A number of posts in social media have been comparing law enforcement action in the case of Tamir Rice with the apparent lack of law enforcement action in the case of a “militia” occupying federal property in Oregon. The comparisons are unfounded.
The action against Master Rice was a state action. It was a violent, unnecessary action by representatives of the state against a citizen.
The second case involves action by a private entity protesting against a state action. In their opinion, the state has taken an action (land management) resulting in an over reach.
Is the occupation of a wildlife agency headquarters the best approach to addressing a grievance? Probably not, although the “militia” is following a Madison Avenue approach to getting attention and traction for its beef (no pun intended. They are ranchers for Christ sake).
I have no doubt the Obama Administration wants to avoid a shoot out given Mr. Obama’s gun control initiative announced yesterday. Again, a good political marketing move. Not only would he look like a hypocrite, but such a state action, given the ranchers gripe about over reach, would only play to their hand.
Lastly, why would black progressives give a damn about how the federal government, which historically has done a shitty job advocating for minority civil rights, reacts to a bunch of ranchers in Oregon who are smart enough to brandish weapons for their attention getting effect while not using them on anyone or anything (I suspect they’ll start shooting birds for food instead of ordering pizza)?
In short, the Obama Administration (ironically most black progressives are not linking lack of action to the President. Go figure) is acting appropriately and as long as the ranchers aren’t taking hostages or provoking violence, I giveth not two fucks …. and nor should you.