harney-county.html

    Facts & Events : http://bundyranch.blogspot.com/2015/11/facts-events-in-hammond-case.html

    Violations, Corruptions and Abuses: http://bundyranch.blogspot.com/2015/11/violations-corruptions-and-abuses-in.html

    Conclusion: http://bundyranch.blogspot.com/2015/11/conclusion-in-hammonds-case.html

    Letter to Government Official and Aware Citizens: http://bundyranch.blogspot.com/2015/11/hammond-

  14. The occupation of the building is a protest against the Federals antics in the case of the Hammond family–as detailed below:

    “Hammond Family Facts & Events

    (aa) The Harney Basin (where the Hammond ranch is established) was settled in the 1870’s. The valley was settled by multiple ranchers and was known to have run over 300,000 head of cattle. These ranchers developed a state of the art irrigated system to water the meadows, and it soon became a favorite stopping place for migrating birds on their annual trek north.

    (ab) In 1908 President Theodor Roosevelt, in a political scheme, create an “Indian reservation” around the Malheur, Mud & Harney Lakes and declared it “as a preserve and breeding ground for native birds”. Later this “Indian reservation” (without Indians) became the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.

    (a) In 1964 the Hammonds purchased their ranch in the Harney Basin. The purchase included approximately 6000 acres of private property, 4 grazing rights on public land, a small ranch house and 3 water rights. The ranch is around 53 miles South of Burns, Oregon.

    (a1) By the 1970’s nearly all the ranches adjacent to the Blitzen Valley were purchased by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and added to the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. The refuge covers over 187,000 acres and stretches over 45 miles long and 37 miles wide. The expansion of the refuge grew and surrounds to the Hammond’s ranch. Being approached many times by the FWS, the Hammonds refused to sell. Other ranchers also choose not to sell.

    (a2) During the 1970’s the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), in conjunction with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), took a different approach to get the ranchers to sell. Ranchers were told that, “grazing was detrimental to wildlife and must be reduced”. 32 out of 53 permits were revoked and many ranchers were forced to leave. Grazing fees were raised significantly for those who were allowed to remain. Refuge personnel took over the irrigation system claiming it as their own.

    (a3) By 1980 a conflict was well on its way over water allocations on the adjacent privately owned Silvies Plain. The FWS wanted to acquire the ranch lands on the Silvies Plain to add to their already vast holdings. Refuge personnel intentional diverted the water to bypassing the vast meadowlands, directing the water into the rising Malheur Lakes. Within a few short years the surface area of the lakes doubled. Thirty-one ranches on the Silvies plains were flooded. Homes, corrals, barns and graze-land were washed a way and destroyed. The ranchers that once fought to keep the FWS from taking their land, now broke and destroyed, begged the FWS to acquire their useless ranches. In 1989 the waters began to recede and now the once thriving privately owned Silvies pains are a proud part of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge claimed by the FWS.

    (a4) By the 1990’s the Hammonds were one of the very few ranchers that still owned private property adjacent to the refuge. Susie Hammond in an effort to make sense of what was going on began compiling fact about the refuge. In a hidden public record she found a study that was done by the FWS in 1975. The study showed that the “no use” policies of the FWS on the refuge were causing the wildlife to leave the refuge and move to private property. The study showed that the private property adjacent to the Malheur Wildlife Refuge produced 4 times more ducks and geese than the refuge did. It also showed that the migrating birds were 13 times more likely to land on private property than on the refuge. When Susie brought this to the attention of the FWS and refuge personnel, her and her family became the subjects of a long train of abuses and corruptions.

    (b) In the early 1990’s the Hammonds filed on a livestock water source and obtained a deed for the water right from the State of Oregon. When the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) found out that the Hammonds obtained new water rights near the Malhuer Wildlife Refuge, they were agitated and became belligerent and vindictive towards the Hammonds. The US Fish and Wildlife Service challenged the Hammonds right to the water in an Oregon State Circuit Court. The court found that the Hammonds legally obtained rights to the water in accordance to State law and therefore the use of the water belongs to the Hammonds.*

    (c) In August 1994 the BLM & FWS illegally began building a fence around the Hammonds water source. Owning the water rights and knowing that their cattle relied on that water source daily the Hammonds tried to stop the building of the fence. The BLM & FWS called the Harney County Sheriff department and had Dwight Hammond (Father) arrested and charged with “disturbing and interfering with” federal officials or federal contractors (two counts, each a felony). He spent one night in the Deschutes County Jail in Bend, and a second night behind bars in Portland before he was hauled before a federal magistrate and released without bail. A hearing on the charges was postponed and the federal judge never set another date.

    (d) The FWS also began restricting access to upper pieces of the Hammond’s private property. In order to get to the upper part of the Hammond’s ranch they had to go on a road that went through the Malhuer Wildlife Refuge. The FWS began barricading the road and threatening the Hammonds if they drove through it. The Hammonds removed the barricades and gates and continued to use their right of access. The road was proven later to be owned by the County of Harney. This further enraged the BLM & FWS.

    (e) Shortly after the road & water disputes, the BLM & FWS arbitrarily revoked the Hammond’s upper grazing permit without any given cause, court proceeding or court ruling. As a traditional “fence out state” Oregon requires no obligation on the part of an owner to keep his or her livestock within a fence or to maintain control over the movement of the livestock. The Hammonds intended to still use their private property for grazing. However, they were informed that a federal judge ruled, in a federal court, that the federal government did not have to observe the Oregon fence out law. “Those laws are for the people, not for them”.

    (f) The Hammonds were forced to either build and maintain miles of fences or be restricted from the use of their private property. Cutting their ranch in almost half, they could not afford to fence the land, so the cattle were removed.

    Dwight Hammond (Father)

    (g) The Hammonds experienced many years of financial hardship due to the ranch being diminished. The Hammonds had to sale their ranch and home in order to purchase another property that had enough grass to feed their cattle. This property included two grazing rights on public land. Those were also arbitrarily revoked later.

    (h) The owner of the Hammond’s original ranch passed away from a heart attack and the Hammonds made a trade for the ranch back.

    (i) In the early fall of 2001, Steven Hammond (Son) called the fire department, informing them that he was going to be performing a routine prescribed burn on their ranch. Later that day he started a prescribed fire on their private property. The fire went onto public land and burned 127 acres of grass. The Hammonds put the fire out themselves. There was no communication about the burn from the federal government to the Hammonds at that time. Prescribed fires are a common method that Native Americans and ranchers have used in the area to increase the health & productivity of the land for many centuries.

    (j) In 2006 a massive lightning storm started multiple fires that joined together inflaming the countryside. To prevent the fire from destroying their winter range and possibly their home, Steven Hammond (Son) started a backfire on their private property. The backfire was successful in putting out the lightning fires that had covered thousands of acres within a short period of time. The backfire saved much of the range and vegetation needed to feed the cattle through the winter. Steven’s mother, Susan Hammond said: “The backfire worked perfectly, it put out the fire, saved the range and possibly our home”.

    (j1) The next day federal agents went to the Harney County Sheriff’s office and filled a police report making accusation against Dwight and Steven Hammond for starting the backfire. A few days after the backfire a Range-Con from the Burns District BLM office asked Steven if he would meet him in town (Frenchglen) for coffee. Steven accepted. When leaving he was arrested by the Harney County Sheriff Dave Glerup and BLM Ranger Orr. Sheriff Glerup then ordered him to go to the ranch and bring back his father. Both Dwight and Steven were booked and on multiple Oregon State charges. The Harney County District Attorney reviewed the accusation, evidence and charges, and determined that the accusations against Dwight & Steven Hammond did not warrant prosecution and dropped all the charges.

    Steven Hammond (Son)

    (k) In 2011, 5 years after the police report was taken, the U.S. Attorney Office accused Dwight and Steven Hammond of completely different charges, they accused them of being “Terrorist” under the Federal Antiterrorism Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. This act carries a minimum sentence of five years in prison and a maximum sentence of death. Dwight & Steven’s mug shots were all over the news the next week posing them as “Arsonists”. Susan Hammond (Wife & Mother) said: “I would walk down the street or go in a store, people I had known for years would take extreme measures to avoid me”.

    (l) Shortly after the sentencing, Capital Press ran a story about the Hammonds. A person who identified as Greg Allum posted three comments on the article, calling the ranchers “clowns” who endangered firefighters and other people in the area while burning valuable rangeland. Greg Allum, a retired BLM heavy equipment operator, soon called Capital Press to complain that he had not made those comments and request that they be taken down from the website. Capital Press removed the comments. A search of the Internet Protocol address associated with the comments revealed it is owned by the BLM’s office in Denver, Colorado. Allum said, he is friends with the Hammonds and was alerted to the comments by neighbors who knew he wouldn’t have written them. “I feel bad for them. They lost a lot and they’re going to lose more,” Allum said of the ranchers. “They’re not terrorists. There’s this hatred in the BLM for them, and I don’t get it,” The retired BLM employee said. Jody Weil, deputy state director for communications at BLM’s Oregon office, indicated to reporters that if one of their agents falsified the comments, they would keep it private and not inform the public.

    (m) In September 2006, Dwight & Susan Hammond’s home was raided. The agents informed the Hammonds that they were looking for evidence that would connect them to the fires. The Hammonds later found out that a boot print and a tire tracks were found near one of the many fires. No matching boots or tires were found in the Hammonds home or on their property. Susan Hammond (Wife) later said; ” I have never felt so violated in my life. We are ranchers not criminals”. Steven Hammond openly maintains his testimony that he started the backfire to save the winter grass from being destroyed and that the backfire ended up working so well it put out the fire entirely altogether.

    (n) During the trial proceedings, Federal Court Judge Michael Hogan did not allow time for certain testimonies and evidence into the trail that would exonerate the Hammonds. Federal prosecuting attorney, Frank Papagni, was given full access for 6 days. He had ample time to use any evidence or testimony that strengthened the demonization of the Hammonds. The Hammonds attorney was only allowed 1 day. Much of the facts about the fires, land and why the Hammonds acted the way they did was not allowed into the proceedings and was not heard by the jury. For example, Judge Hogan did not allow time for the jury to hear or review certified scientific findings that the fires improved the health and productivity of the land. Or, that the Hammonds had been subject to vindictive behavior by multiple federal agencies for years.

    (o) Federal attorneys, Frank Papagni, hunted down a witness that was not mentally capable to be a credible witness. Dusty Hammond (grandson and nephew) testified that Steven told him to start a fire. He was 13 at the time and 24 when he testified (11 years later). At 24 Dusty had been suffering with mental problems for many years. He had estranged his family including his mother. Judge Hogan noted that Dusty’s memories as a 13-year-old boy were not clear or credible. He allowed the prosecution to continually use Dusty’s testimony anyway. When speaking to the Hammonds about this testimony, they understood that Dusty was manipulated and expressed nothing but love for their troubled grandson.

    (p) Judge Michael Hogan & Frank Papagni tampered with the jury many times throughout the proceedings, including during the selection process. Hogan & Papagni only allowed people on the jury who did not understand the customs and culture of the ranchers or how the land is used and cared for in the Diamond Valley. All of the jurors had to drive back and forth to Pendleton everyday. Some drove more than two hours each way. By day 8 they were exhausted and expressed desires to be home. On the final day, Judge Hogan kept pushing them to make a verdict. Several times during deliberation, Judge Hogan pushed them to make a decision. Judge Hogan also would not allow the jury to hear what punishment could be imposed upon an individual that has convicted as a terrorist under the 1996 act. The jury, not understanding the customs and cultures of the area, influenced by the prosecutors for 6 straight days, very exhausted, pushed for a verdict by the judge, unaware of the ramification of convicting someone as a terrorist, made a verdict and went home.

    (q) June 22, 2012, Dwight and Steven were found guilty of starting both the 2001 and the 2006 fires by the jury. However, the federal courts convicted them both as “Terrorist” under the 1996 Antiterrorism Act. Judge Hogan sentenced Dwight (Father) to 3 months in prison and Steven (son) to 12 months in federal prison. They were also stipulated to pay $400,000 to the BLM. Hogan overruling the minimum terrorist sentence, commenting that if the full five years were required it would be a violation of the 8th amendment (cruel and unusual punishment). The day of the sentencing Judge Hogan retired as a federal judge. In his honor the staff served chocolate cake in the courtroom.

    (r) On January 4,, 2013, Dwight and Steven reported to prison. They fulfilled their sentences, (Dwight 3 months, Steven 12 months). Dwight was released in March 2013 and Steven, January 2014.

    (s) Sometime in June 2014, Rhonda Karges, Field Manager for the BLM, and her husband Chad Karges, Refuge Manager for the Malheur Wildlife Refuge (which surrounds the Hammond ranch), along with attorney Frank Papagni exemplifying further vindictive behavior by filing an appeal with the 9th District Federal Court seeking Dwight’s and Steven’s return to federal prison for the entire 5 years.*

    Hammond Family

    (t) In October 2015, the 9th District Court “resentenced” Dwight and Steven, requiring them to return to prison for several more years. Steven (46) has a wife and 3 children. Dwight (74) will leave Susan (74) to be alone after 55 years of marriage. If he survives, he will be 79 when he is released.

    (u) During the court preceding the Hammonds were forced to grant the BLM first right of refusal. If the Hammonds ever sold their ranch they would have to sell it to the BLM.

    (v) Dwight and Steven are ordered to report to federal prison again on January 4th, 2016 to begin their resentencing. Both their wives will have to manage the ranch for several years without them. To date they have paid $200,000 to the BLM, and the remainder $200,000 must be paid before the end of this year (2015). If the Hammonds cannot pay the fines to the BLM, they will be forced to sell the ranch to the BLM or face further prosecution.

    Notes:

    S* Rhonda Karges – Resource Field Manager for the BLM is the wife of Chad Karges Refuge Manager for the Malheur Wildlife refuge.

    Rhonda specifically deals with all the BLM issues relating to the area in and around Hammonds property including “grazing denial”. Her husband just happens to be the person in charge of all the issues surrounding the Hammonds ranch such as “water and access”.

    b* Soon after the water rights dispute the federal government influenced the State of Oregon to change their water law in favor of federal agencies. Wildlife is now considered in the State of Oregon as an accepted beneficial use for government agencies only.

    k* Being convicted as Terrorist made the Hammonds felons. They have been striped of their right to have guns. The Hammond live 53 miles from the closets town and have no practical way of defending themselves or their cattle. Several times they have watched baby calves be eaten by predators and could do nothing to prevent it.

    Conclusion

    The abuses and corruptions affecting people like the Hammonds are symptoms of a more encompassing problem. Government employees (fulltime & elected) have changed their culture from one of service to, and respect for the people, to the roll of being a masters. On the subject of the land, it is evident that government employees are no longer assisting the people in claiming, using and defending property. Instead, they have become the people’s competitor to the benefits of the land, and are willing to use force on those who they erroneously compete against.

    The federal government adversely controls over 582,000,000 acres of the western lands, 51% of the entire western land mass. They also have recently begun claiming over 72% of western resources such as the sub-surface minerals, forestry and waters. This is in comparison to 4.29% federally controlled land in the east.

    The impact of the federal government controlling the land and resources inside the western states is hard to calculate. The negative impact on the people can be seen economically, politically, and socially. In order for any people to survive, let alone prosper, it takes the land and resources to do it. Everything we eat, the clothing we wear, the homes we live in, the cars we drive, and so on, come from the earth. All physical comfort and prosperity originates from the earth. Individuals composing the federal government, understanding the origination of wealth, are reserving these resources for themselves and are willing to use force to retain them. The ramifications of their action are slowly forcing the people of the west into poverty.

    Due to the fact that people cannot survive without land and resource, the federal government’s action in administering the lands for their own benefit will be the cause of public discontent and unrest until it is corrected.

    The solution is very simple, the land and resources must be made available to its rightful owners, the people. This can be done peacefully if the states & counties would check and balance the federal government as designed. When this happens, the people will begin to prosper and much of the economical, political and social problem of the west will diminish. Prosperity, peace and tranquility will be the results.

    Thank you,

    Ammon Bundy

    Bundy Family”

    This may reappear because there were links on the first run-thro–I can’t wait for Tim’s moderation.

    1 Link:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqkLB2mKN0g

  15. Surreptitious Evil

    Is it a toy? Could you tell from a distance?

    I actually get (minimally and poorly compared to the plod) trained in this shit and I have every sympathy for anybody who took the “sod that” decision. And, yes, that includes Brazilian plumbers and people carrying chair legs back from the pub.

  16. The Bluebottles told a pack of lies about the plumber.:

    That he ran away–no
    That he wore a heavy coat that could have concealed a bomb–no
    That he vaulted a barrier-no

    All lies–the cop heroes had the arse fall out of their trousers and blased away and then told a shitload of porkies about it. The likes of us would be jailed for the lies alone never mind the killing.

    No coppers in jail tho’ and the Dick woman gets promoted.

  17. Surreptitious Evil

    Cressida Dick was the plumber not the chair leg (not that it makes her any a better person.)

    The question remains, though?

  18. Philip Scott Thomas

    Steve –

    Here’s what I’d do: secure the perimeter, cut off power and water, stop anybody heading in to give them food.

    Ah, the Pimlico Stratagem, eh? Clever.

  19. Philip Scott Thomas

    Mr. Ecks

    With respect, no. It was not the polis that was telling the porkies. That is a myth that just refuses to die. It was the Beeb, who breathlessly reported the statements of a fantasist named Mark Whitby.

    The BBC published a list of the discrepancies between what was reported by the media and what the police said in a leaked report here. It’s worth noting that the disinformation attributed to “police lies” stems originally from the statements of one eyewitness or another.

    The Beeb also produced a timeline of events here. See especially the item headed 1050 BST: “Many of the mistaken eyewitness accounts are now circulating in the media.”

  20. You should all read reason’s coverage on this story. To make a long story short, The feds forced the Hammonds to agree not to appeal the sentence (the original of which was already served), and then the feds turned right around and appealed it to get a longer sentence. Profoundly evil.

    In the Tamir Rice case, the cops came out shooting immediately (before any reasonable person could have obeyed their orders which were probably conflicting anyway when you have multiple cops braying orders), and then deliberately let him bleed out so they wouldn’t have a witness.

    Sadly, for the vast majority of people, these cases are all about the principals and not the principles.

  21. PST:If the BBC reports are your basis for defending the police it doesn’t add up to very much. An unarmed swarthy man–not wearing a bulky possibly bomb-concealing coat–is grabbed by one copper and shot to death by another prick for no apparent reason –other than the arse dropping out of the shooters trousers. The Police were quite happy to publish all the initial eye-witness claims in their original packet of lies and then it emerges that their performance was abysmal anyway. The bloke is still dead for no good reason.

  22. Philip Scott Thomas

    Mr. Ecks

    I am in no way defending the polis. They summarily executed an innocent man with resort to public trial and conviction. That is unacceptable at every possible level.

    My point is simply that is was not the polis who were responsible for the rubbish about Menezes wearing a bulky jacket, jumping the turnstile, and so on, but our own dear Auntie. Because of the unique way in which it is funded, dontcha know.

    But I also don’t believe it is the cops’ responsibility to correct the crap the media publishes. The full responsibility for the misinformation published lies fully and directly on the BBC. And as far as I know, no one within the organisation has been held to account for that.

    And yes, you’re quite right, an innocent man is dead for no good reason.

  23. That’s not entirely true, Philip. There were erroneous statements made by members of the public and erroneous statements made by police spokespeople (IIRC the IPCC gave Andy Hayman in particular a kicking). Some police and civilian staff mis- or uninformed each other. Ian Blair was not kept fully informed. Police press releases claimed de Menezes’s clothing and behaviour added to suspicions (behaviour such as getting off and on a bus). And whether in fact true or false, the claim that de Menezes was challenged before he was shot was an assumption about standard procedure, it was not based on knowledge of the event itself.

    A rather more detailed timeline than the BBC’s appears in the IPCC’s ‘Stockwell Two’ report.

  24. Dearime: What’s your point? I’m not making this into some sort of waycist bollocks. It is however a matter of literal skin-shade.

    Being swarthy is what set them on him. If he had had a milk-coloured complexion even Plod would have been unlikely to decide he was middle eastern in origin let alone get him mixed up with the cove they were after.

  25. “My point is simply that is was not the polis who were responsible for the rubbish about Menezes wearing a bulky jacket, jumping the turnstile, and so on, but our own dear Auntie. Because of the unique way in which it is funded, dontcha know.”

    Its far more banal than that. The Beeb reported “accurately” the observations of an eye witness. Its just they were too witless to check and the eye witness saw one of the armed response unit come running in and jump the turnstile (in coat)…

    You’re advised to look earlier in the timeline.

    Colloquially from memory:

    JCdM is dead because they were observing the multilevel council block with a single spotter. He was watching I believe the front door of one of the 21/7 fuckwhits. Anyway he goes for a piss. Comes back and sees a bloke walking down the level of said flat. He doesn’t know which door if any said bloke came form.

    They never check where he comes from and our JCdM is none the wiser. Gets a bus, walks calmly into Stockwell station, takes a seat and then is promptly executed. Eight bullets into the brainstem I believe.

    Fuckwhittery all round and one dead bloke.

    Cressida Dick, the officer running the show, has been promoted twice since, when she should have resigned in disgrace.

  26. Philip Scott Thomas

    ukliberty –

    OK, fair enough. I take your point.

    I accept that Ian Blair wasn’t kept properly informed. That’s an organisational failure.

    And it’s entirely plausible that in an organisation the size of the Met that not everyone knew what everyone else had witnessed, and so relied on public news new sources, such as the Beeb.

    It’s also entirely plausible that the Met department responsible for issuing press releases was not fully aware of what had actually happened in the field and instead relied on the presumably rolling news coverage of the presumably trustworthy BBC.

    But c’mon, to describe Mark Whitby’s so-called eye-witness testimony as erroneous statements stretches credulity and is disingenuous at best. The guy was a friggin’ fantasist. The Beeb stuck a microphone in his face and said, ‘Tell us what you saw’ so he went to make up an entirely fictional story.

  27. Either the Met lied through it’s teeth, or it had carefully constructed a command structure by which one set of people – Andy Hayman in particular – quickly found out they’d killed an innocent man, and another set of people – Ian Blair in particular – took responsibility for briefing the media. And Hayman didn’t bother to tell Blair what was actually going on.

    So that’s a peerage for Blair and a CBE for Hayman. It’s the BBC’s fault for having interviewed shocked and confused eye witnesses.

  28. “Steve –

    Here’s what I’d do: secure the perimeter, cut off power and water, stop anybody heading in to give them food.

    Ah, the Pimlico Stratagem, eh? Clever.”

    Nope.. nothing clever about it.
    Old-fashioned, and very effective medieval tactic.
    If done properly, you don’t have to do anything but *return* fire in case some smart-aleck thinks to force his way out.

  29. “Steve
    January 4, 2016 at 3:35 pm

    Also, they probably haven’t stood in the middle of the street, pointing their guns at cops and forcing them to make a split-second decision about whether to risk getting killed or not.

    Surreptitious Evil
    January 4, 2016 at 7:35 pm

    Is it a toy? Could you tell from a distance?”

    OK guys, seriously?

    1. The kid didn’t do that. He was sitting at a table in the park when the cop car sped up right to him, the cop on the passenger side got out, drew, and fired – all within the space of a couple of seconds. That cop didn’t even have time to tell if there was *anything* there, let alone if it was real or not.

    2. And this is *America*. Carrying a weapon is a *human right*. Having a firearm, legally or not, is not supposed to merit summary execution on its own just so a cop doesn’t have to feel a little bit apprehensive.

    Continuum of force – you simply don’t roll up on to people and shoot them unless they are a clear and present danger.

  30. And, yes, that includes Brazilian plumbers and people carrying chair legs back from the pub.

    Does that sympathy extend to the police who deleted the CCTV footage afterwards?

  31. So that’s a peerage for Blair and a CBE for Hayman.

    For once I’m in agreement with SJW here. The main reason why top public servants, and company executives, get paid well and enjoy many perks of the position is to compensate for the fact that they carry the can in the event something goes wrong. It may not even be directly their fault, but ultimately they must be responsible and face the consequences. This is why it was right that Tony Haywood lost his job as CEO of BP after the Macondo disaster: he was ultimately responsible, and that is why he was paid well for the post.

    I don’t know if this has always been the case, but what I see a lot of – in politics, the public service, and in large companies and now even in medium-sized companies – is people who want to enjoy the status, salary, and perks of the position but are not willing to shoulder the responsibility they are being compensated for. When something goes wrong, no effort is spared to circle the wagons in order to protect, when it comes down to it, their own personal income. The idea that somebody is paid to shoulder responsibility in times both good and bad seems to be an increasingly alien concept to those who climb the greasy pole in any modern organisation. Principles seem to have been abandoned entirely.

  32. And the whole affair re. the Hammonds seems to be a demonstration of how petulant shits in positions of authority abhor any kind of dissent or anything other than craven compliance. Again, you can find parallels with modern management in there.

  33. GlenDorran – My New Year’s Resolution is to use the insult “hoofwanking bunglecunt” at every opportunity. (Hattip to Brian Spanner for that one)

    That is truly magnificent. 🙂

    Philip Scott Thomas – Ha! And if that doesn’t work, send in The Lavender Hill Mob.

    Agammamon – Not quite.

    The coppers released the CCTV footage. It shows a hooded figure wandering around the park, pointing what looks like a gun at random passers-by.

    Eventually the cops arrive. There’s no sound, but they say they told him to drop the weapon three times.

    Instead of complying, he advanced towards the policemen, drawing the realistic-looking replica pistol from his waistband, and they shot him.

    And this is *America*. Carrying a weapon is a *human right*

    OTOH, menacing the public and police officers by waving a gun (real or replica) at them is not a human right. It is both a serious crime and, as poor, foolish young Tamir found out, a deadly mistake.

  34. Eventually the cops arrive. There’s no sound, but they say they told him to drop the weapon three times.

    And of course the cops would never, ever lie. They also tend to get a lot more time to come up with a story before they have to tell it to the cops than any non-cop would.

    You all get it in the Menezes case, but here we’ve got the race hustlers screaming, so you all immediately stick your heads in the sand saying, “It’s just the race hustlers; we can ignore this.” It’s maddening.

  35. Ted S, even if they didn’t tell him to drop it, it ought to have been obvious to even the thickest ghetto denizen that cops carry the real thing. So expecting them to laugh off a realistic looking weapon shaped item is suicide.

    Darwin claims another, nothing to see here, move along…

  36. Steve: They shot him within 2 seconds of arriving–“policepolicepolicedropyourweapon” is not much warning unless you are The Flash and left him to bleed out for 4 minutes without making any attempt to help him.

    I agree that waving a gun–albeit an air gun–around is ill-advised. But he could have been surrounded at a distance, loud-speaker-ed to put the gun down and if he shot–then he could have been killed as needed, What the video shows is a summery execution.

    This website details enough cop outrages to sink a battleship including astonishing levels of local police corruption and malice. And their taste for helping potential suicides finish the job. And a shitload of other fun-filled activities. Far too much “fun” for the old “just a few rotten apples” crap to hold up under scrutiny.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaNjfeQxSO4

  37. Mr Ecks, no, it’s not much warning. But…how much should he have needed?

    Me, I’d have tossed the ‘weapon’ and been flat on the floor with my hands in the air before the cop car had come to a halt.

    Not that I’d ever be daft enough to be in this situation in the first place…

  38. Ted – And of course the cops would never, ever lie. They also tend to get a lot more time to come up with a story before they have to tell it to the cops than any non-cop would.

    Sure, it’s quite possible they lied.

    However, there’s also no evidence to prove they committed a crime.

    The race hustlers do have a point though, the cops probably are racist. Just not for the reasons Black Lives Matters claims.

    Facing an apparently armed black suspect is a no-win situation for a cop in America. Black males are – what, 6% of the population? But commit about 50% of the murders. In a city like Cleveland, the cops are dealing with the criminal gangbanging dregs of black society on a daily basis. If they weren’t racist on joining the force, they soon learn to be.

    When yet another thuggish-looking hoodie is cavorting around with what appears to be a gun, you don’t mess around. Not if you want your kids to grow up knowing their father.

  39. Steve/Julia M–Agreed -US blacks cause crime problems out of proportion to their numbers. That does not means that drive-up-and-shoot-em should be the policy response (nor are these cop antics confined to blacks). Why didn’t the kid “hands-up”–apart from two seconds not being long enough? Prob because he was disturbed (ie a mental case) or drugged up. Neither are grounds for summAry execution–nor should they be.

    The video clearly shows that the bluebottles committed a crime. They are not “officially” authorised to carry out drive-by (drive-up?) shootings. In practice “qualified immunity” means they can kill with near impunity and rely on a well-oiled gang of govt bullshiters to get them off any potential charges.

    “When yet another thuggish-looking hoodie is cavorting around with what appears to be a gun, you don’t mess around. Not if you want your kids to grow up knowing their father.”

    If you are scared–don’t take the job. Being a copper isn’t even in the top ten most dangerous jobs and has been getting steadily safer for years. That kind of talk plays into the hands of a group of state thugs. Nor –black lives bullshit to the side–is this kind of evil confined to black victims. Every race, creed etc is getting it in the neck from US cop thugs at every level from the local crooks to the Federal Tyranny and its vile hirelings.

  40. Steve “When yet another thuggish-looking hoodie is cavorting around with what appears to be a gun, you don’t mess around. Not if you want your kids to grow up knowing their father.”

    Thinking on–if you replace “thuggish-looking hoodie” with “costumed thug”your quote also applies to anyone who gets anywhere near US law enforcement. There are more than enough examples to demonstrate that point.

  41. “they probably haven’t stood in the middle of the street, pointing their guns at cops…”

    “Me, I’d have tossed the ‘weapon’ and been flat on the floor with my hands in the air before the cop car had come to a halt.”

    Rice didn’t point the toy weapon at the police, because it was tucked into his trousers. The video is poor, but in one frame he’s lifting his shirt, perhaps to toss the gun, and in the next he’s been shot, as the car is coming to a halt.

    The orange marker was missing from the gun, but that made little difference to the police because if it had been there they couldn’t possibly have seen it before they fired.

    I don’t have any difficulty believing that the policeman who shot Rice thought he was in the act of drawing a real gun. But I do note that whenever video footage exists of a police shooting it contradicts the police account. So let’s not rush to believe what they tell us.

  42. US cops are a bunch are legalised thugs. I personally don’t think race comes into it, there’s plenty of non-white US police who behave just like the white ones do. Its just when you give a section of society powers over everyone else you will undoubtedly get the wrong sort of people who want to be in that section. The US has reached a situation where it has a paramilitary force running amok amongst the population that is by and large above the law, other than when it does something ludicrously egregious.

    And UK police aren’t far behind unfortunately, just they haven’t got guns (yet). If they ever do, the same will happen here. We already see it with the tazers, they use them all the time in inappropriate circumstances. But they get away with it, so next time its bit more inappropriate and so on and so forth. And you end up with innocent blind men being tazered in the street because plod was shitting himself about some nutter with a samurai sword being on the loose:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-26729965

  43. Jim more or less gets what I was driving at. Whether the cops are racist or not is beside the point; they’re brutal thugs who have the imprimatur of the State to commit their thuggery: they’re the King’s Men, after all.

    I think I’ve posted this article before, but if a non-cop killed his estranged wife in front of their young daughter, would the cops give him a hug?

    Do a google search on “puppycide”, or go to a site like Photography Is Not a Crime which chronicles how the police know it’s legal to video them in public yet still try to confiscate such videos. (The police tell us, “If you’ve done nothing wrong, you should have nothing to hide.” Yet they always seem to want to hide stuff.)

    It’s infuriating that the usual race hustlers swoop in and then claim the police thuggery is racist in nature, when they really don’t care about police thuggery. After all, they’d be perfectly happy to use it in the Oregon case that’s the subject of the original post. If anything, they want to keep regular black folk angry and voting for Democrats, since the Repbulicans are generally considered the “law and order” party.

    Look at the case of Eric Garner, who was selling loose cigarettes and was killed over that “crime” (which of course shouldn’t be a crime in the first place). Rand Paul tried to point out that Garner’s execution is the logical end point of saying there ought to be a law against something, but noooooo, you were only allowed to talk about the Garner case in terms of race.

    And this is what leads so many people on the other side to say that the Garners of the world deserve what they get from the cops, since it’s just the race hustlers standing up for them (or at least those are the ones trumpeted by the media).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *