Oath Keepers Turn Up at Michael Brown Protests in Ferguson, Missouri

a reply to: roadgravel

Or, looking at it from the other perspective, maybe we should be happy that citizens are willing to step up to try and help keep the peace and protect a city from (I assume) their own citizens who are hell bent on destruction and chaos and, and some, like Tyrone Harris, who seem happy to just pull out their weapons and start shooting.

If I lived in Ferguson, I'd be happy to see the Oath keepers show up.

originally posted by: Obi88
Some follow some don't, mate that's my point. Do u know these guys ?? If they end up killing a police officer the # hits the fan. If they shoot a civi there #ed too ! No win situation man. These guys wanna be heros and save there town. This isn't how u do it.. Put the guns away and man up. Cops kill unarmed civis because there cowards and scared !! If u wanna stand up for your town do it unarmed. U get shot while being unarmed standing up for your coloured brothers and sisters it will send a bigger message then a 5hr shoot out with 100's dead. This isn't about us it's about future generations. Stand up for what's right. OR defend the policies that have destroyed your beautiful country. Your choice !

You do realize that, until both the government and the criminals put their guns away, going in unarmed is not only foolish, but it's utterly unwise, right? What you're telling people to do is run in and be a martyr for peaceful resistance--that's not only something that is ideologically driven, but also tactically retarded. The cowards are the criminals (civilian and LEO) who shoot people for no reason. You can't put the cowardice on the cops alone without discussing the "civis" who do the same thing.

Your hyperbole is transparent, your ideology appears naïve, and you speak with an authority that it does not appear that you have. People like the Oathkeepers don't care about the message to the world, they care about the message to the unlawful criminals doing their best to destroy their community--it's not about publicity and bigger messages.

Reckon I'd appreciate these boys' presence if I were protesting. Even if the were accompanying Infowars, I'd take comfort in the fact that not only the police were armed, given their penchant for putting bullets in stuff. If nothing but a show of face, it at least shows the Police that there are indeed still people willing to fight for their rights. Not everyone will roll over for them.

a reply to: Sublimecraft
I doubt oath keepers need to brush up on the bill of rights. But if ah wants their protection I don't blame him considering a recent situation with journalists being threatened.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

I sounds good and may come to that but I am not sure how well it will go today if they do start shooting people. The police will say it is their job, not the citizens, to handle to security at the protest.

More than a bit complicated. Personally I think the many of the protestors are just doing their usual trouble making and blaming others. They don't see their part.

a reply to: roadgravel

We can play the what-if game all day long and it will get us nowhere. The point is that this OP is hyperbole, attributing a fear to a group that has done nothing to warrant said fear--therein lies reality.

As for there being no personal responsibility by those protesting and their role in the inflammation of this issue, I have no doubt about that, as they don't even realize the "why" behind ex-officer Wilson feeling threatened enough to use deadly force. Personal responsibility doesn't seem to be their strongest trait.

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
a reply to: Shamrock6

Masterful but disturbing....

and if you combine those 2 words your can get something like masdisturbing......which seems almost appropriate for them.......

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
Could be because the protests haven't been all peaceful....cops were shot at and another protester was shot by the cops.

And whomever said they look like cowards, I guess you failed to understand most of these guys are ex military that carried similar weapons into their deployments.....so anyone with a gun is a coward? I guess by that line of thought, anyone with a car is lazy?

Well if they are ex military then they are trained..all the less need for a weapon. If they are there to protect the protestors (which one of them has now made the claim) then I am all for it. The police do not need help in this as they are already experts at administering violence on unarmed people.

Oath Keepers are their to protect peoples property as well,it's a voluntary guard duty.
Protesters don't argue with AR15s we learned THAT in the riot in Califorina from the Korean shop owners and the buisness are HAPPY they are doing it.
If a protester throws a bottle at them I doubt they'd shoot.
If they tried to attack in masse they would or if a weapon is pointed at them.


THESE people aren't activists,crazy or stupid they are trying to stop what is wrong.
UNLIKE the rioters.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

As for there being no personal responsibility by those protesting and their role in the inflammation of this issue, I have no doubt about that, as they don't even realize the "why" behind ex-officer Wilson feeling threatened enough to use deadly force.

Seems like a lot of people (besides the protesters) don't understand "why" Wilson would unloaded a whole clip of bullets into an unarmed man. Otherwise you wouldn't be referring to him as "ex-officer", would you?

a reply to: Subaeruginosa

I would as soon shot the twerp myself based on what we now know,it would be no loss.

a reply to: cavtrooper7

Except all the rioting seems to be coming from people who are not native to the city......and who just come armed for trouble.....hmm....

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: spav5
Wonder why they can only help keep the peace when they are armed? They think they look like brave men but they all look like cowards to me.

Usually people who say such things are in fact too scared to do what it is they are calling cowardice. They were essentially bodyguards doing a job they were paid to do.

If they are there to protect the protesters against the armed police, then I applaud them. That takes a bit of courage. If they are there to protect property, against unarmed people, then they are cowards for arming themselves.

I am not too scared to shoot someone. I have no desire to do so. And no amount of property will change my mind.

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
Seems like a lot of people (besides the protesters) don't understand "why" Wilson would unloaded a whole clip of bullets into an unarmed man. Otherwise you wouldn't be referring to him as "ex-officer", would you?

Those would be the ignorant people who do not understand the facts surrounding the case.

Also, it's a magazine, not a clip (that's a pet peeve of mine...clips aren't used in modern semi-auto handguns), and it's very easy to understand why, after an 'unarmed' man assaulted and apparently attempted to take his firearm, Wilson would unload the magazine (well, 10 shots...two were fired in the vehicle) at Brown's massive body as he turned around and ran toward him.

Also, Wilson quit due to threats to other officers and the department (supposedly)...it's not like he was dramatically fired from the department because he was shown to have done something wrong. We call him "ex-officer" because the asinine, ignorant, racially inspired rioters couldn't set aside immature emotion and action and let the judicial process play out.

But, you know, we don't need to start rehashing the case, as that's not what this thread is about, and derailing like this is unnecessary. Regardless of what you think of the case, many people in Ferguson are still acting like fools, and the Oath Keepers are doing nothing illegal by being there.

originally posted by: spav5
If they are there to protect property, against unarmed people, then they are cowards for arming themselves.

Spoken like a true ideologue.

This scenario doesn't make anyone a coward, it makes them intelligent. Protecting someone else's property isn't worth losing one's life over because a bunch of immature future Darwin award winners want to take what isn't theirs. However, if these looters want to put their own life in danger for doing something illegal, that's their own choice, and that's what we call Natural Selection.

In the OP, one of the videos shows one of these brave patriots saying the protesters are 'violating their rights'.

Can someone explain to a Brit in what way protesting the killing of Michael Brown does this?

I'm not pro/anti the protesters or indeed the 'Oathkeepers', btw - I'm just curious.

Without regard for why they are there, they have a right to be there. Inasmuch as they were also there last year, protecting private interests, no one was killed or injured as a result of their presence. All of the sniveling notwithstanding, Oath Keepers will not be the people that instigate violence, as they have demonstrated in other locations. Nor will they attempt to disrupt peaceful protests. As the saying goes, " You don't know what you don't know ", and in this case, far too many of you " visionaries " don't know anything about this matter.

a reply to: spav5 That's one of the beautiful things about the Constitution, it protects lawful behavior without regard for others not being able to understand it. You are free to make those decisions for you, not for everyone. In that some unknown number of " protesters " are armed, these Oath Keepers are armed in their defense. The difference being that the Oath Keepers aren't trying to hide that fact. Sadly, the appearance of a firearm frightens some folks, whereas they aren't frightened when others conceal them. Out of sight, out of mind. I consider that concept a weakness.

a reply to: KingIcarus A simple protest isn't necessarily a violation of rights, but if the protest denies access to public thoroughfare or causes property damage, then it does. The law gives priority to those who would pursue lawful behavior, protesters don't have a right to deny movement or access in their pursuit of addressing a grievance.

originally posted by: DarthFazer
a reply to: ~Lucidity

The oathkeepers are a para military version of the KKK nothing more.

If a militia showed up to protect protesters the national guard would be deployed.

The double standard

Stop.drinking the kool-aid that the msm is serving. Oath keepers are not paramilitary KKK. Racism is not allowed in the ranks. There are blacks, whites, Asians, Latinos all members of oath keepers. Those that call us small penised gun nuts, you don't have a clue. We were trained to fight for this country and it's citizens, we have now accepted that role at home. You don't see the average citizen standing up for anything. They're all to afraid of losing their comfortable lives while complaining about how things are going to crap while on Facebook on their smartphones ordering Starbucks. I guess you also believe that the oath keepers are a domestic terrorist group. We have seen with our own eyes how LEO can be unlawful and get away with it. Oath keepers are there to prevent criminal activities from either side of the law.