Native American Being Charged As A Terrorist For Talking Rifle-Wielding DAPL Worker Down

Submitted by: lalapancakes 3 months ago News & Politics


In October, a panicked man drove a pickup truck through the Standing Rock Sioux encampment, alerting camp security to confront him, while he aimed a semi-automatic rifle at them. The man, Kyle Thompson, was dressed like a water protector and later claimed he was a North Dakota Access contractor hired to inspect equipment that was set on fire. When media asked DAPL about Thompson, the company disavowed him saying they will not take responsibility for him. Fast forward to December and Thompson was let go, charges dropped, while one of the water protectors, Brennon Nastacio (the guy in the video wearing the coonskin hat), who talked Thompson down from aiming his gun everywhere, is being charged with a class “C” felony for “terrorizing” a Dakota Access Pipeline contractor.

During that tense standoff, Nastacio told Thompson nothing would happen to him if he gave the gun up, even telling other protectors to back off. He told Thompson that he was safe and to either give his gun up or at least stop pointing it directly at other water protectors. Nastacio says safety and security in the camp is his job and his first concern was getting the pointed gun out of police view for fear of them opening fire on Thompson and everyone around him.

To clarify, DAPL said they do not take responsibility for Thompson, but Morton County wants to treat a peaceful man like a terrorist for talking a tense situation down. Even though Thompson was dressed as a water protector and mislead them, initially telling Standing Rock he was there to represent them, and even though DAPL doesn’t take responsibility for Thompson, Morton County wants to bring charges to Nastacio for “terrorizing” a DAPL worker.

Nastacio turned himself in at he beginning of January because he wants to know how Morton County equates terrorism to peacefully talking a crazed man down. In the interim, Nastacio tried to crowd source via GoFundMe.org but they shut his account down. Now he’s raising money for legal fees through generosity.com

There are 27 comments:
Male 1,155
that can not be the whole story.  what is missing, or is this fake news
0
Reply
Male 4,029
The DAPL protesters had moved up into a area that they were not allowed to be in order to destroy more equipment. Kyle Thomson was hired to go in and take pictures of the burnt equipment. Thompson decided to dress as a protester because the camp security were illegally denying other contractors from photographing the burnt equipment. Once Thomson had finished taking the pictures, he tried to get into his truck and drive back. A protester at that point tried to reach in the vehicle to stop Thompson, at which point Thompson sped off. Protesters began screaming things like "stop him," "block the road," and "hog tie that motherfucker" which alerted the protesters security who in turn gave chase in their own trucks. The camp security began ramming Thompson's Chevy until it was disabled and couldn't move. Thompson can be seen at the 41 second mark exiting his vehicle peacefully with his rifle in his right hand pointed toward the ground. Mean while a crowd of around 300 protesters began surrounding his location with exposed knives, guns, and clubs. At the 44 second mark we can see Thompson begins a dialog with some of the protesters with his rifle still pointed at the ground. At the 52 second mark we can see one of the protesters trying to calm down another protester who was aiming a gun at Thompson even though Thompson still has his gun in his right hand pointed down at the ground. Just then at the 58 second mark Brennon Nastacio charges in and we can see him pull out a knife and points it at Thompson as if he is about to stab him, all the while continuing to move toward Thompson. Thompson can be seen backing up, putting his empty left hand up in a "stop" gesture, all the while with his gun still pointed at the ground. It isn't until the 1:02 mark that Nastacio gets too close and Thompson finally raises his rifle, stopping Nastacio's progression. At 1:05 we can see the same protester who was trying to calm down the other protesters run down and try to pull Nastacio back. Nastacio continues anyway and Thompson retreats into the water so he couldn't be surrounded. Meanwhile off camera, Thompson car is being ripped apart, set on fire to be used as another road block. At the 1:25 mark a shot can be heard and Thompson ducks, which was another protester trying to shoot Thompson with a flare gun.
0
Reply
Male 6,430
richanddead That's a lot of speculation there with a smattering of the observable facts we can agree on.
0
Reply
Male 4,029
normalfreak2 It's from what I've found in the media, Kyle Thompson's explanation, and what we can see in the video.
0
Reply
Male 5,723
Oh, yeah. That makes sense. Maybe, at least, to a Republican. Release the armed liar, in disguise, who was threatening everyone with a high powered semi-automatic weapon, into the public but arrest and charge the guy who quietly talked him down with a felony. Assholes! 
0
Reply
247
broizfam Come on dude - in the video the gun spends most of the time pointed down and away from anyone, and only comes up when someone gets too close to the guy as he's constantly backing away from a small angry mob who also have weapons out. Maybe the guy is a fucking arsehole, I don't know, but he was clearly on the defense in that situation from the moment he left the car.

The terrorism charge is obviously patent nonsense, but this Thompson fellow wasn't trying to force his point with the gun in that video.
0
Reply
Male 5,723
barry9a Still haven't watched it but it seems to me that the gun shouldn't even have been out.
0
Reply
Male 4,029
broizfam  Brennon Nastacio didn't "quietly talk him down," if you look at the 58 second mark Brennon Nastacio charges in and pulls out a knife and points it at Thompson as if he is about to stab him, all the while continuing to move toward Thompson. Thompson can be seen backing up, putting his empty left hand up in a "stop" gesture, all the while with his gun still pointed at the ground. Thompson had good reason to be worried, the last time this happened it was an innocent motorist on his way home and the DAPL protesters not only rammed him off the road but shot him as well. 
0
Reply
Male 5,723
richanddead Ah. Didn't watch it, just went with what I read above. Still doesn't seem like much of a terrorist act, pointing a knife at someone carrying a semi-automatic rifle, does it?
0
Reply
Male 4,029
broizfam I too agree the terrorism stuff is too extreme, maybe assault but not terrorism. But I'm not sure what the charge really is, apparently it is a Class C felony. In North Dakota it carries up to five years' imprisonment and up to $5,000 in fines. Basically it's a crime on par with something like perjury. So I'm not sure if the "terrorism" is what we are inferring it to be. After a little research I found what i think the charge is. It's not "Terrorism" but "Terrorizing." It's the only Class C felony with "terror" in it.

According to North Dakota law:
A person is guilty of a class C felony terrorizing if, with intent to place another human being in fear for that human being's or another's safety or to cause evacuation of a building, place of assembly, or facility of public transportation, or otherwise to cause serious disruption or public inconvenience, or in reckless disregard of the risk of causing such terror, disruption, or inconvenience, the person:
1. Threatens to commit any crime of violence or act dangerous to human life; or
2. Falsely informs another that a situation dangerous to human life or commission of a crime of violence is imminent knowing that the information is false.


My guess is that they charged him with it so that the D.A. has room to really go after him and throw the book or just dismiss the case. It's also possible that this is the most serious of a list of different charges. It's not unusual that police charge a suspect with multiple different charges for the same offence so that the prosecutor has some leeway in how the choose to progress with the case. I can't find a source that tells me the charges though nor the specific actions the charges refer to.
0
Reply
Male 6,430
richanddead I don't see how the guy with the gun is let go, I'm interested on what video evidence they have, because looking at this video it appears the same allegations could be made of Thompson.  It was IRRESPONSIBLE of him to go in there with a gun.  These protesters haven't murdered anyone, nor has there been any reports of activity like that. The fact that it's terror to point a knife at him even though that's questionable by the video evidence.  He put himself in risk at the behest of his company.  Are they not allowed to come in and take pictures of equipment?  Something doesn't smell right.  I asked my 2 cousins over facebook that are there  One is an armed veteran standing up for the Natives, they are telling me that they allow people to come in and take pictures of equipment if they communicate that, but more often than not what's attempting to be done is sending in people to try and levy ridiculous charges against certain people in these protests.  
0
Reply
Male 4,029
normalfreak2 When did you ask your cousin? Remember this was back in October of last year, just days after the October 27 incident and your saying the protesters were just letting in the construction company's security guards while they were also burning the construction companies equipment? I'm a little skeptical of that one. Also I should mention your cousin is standing up for the Standing Rock Tribe which are mainly Sioux, not all natives. Remember the Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara tribes in the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation are hoping this pipeline will be a success as it means more jobs for them and safer and cheaper transport for the oil. Also what is you're view on the transport of the oil then? Are you ok with riskier forms of transport that could have much greater environmental impacts as long as the standing rock reservation is not upset? Do you think the Northern Border Pipeline which travels over the same area should be pulled up in exchange for riskier transport? What about the 7 other gas and oil pipelines cross the river just up stream from the site? I'm actually pretty curious, because I know you care about environmentalism as well and I'm curious how you split the dichotomy in this case.
0
Reply
Male 6,430
richanddead Don't get me wrong I'm for Energy, I don't like Tarsands.  I think the problem is that.  If this wasn't tarsands Oil I wouldn't be so against this.  My perspective is this is a clean up of Canada's mess.  Tarsands is pretty unpopular outside of Alberta.
0
Reply
Male 4,029
normalfreak2 Yes I know, but not all the oil is from tarsands and your still left with a far more risky mode of transport if you don't use pipelines. Look I know you'd make the world perfect if given the option, but what I'm asking is given reality, where oil is going to be pumped up and transported, what would you rather have, a happy reservation and riskier transport, or a unhappy reservation and safer transport. I don't know of a way you can have your cake and eat it too. So what is more important to you, respecting the beliefs of the reservation or safety and the environment? I know you'd have both if you could, but one is going to be set as more important than the other and I want to know which one you'd choose.  
0
Reply
Male 6,430
richanddead My preference honestly would have been just consult the tribes before just doing whatever the oil companies want when they want.  A lot of these issues go away with better communication.  this pipeline benefits 3 major stakeholders.  Athabasca Oil, Cenovus and Koch Industries.  They have a huge stake in that pipeline.  They cry for less Government in everything except when it comes to imminent domain of course.  IT's the profit above all that I'm against.  Tarsands will bring billions but guess what, billions to those corporations to the negative of everyone around those pipelines..
0
Reply
Male 4,029
normalfreak2 The original routing was chosen so that it didn't come close to any tribal reservations even at the cost of millions of dollars and an extra 10 miles of pipeline. The company Dakota Access, LLC, a subsidiary of Energy Transfer Partners L.P., changed the routing of the pipeline when the Army Corps of Engineers did an environmental assessment of the route and found it came too close to a wellhead source, it would have to cross over more high traffic roads, several wetlands, and several “high consequence areas” or areas that would have the most significant adverse consequences in the event of a pipeline spill. Other reasons include that it would have been forced to come within 500 feet of homes which is against the law in North Dakota. Based on this the Army Corps of Engineer informed the North Dakota Public Service Commission to deny the permit to build there. Energy Transfer Partners had to then rely on their back up plan in which the pipeline would be rerouted to follow the Northern Border Pipeline which was built in 1983, has already been deemed safe, is not on tribal land, and all of the land owners there signed voluntary easements for the pipeline to be built. Ironically the Northern Border Pipeline just happens to also cross the same spot where the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe is now attempting to “protect the water,” although I'm not sure they are aware of that fact. It also isn't the only one there either 7 other gas and oil pipelines cross the river just up stream from the site.

But you still haven't answered my question. I know if you could go back in time you would, but that's not realistic. What would you rather have now, a happy reservation and riskier transport, or a unhappy reservation and safer transport?
0
Reply
Male 6,430
richanddead Unhappy reservation with safer transport.  That's the logical solution if a pipe line is going to be built.
0
Reply
Male 4,029
normalfreak2 Thank you. That's my view as well, although I do understand that isn't the totality of your views on the matter.
0
Reply
Male 4,029
normalfreak2 It's not illegal to have a gun, especially when you have the correct permits. Chasing people down on a public road, ramming their vehicles, refusing to let people leave when you have no legal authority, and threatening people with a weapon is illegal though, especially when it's illegal for you to be protesting and shutting down a road at that location. No, it's true the protesters haven't murdered anyone yet, but they had shot innocent civilians, thrown rocks and bombs, molotov cocktails, car jacked people, burnt vehicles, and attempted to shoot a police officer in the head with a 38. caliber hand gun only days before this.
0
Reply
Male 6,430
richanddead I'm going to ask both of them to clarify this story if they know the answers that is.
0
Reply
Male 6,430
richanddead i spoke to him yesterday about this incident.  That's what he's telling me.  So it's anecdotal.   

No, it's true the protesters haven't murdered anyone yet, but they had shot innocent civilians, thrown rocks and bombs, molotov cocktails, car jacked people, burnt vehicles, and attempted to shoot a police officer in the head with a 38. caliber hand gun only days before this.

Now there has been burned vehicles that's for sure, the rest of it is up for speculation because that's not the information that I'm getting.  I'm all for differing sources of information.  I just take value of my family reporting the situation over other sources.  Seth (one of my cousins) is a complete hippy.    He's a devout Christian and he's out there to spread the gospel.  I mean he's a total non conflict person and he's on the front lines.  He's not a iiar by any means and I really value his opinion and he's stated they do have burned out vehicles but the protestors are generally peaceful and only respond when they are assaulted first.  They don't act until they attacked first. That's just what He tells me, and I have no reason to doubt him.
0
Reply
Male 4,029
normalfreak2 Again, I'm not speculating, it's information that I've received though different media sources covering the event and youtube video's capturing the acts in progress. Here:

http://www.valleynewslive.com/content/misc/BREAKING-NEWS-Person-shot-and-injured-at-Dakota-Access-Pipeline-protests-NOT-law-enforcement-Related-398968331.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-uM_VWPW_w

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/dakota-pipeline-protests/dakota-access-pipeline-authorities-start-arresting-protesters-new-camp-n674066

Even in the video, I see Kyle Thompson attempting to run away and the protester ramming their vehicles into him. If you're ramming your truck into someone else who is running away in fear, I don't see that as generally peaceful or only responding once assaulted first.

Hey don't get me wrong, I think your cousin is probably a real great guy and I'm not saying that there aren't a lot of peaceful protesters there. It would be unrealistic to think otherwise. Yet I think there are a lot of "bad apples" there as well who are emotionally charged just as in multiple other protests we've seen. 

In my opinion, if I was a protest leader, and my protesters started lobbing Molotov cocktails, burning property, clashing with police, and shooting at people, then I would believe my protest would be unsafe and had gone too far. I would end it and look for other avenues of change.
0
Reply
Male 525
I can't tell what caused the start of this, but just from the vid I have to say I kind of side with Thompson. You see him being chased and rammed by multiple vehicles. You then see what could be called a mob closing in on him some possibly armed. So the fact he grabbed his gun to protect himself isn't totally unthinkable. On that same note I can't fault Nastacio for stepping in to handle and defuse the situation. So unless Nastacio was in one of the vehicles that rammed Thompson or he had a weapon we didn't see I don't get the charges they filed against him. 
0
Reply
Male 4,952
Not white and acting against the government's (the Trump's) interest = Terrorist. Welcome to the Trump America
0
Reply
Male 1,195
thezigrat  Unless you are insinuating that Oct. is the next one and this all happen in the future I'm pretty shore that all this happen last year and guess who was president in October when this happen and who was president when the charges were made. You got it not Trump but Obama.
0
Reply
Male 4,029
thezigrat Wait, it's still "the Trump's interest" when this was all going on under Obama's presidency?
0
Reply
Male 6,430
Careful how you allow laws like "the Patriot Act" to exist.  They can and will be used against those who trifle with those in power.
1
Reply