Oregon "Armed protest" at US wildlife building

Has anyone got a link to a good analysis of this verdict? The verdict feels wrong but I'm not exactly an expert on Oregon state law. :)
 
d6RaGfA.jpg
 
Its not. Are you forgetting what they did before they were aquitted?

It's comparing what a bunch of armed white men did and what happened to them - with what is happening today by unarmed protesters (legally, 1851 treaty) many of whom are not white.

When the former happened...which was illegal... what actually happened to them? Apart from the guy who got shot for reaching for a loaded weapon away from the occupation, how many of them were beaten, or maced, tear gassed, or fired at blank range with shotgun bean bags? All that stuff.

Can you imagine what it would be like if the protesters were armed?

The connection with yesterdays acquittal and the meme is more because it happened while the standing rock is also happening. It highlights the differences between the two occupations.

But, if were were to compare their acquittal with what the hundreds of peaceful protesters who have been forcefully arrested..? Hmmmm. Somehow I doubt they will see the same. Do you?
 
I wouldn't call shooting at the police "peaceful" and I doubt if the treaty you refer to covers the privately owned land that the arrests were made on. It probably doesn't cover burning vehicles to block roads, either.

There are other differences, including some big ones:

1) Numbers. Thousands of protestors, some armed, will be treated differently to a handful.

2) Effect. A handful of people occupying a remote wildlife centre and doing nothing relevant to anything is substantially different to thousands of people blocking roads and stopping building work on private land.

3) Money. Lots in oil. None in a wildlife centre.

It's not the simple racism you portray it as being.
 
Threepwood said:
d6RaGfA.jpg
Click to expand...

Don't forget that a reporter who took footage of it and published an article was harassed and I believe arrested but charges eventually dropped, while is it a documentary maker is being treated like a terrorist for trying to film a documentary on the protest.

The protest is legal and justified in every single way, and legally reporting and filming a legal protest is getting people in trouble with the law somehow. It's truly disgusting how governments work.
 
Surely if it is on private land and they're told to vacate that private land then possessing a camera and intending to film a documentary doesn't mean that the law, as if by magic, now doesn't apply to you.
 
Angilion said:
I wouldn't call shooting at the police "peaceful" and I doubt if the treaty you refer to covers the privately owned land that the arrests were made on.
Click to expand...


This is a major point. That private land does belong to them.

They claim they are the land's rightful owners under an 1851 treaty with the U.S. government.

Everyone keeps calling it private land but nobody seems able to show who that land belongs to. Hmmm, I wonder why?



dowie said:
Surely if it is on private land and they're told to vacate that private land then possessing a camera and intending to film a documentary doesn't mean that the law, as if by magic, now doesn't apply to you.
Click to expand...
Exactly who does the private land belong to?

Also, you would be doing many a great journalist a disservice by suggesting they should never go where they should not. I'm not talking about getting a snap of some popstars arse. I mean the ones who put themselves on the line, risking their lives to tell some truth.

**** sake.
 
Threepwood said:
This is a major point. That private land does belong to them.

They claim they are the land's rightful owners under an 1851 treaty with the U.S. government.

Everyone keeps calling it private land but nobody seems able to show who that land belongs to. Hmmm, I wonder why?
Click to expand...

The land they've set up camp on belongs to Energy Transfer Partners.

Threepwood said:
Also, you would be doing many a great journalist a disservice by suggesting they should never go where they should not. I'm not talking about getting a snap of some popstars arse. I mean the ones who put themselves on the line, risking their lives to tell some truth.
Click to expand...

I didn't suggest that 'should never go where they should not'.

I made a fairly simply point that simply holding a camera and claiming you're a journalist doesn't exempt you from the law.

If they're on private land, in the US, where trespass laws make trespass a criminal offence, then of course they're liable to be arrested if they don't leave when warned/asked to by the authorities. Holding a camera and claiming to be a journalist doesn't mean you're above the law.

That there is some separate dispute over the land ownership doesn't matter too much in this respect either, there may be a claim that some other group ought to be the legal owners but that ought to be contested in court. Simply making a claim that someone else's land is actually your land and then deciding to occupy it doesn't really work. They've apparently had since 1850 to make that claim...
 
Last edited:
dowie said:
The land they've set up camp on belongs to Energy Transfer Partners.
Click to expand...
If I sold your dog to your neighboor, who does your dog belong to? What if I sold him when he was an old dog and not a puppy.


dowie said:
I didn't suggest that 'should never go where they should not'.
Click to expand...

So, you're not suggesting anything other than the obvious?

What makes these journalist arrests rather pertinant, is that not long ago the US changed their laws so that any jounalist reporting dissidence can be jailed for 30 years if the authorities believe that the journalists are part of the dissidence.

This means that an arrest can be made on a journalist if there is even the slightest suspicion that they may be part of it.

It did not use to be like this in the US and it has opened a window for abuse of the press, which in turn affects the freedom of the press.




Longbow said:
Perhaps you should take your views on race somewhere else in another thread since you're getting so upset. This thread is about the Oregon protest.
Click to expand...

Perhaps.

Perhaps you should take your views somewhere else too.

If you don't like someone making a comparison between fruit on a public forum.

In my eyes both apples and oranges are fruit, and live in the same bowl.

Don't like it? Please feel free to block me and consequently not reply to anything I say. Seems easy enough. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom