What? That seems especially nonsensical.

More boat violence, less engaging of obvious wackadoos.

oh man, read the comments. the conspiratards are ALL over this, in many ways.

the roadblock thing is going two ways:

- obvious ambush to murder them
- illegal because it was too close to a curve. i **** you not.

it is actually rather amusing to watch some of the commenters turn their ire upon the author of the article and calling him a liberal sell out.

"She said police fired hundreds of bullets.

"It was like riddling a tin can," she said. "And the lasers were everywhere."

Police said they used less-than-lethal rounds and fired flash-bang devices and sponge projectiles with pepper spray capsules to pierce the windows and draw the occupiers out of the truck."

What a surprise, typical nonlethal ordnance (thanks for the correction btw, actually wasn't aware the words were spelled differently) looks and sounds and leaves damage in vehicles similar to "hundreds of bullets."

Well you're combining a few things there to create your narrative, one of which is her story which appears to be untrue.

Her story is definitely untrue, I think you can see that from the video that was released. The question is whether she's straight up lying about what happened or if she truly believes the police shot hundreds of bullets into their vehicle.

i'm not sure that proves the point you think it proves

Not sure what you're trying to say. The point is the tactics used in situations like that can easily be confused with lethal bullets, despite the fact that they're not. Do you disagree with that or are you just trying to make another completely useless point about how one data point isn't enough to settle a matter either way?

All of the sudden d10 is cool with using the media as a primary source when it's suits his argument. mmmkay.

FYP

Media reporting that authorities say they used non-lethal ammo: believable
Media reporting that authorities say they used normal bullets: lol @ believing the media!

So if the government sets a back burn on federal land and it crosses into your land and burns your house down it is ok, but if you set a back burn on your land to protect your house and it burns 1 unimproved acre of federal land, you get convicted under anti terrorism laws.

Sure you are ok with that?

Please work on your reading comprehension. We can go back down that road if you want, but my OP today made one point. People generally have a hard time distinguishing between lethal and nonlethal ordnance based on sound or an assessment of damage. If you want to disagree with that point, feel free to make your case. If you concede that point, move along.

Previously I disagreed with a media narrative and instead of assuming I knew what I was talking about, you defended your source. In this case I cited a media report and you want to lol at me? No, lol at you. I don't need a media report to tell me what HRT uses in these situations, that's for your benefit. I'm using your own standards to provide you with information and instead of being appreciative of the consideration you'd rather try to paint me as being inconsistent.

If it was just the one time though...

http://www.landrights.org/or/Hammond...ct%20court.pdf

So the first 2 fires were started on his land and escaped onto the public land. Where the 3rd fire started was not stated.

The burn ban applies to starting the fire on the public land.


Ok here is the dead person in his own words as to why he has a beef (pun intended)

So you aren't responsible if you start a fire on your land and it spreads (escapes?) to public land? Pretty sure a burn ban applies to everyone's land. So it, you know, it doesn't spread (escape). Doesn't matter what his beef was. Still doesn't give him the right to take over Malheur and trash the place.

Do you think police surrounding a vehicle may have a better understanding of what was used vs a 19 year old girl sitting inside it?

I can't say I'm super surprised that's where we ended up, but I'm still always delighted by the wonderful way people just cannot help but tell on themselves

So obviously this.

They were ordered to not burn the land. There is no loophole where you get to do so when you want because they started the intentional fire slightly over some invisible line.

Hey as you might have picked up spreading this bull**** is how mentally ill people like Lavoy Finicum ended up getting shot because he imagined a government(that paid his bills and subsidized his entire life) was actually out to get him.

It's irresponsible.

Yes

This point probably doesn't get made enough. It's not just that these conspiracy folk are dumb and wrong, it's that they're broken and in need of help and it seems like unfortunately they're falling in bed with outright criminals who are taking advantage and trying to game the system.

Seems like a lot of this rancher nonsense has way less to do with rights and a whole lot to do with greed.

Guys, once wiper shot a boat we mined all the possible good out of this stupid bullet hole hijack. Y'all don't agree and that seems unlikely to change.

So then we can believe the police in Boston that said they shot real bullets, no?

Why would you think it would be OK to any of us? I'd expect to be fully compensated.