Terrorists Take Over Federal Building in Oregon

Ah, good, They're talking about wanting to leave. Though... I don't think they'll get the 'no persecution,' thing, they broke the law big time.

Aside from the, y'know, occupying a building with threats of violence, they also decided to plow a road right through an archeological site...

Originally posted by Flyattractor
[b]I haven't looked into this at all. Was this an ACTUAL Terrorist Incident or more of a grouchy protest?

Cause I don't recall this actually making all that much of a bump in the news cycle at the time. [/B]

A group of armed people occupied a federal building and made threats of violence.

It was not the most effective terrorism, but it was there.

One Big Mob

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gunfight

In which people shoot guns at each other.

Ever heard the expression 'never take a knife to a gunfight'? From that expression, do you get the impression both people in the fight have guns?

Granted, I am assuming a 'fight.' Perhaps 'a suicide by cop' broke out may turn out being more accurate ... we do not exactly have a good picture of what happened.

I don't think he cares about your long winded smart ass explanations.

When you say things like "unsurprisingly things ended in a gunfight" it implies there was a gunfight. Not cutesy expressions either, a gunfight in which people died. In which both sides were acknowledged to have guns. In which "shots were fired".

We don't know all the facts no, but you said there was a gunfight, so, that leads people to think you're saying there was a gunfight.

At any rate, Q99 clarified now, to pretend that this ambiguous term makes the post a lie is just silliness.

I am wondering why we are not hearing any more about this though. My position generally is that any death caused by police officers should automatically cause a thorough investigation, I'm hoping this will not be swept under the rug.

All we heard so far is that they "put up a fight"...that's an awfully vague statement for someone ending up being dead.

It was a lie though, or at the very least a misdirection. And then it was a whole lot of backtracking that used up a whole page. It wasn't a simple "Oh I can see how that could be seen like that, I mispoke", it was a full on accusal afterwards. Though I understand half this forum hates TI with a fiery passion. Still that doesn't change the original post.
Things have meanings.

It looks like this is getting swept under the rug though. Even the police report was vague on purpose. It seems there's something to hide there.

"Shots fired" from a police report in which they were the only ones to shoot? Really?

Let me understand this.

When cops kill unarmed black teens and even children for resisting arrest, it's like "Cops were just doing their job"

But when cops kill an armed white TERRORIST who outright said he would fight to the death, all of a sudden its "these cops are unjust murderers."

Um...something seems wrong here

Originally posted by One Big Mob
It was a lie though, or at the very least a misdirection. And then it was a whole lot of backtracking that used up a whole page. It wasn't a simple "Oh I can see how that could be seen like that, I mispoke", it was a full on accusal afterwards. Though I understand half this forum hates TI with a fiery passion. Still that doesn't change the original post.
Things have meanings.

It looks like this is getting swept under the rug though. Even the police report was vague on purpose. It seems there's something to hide there.

"Shots fired" from a police report in which they were the only ones to shoot? Really?

Yeah, things have meanings, and a gunfight doesn't need to be two sides with guns, if someone attacks with a knife and then there's shooting that may also very well be called a gunfight, although, again, it was unfortunate phrasing as we don't even know if this was a fight or who fired, etc. etc. You are basically just trying to pin down this argument with a pedantic definition, that doesn't really hold up in everyday speech.

At any rate, do we know they were the only ones to shoot or is that supposition from the phrasing of the report?

Originally posted by Lestov16
Let me understand this.

When cops kill unarmed black teens and even children for resisting arrest, it's like "Cops were just doing their job"

But when cops kill an armed white TERRORIST who outright said he would fight to the death, all of a sudden its "these cops are unjust murderers."

Um...something seems wrong here

You are the only one here saying these things, so call yourself wrong. No one else has said this.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, things have meanings, and a gunfight doesn't need to be two sides with guns, if someone attacks with a knife and then there's shooting that may also very well be called a gunfight.

At any rate, do we know they were the only ones to shoot or is that supposition from the phrasing of the report?

Quit covering up for Q99 and let her address her disingenuous posts. I said from the beginning she was wrong and this was not a gun fight. Your here to just get some posts in so she doesn't have to answer for why she said this was a gunfight like she said it was.

The equivalent would be me saying "Michael Brown shot for no reason." Which was never the case.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Quit covering up for Q99 and let her address her disingenuous posts. I said from the beginning she was wrong and this was not a gun fight. Your here to just get some posts in so she doesn't have to answer for why she said this was a gunfight like she said it was.

The equivalent would be me saying "Michael Brown shot for no reason." Which was never the case.

Q99 adressed the post, I believe you called it "long winded smart ass explanations", in your usual open-minded way, asking for more justification now after such dismissal is ridiculous, who'd take the time to engage you seriously and extensively with that attitude.

Why are you sure the occupiers did not shoot as well, I have not found anything in the reporting that excluded that as a possibility. All we seem to have is that vague phrasing "shots fired".

It was a smart ass remark with the whole "bringing a knife to a gunfight." Has zero place in the discussion and is a sarcastic ploy.

She said it was a gunfight. It wasn't.

Show me where it says Bundy's fired back.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-oregon-refuge-roadblocks-20160127-story.html

If you have read nothing about the shooters firing at the police then why are you assuming they did without a source?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, things have meanings, and a gunfight doesn't need to be two sides with guns, if someone attacks with a knife and then there's shooting that may also very well be called a gunfight, although, again, it was unfortunate phrasing as we don't even know if this was a fight or who fired, etc. etc.

At any rate, do we know they were the only ones to shoot or is that supposition from the phrasing of the report?

It seems so from the report. Otherwise you'd expect something along the lines of "The white guys took out their guns and started blasting at us. Pew pew and shit. So I snuck one right in his dome." Those exact words.
From the report they couldn't even make up an excuse, which is odd to say the least. Looks like they just stopped and blasted following the report anyway.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
It was a smart ass remark with the whole "bringing a knife to a gunfight." Has zero place in the discussion and is a sarcastic ploy.

She said it was a gunfight. It wasn't.

Show me where it says Bundy's fired back.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-oregon-refuge-roadblocks-20160127-story.html

If you have read nothing about the shooters firing at the police then why are you assuming they did without a source?

That's what I'm saying, we don't know yet what actually happened. So the article claiming that the Bundy camp was shooting would be premature.

The witness that's being quoted (though apparently not verified) gives a shocking statement about what happened, if here account is correct this would basically be an execution, and the police officers should face murder charges.

But again, we don't really know what happened yet, besides vague statements by police, and unverified accounts on social media.

Originally posted by Lestov16
Let me understand this.

When cops kill unarmed black teens and even children for resisting arrest, it's like "Cops were just doing their job"

But when cops kill an armed white TERRORIST who outright said he would fight to the death, all of a sudden its "these cops are unjust murderers."

Um...something seems wrong here

Yes

I guess if context is too big an idea to understand

The context so far is that militants took over a federal building, demanded that the government bend to their will, threatened to use armed force if anyone tried to arrest/stop them, the authorities went to arrest them and one of them ended up dead.

Conclusion: Must have been murder

Context is the right wing's acceptance of lethal force on a criminal resisting arrest is dependant on the melanin level of the criminal and not the level of threat they pose, I.e.
unarmed black teen resisting arrest-okay to shoot
armed white terrorist resisting arrest-not okay to shoot

Originally posted by Lestov16
Context is the right wing's acceptance of lethal force on a criminal resisting arrest is dependant on the melanin level of the criminal and not the level of threat they pose, I.e.
unarmed black teen resisting arrest-okay to shoot
armed white terrorist resisting arrest-not okay to shoot

Freddy Gray was not shot. Get your facts together.

Lol.

"Semantics means I can distract from the point!"
-TI

Ah, so what you said was wrong. Thanks for proving my point.