choked to death. All over selling loose cigarettes.
No, Choked to death over resisting arrest. Again, it doesn't matter what law you are breaking, if you escalate the problem by breaking more laws, it could end violently. Your logic here is inane. Why, if you commit a lightweight offense like selling loose cigarettes, would you choose the get violent with the police? You turn it on its head, and blame the law itself. That is just frankly moronic.
I'm not going to play this game with you. You are lying, and that's all there is to it. I've demonstrated why this is the case, and you persist. Sorry, you're wrong. But that's probably because you didn't actually research anything, you just use your political bias to form an opinion for you.
You have not demonstrated anything but laughable idiocy. Did your heroes threaten or not? Yes, they did. Did they occupy a building by force? Yes, they did, which might explain what they were charged with. Perhaps you could offer to put your formidable intellect at their disposal as defense council, since you seem to think that you can magically make brandishing weapons into non threatening behavior. Also, you have no idea what my alleged "political bias" is here. I simply recognized your libertarian rhetoric because I have seen it espoused by morons many times.
that they were merely protesting 'grazing rights', and that everything else they did was as benign as that.
Because they are.
LOL! Again -- it doesn't matter if they were protesting over 'grazing rights' or the right to masturbate in public -- that does not magically absolve them of obeying other laws, does it? For the sake of argument, even if I supported their 'cause', I would still be fine with them being arrested etc because they took over a federal building and held it by force, with weapons. You seem to think that because they were protesting 'grazing rights' that they should be exempt from all other laws. That's not how it works for anyone, nor should it.
A building that was vacant for the season.
So what?! Seriously, why do you think that makes one iota of difference?
They're protesting due to an oppressive federal government stepping on them for over 40 years. I can't blame them, because our forefathers specifically outlined the right to revolt. The big difference is, they're not revolting, they're peacefully protesting.
A "peaceful protest" does not involve brandishing weapons, dolt. You are hopelessly out in space here. And don't give me this "our forefathers" horseshit like you are some patriot when you use the next breath to call the government "oppressive". Like all libertarians, you hate the USA and every single thing it stands for.
Nope, they have a legal right to graze on their land and outlying land due to Oregon law. The Federal government didn't believe they did and began screwing over Ranchers. That's the argument.
And? How do rational people deal with this situation? Why, they hire a fucking lawyer. What they don't do is occupy a federal building with a bunch of armed morons.
You have told everyone in this thread that they don't know what they are talking about here
Because most don't.
Hahahaha! There you go again with the baseless arrogance. You have demonstrated no special knowledge of the situation. The facts are public record. You have made what you think is an "argument", and people disagree. Oh well. That doesn't mean that you know more about the facts, just that you have an opinion that not many people agree with. No need to lash out.
Nope, because a public park isn't for the purpose of grazing.
NO shit Sherlock. Neither are publicly owned lands, like the ones you insist that your heroes should be able to destroy and profit from.
Oregon law specifically dictates land surrounding grazing land. There are no public parks near grazing land. So again, another point of yours is proven wrong.
And again, you are clueless. Publicly owned land is publicly owned land. You can call it a "park", a "reserve", a "refuge" or whatever the fuck you want to call it, but it is owned by the people, not some rich rancher, and nobody including these assholes has a right to destroy it for person profit, period. If their ranches were not near public land, then how the fuck did this happen, retard?
Do they have the right to protest? Yes, of course they do.
And that's the crux of the argument and undermines your entire point. You just contradicted yourself to such a degree that you proved your position WRONG.
LOL! Listen, retard, if you are going to quote me, use the whole quote if you are trying to prove I "contradicted" myself. What does the rest of that quote say, fucktard? Here it is:
Do they have the right to "arm themselves"? There are of course laws around that that take context into it, etc. Hilariously, you left out the crimes that they committed -- taking over a federal building and holding it by force, threatening federal agents, etc
You couldn't argue that point to save your witless life, so you ignored it. Moron. A right to protest doesn't magically mean that you have the right to break multiple laws in the process. By your logic, all I need to is say that I am "protesting" and I now can brandish weapons, break federal laws, etc. This is due to the fact that you're clearly an idiot.
you think that Oregon ranchers are magically entitled to destroy public land for person profit
Wrong.
How, exactly, is that wrong, chucklefuck? You insist that ranchers in Oregon have the right to privately profit from public land by letting their livestock destroy it. You state this over and again like you think it's a magic spell, yet when pressed you insist otherwise. Hilarious
and that they also have the right to stage armed occupations of federal buildings
Revolt is outlined in US law. So yes, they DO have a right to stage a protest of this kind
HAHAHAHA! No, asshole, nobody has that right, no matter what their fucking 'cause'. Which is why they were arrested.
threaten the police
Which hasn't happened, and which has been proven false. Again, there are those lies again. If you weren't lying, you'd be able to pull up evidence that you have conveniently forgotten to include.
Holy fuck are you ever an idiot. I gave you a link to a video of one of your heroes explicitly saying "when I get out of prison I am going to kill you" to the police. Then there is the big spokesman that got himself shot seen multiple times brandishing his weapon and stating that he would not be taken alive. That is is a tacit threat, idiot, just like brandishing a gun is a tacit threat. Only a desperate fucking idiot would try and pretend that they weren't threatening anyone. Which is why you are of course the one trying to float that loser of an "argument".
And you are simply espousing the same inane liberal bullshit we've all heard a jillion times too. The Government is God, only People can do wrong not the Government. I get it. You're voting for Bernie.
Ah, so I was right -- your whole stance is informed by your incredibly stupid "ideology". Listen, asshole, you know nothing about my political leanings. You don't have to be a "liberal" to know that Libertarianism is an infantile fantasy. Fuck, you don't even know what the word "liberal" means.
Best of luck being an angry dolt there cowhand.