150 Armed Militia Members Take Over Federal Building

[*bfine32*]

(01-04-2016, 11:14 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: An armed seizure of a federal building isn't dangerous to human life? 

Not if no lives are threatened. 

I've already provided a picture of the federal building. 

[BmorePat87]

(01-04-2016, 11:15 PM)bfine32 Wrote: First: answering a question with a question is rude.

Your question was in response to a question I asked. Rude much?

Quote:Secondly:


They didn't break into anybody's house and if they did; they did so peacefully.

They have not threatened to shoot anyone.

But to answer your question: If you did that, you are not being "peaceful".

Now: What acts have they done that is dangerous to human life?  

They didn't, they broke into a federal building. That's much worse. 

They also did threaten to use force if they were forcibly removed from the building. Considering the fact that they're armed, we aren't reaching why suggesting they mean with guns. 

So considering all of that, I am going to apply what you said in your post and infer that you believe that they are not "peaceful". 

As far as your question, an armed break in and seizure of any building has the potential to be dangerous to human life. Had there been someone inside and they lawfully tried to defend their agency's building, they could have been shot. I'll use the same analogy: if I break into a building with a gun, is there a chance someone inside could be seriously injured? (the question is rhetorical, so don't freak out on me)

[BmorePat87]

(01-04-2016, 11:20 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Not if no lives are threatened. 

I've already provided a picture of the federal building. 

So as long as no one turns out to be in a building, an armed seizure of the building is peaceful and no lives could have been threatened.

[*bfine32*]

(01-04-2016, 11:22 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Your question was in response to a question I asked. Rude much?




Had there been someone inside and they lawfully tried to defend their agency's building, they could have been shot. 

Then this could have been considered an act of terror,

Flip the script: If someone had been in there and asked them to leave and they did so peacefully; would it be terror.

We can make up "what ifs" or we can go by what has happened to date. I'll chose my stance; you choose yours. 

[*bfine32*]

(01-04-2016, 11:25 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: So as long as no one turns out to be in a building, an armed seizure of the building is peaceful and no lives could have been threatened.

Why do you keep using the term peaceful and what could have happened? But yeah. If no one is in the building then no lives were threatened. Was that a trick question?

Look at the first bullet of the FBI's definition of domestic terrorism it mentions threat to human life. 

[Belsnickel]

(01-04-2016, 11:19 PM)6andcounting Wrote: It's not a voluntary exchange when one side bullied the other into the deal.

Never said it was, just said it wasn't seizure.

[*bfine32*]

Let's try this instead of flapping our yaps:

Do you consider this incident to date an act of terrorism and those involved terrorists?

It is going to be he hardest answer because it requires a yes or no.

I'll start:

No.

Who is next?

[Rotobeast]

(01-04-2016, 11:39 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Let's try this instead of flapping our yaps:

Do you consider this incident to date an act of terrorism and those involved terrorists?

It is going to be he hardest answer because it requires a yes or no.

I'll start:

No.

Who is next?

For as far as my knowledge goes.....

No.

I still think it was a stupid move though.
There are far better options to get your message out.

[*bfine32*]

(01-04-2016, 11:46 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: For as far as my knowledge goes.....

No.

I still think it was a stupid move though.
There are far better options to get your message out.

Seems like cat got everybody else's tongue. 

[BmorePat87]

(01-04-2016, 11:29 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Why do you keep using the term peaceful and what could have happened? But yeah. If no one is in the building then no lives were threatened. Was that a trick question?

Look at the first bullet of the FBI's definition of domestic terrorism it mentions threat to human life. 

You talking in circles doesn't change the fact that this is terrorism. 

[*bfine32*]

(01-05-2016, 12:03 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: You talking in circles doesn't change the fact that this is terrorism. 

So is that a yes?

[BmorePat87]

(01-04-2016, 11:39 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Let's try this instead of flapping our yaps:

Do you consider this incident to date an act of terrorism and those involved terrorists?

It is going to be he hardest answer because it requires a yes or no.

I'll start:

No.

Who is next?

You realize that 5 people on the first page called them terrorists with another person said "it appears to be terrorism" before later calling them terrorists. 

I'm not sure you why feel the need to ask the same question as the OP when his question has been answered by many.

[*bfine32*]

(01-05-2016, 12:08 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: You realize that 5 people on the first page called them terrorists with another person said "it appears to be terrorism" before later calling them terrorists. 

I'm not sure you why feel the need to ask the same question as the OP when his question has been answered by many.

So is that a yes?

I did see a couple folks poking fun on the first page.

Believe it or not some new information has been presented since the first page

[BonnieBengal]

(01-04-2016, 11:46 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: For as far as my knowledge goes.....

No.

I still think it was a stupid move though.
There are far better options to get your message out.

No.

Like Rotobeast, I think there are much smarter ways to get your message out.

[Rotobeast]

(01-04-2016, 07:41 PM)BonnieBengal Wrote: What about Baltimore riots?  Occupy property damage?  Was that called terrorism?

(01-04-2016, 08:06 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: The intent has to be to coerce the government into changing some action/policy with the threat of violence. The Baltimore riots would not qualify. 

This got me to wondering why the Feds didn't jump in and charge this one cat with terrorism ?
Granted, he got more than the mandatory minimum that would apply, but he destroyed a business and put peoples lives at risk to in fact have the federal government change their policies on investigating police brutality.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ferguson-st-louis-protester-sentenced-to-8-years-in-quiktrip-arson/

What "privilege" is at play here ?

[*bfine32*]

(01-05-2016, 12:39 AM)Rotobeast Wrote: This got me to wondering why the Feds didn't jump in and charge this one cat with terrorism ?
Granted, he got more than the mandatory minimum that would apply, but he destroyed a business and put peoples lives at risk to in fact have the federal government change their policies on investigating police brutality.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ferguson-st-louis-protester-sentenced-to-8-years-in-quiktrip-arson/

What "privilege" is at play here ?

I just don't see that act as terrorism either. But of course I'm not as quick to throw the term around as others are. Even though this act seems to meet all the requirements of the FBI definition. 

[Vas Deferens]

Terrorism. Yes.

Feds should shoot first and have the taxpayers lawyer up later just like LEO's in major cities.

White Privilege much? (Sorry for the rude question Beezy)

[*bfine32*]

(01-05-2016, 02:18 AM)Vas Deferens Wrote: Terrorism.  Yes.

Feds should shoot first and have the taxpayers lawyer up later just like LEO's in major cities.  

White Privilege much?  (Sorry for the rude question Beezy)

No rude question; you provided a straight yes or no. Follow on questions are fine.

[Sovereign Nation]

(01-04-2016, 11:39 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Let's try this instead of flapping our yaps:

Do you consider this incident to date an act of terrorism and those involved terrorists?

It is going to be he hardest answer because it requires a yes or no.

I'll start:

No.

Who is next?

No.

[Rotobeast]

(01-05-2016, 02:18 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I just don't see that act as terrorism either. But of course I'm not as quick to throw the term around as others are. Even though this act seems to meet all the requirements of the FBI definition. 

I don't either.
But, if the Hammond case of burning 127 unpopulated acres of grass was terrorism,  surely burning down a business in a densely populated area would be.