After an exchange of gunfire Tuesday that left one man dead and another injured, the two brothers who orchestrated the armed occupation of a remote central Oregon wildlife refuge were taken into custody while traveling outside the area, along with six of their followers.
Then, early Wednesday the government shut down the area, initiating what authorities called a “containment” with checkpoints and promising to arrest any unauthorized people attempting to travel into the refuge.
The purpose, according to a statement from the FBI and Oregon State Police was “to better ensure the safety of community members and law enforcement.” Earlier, they had asked people to leave the area, but there was little sign that the remaining occupiers had done so, setting up the possibility of police action later in the day.
The Oregonian said that a convoy of police rigs, passenger cars and armored vehicles was seen driving south on Oregon Route 205, past the turn-off for the refuge. Other convoys also were reported in the area.
The Tuesday encounter with police on a frozen stretch of highway north of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, where a small cast of gun-toting anti-government activists had been camping out for weeks, was a dramatic break in the tense, three-week standoff with local and federal authorities — at least, for leaders Ammon and Ryan Bundy.
One less terrorist. I suppose people will have a new martyr. The situation will be justified in the eyes of some. I have no more sympathy for these yahoos than I did for hippies taking over government buildings in the 60’s. If these ranchers had a point, they failed to convey it. This disrupted a community and they cost the taxpayers millions of dollars.
Their cause really was a stupid reason to die. If you take over property that is not your own and if you are armed, someone is going to get hurt. It is probably going to be you. Stupid comes in all flavors.
“One less terrorist. I suppose people will have a new martyr. The situation will be justified in the eyes of some. I have no more sympathy for these yahoos than I did for hippies taking over government buildings in the 60’s. If these ranchers had a point, they failed to convey it. This disrupted a community and they cost the taxpayers millions of dollars.”
I think the word terrorist a bit strong. We should avoid flinging that word around, as like “Racist” is will become trite, and no longer carry the force it once did. Kinda like over-prescribing antibiotics, people will soon become resistant to the word, or perhaps desensitized.
That said, I won’t hold anyone up as a martyr. Won’t be any “Hands Up Don’t Shoot” talk here. You point a gun at cops…they are perfectly justified in shooting. Ability, Opportunity. Intent. You stop a bullet as a result, that’s on you. I’ll be interested to know what constituted “brandishing” in this case, as it appears the only shots were fired by law enforcement. What the protesters were trying to accomplish by going to town is beyond me. Maybe they were daring the police to act.
While I have some sympathy for their cause, I thought this particular exercise to be based on flawed reasoning. One thing to defend your own private property from perceived government overreach, someone else’s property, or public property is quite another matter.
Where do we draw the line regarding terrorism? Political motive is there. Being armed is there. Maybe quasi terrorism at first because they didn’t shoot anyone.
I have no sympathy for them.
One man’s Terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.
I think he wanted to be killed. That was the end game. They didn’t feel they could move the protest forward into a civil war without a violent confrontation. Unfortunately for them it doesn’t seem like this confrontation was violent enough to re-energize a movement that had lost the public’s attention.
Their faith was that God would raise up tens of thousands of people willing to follow these guys down this path of sedition to the promise land. Maybe the trials will get them more sympathetic press but I hope not. I don’t mind obnoxious speech and protests but I draw the line when the speech includes threats of or actual violence against others.
There better be high def. video of this event from multiple vantage points to counter conspiracy-nuttery.
I am not even saying that those people don’t have some legitimate points to make. I think their feelings are rather prevalent in that part of the country. However, their delivery system sucked.
I don’t see them as either. I see them as protesters who have an over inflated sense of their own efficacy, and in the execution of their protest are doing more harm than good to their cause. I place them in to the same category as those from Open Carry Texas who rolled into Starbucks with AR AK or SKS rifles slung across their backs. The movement wanted the laws changed to permit open carry of handguns, which was illegal at the time, so they open carried rifles, which was legal. I understand what they were trying to do, I just didn’t support the way they went about trying to achieve it. Same with this bunch, trying to be the Sagebrush Revolution II, they are ending up looking like the Montana Freeman.
I am not saying that many people in the west don’t have legitimate grouses with BLM (the bureau of land management) or the department of the interior or any other agency. They probably do. But, like Steve said, these people have hurt their own cause.
A good local example here would be at the Battlefield, you can’t ride a bicycle. Why? It might scare the horses. Now…what’s wrong with this picture? That is one of those illogical rules that probably goes a lot deeper than our local superintendent.
@Steve those AK-47ers at Starbucks have really caused a problem for those of us who aren’t 2A-ers. It reinforces all the bad thoughts and upholds none of the good ones.
@Steve Thomas
I agree with you….but, apparently, open carry of rifles in Texas worked….since the Governor just passed open carry of pistols. The publicity brought it out into the open and it was voted on.
What DIDN’T work were the idiots that carried improperly.
Cargo,
While the ultimate objective was achieved, I have my doubts as to whether or not the clowns taking selfies in the Starbucks with their bubba’d SKS in a single-point sling helped move this along. I think the measure would have passed without their “contribution”. I will admit that my opinion was heavily influenced by the commentary I heard on AAR, SOTG, GunTalk, and Polite Society, not to mention articles from AWR Hawkins and others.
When an unarmed black man is shot dead by police, he was a thug. An armed white guy shot dead by police is a freedom fighter and hero. Talk about double standards.
Point taken.
@Starryflights
I must have missed the comment where someone called him a Freedom Fighter and a hero. I have also missed where any of the conservative media has referred to him as such. Even more, I don’t see where anyone has referred to him as a “victim”.
You are making a strawman argument.
If the “unarmed blackman: you referred to is Michael Brown, I do consider him to have been a “thug”. We know he engaged in strong-arm robbery of a convenience store. We know he physically assaulted a police officer. We know (from forensic evidence and testimony of the officer) that he attempted to take the officer’s gun, during the assault. That sounds pretty “thug like” to me.
If the investigation determines that eye-witness accounts are accurate, that Finicum was “charging law enforcement when shot”, then law enforcement acted properly. Finicum is no “victim”. He attempted to evade apprehension, and charged toward officers, while bearing a firearm. Ability? Check. Opportunity? Check. Intent? It certainly looks this way, so tentatively, Check. Badge or no badge, You hit all three criteria, and end up getting shot, well, that’s a negative outcome of a bad choice. It is permissible to use arms to resist unlawful force. I don’t see where the police acted unlawfully.
I consider him a thug too because he had supposedly robbed a store. If you grab at a cop’s weapon, you are asking to die.
I do think that Starry made a point if he was speaking generically though.
so, one of the ‘protestors’ in Oregon – is a Terrorist – David Fry, the youtuber of the group is an ISIS sympathizer. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jan/13/david-fry-oregon-occupier-isis-supporter-uses-gove/?page=all
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xL3cNGUrauY
@Starryflights
Peaceful black demonstrators burn down the neighborhood. The cops are told to stand down.
Armed white protestors camp out in the snow, harm no one. One is shot during the arrest.
What’s your point, Starry?
Armed white protestors camp out in the snow? Is that how you see this? I didn’t think so. They were trespassing. They were told to leave. As for harming no one, I don’t want to pay that bill, do you?
I don’t just think the feds shot what’s his name. Something happened out there.
There simply is no justification for burning a neighborhood or for taking over a wild life refuge.
Many of the supporters of these dudes have been crying all over the place that Finicum had his hands up, was on his knees, was no threat, etc. They have been making a case that he was murdered. The FBI has released the video. After almost taking out an LEO with his truck, Finicum exited the vehicle and did have his hands over his head until, it appears, that he went reaching for his coat pocket – which did contain a weapon.
From this, I will believe the LEO’s that they were acting in self defense.
Do you have a link?
When you reach for your coat pocket….you should be muttering “it’s a good day to die” when you have been breaking the law. When will people learn that?
Here is a link to the article – the video is embedded – http://usat.ly/1WQBvBx
It is taken from a distance, but you can see the actions of Finicum.
He is a dead dog from the looks of things.
I’m amazed at how police are allowed to feel threatened just by a gesture towards a gun yet everyone else is suppose to be comfortable around people who strap on a gun in the movie theatre, the grocery store or in a parking lot even when they gesture toward their guns to intimidate others. The line between an armed threat and lawful carry is too thin.
Police should have the tools to disarm people without killing them. War is killing the other guy before he kills you. Police should be peace officers who get bonuses for not killing civilians even when they are justified to do so.
Here is the link
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/01/28/fbi-releases-video-explains-how-police-fatally-shot-oregon-refuge-occupier/?tid=sm_fb
The difference is that Michael Brown was unarmed. This fellow clearly was armed and tried to run through a checkpoint. Some hail him a hero, although I realize nobody here does.
I think the fact that Michael Brown was unarmed was unclear when he was shot.
I just don’t think we can compare the two sitations.
well, he is dead now.