Sheriff’s Office Removes Protesters From Dakota Access Pipeline Site

[Stuart G]

Source: Huff Post.

Authorities in North Dakota began removing Dakota Access Pipeline opponents on Thursday morning from a protest camp they’d built on private land.

The police action escalated into conflict as the Morton County Sheriff’s Department claimed that protesters set fire to a bridge and to tires left on the highway.

The group of about 200 people had been occupying land slated for the controversial pipeline since Sunday.

The sheriff’s department announced it was also dismantling a roadblock set up by the group of Native Americans and environmental activists. Morton County Sheriff Kyle Kirchmeier said in a statement that he was compelled to act because the protesters had refused to leave the site, known as “Cannonball Ranch,” on Wednesday.

Officers were dressed in riot gear and some carried arms, The Associated Press reported. Authorities moved in with trucks, police cars, Humvees and buses, the AP said, while helicopters and a fixed-wing airplane monitored from above.


Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/dakota-access-pipeline-protesters-removed_us_58123b0ee4b0990edc2fb009

[Sunny05]

1. K&R. K&R and foward/share

every Standing Rock post you see.

[Mendocino]

2. Had they been white and armed,

these county mounties would have never taken action. They only target "the other".

[cstanleytech]

3. Did they have permission of the land owner to be on it? If they did I question the legality of

arresting them.

[Sunny05]

7. To make sure,

can you clarify the question for me? (I probably need more caffeine, probably only DUer needing clarification!) Anyway, I infer you are asking if the protesters have/had permission to be on the land.

That leads me to another issue that I have some understanding of but limited knowledge of:

Do I understand correctly that the land at issue is an area that was the Sioux people's and that even treaties in the mid-1800s (Treaties of Fort Laramie, 1851 and 1868) didn't force away from the Sioux? And then later (1870s, or at least starting in 1870s), disputes with gold miners (and then the U.S.) led to gold miners/U.S. taking over the land?

Or ... somebody help me out here. Correct and/or complete what I didn't summarize appropriately.

[cstanleytech]

9. Well ya that is what I am asking if they had permission from the owners or whoever is

the manager like a tribal council or something then I question the legality of the arrest because if they had permission they should not have been arrested.

[Sunny05]

13. Ah, yes. Exactly. Thx. / nt

[cstanleytech]

14. Mind you though there is an exception which is if they were actually starting fires and blocking

a public road but even if that was happening the arrests should have been purely limited to those who committed the act and I doubt that all of the people arrested assisted in doing that if it even happened.

[Sunny05]

15. Thx...

Appreciate the perspective.

It all seems so wrong. It is all wrong.

[misterhighwasted]

4. Here: Link to live updates. This is getting more & more frightening. I wish them safety & success.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017408197

Live updates:
http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/environment/live-updates-from-the-dakota-access-pipeline-protests-oct-27/

[Stuart G]

5. Thank You for posting above. "Safety & Success"

[red dog 1]

6. + 1

Thanks for the links

[Judi Lynn]

11. We all need to see the truth of what is happening. Thanks for posting it here. n/t

[red dog 1]

8. K&R

Democracy Now has been covering this protest from Day One.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

10. Native Americans forcibly remove from land

How is this news?



While abhorrent, this has been going on for 400 years.

[iamthebandfanman]

12. They should get some guns

and barricade themselves in a nearby government building.. apparently that's legal these days as a form of protest...

oh wait, they are the wrong colour :p