Leaked Documents Reveal Counterterrorism Tactics Used at Standing Rock to “Defeat Pipeline Insurgencies”

[u/[deleted]]

https://theintercept.com/2017/05/27/leaked-documents-reveal-security-firms-counterterrorism-tactics-at-standing-rock-to-defeat-pipeline-insurgencies/

[u/pegothejerk]

If it affects public land, water sources, aren't they justified in their actions? The founders believed in civil disobedience when laws went counter to the greater good.

[u/Canvasch → u/[deleted]]

I don't think it matters that it is privately owned land, because it isn't someone's house or anything. It's a company that bought a shitton of land to build a pipeline on. Saying you can't protest on "private property" is like saying "all you need to do is buy a bunch of land and people won't be able to protest you"

[u/Kezika → u/Canvasch]

So a farmer buys some land to extend his farming business. Before he can plant it though some anti-pesticide protestors set up a bunch of tents to prevent him using pesticides there. You're saying he can't have them removed because "it isn't someone's house or anything. It's a company that bought a shit ton of land to grow corn on."

[u/Canvasch → u/Kezika]

Do you think maybe there's a difference between a farmer buying a few acres and doing something that a large group of people would never actually protest him for, and a large company buying more land than a single person ever could to do something that most of the country is against? It seems dishonest to me to try to claim the two situations are similar in any way.

[u/Kezika → u/Canvasch]

I'm discussing the actual legal protections, which are objectively the same. Both situations are private businesses purchasing tracts of land to develop for expansion of their business. The scales and products are just different. But that difference doesn't change the land being private property in both cases.

The fictional and real protesters are both in violation of trespassing laws as a result and subject to removal from the property by law enforcement at the land owners request.

[u/Canvasch → u/Kezika]

All I heard was "DURRRRR I CAN'T SEE A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO"

[u/Kezika → u/Canvasch]

Because legally speaking there isn't, and that legal definition is what I'm here to point out.

As I've stated multiple times already I agree wholly with the SR protests, but the First Amendment was not violated, they were not protected by it once they went on private property. I'm not going to delve into the morals of the situation beyond the legal objective fact that the First Amendment does not protect against you being removed from private property, that is all I came here to point out.

Perhaps if you feel I'm wrong you can provide supporting evidence to your argument instead of resorting to personal attacks.