First off, your attempt at obscuring the fact that you don't see this as a terrorist act won't cut it. No video to blame. No nothing. You don't see a group of armed men unlawfully seizing and occupying a government building as being a violent act or an attempt at intimidation
Using the definition above your skillset can use you can stay in denial that you aren't a moron.
- No dumbfuck. Here is exactly what you wrote
According to the FBI definition;
Anyone who uses violence, or the threat of violence, against CIVILIAN targets of a country in order to secure political change is guilty of terrorism.
Lying by omission. One of your favorite tricks.I see no threat of violence against civilian or otherwise. I see people who say that they will resist but have not said how they will resist.
- Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping;
Using the definition posted on the FBI website people 14 and above see the key information you left out.
You see nothing but sand.
So this entire thread is now based on a lie and that may be why there have so few posts.
I wonder if Louise has ever heard the phrase "double jeopardy"? These two ranchers were previously sentenced for their "crimes" and served their time. Now a new judge decided that they should be in prison longer. That is the real outrage. That someone can go through the system and some third party who calls themselves a judge can decided unilaterally that time served is not enough. I think we should focus on this corrupt judge and find out who they are. Originally Posted by Munchmasterman
I see your problem. Cognitive blindness. I see people occupying an empty government building who happen to be legally armed. Legally armed like many people are. You see armed men first and foremost. Odd that a hotshot military guy like yourself is so scared of armed people going about their business. In this case their business is breaking the law (misdemeanor) by breaking into an empy building. So what is your idea of a penalty for breaking and entering? Because that is all we're talking about.
Kind of reminds me of an old George Carlin joke. A man has barricaded himself into his home, he has no hostages and is not threatened anyone. Police are ignoring him.
