Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Frumple]

#YallQaeda #TarkinWasRight

FTFY :V

[nenjin]

Turns out they do have at least two demands that are tangible things. They want the US Government to relinquish control of the Refuge (so they can get back to huntin' and ranchin' for free), and they want the rest of the Hammond's sentence commuted.

Some serious freedom they're fightin' for.

[Egan_BW]

So they want to not go to jail please, and have nothing to hold hostage in exchange.

[Rolepgeek]

If there are no observable deterrence effects of gun ownership on crime or deterrence effects of drone strikes on Islamic radicals, why would you expect deterrence to work here?  What makes these people seem unusually rational or intimidatable?

Well, for one thing, gun ownership isn't universal, most criminals don't look up what percentage of people own guns in their area, and actually in one town that implemented mandatory gun ownership (yes you heard that right), crime rates did go down. Of course, the number of crimes (as an absolute number, and as a proportion) that ended in violence and injury to the victim became higher.

Drone strikes are 'oh hey they killed my buddy'. They probably have a wide deterrence effect that's offset by the fact that it's not everywhere at once. People who are going to do a bad thing judge on the likelihood of their punishment more often than the severity, after a certain level of severity.

Also, this mostly just reminds me of the Waco siege, except with less pedophilia and legitimate ownership of the land, which ended badly for everyone involved, and I'm really hoping it takes a better route. Like not killing all of them. FAKEDIT: Someone already mentioned Waco, I guess. Oh well.

[Rolan7]

So they want to not go to jail please, and have nothing to hold hostage in exchange.

Except themselves, since they know they (some of them?) will become martyrs if the government uses force.  Heck even if it's nonlethal.  If they go to jail for as long as they deserve, militias everywhere are going to be up in arms.  Maybe Mormons too?

It's pretty disgusting but I won't be surprised if it works.

[nenjin]

not part of the US park system and instead private land?

This. I assume they want the Fed give up ownership of the land and turn it over to the State, so they can either buy it or argue with their own state that it should be a public common ground they can ranch and hunt on for free. This is really what it's all about: money.

[Rolepgeek]

This is why I've been saying send in police, if they shoot at the police, give 'em 24 hours warning and reduced sentence if they come out during that time. If they come out without shooting at the police, give 'em a fine and send 'em on their way. Makes 'em look like children throwing a tantrum, rather than martyrs.

[RedKing]

This is why I've been saying send in police, if they shoot at the police, give 'em 24 hours warning and reduced sentence if they come out during that time. If they come out without shooting at the police, give 'em a fine and send 'em on their way. Makes 'em look like children throwing a tantrum, rather than martyrs.

Still too lenient. If they shoot at police, the gloves are off. Anything else, and you're looking at a MASSIVELY hypocritical response.
If they come out peacefully, they get a fine *and* a prison sentence. Maybe not the full 20 years, but something. Otherwise, some rich jackass with an axe to grind will start bankrolling these protests and paying the fines every time.

[SalmonGod]

This made my day.

[mainiac]

Otherwise, some rich jackass with an axe to grind will start bankrolling these protests and paying the fines every time.

This is what racketeering laws are for.

[DemonOfWrath]

I'm kind of pitying those theoretical police officers you guys want to send in just to get shot at to justify a harsher response. It isn't a hostage situation or anything, nobody is actually in danger, is it THAT big a deal to just wait a week or two without giving them much attention (seriously, what do they accomplish if nobody pays attention besides freezing their arses off?) for them to probably get bored and disperse? And THEN arrest them once they're separated rather than in a big cluster of guns? If they're arrested and punished in the end why needlessly put people in danger?

Where will you find the cops you'll tell "go and risk getting shot at when nobody is in immediate danger" who'd actually do it anyways?

[Rolan7]

...Not sure where to begin.

Well first off, it's not a police matter, it's federal.  Which is why there are no cops there.  Someone already explained this pretty well.

Secondly, an armed militia has seized a government building.  My understanding is that, once the weekend ended, they were keeping the employees from working (not to mention breaking and entering, and trespassing).  The feds walking away, even as some kind of ploy as you described, would set a bad precedent.  And would probably only increase the media coverage.

Thirdly, I only noticed Roleplaygeek suggest provoking the militia to justify a harsher response...  Using cops, which are not involved.  There's no need to provoke a response, they're already living at the Feds' mercy.  What people are calling for is an ultimatum, backed by decisive force if they don't surrender.

As for "nobody being in danger", the town is full of militia members collecting supplies and shipping them into the building.  But sure yeah, wait them out, I'm sure they'll "get bored".

[DemonOfWrath]

...Not sure where to begin.

Well first off, it's not a police matter, it's federal.  Which is why there are no cops there.  Someone already explained this pretty well.

Secondly, an armed militia has seized a government building.  My understanding is that, once the weekend ended, they were keeping the employees from working (not to mention breaking and entering, and trespassing).  The feds walking away, even as some kind of ploy as you described, would set a bad precedent.  And would probably only increase the media coverage.

Thirdly, I only noticed Roleplaygeek suggest provoking the militia to justify a harsher response...  Using cops, which are not involved.  There's no need to provoke a response, they're already living at the Feds' mercy.  What people are calling for is an ultimatum, backed by decisive force if they don't surrender.

As for "nobody being in danger", the town is full of militia members collecting supplies and shipping them into the building.  But sure yeah, wait them out, I'm sure they'll "get bored".

Ok, I'm not american so I don't know how exactly it would go regarding who gets sent in and when, but everyone keeps saying send police officers in so that's what I used. And regardless of who you send they risk getting shot at, so the same argument applies unless you're going to drive something bulletproof up to the building. They've threatened to shoot any law enforcement that tries to remove them or enforce the law. By sending someone, anyone, to go give them an ultimatum you're provoking them by calling their bluff as either they leave or start shooting. And unless you're going to blow the building up you'd eventually have to send people into it if they aren't bluffing.

The militia isn't threatening to shoot or harm anyone in the town, the only threats they've issued is towards any law enforcement that tries to remove them (if I'm wrong please show me). Collecting supplies does not put people in danger. Or are you implying that they'll start taking hostages or shooting people in the town if they aren't stopped? I'm not saying that they should be allowed to go willy-nilly through the town (honestly I think they should just get locked in the park and sieged out, they can't stay there forever) or that there should be no law enforcement presense nearby, just I don't believe they've shown any indication to harm anyone in the town so far.

My thoughts are does it really set that bad of a precedent if they're allowed to hold the building for a while, but still end up in jail afterwards? The upside is you don't risk turning them into matyrs and galvanising the existing anti-federal government nuts in your country which could be worse than saying "Sure, you can hold the building for a bit but you'll be spending the next decade(s) in jail once you're done.".

[Sheb]

Wait, what, no enforcement on the ground? I'd understand a cordon and wait them out strategy, but no one on the ground? WTF?

[andrea]

he bad precedent being set is that threatening law enforcement is an effective strategy. While approaching might be a bad idea, leave them be is even worse.
SIeging is probably a better way to solve the situation.