Posted on Jul 23, 2020
2 standoffs in Oregon show differing views of US response
2.5K
80
30
5
5
0
Portland
Protest
Government
Law Enforcement
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 6
6
6
0
This reminds me of the different responses I see from the NRA when someone with a firearm is unjustly targeted who just happens to be white and their almost complete silence when something similar happens to someone who happens to be black.
I also see many of the same people who were OK with the armed right wing groups occupying the federal park go crazy when it is unarmed BLM groups "occupying" a police precinct. To be fair, I reacted a little differently too, so we all need to be careful of our biases.
I also see many of the same people who were OK with the armed right wing groups occupying the federal park go crazy when it is unarmed BLM groups "occupying" a police precinct. To be fair, I reacted a little differently too, so we all need to be careful of our biases.
(6)
(0)
SPC Kevin Ford
MSG Joseph Cristofaro -
1) Under what legal principle does the cost to an organization of not selling a service have anything to do with the ability of an individual to not pay for the service if they are charging for it? Take all the time you need.
2) It does not matter why they charge, the fact is in both cases they do. The reason behind the charge has nothing to do with if a person can just decide not to pay and take the services anyway.
All of your land management explanations are legally meaningless. None of them matter to the legal principles at play. The fact is that they did charge for the service and he took it without paying. As an officer did you really entertain people telling you why it was OK for them to break the law and take something that wasn't theirs to take?
If you don't agree with the fees, that's fine. But at that point the proper way of changing that is legal and political; just taking them isn't a valid legal option but that's exactly what Bundy did despite being warned several times.
1) Under what legal principle does the cost to an organization of not selling a service have anything to do with the ability of an individual to not pay for the service if they are charging for it? Take all the time you need.
2) It does not matter why they charge, the fact is in both cases they do. The reason behind the charge has nothing to do with if a person can just decide not to pay and take the services anyway.
All of your land management explanations are legally meaningless. None of them matter to the legal principles at play. The fact is that they did charge for the service and he took it without paying. As an officer did you really entertain people telling you why it was OK for them to break the law and take something that wasn't theirs to take?
If you don't agree with the fees, that's fine. But at that point the proper way of changing that is legal and political; just taking them isn't a valid legal option but that's exactly what Bundy did despite being warned several times.
(2)
(0)
MSG Stan Hutchison
MSG Joseph Cristofaro - Bull! This is a program that has been ongoing for over 100 years in the west. I don't know where you live, and I don't know why you want to defend a shyster, but it is apparent you have no idea what you are talking about. With that I bid you good day!
(1)
(0)
SPC Kevin Ford
MSG Joseph Cristofaro - I did read your posts, they just don’t make a compelling case as being relevant to the discussion at hand. The government clearly has lost something, they lost revenue. Once again, what would happen if the land sat fallow is completely immaterial. It’s theft from the taxpayers because when someone doesn’t pay fees owed to the government, the rest of us have to make up the difference.
The cable company hasn’t lost anything if I tap into their lines either. Their marginal cost is zero, but it is still theft of services. That’s the law and all the musing about what would happen if they didn’t charge for it doesn’t mean anything.
Insults are unbecoming. If you have a particular disagreement with what I said, use your words.
The cable company hasn’t lost anything if I tap into their lines either. Their marginal cost is zero, but it is still theft of services. That’s the law and all the musing about what would happen if they didn’t charge for it doesn’t mean anything.
Insults are unbecoming. If you have a particular disagreement with what I said, use your words.
(2)
(0)
4
4
0
"often based on the politics of who's protesting and who's cracking down."
So true.
So true.
(4)
(0)
2
2
0
There is a very significant difference, other than the identity of the "protesters".
The wildlife refuge was in the middle of nowhere, and the Federal Courthouse is in downtown Portland.
Kind of relevant to the response.
The wildlife refuge was in the middle of nowhere, and the Federal Courthouse is in downtown Portland.
Kind of relevant to the response.
(2)
(0)
MSG Stan Hutchison
MSG Joseph Cristofaro - By the way, the majority of demonstrators are not attacking people and property.
(2)
(0)
SPC Kevin Ford
MSG Joseph Cristofaro - They were not arrested in the original incident and surprise, surprise, they were at it again. The second time they were arrested.
(2)
(0)
SPC Kevin Ford
MSG Joseph Cristofaro - I did read what happened. What do you believe I mischaracterized?
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google