I think many involved in this discussion are being diverted from thinking critically about the bigger picture: What actually happened and why?
When you consider what the arrested people were actually charged with — conspiracy to impede or injure officer — you can see that the Feds had to reach pretty far to create a justification for their actions against people who acted on deeply held Constitutional beliefs, and the State of Oregon didn’t have anything plausible either.
US Code Title 18 Section 372
If two or more persons in any State, Territory, Possession, or District conspire to prevent, by force, intimidation, or threat, any person from accepting or holding any office, trust, or place of confidence under the United States, or from discharging any duties thereof, or to induce by like means any officer of the United States to leave the place, where his duties as an officer are required to be performed, or to injure him in his person or property on account of his lawful discharge of the duties of his office, or while engaged in the lawful discharge thereof, or to injure his property so as to molest, interrupt, hinder, or impede him in the discharge of his official duties, each of such persons shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six years, or both.
Really? What has been most accurately described as a “sit-in”, conducted by people who declared openly that they would only legally defend themselves if attacked are guilty of what, exactly? Pretty weak sauce. But it gives the media idiots something to parrot when the talk is about “armed militants” arrested “on felony charges”.
Think, people. The particular actors and actions will be overly scrutinized and debated until everyone has opinions about the details but have lost sight of the bigger issues. And who or what, exactly, benefits from that outcome?
Shrillary and billary benefit (uranium mines)
Did they use US Code Title 18 Section 372 against the OWS & blacklivesmatter?
Double standard ...
Feds murdered Mr finicum.
There was a guy with a vidcam; hopefully someone gets —that— vid and puts it out there.
I would imagine being armed had a lot to do with it. That would cover the “by...intimidation, or threat...” part of Section 372.
Guns change the complexion of everything. I’m about as pro-gun a person as you’re going to meet, but I know that if you bring weapons to a “sit-in” you’re raising the stakes a few notches. This was not the most well-thought-out maneuver on the ranchers’ part.