"The lands on which that mountain is carved and the lands he's about to visit belong to the Great Sioux nation under a treaty signed in 1851 and the For Laramie Treaty of 1868 and I have to tell him he doesn't have permission from its original sovereign owners to enter the territory at this time."
Oglala Sioux vote to ban Trump from Mount Rushmore – hours before controversial fireworks event
Trump is planning an event at Mount Rushmore for several thousand people on Independence Day. The legal owners of Mount Rushmore have made it clear that these visitors are unwanted on their land.
Members of the tribe have blocked the road to Mount Rushmore. The National Guard has been deployed against them:
Protesters in Keystone arrested after blocking road to Mount Rushmore for hours
Recently, in the discussion of the incident with the McCloskeys ("Ken & Karen" of Portland Place, who brandished firearms at BLM protestors), several members here argued that deadly force is justified against trespassers.
South Dakota is a "castle doctrine" and "stand your ground" state. Apparently, no Sioux tribe members have been killed (yet), but they have been violently attacked, with members of the tribe pepper sprayed and detained.
Those of you who thought the McCloskeys would have been justified in using deadly force against trespassers: do you think that Sioux tribespeople would also be justified in using deadly force?
If your answer is different for the two cases: why?