Deadly Traps in Wharton SF

Status
Not open for further replies.
russell juelg said:
Why? Simply because these traps--as stupid and disgusting and dangerous as they may be--do not instill terror.

I don't think anyone can honestly say that he is terrified about this situation. I suspect none of us will stop visiting the pines due to this situation. (Nor do the acts have any large scale impact, nor are the acts clearly designed to achieve any political objective--two components of what we normally consider acts of terrorism).
Click to expand...

I can honestly say that the idea of being decapitated while riding my motorcycle (completely legally) is terrifying. No, I will not stop visting the pines because of it but I am alot more cautious. I think the traps are designed to punish people for using motorized vehicles on public lands and to discourage people (out of fear) from using motorized vehicles on public land which sounds like someones political agenda being taken to extreme and criminal measures. If this isn't terrorism, what is?

Jeff
 
woodjin said:
I can honestly say that the idea of being decapitated while riding my motorcycle (completely legally) is terrifying. No, I will not stop visting the pines because of it but I am alot more cautious. I think the traps are designed to punish people for using motorized vehicles on public lands and to discourage people (out of fear) from using motorized vehicles on public land which sounds like someones political agenda being taken to extreme and criminal measures. If this isn't terrorism, what is?

Jeff
Click to expand...

AMEN JEFF. I agree 100% . I'm buying you a beer ! there's a meeting this wk.. i'll PM you the details.. would be great if you could make it.. Bob
 
BobNJ1979 said:
1) my name is Bob

2) that is your OPINION
Click to expand...

Oops, sorry, Bob!

Okay, here's why it is a position based upon logic, rather than a mere opinion:

We cannot properly call someone a murderer, unless he has committed murder. We cannot properly call someone arsonist, unless he has set something on fire. I propose that it is merely consistent with this pattern, if we agree not to call someone a terrorist, unless he has terrorized someone.

Why does this matter? Because, harking back to the discussion that started all this, people shouldn't be prosecuted as "eco-terrorists" for committing acts that are logically nothing more than arson or criminal mischief. It's no different than noticing the distinction between, for example, simple assault and attempted murder.
 
woodjin said:
I can honestly say that the idea of being decapitated while riding my motorcycle (completely legally) is terrifying. No, I will not stop visting the pines because of it but I am alot more cautious. I think the traps are designed to punish people for using motorized vehicles on public lands and to discourage people (out of fear) from using motorized vehicles on public land which sounds like someones political agenda being taken to extreme and criminal measures. If this isn't terrorism, what is?

Jeff
Click to expand...

Good points, Jeff. I do find it impossible to believe, though, that you are terrified, if you say you are continuing your recreation. If I'm terrified about something, I don't merely become more cautious about it.
 
kingofthepines said:
more fuel for the fire
Click to expand...

Thanks, King. I should think that anyone who reads this carefully would notice that it points out the incongruity of the term "eco-terrorism" as it has been applied by certain authorities.

If someone had burned up some houses because he had a grudge against the builder, or virtually any other conceivable motive, they would call it arson. But if someone did it with an ecological motive, suddenly it becomes a form of terrorism? Sorry, that's silly.
 
Just my take....

The term “eco-terrorist” is really just a term that loosely applies to any person or groups that attempts to harm people or property in the "name" of protecting the environment. Where as believing in something, and for the sake of argument we'll use part the reason in this post, deterring or preventing OHV's and equestrians from sharing the use of the forest. If you believe the operation of OHV's, mountain bikes and horses in the State forest should not be allowed, and you use legal means to share your beliefs, joining groups, attend meetings, call your legislative representative, post on the internet, what ever, you are not a terrorist or criminal. You, my friend are enjoying the privilege of living in the United States. Now, if you take it to another step, where you put forth the effort to cause bodily harm or the destruction of property, your actions could fall under the classification of “eco-terrorist” in the majority of people’s eyes. Mainly because it is more sensationalizes in the media that way. Where if someone were to be convicted for hanging wire across a trail to harm another the specific action committed would fall under a specific criminal classification, like attempted murder or manslaughter. The person would not be charged with “eco-terrorism”. But people and the media might slip that word into the conversation. If someone or some group where to say, burn down the ATV park in Chatsworth because they don’t want it there, I believe that would be a case of eco-terrorism, but they would still be prosecuted under the law for arson. Any person that is an active supporter of any law abiding environmental group would not want to be associated with those people in any way, even if it is just a word.
 
Medford Piney said:
The term “eco-terrorist” is really just a term that loosely applies to any person or groups that attempts to harm people or property in the "name" of protecting the environment.
Click to expand...

We're back where we started. As you say, the term is "loosely applied." My point is that it is much too loosely applied. Improperly applied, in fact, for all the reasons I have stated.
 
russell juelg said:
We're back where we started. As you say, the term is "loosely applied." My point is that it is much too loosely applied. Improperly applied, in fact, for all the reasons I have stated.
Click to expand...

Maybe you didn't understand what I was trying to say, didn't not read it completely or I did not convey my thoughts properly. Yes, agree with you there 100% and that was the point I was trying to put forth. I'm not arguing, I'm agreeing. It's is improperly used to many times to add shock valve, push an agenda and over sensationalize reports by the media and citizens, just as other people or groups are improperly singled out and their activities are over sensationalized by the media, once again to add shock valve or push an agenda.

It's a bad cycle, it's really no better then the reporting of how the daily activities of Britney Spears or some other "celebrity" go. Brits dog could puke on her while driving down the highway, and it will get more newspaper, internet and TV coverage then a plane load of disabled vets from Iraq that have no place or job to go back to after serving over there or any other real life situation like the people displaced because of the hurricanes.

No one cares if a house is burnt down, it just another house fire, call it eco-terrorism it sparks more interest the paper sells more and the website gets more hits.
 
Medford Piney said:
Maybe you didn't understand what I was trying to say or didn't not read it completely, yes, agree with you there 100% and that was the point I was trying to put forth. I'm not arguing, I'm agreeing. It's is improperly used to many times to add shock valve, push an agenda and over sensationalize reports by the media and citizens, just as other people or groups are improperly singled out and their activities are over sensationalized by the media, once again to add shock valve or push an agenda. ... No one cares if a house is burnt down, it just another house fire, call it eco-terrorism it sparks more interest the paper sells more and the website gets more hits.
Click to expand...

Okay, thanks. I get your meaning. There are other benefits for using the term. If you are a developer who manages to disregard the ecological implications of your actions (purely hypothetical case), and somebody sabotages your efforts or vandalizes your property, you have friends in Congress and law enforcement that will call those saboteurs and vandals "eco-terrorists," so if they are caught and successfully prosecuted, they can be hit with extraordinarily harsh sentences.

As for the more immediate topic, anyone using wire against dirt bikers is meddling with murder. While it makes no sense to me to call such a person an eco-terrorist, it sure makes sense to me to prosecute him for attempted murder.
 
russell juelg said:
Bob, if you will make a specific point, I will do my best to respond in a fair and good-natured manner.
Click to expand...

what's wrong is wrong. call it what you want.. i call it what i want. we all feel strongly about certain things.. this one, i will never back down from.. i'm out of this thread.
 
russell juelg said:
Okay, thanks. I get your meaning. There are other benefits for using the term. If you are a developer who manages to disregard the ecological implications of your actions (purely hypothetical case), and somebody sabotages your efforts or vandalizes your property, you have friends in Congress and law enforcement that will call those saboteurs and vandals "eco-terrorists," so if they are caught and successfully prosecuted, they can be hit with extraordinarily harsh sentences..
Click to expand...

Correct, a different example, but with the same intent, to reap a better benefit, this benefit being harsher prosecution.

russell juelg said:
As for the more immediate topic, anyone using wire against dirt bikers is meddling with murder. While it makes no sense to me to call such a person an eco-terrorist, it sure makes sense to me to prosecute him for attempted murder.
Click to expand...

My feelings exactly. To step it up, and again not to argue but to get your prospective. Where as the person actually stringing the wire or involved in the action would be, if caught, charged with attempted murder, manslaughter or what ever. (purely hypothetical case) What would you classify an organization, group or person that would go to great lengths to publish the "how to's" to create and deploy such devices with the intention of causing random bodily harm to unknowing people??

Or, in the case with the houses being burnt down. The people who did it were arsonist and should be charged as such. The people who, what ever you want to call it, called this people to arms and supplied them with the know how and feed them the reasons to do what they did, what would you call them??

Maybe some people here are having a hard time separating the two groups. The persons who commit the acts because they think they are part of some great movement. And the people who feed on the weak minded, easily swayed to do their dirty work, so to isolate themselves from prosecution. Claiming 1st amendment rights to say what ever they like. Then stating
it's not their fault some idiot took them for what they print and carried out the fictionous instructions in their book or website.

Again, not arguing your points or comments, just opening the discussion to a different level.
 
Medford Piney said:
What would you classify an organization, group or person that would go to great lengths to publish the "how to's" to create and deploy such devices with the intention of causing random bodily harm to unknowing people??

Or, in the case with the houses being burnt down....
Click to expand...

I agree. This is an important distinction. I assume that in such cases, depending on the details and actual associations and communications, a person belonging to such an organization could be prosecuted for instigating a crime.

I don't know of any organization that promotes the use of crude but deadly traps against dirt bike or ATV riders. I think this is the work of one or more very stupid or very mean-spirited individuals.

As for the houses, as I understand, ELF explicitly claims to not encourage any actions that result in physical harm to other people. So neither the organization, nor the people who participate in the direct actions are guilty of "eco-terrorism."

In fact, I can't recall that I have ever heard of any act that was properly or accurately branded as "eco-terrorism." It's always arson, sabotage, or vandalism.
 
You say tomato,I say tomato You say potato,I say potato You say eco-terrorist,I say a big jerk Hey it's St. Patrick's day why don't go hang out at the Beer thread!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Back