Izawwlgood wrote: cphite wrote:
Mutex wrote:Yeah, not everyone is ok with a large mob deciding they're above the law because they're armed to the teeth. Laws are decided by the whole of society and should apply to everyone. If these people think they can pick and choose what laws apply to them, and the government seems to let them get away with it, I wouldn't want to live in that area. And I wouldn't want to have to join another armed mob to be safe from them. Going back to the days of tribal warfare doesn't appeal.
Sure... which is reason enough to cut the power, turn off the water, and wait them out - and then arrest them. There is a huge gap between letting them get away with it, and deliberately escalating to the point where people on either side are killed or injured.
While I agree with you, the point stands that no one cut the power and waited out the Occupy protestors. Or those students peacefully staging a sit in. Or Eric Garner. etc. etc. etc.
Actually they DID wait out the Occupy protesters for while; some would argue that they waited them out for far longer than they should have. Occupy wasn't just sitting on public land; they were also sitting on privately owned land, and using (some might say abusing) both public and private resources. All in all, the Occupy brats got an enormous amount of leeway.
That aside, the key reason not to rush into the building in Oregon is that right now the situation is non-violent, and there is nothing to be gained by making it violent.
The response that these guys are getting is the reasonable, careful, metered response. That's precisely the problem - they are presenting the furthest possible extreme we see in protests. The National Guard was called in because people in Baltimore were rioting. These guys are heavily armed, trying to become martyrs, and staging a hostile take over, and we're saying "Well, lets play it cool".
Exactly... the National Guard were called in because people were rioting
and those riots presented a real and present danger to everyone involved, and because local law enforcement wasn't equipped to handle it. The guys in Oregon are, thus far, confined to a single building and have made no attempt to do much else but sit there in that building. There is no reason to call the National Guard at this point because there is nothing for the National Guard to be doing. If it comes to a point where the authorities need to storm the building, there are forces far better qualified than the National Guard. Really, the only reason for the National Guard to be involved would be in the case of riots - which haven't happened. If it comes to a gun fight, the FBI is more than qualified.
The message this is sending is that if white people are armed and extremely dangerous, you listen to them and try and talk them down quietly. If black people are standing in the wrong place or protesting or rioting, you call in the heavy fucking artillery.
Actually the message this is sending is that the federal authorities are capable of showing restraint when it's warranted.
A CHILD was gunned down because someone said they were waving a toy gun around.
Correction: A child was gunned down because he WAS waving a toy gun around - and, as an aside, one that had been modified to look realistic. It's not "someone said" - you can see the whole thing clear as day on video. Bear in mind, I am not
excusing the actions of the two officers involved - based on what I've seen in the video, they were absolutely in the wrong. But all the evidence suggests is that both officers acted stupidly; not necessarily maliciously. The driver for pulling up so closely to a kid who was presumed to be armed; and the shooter for making the boneheaded decision to fire his weapon without good reason.
But the key difference is that that situation involved a split-second decision, whereas the Oregon case does not. In the Oregon case, authorities had time to process what was happening and have taken a more reasoned approach - and that's a good thing.
Here a bunch of grown ass men are bristling with guns aimed outward, and the authorities are saying 'Well well, lets just see where this goes'.
Even setting aside that description being more than a bit of an exaggeration - they have guns but they haven't openly threatened anyone - the fact that they're heavily armed is all the more reason to use restraint.
What exactly do you think happens if the authorities go in with force? Do you really want to risk multiple casualties and lives destroyed - on both sides - just to make a point? Or... might it be better to at least try to resolve this non-violently?