A total of eight people were arrested
The Washington Post on the news from Harney County, Oregon:
Federal agents moved early Wednesday morning to seal off a remote wildlife refuge in Oregon, hours after authorities arrested several leaders of the armed activists who had seized the land in a shootout that killed one of the group’s most prominent members.
In the weeks since the group began its occupation, local and federal law enforcement officials had called for the occupation to end peacefully. On Tuesday, after these calls and attempts at negotiations went nowhere, authorities moved to arrest several group members while they were away from the compound. A total of eight people were arrested, at the shootout and other locations.
Finally.
After the exchange of gunfire on a highway, Ammon Bundy, the group’s leader, and others were arrested on federal charges. Other members of the group remained at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, but before the sun rose over a remote swath of eastern Oregon previously best known for its bird-watching, authorities said they were blocking access to the federal land.
In a statement, the FBI and Oregon State Police said that they had established checkpoints along key routes to the refuge and that anyone who tries to travel inside would be arrested. Officials said people leaving the refuge would have their names confirmed and vehicles searched, but they did not say whether those people would be arrested.
Finally. I still don’t understand why they didn’t seal off the road at the beginning.
The FBI had refrained from making arrests on the refuge because it did not want to be seen as storming the compound, and officials had publicly said they sought a peaceful resolution. Up to this point, law enforcement has not impeded the travel of occupiers, a law enforcement official said Wednesday.
“But as we call for a peaceful resolution, we’re hoping that people on the refuge will now depart,” said the official, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss the ongoing situation.
So instead the FBI is seen as sitting on its ass while hundreds of people illegally occupy a publicly owned wildlife refuge.
The FBI and Oregon State Police have also not said yet how many shots were fired, who fired them or identified the person who was killed. The person killed was later identified as LaVoy Finicum, who was a spokesman for the group, according to occupiers as well as Nevada assembly woman familiar with the occupiers and a Facebook page for Bundy’s father’s ranch. Finicum’s daughter also told the Oregonian that he was killed.
The people at the refuge are still being defiant.
Some worried that the prolonged success of armed standoffs like those at Malheur and Cliven Bundy’s ranch in 2014 would only encourage further showdowns. Brown and local officials in Burns demanded to know why U.S. officials hadn’t taken action.
Well quite. How could that prolonged success not encourage more such armed occupations?
But an image posted on the Bundy Ranch Facebook page condemned the violent outcome.
“Tonight peaceful patriots were attacked on a remote road for supporting the constitution. One was killed,” it read. “Who are the terrorists?”
Of course. They’ll be back.
I think the strategy of waiting until the core leadership group was together and well away from the refuge and the town before attempting an arrest was probably a good one. Obviously the FBI could not reveal the plan while they were waiting for the opportunity to present itself.
Agree with PieterB, but I still don’t understand why they let the dingdongs at the Refuge come and go as they please. Which, as far as I can tell, is still what they’re doing. Encircle the place and cut off their supply of Cheetos at the very least.
Isn’t it funny how if you do something about terrorism, you incite the terrorists and if you don’t do something about terrorism you incite terrorists?
Peaceful patriots toting very large guns and swaggering around like they owned the joint, threatening people who challenged their right to steal property that belonged to everyone. I think it’s easy enough to spot the terrorists.
That’s because no matter what message you intend to send, the terrorists are going to interpret you in light of their existing world view. And if their existing world view is structured such that every possible act you can take short of capitulation is an offense, then every choice you’re willing to make will be perceived as an insult.
Terrorists aren’t the only groups who do this. Supporters of social causes do it, media “vindicator” figures do it, it’s all over the place.
@quixote, my guess is that letting people come and go as they pleased was part of the strategy. The core group was so confident of their ability to travel freely that they went in just two vehicles to a “town meeting” over an hour away. I assume that’s the sort of thing law enforcement has been waiting for.
Just a few minutes ago, the SAIC* of the operation gave those remaining at Malheur a thinly veiled ultimatum, saying that they’ve had every opportunity to leave peacefully, and will still be able to do so, but they will exit through a checkpoint and not be allowed back in.
* SAIC = FBI Special Agent in Charge
A diffrent view.
http://www.salon.com/2016/01/27/oregon_militiamen_fell_right_into_the_feds_trap_sorry_liberals_the_government_was_right_to_wait_before_taking_them_out/
‘Peaceful’ patriots do not threaten violent uprisings.
Oh, Amanda Marcotte. I’ll bite my tongue on what I think of her as a human being, and just focus on her article.
To start out, there’s literally no evidence whatsoever that “do absolutely nothing for weeks and then arrest a small percentage of them on the highway” was actually a planned out course of action.
Nor is there any evidence that the status quo, which it should be noted already includes one shootout, one wounded person, and a death, is actually the best outcome that could have been obtained.
Nor is there any evidence that the status quo isn’t going to get worse! She acts like this is somehow resolved! Why? How?
There’s a massive gulf between the only two options Marcotte considers, those being the status quo that actually happened, and some kind of storming of the building. For example, the building could have been cut off from supplies and reinforcements a long time ago, and then law enforcement could have just sat on their hands and waited.
Its entirely plausible that strategy could have gotten us to a place as good or better than we are today. I can’t guarantee that, but at least I put more thought into it than Marcotte put into that article.
I’ll bet a Coke that the Feds had/have at least one mole among the Brave Heroes.
I am not a military expert, though I am law enforcement trained. That said.
Storming the refuge is guaranteed to result in loss of life on both sides. Capturing people as they leave makes perfect sense. Nobody is ever more vulnerable than when driving: they’re trapped in a tin can like sitting ducks.
One reason cops are trained to make you stay in the car at a stop is that it’s easy to shoot you there if need be, and hard for you to do anything about it. When the roles are reversed, my instructor taught me to “get the fuck out of your vehicle, because it’s a ‘kill zone’.”
They may have to go in, but decapitating the movement with minimal loss of life was well done. I wasn’t there, but the one guy publicly announced that he’d rather die than go to jail, so this might be a legit case of “suicide by cop.”
Patrick @9,
Yes, I know… Amanda Marcotte. But I think storming the refuge (as per #11) would have been bloodier and made them “martyrs”. This makes them look like what they are, bumbling – if sometimes deadly – idiots. They are now trying to salvage some publicity but I don’t think it’ll work.
Sure, storming the building is probably a bad call. But what about, say, surrounding it and waiting for people to get hungry, then offering to negotiate over a nice steak dinner?
@Patrick
Can you guarantee your way wouldn’t have resulted in bloodshed? Of course not. What’s the point of this Monday morning quarterbacking, besides the animus you apparently have for Amanda Marcotte?
According to the Guardian, the Feds were talking about cutting off power to the building back in the beginning of January. Obviously they decided not to go through with that plan. Instead, they let the criminals get comfortable–then arrested most of the leaders when they were away from the compound, minimizing the possibility of a big shoot out.
Thought and coordinated effort was put into this. The siege has all but ended, and the only loss of life was a man who had vowed to die before going to jail.