Y'all Qaeda, YeeHawd, Yokel Haram, Vanilla ISIS, Cowliphate

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Wed Jan 27, 2016 7:42 am

The shootout started during a traffic stop. Since they have sovereign citizens on board, they were probably using made-up driver's licenses or license plates or both. For some reason, sovereign citizens tend to become really violent when people tell them those things aren't actually real. It wouldn't be the first traffic stop that went bloody because sovereign citizens were involved.

So far it looks like terrorists Fincium and Ryan Bundy have been shot, with Fincium dead. And seven others arrested.

-Username17

K · Post by K » Wed Jan 27, 2016 8:09 am

I've been waiting for the complete list of charges to be filed, but I've been too afraid to speculate in case one of them had some decent Google-fu and might realize just how fucked they are.

It's not my area of expertise, but I think we can assume they'll never leave prison.

Maxus · Post by **Maxus** » Wed Jan 27, 2016 8:27 am

K wrote:I've been waiting for the complete list of charges to be filed, but I've been too afraid to speculate in case one of them had some decent Google-fu and might realize just how fucked they are.

It's not my area of expertise, but I think we can assume they'll never leave prison.

Destruction of property, being charged with conspiracy to prevent federal agents from etc etc, trespassing, possibly resisting arrest, despends on if they shot back.

Possibly, too, felony murder, considering one of their own got killed in their committing of a felony.

But if I recall rightly, there were more than seven or eight people there doing their terrorist takeover of government property thing.

maglag · Post by **maglag** » Wed Jan 27, 2016 10:02 am

Will vanilla ISIS release a video declaring Fincium a holy martyr now?

How will Y'all Qaeda choose their new spiritual leader?

Will the terrorrists that shot at FBI agents and seized government property for weeks in the name of their god be sent to Guantamo?

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Wed Jan 27, 2016 10:12 am

maglag wrote:Will vanilla ISIS release a video declaring Fincium a holy martyr now?

How will Y'all Qaeda choose their new spiritual leader?

Will the terrorrists that shot at FBI agents and seized government property for weeks in the name of their god be sent to Guantamo?

RobbyPants · Post by **RobbyPants** » Wed Jan 27, 2016 1:42 pm

maglag wrote:Will vanilla ISIS release a video declaring Fincium a holy martyr now?

From what I understand, they're referring to the officer who shot Fincium as "his murderer". So, they're already spinning this, saying that his death was "wrong".

K · Post by K » Wed Jan 27, 2016 2:34 pm

local news station KATU2 wrote:Federal law enforcement officers converged on the wildlife refuge after the arrests and were expected to remain at the site throughout the night. It was unclear how many members of the armed group, if any, were at the refuge when the law enforcement officers arrived.

Sounds like a full round-up.

The Yall'quada are already calling the dead one "a sacrifice" in their press release, but a single martyr is better than pile of them.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Wed Jan 27, 2016 2:48 pm

maglag wrote:USA government stops playing nice, kills one gun maniac and starts arresting the others. I suppose the gun maniacs aren't that brave when the other side shows they're actually willing to fire.

Those who said everybody would just go home and nobody would be shot can go eat their crows.

Uh... Since the people who said everybody would get bored and go home specifically contrasted it:

1) Government gets involved trying to stop them, and thus shooting occurs and someone dies
vs
2) Government ignores them and they get bored and go home.

This looks like the people who said "No the government shouldn't lay siege and try to arrest them because that will result in a shootout and deaths" are 100% correct.

Now, for obvious reasons, a traffic stop is going to result in less deaths than an assault or siege of the lodge in question, so whether or not the cops should be interdicting them with traffic stops is an open question.

But saying "government intervention had exactly the same results you said it would, therefore you were completely wrong" is basically you being a fucking idiot.

Now with the ring leaders and a bunch of people out of the way, who knows what happens next, but they did literally have to kill someone because the police getting involved resulted in the crazies starting to shoot.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Wed Jan 27, 2016 3:31 pm

The Bundy clan still haven't made any payments on the more than a million dollars they owe for all the grazing rights they stole. They've been setting up to seize more territory in other states. It's been clear that we'd have to kill some of them for some time, they are in open revolt and some of them (including the dead guy) have said they intend to die rather than surrender. Taking in their leaders at the cost of only one life is cheap. Far less death and destruction than I'd feared. The completely routine traffic stop backed up by deadly force was a really great plan, and worked much better than what I'd thought they were going to end up having to do.

The two outcomes I was most afraid of were that it would end up like the first Bundy standoff or that it would end up like Waco. The first Bundy standoff, the crazies were allowed to get away with everything and go home victorious - which of course only led to them plotting more ambitious insurrections. In the Waco standoff, the crazies boobytrapped the compound and filled it full of explosives and when the hammer came down a bunch of child hostages were killed in the burning building.

A Bundy victory and a bunch of dead children were obviously not acceptable outcomes, and I'm glad that Oregon and Federal law enforcement appear to have found a way to avoid both. Kudos to the government on this one.

What's great at the moment is to go read the comments on right wing insane-o-sphere sites. A lot of people are trying to sell the terrorists as heroes and martyrs, and it's fucking hilarious. You got these guys gibbering about how the federal government has no right to own land, and it's just puzzling as hell. Where the hell do they think allodial land rights come from? They've never existed in any American or British legal system.

-Username17

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Wed Jan 27, 2016 3:36 pm

FrankTrollman wrote:Taking in their leaders at the cost of only one life is cheap. Far less death and destruction than I'd feared. The completely routine traffic stop backed up by deadly force was a really great plan, and worked much better than what I'd thought they were going to end up having to do.

Indeed, this strategy seems in hindsight to be infinitely better than laying siege. Or finitely but many times better. Whatever.

I'm still a little surprised that 8 guys, including at least two leaders, would all go out on the same trip, but I guess they really were lulled into a false sense of security by the lack of siege (and the previous outcome of ranching bullshit).

Which is a little odd, because the cops had already arrested a guy on a field trip from this lodge.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Wed Jan 27, 2016 3:41 pm

Five guys were in the vehicle. Not sure if it was one of those federal vehicles that they stole and put stickers on to claim they now belonged to "we the people" or if it was a vehicle they actually owned. Three other people were arrested that night. Sounds like in different places, and at least one of them turned himself in when he found out how badly things were going.

-Username17

RobbyPants · Post by **RobbyPants** » Wed Jan 27, 2016 4:26 pm

FrankTrollman wrote:and at least one of them turned himself in when he found out how badly things were going.

That's encouraging.

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Wed Jan 27, 2016 7:56 pm

FrankTrollman wrote:Five guys were in the vehicle. Not sure if it was one of those federal vehicles that they stole and put stickers on to claim they now belonged to "we the people" or if it was a vehicle they actually owned. Three other people were arrested that night. Sounds like in different places, and at least one of them turned himself in when he found out how badly things were going.

-Username17

I wonder how these insurrectionists would react if some civilian walked up and took "their" truck while they were buying coors and skin mags. I bet they fall flat on their face over their "we the people" rhetoric as they try to define how that doesn't mean "everyone."

deaddmwalking · Post by **deaddmwalking** » Thu Jan 28, 2016 1:48 am

Well, Prak, while their position apparently lacks any internal consistency, they'd have a problem with that. They’re trying to say that the government can't own anything - anything that is 'owned' by the government belongs to the governed. I think. So they're justified in borrowing a stealth bomber, I guess, but nobody can mess with their 'private property'.

But taken any of their views to the logical conclusion would have them begging for a real government that stops their type of bullshit.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Thu Jan 28, 2016 2:00 am

deaddmwalking wrote:Well, Prak, while their position apparently lacks any internal consistency, they'd have a problem with that. They’re trying to say that the government can't own anything - anything that is 'owned' by the government belongs to the governed. I think. So they're justified in borrowing a stealth bomber, I guess, but nobody can mess with their 'private property'.

But taken any of their views to the logical conclusion would have them begging for a real government that stops their type of bullshit.

He means specifically the government cars that they stole being used by other people.

The ones that aren't their private property by any definition.

RobbyPants · Post by **RobbyPants** » Thu Jan 28, 2016 12:53 pm

Kaelik wrote:
deaddmwalking wrote:Well, Prak, while their position apparently lacks any internal consistency, they'd have a problem with that. They’re trying to say that the government can't own anything - anything that is 'owned' by the government belongs to the governed. I think. So they're justified in borrowing a stealth bomber, I guess, but nobody can mess with their 'private property'.

But taken any of their views to the logical conclusion would have them begging for a real government that stops their type of bullshit.
He means specifically the government cars that they stole being used by other people.

The ones that aren't their private property by any definition.

But if people stole/borrowed/used all the police cars and all the police guns, what police force would be able to protect them when criminals came for their private property?

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Thu Jan 28, 2016 1:32 pm

The Sovereign Citizens are a self empowerment cult. The concept is that you aren't rich and successful because government communism has taken your share. And then if you say the right magic words, you get to take it back.

The belief is that there's plenty enough to go around, but the government is hiding it from you. So if everyone took it all back (ie.: the entirety of government property was privatized), we'd all be rich. Fundamentally it's a failure to understand large numbers even more than a willful ignorance about the value of collective action. They see the Federal budget is 3.8 trillion dollars and they simply can't understand why that can't be divided up and given back to the people and leave everyone rich. Like the fact that there are 310 million people and that entire budget is just $12,250 a person hasn't really sunk in.

The fact that if we didn't spend all those public funds on roads and schools and shit we wouldn't have an economy at all is total next level. These guys are stumbling over the fact that they don't understand that the "really big numbers" that are federal budgets actually aren't big numbers when you divide them by the other "really big numbers" that are US populations and GDP and shit.

-Username17

maglag · Post by **maglag** » Thu Jan 28, 2016 3:36 pm

FrankTrollman wrote: A Bundy victory and a bunch of dead children were obviously not acceptable outcomes, and I'm glad that Oregon and Federal law enforcement appear to have found a way to avoid both. Kudos to the government on this one.

Yeah, seems like Y'all Qaeda was actually bringing in children to the refuge to both serve as hostage wall and sing hymns for their jihad. Shame on the mothers brainwashing their kids like that.

In more recent news the arrested supreme leader has called the remaining terrorrists to go into hiding. I mean go back to their homes. I would bet good money it's part of a deal to get a reduced sentence.

Alas there seems to have been a schism in Vanilla ISIS as some terrorists are defying even the holy commands of their (arrested) supreme leader and renewed their vows of continuing the occupation.

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Thu Jan 28, 2016 4:53 pm

Maxus wrote:Possibly, too, felony murder, considering one of their own got killed in their committing of a felony.

Actually, there are a couple of hot-shot lawyers like on TV, here. Well okay, people who have actually studied law properly, even if it isn't criminal law. Are they in fact liable for the death of their own in that case? I am not saying the police should be considered at fault there, I'm just curious as to whether, legally, they are collectively at fault as though they had murdered him.

Taking that thought to a bizarre logical conclusion, is the dead guy posthumously at fault for his own death and, due to the felony murder law, his own murderer? If so, this is a new level of fucking incompetence.

Chamomile · Post by **Chamomile** » Thu Jan 28, 2016 5:04 pm

Koumei wrote:If so, this is a new level of fucking incompetence.

Not really. Any criminal who dies in a violent confrontation caused by their own crimes is legally responsible for their own murder. So anyone planning any kind of significant confrontation with the government is likely going to have that happen. Even if they're an extremely competent, professional, and ultimately successful insurrection, if they take even one fatality then the person who died is technically their own murderer.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Thu Jan 28, 2016 5:33 pm

Koumei wrote:
Maxus wrote:Possibly, too, felony murder, considering one of their own got killed in their committing of a felony.
Actually, there are a couple of hot-shot lawyers like on TV, here. Well okay, people who have actually studied law properly, even if it isn't criminal law. Are they in fact liable for the death of their own in that case? I am not saying the police should be considered at fault there, I'm just curious as to whether, legally, they are collectively at fault as though they had murdered him.

Taking that thought to a bizarre logical conclusion, is the dead guy posthumously at fault for his own death and, due to the felony murder law, his own murderer? If so, this is a new level of fucking incompetence.

Felony Murder is a common law thing. However, Criminal Law is not Common Law anywhere in the US.

Many states have passed Felony Murder like laws, but whether or not they are liable has to do with which states have jurisdiction over the death (it might in fact be more than Oregon, the presumed location, if the FBI were involved in the shootout, Federal Laws may also apply, if the "victim" who was the perpetrator who died, was from another state, that state may have jurisdiction) and what laws those states have. Even if they have Felony Murder like laws, they still might not extend to the same extent that Felony Murder can arguably be extended.

Even then, Felony Murder by Cops shooting perpetrators was, so far as I know, never been used anywhere, because it's just so dumb.

(Cops shooting at fleeing perpetrators and missing and killing bystanders has been, but frankly, that's also bullshit, and the felony murder is just an ass backwards way of justifying the cops unjustified shooting.)

Hiram McDaniels · Post by **Hiram McDaniels** » Sat Jan 30, 2016 4:23 pm

FrankTrollman wrote:The Sovereign Citizens are a self empowerment cult. The concept is that you aren't rich and successful because government communism has taken your share. And then if you say the right magic words, you get to take it back.

The belief is that there's plenty enough to go around, but the government is hiding it from you. So if everyone took it all back (ie.: the entirety of government property was privatized), we'd all be rich. Fundamentally it's a failure to understand large numbers even more than a willful ignorance about the value of collective action. They see the Federal budget is 3.8 trillion dollars and they simply can't understand why that can't be divided up and given back to the people and leave everyone rich. Like the fact that there are 310 million people and that entire budget is just $12,250 a person hasn't really sunk in.

The fact that if we didn't spend all those public funds on roads and schools and shit we wouldn't have an economy at all is total next level. These guys are stumbling over the fact that they don't understand that the "really big numbers" that are federal budgets actually aren't big numbers when you divide them by the other "really big numbers" that are US populations and GDP and shit.

-Username17

I recently had an epiphany that right-wingers seem to be obsessed with the idea that someone somewhere is taking something away from them.

Gun control legislation is stealing our freedom.
Obamacare is stealing our right to shitty, cut-rate medical insurance.
Plain red coffee cups are stealing Christmas
Welfare moms are stealing our tax dollars.
Immigrants are stealing our jobs.
PC culture is stealing our free speech.
Hiram McD is stealing my car (this one might be a cogent point, though).

They believe that life is a zero sum game wherein others winning necessarily means that they are losing. Nevermind that this has never actually been the case, and also that it directly contradicts their idea that wealth travels downstream.

I'm dwelling on this lately because I'm angry at Michael Bloomberg's potential presidential bid.

maglag · Post by **maglag** » Sat Jan 30, 2016 6:01 pm

Hiram McDaniels wrote: They believe that life is a zero sum game wherein others winning necessarily means that they are losing. Nevermind that this has never actually been the case, and also that it directly contradicts their idea that wealth travels downstream.

I'm dwelling on this lately because I'm angry at Michael Bloomberg's potential presidential bid.

For rich greedy people, it's not enough to make money, you need to make all the money. Which means that if somebody else is getting money, they're clearly directly stealing it from you, the bastards!

Also rich greedy people usually are hypocrites. Heck, even google's "don't do evil" leaders are going down that hallway, cutting deals with apple so that they can both better exploit their employees and stuff.

Hiram McDaniels · Post by **Hiram McDaniels** » Sat Jan 30, 2016 6:28 pm

maglag wrote: For rich greedy people, it's not enough to make money, you need to make all the money. Which means that if somebody else is getting money, they're clearly directly stealing it from you, the bastards!

Yeah...but I'm not even talking about the greedy and rich. Most right wingers are lower-middle class who vote against their own interests in favor of a plutocracy.

Whipstitch · Post by **Whipstitch** » Sat Jan 30, 2016 10:06 pm

Lower middle class can still put people far enough ahead of the working poor and impoverished that there is little sense of affiliation in terms of gut-level identity politics. The poorest people in America actually do overwhelmingly identify as independent or Democrat. Throw in the prevalence of substance abuse among the very poor and I don't think it's actually all that terribly shocking that people find reasons to resent people who are only a rung or two lower down the ladder.