Regardless of what response you favor, BLM did back off in the face of armed intimidation

[cthulu2016]

If the Girl Scouts had showed up, instead of armed people assembling to interfere with the BLM's official activities, BLM wouldn't have ceased official actions "because of our serious concern about the safety of employees."

So, yeah. We are talking about the government shutting down an official action in response to at least the threat of or implications of a self-styled anti-government militia... assembled for the purpose of stopping the action.

That doesn't mean the federal government needed to make war on that assembled dilettante militia, but when people with guns block government functions, even by merely the reasonable implication of force (which is what intimidation is), that is typically a matter for the government's police function. Right? It's not some administrative negotiation. It armed intimidation for the purpose of and having the effect of preventing the government functioning.

Which tends to be a big deal. That doesn't mean air cavalry was indicated, but it isn't easy to recall all those times the federal government tries to do some official function and then cancels it because of fear of an armed mob assembled for the purpose of stopping the action.

"Based on information about conditions on the ground, and in consultation with law enforcement, we have made a decision to conclude the cattle gather because of our serious concern about the safety of employees and members of the public," said Kornze in a release. "We ask that all parties in the area remain peaceful and law-abiding as the Bureau of Land Management and National Park Service work to end the operation in an orderly manner."

He said that the agency had made progress in enforcing two recent court orders to remove the trespass cattle from public lands. Kornze called this a matter of fairness and equity.

"We remain disappointed that Cliven Bundy continues to not comply with the same laws that 16,000 public lands ranchers do every year," said the BLM director in the release. "After 20 years and multiple court orders to remove the trespass cattle, Mr. Bundy owes the American taxpayers in excess of $1 million. The BLM will continue to work to resolve the matter administratively and judicially" ...

http://abcnews.go.com/US/nevada-cattle-rancher-wins-range-war-federal-government/story?id=23302610

[msongs]

1. the 2A crowd is as big a threat as any government action & kills more people annually in the USA nt

[tolkien90]

90. Any facts to back that up?

Didn't think so.

[Skip Intro]

98. Evidently not. n/t

[BlueStreak]

2. So you think it would be brilliant to give these crazies another "Janet Reno" to rally around?

The administration is playing this one smart.

The gun freaks will run out of money in a few weeks and leave, then the BLM can finish up later.

[Gravitycollapse]

6. Agreed. The best course of action now is to keep confrontation to an absolute minimum.

The officers are there to protect the BLM employees and contractors. They should stick to that protection only and not venture out into violent confrontation with armed protesters.

[cthulu2016]

7. Wha? Who are you even talking to? Did you read any of the OP?

There is nothing in the OP to suggest that I "think it would be brilliant to give these crazies another Janet Reno to rally around."

Do you just make up weird stuff to attribute to people? Sheesh.

[Crunchy Frog]

9. Pretty much yes.

In answer to your final question. At least that I've been able to observe.

[BlueStreak]

73. That's EXACTLY what the title of the thread suggests

This thread is accusing the administration of backing off as if that is a bad thing. I take it from these posts that some of you have reconsidered the wisdom of forcing a bloody confrontation that would inevitably result in another 20 years of martyrdom, just as the Janet Reno event did. I am glad some people are setting aside their reptilian instincts and thinking this through more strategically.

[cthulu2016]

74. Suggests to YOU, because YOU don't seem to read very clearly

Why not stick to what is STATES because it isn't a fucking Rorschach test, it is a human communication.

I am not "accusing" the administration of backing off. I am stating that they did back off only because THEY ARE STATING THAT THEY DID BACK OFF. It is a statement of fact, not opinion.

The OP is about the nature of the crime, not the nature of the response.

That might be opaque to you because I am not part of a World of Warcraft style internet recreation where two sides squabble about how awesome Obama is or is not.

[BlueStreak]

77. You state it in the form of an accusation

What is the point of the thread, if not to voice your disapproval of the action? You are being disingenuous here. There is nothing in your excerpt that talks about both sides of the coin. Your post only advocated for armed confrontation, and does so explicitly.

"That doesn't mean the federal government needed to make war on that assembled dilettante militia, but when people with guns block government functions, even by merely the reasonable implication of force (which is what intimidation is), that is typically a matter for the government's police function."

So go f*** yourself with your ad hominem attack on my ability to read. I can read what you wrote perfectly well.

Look, I get it that you wanted a shootout at the OK corral. That is your opinion and you are free to voice it. We disagree. You aren't free to put it out there and then act like you didn't. You aren't going to fool anybody about that, and I don't understand why you don't want to own your original comments in the first place.

[cthulu2016]

82. If we stipulate that you can read then at this point you are simply lying

Your post only advocated for armed confrontation, and does so explicitly

That is either a lie, or a honest error arising from an inability to read.

(I don't think you know what "government's police function" means, BTW. It doesn't mean "armed confrontation&quot

God luck with your little "It's all about Obama" computer game. Hope you find some willing playmates. I am not one of them.

[BlueStreak]

85. So this is about Obama? Who said anything about Obama?

I have no idea what involvement he might have had in this decision. And I don't see what difference that makes.

I believe it was wise not to provoke a shootout over a herd of cows, and it doesn't matter to me who stepped up with a clear head. if it was Obama, then I will give him credit for that, as long as they proceed with actions to take care of this Bundy guy through our judicial system. They already have judgments against him. They should push for a prison sentence now.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

106. It seems like the poster you are responding to is playing

the "Look over there, no there, maybe it was over there" *points in all directions* "JUST DON'T LOOK HERE" game.

It can be amusing for an outsider to watch but it seldom advances the discussion in any real sense.

[Jake Stern]

33. So you think it's brilliant to just allow someone to openly flout the law?

Spin it like a Whirling Dervish but it's still a victory for right wing nut jobs. Then again what should one expect from an administration with a rubber backbone. Naturally they're going to wobble when they try to stand up.

"The way you take your ass whooping has inspired me to stop beating you up" said no bully ever.

[zeemike]

38. And it will embolden them to do more...it always does.

the worst thing you can do is back down from a bully.

[Jake Stern]

44. The government just said through their actions "Do as you wish, we won't stop you"

It'll be fun to see the reactions of those who think the government's withdrawal was a good thing to seeing these "militia" kicking it at polling stations in liberal and minority areas under an extreme right wing, Scott Walker like governor during elections.

Sadly by the time Holder grows a pair and actually decides to do something about these nutters it'll probably be too late.

[zeemike]

49. It may already be too late.

I see this as a bad precedent to set...and I think we will see much more of this in the future.

[treestar]

71. that was the right wing's argument

about every opportunity for war.

[Tarheel_Dem]

43. "Rubber backbone"? Because they didn't get into a shootout with gun nuts?

[Jake Stern]

46. When you walk away from a bully, he doesn't stop being a bully.

The government walked away and allowed the bullies to win.

[Tarheel_Dem]

48. And nobody died? How dare they!!!!

[zeemike]

50. If they would have stood their ground no one would have died.

and if they did shoot one there would be a lot of them in jail right now where they belong and they know that.
Bullies are cowards at heart...they only intimidate when they can get away with it...and they got away with it this time and that grantees a next time.

[Tarheel_Dem]

52. You're all over the place. So you like "authoritarians" today?

[zeemike]

68. I am not either of those extremes.

Not authoritarian and not libertarian...I believe in the rule of law, and these people clearly broke the law in a dangerous way.

[Tarheel_Dem]

103. Whatevah!

[Jake Stern]

87. Right now nobody died but as they get ever more emboldened it will happen nt

[Tarheel_Dem]

104. Honestly, I think you're in the wrong place. Most folks here spend their time...

arguing against force of any kind, especially when it comes to this administration. So to hear the same people now calling the administration names because they didn't get into a shootout with a bunch of radicals, who'd like nothing more than a gunfight for martyrdom's sake, is just bizarre beyond words, and highly hypocritical.

[ecstatic]

78. I think someone can be glad that violence was averted

while also being troubled by the precedent set as well as the unfairness of it all.

This is one of those situations where the outcome would have been troubling either way. Again, I'm glad that nobody died, but it seems like people want to silence any one who is bothered by different laws for different groups.

[BlueStreak]

79. And how do you know that it is over?

They have a judgment against the guy and I expect they will continue to make life difficult for him, but hopefully do it is ways that don't invite a bloody gun battle over a herd of cows. At some point if the guy is in default, one would think he would face a prison sentence. Surely that is the way to deal with this.

[cthulu2016]

83. That's a sensible post

When somebody lays down in front of a cement truck to stop construction of a bridge the alternatives are not limited to a) run them over with the cement truck, or b) don't construct the bridge.

Very few things are best considered as a binary choice of two insane options.

[UTUSN]

3. The gunLOONS are itching for bloodshed and it's just a matter of time

Really, they are anarchists, freedom for them to do whatever they want.

*********QUOTE********

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/13/us-usa-ranchers-nevada-idUSBREA3B03Q20140413?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews
[font size=5]Nevada ranching family claims victory as government releases cattle[/font]

.... A number of Bundy's supporters, who included militia members from California, Idaho and other states, dressed in camouflage and carried rifles and sidearms. During the stand-off, some chanted "open that gate" and "free the people."

A man who identified himself as Scott, 43, said he had traveled from Idaho along with two fellow militia members to support Bundy.

"If we don't show up everywhere, there is no reason to show up anywhere," said the man, dressed in camouflage pants and a black flak jacket crouched behind a concrete highway barrier, holding an AR-15 rifle. "I'm ready to pull the trigger if fired upon," Scott said.

LONG-SIMMERING ANGER

The dispute between Bundy and federal land managers began in 1993 when he stopped paying monthly fees of about $1.35 per cow-calf pair to graze public lands that are also home to imperiled animals such as the Mojave Desert tortoise. The government also claims Bundy has ignored cancellation of his grazing leases and defied federal court orders to remove his cattle.

"We won the battle," said Ammon Bundy, one of the rancher's sons.

The bureau said Cliven Bundy still owes taxpayers more than $1 million, which includes both grazing fees and penalties, and that it would work to resolve the matter administratively and through the court system. ....


http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-five-extra-words-that-can-fix-the-second-amendment/2014/04/11/f8a19578-b8fa-11e3-96ae-f2c36d2b1245_story.html?hpid=z6
[font size=5]Justice Stevens: The five extra words that can fix the Second Amendment[/font]
John Paul Stevens served as an associate justice of the Supreme Court from 1975 to 2010. This essay is excerpted from his new book, “Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution.”

.... For more than 200 years following the adoption of that amendment, federal judges uniformly understood that the right protected by that text was limited in two ways: First, it applied only to keeping and bearing arms for military purposes, and second, while it limited the power of the federal government, it did not impose any limit whatsoever on the power of states or local governments to regulate the ownership or use of firearms. Thus, in United States v. Miller, decided in 1939, the court unanimously held that Congress could prohibit the possession of a sawed-off shotgun because that sort of weapon had no reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a “well regulated Militia.” ....

In recent years two profoundly important changes in the law have occurred. In 2008, by a vote of 5 to 4, the Supreme Court decided in District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment protects a civilian’s right to keep a handgun in his home for purposes of self-defense. And in 2010, by another vote of 5 to 4, the court decided in McDonald v. Chicago that the due process clause of the 14th Amendment limits the power of the city of Chicago to outlaw the possession of handguns by private citizens. I dissented in both of those cases and remain convinced that both decisions misinterpreted the law and were profoundly unwise. Public policies concerning gun control should be decided by the voters’ elected representatives, not by federal judges. ....

Organizations such as the National Rifle Association disagreed with that position and mounted a vigorous campaign claiming that federal regulation of the use of firearms severely curtailed Americans’ Second Amendment rights. Five years after his retirement, during a 1991 appearance on “The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour,” Burger himself remarked that the Second Amendment “has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word ‘fraud,’ on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”

As a result of the rulings in Heller and McDonald, the Second Amendment, which was adopted to protect the states from federal interference with their power to ensure that their militias were “well regulated,” has given federal judges the ultimate power to determine the validity of state regulations of both civilian and militia-related uses of arms. That anomalous result can be avoided by adding five words to the text of the Second Amendment to make it unambiguously conform to the original intent of its draftsmen. As so amended, it would read:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms when serving in the Militia shall not be infringed.” ....

*******UNQUOTE********

[lunasun]

11. itchy fingers backing some cheap ass nut bag

"The bureau said Cliven Bundy still owes taxpayers more than $1 million, which includes both grazing fees and penalties, and that it would work to resolve the matter administratively and through the court system. .... "

good for them not giving the nutters a showdown they want
- keep it clean BLM- no martyrs needed

[defacto7]

31. agree... n/t

[madville]

4. Would it ever be acceptable

For armed citizens to interfere or stop a federal government action?

I don't know the specifics of this particular incident but I do find it rather impressive that regular citizens were able to have such an impact against the federal representatives.

[cthulu2016]

8. Right. It is extraordinary. That doesn't mean it should have been met with force, but

it is extraordinary.

[christx30]

29. I keep thinking about

Kelo Vs New London. What would happen if these people showed up there and prevented the eminent domain ruling from being carried out, which forced people from their homes?

[Jake Stern]

47. Let me get this straight, you're trying to conflate armed people defending a person

who has been openly flouting the law by refusing to pay the fees to use public land for decades to armed people protecting people's home after a blatantly unfair court ruling?

[christx30]

51. Yes. I am comparing them.

I'm saying both groups are on the losing end of court cases about what they feel are their rights. The difference is that the homeowners accepted the injustice against them and are trying to move on with their lives. This guy is flipping off the judge and denying enforcement of the decision. He feels the judge has no right to rule on this matter. He forced the government to back down. What would happen if the New London homeowners had blocked access to their homes through force? "You want my home? Come and take it from me."
If you are ruled against, you DO have a choice in how you respond. You can continue to beg for someone to hear you and hope you can convince someone to agree with you. Or you get some weapons and some friends and see how willing some underpaid bureaucrat is willing to take it.
Bundy chose the second way. He is keeping his animals. The BLM is paying him for the ones he lost. You think that would have happened without him standing up to the Feds? He goes begging, and he gets nothing. Those cows are his and his family's life. That's why stealing a cow was a hanging offense in the old west.

[former9thward]

72. What happened after Kelo ....

The land was leased for a $1 a year to a developer to create an "urban village." The people were thrown out of their homes but the project could never get financing and is now an open dump.

[X_Digger]

102. That whole decision sickened me.

The fact that it was 'our' judges who allowed it.. even more so.

[Gravitycollapse]

5. This is one of a few instances where I think authorities responded properly.

They were around only to protect the threatened employees, resisted the protesters only as long as was necessary to protect the employees and left immediately after their job was done. They didn't give into the taunts or attack unnecessarily.

This is exactly what the authorities needed to do and it is what they should continue to do. In continuing this policy of non-confrontation, they prevent a real argument from being made that they are inflicting any sort of brutality on the armed protesters.

[defacto7]

34. You make a good point about protection of life

but it did not fix the problem or end the war and it's a short term victory. It only emboldened the outlaws for the next fight in which they will be much less constrained with more confidence and sense of power. You can bet they are keeping score.

[Crunchy Frog]

10. I can't believe that so many DUers are okay with this.

This is not the same DU that I joined back in '03.

[RobertEarl]

12. Middle of nowhere.. hot and dry

The cows are not going anywhere anytime soon. No use riling up the natives any more than they are. It's not like anyone was gonna get hurt anytime soon by leaving the cows for a few more days.

I think this is a fine example that says to the natives that the government is NOT going to take your guns away. That the government still has respect for the People and it is effective to petition the government. Yeah, this petition is backed by guns. Well that is 2nd amend stuff. So it goes. Just glad no one had to dies over some stinking cows. Bundy will lose, eventually. Meanwhile you can support him by buying a steak tonight!

[cthulu2016]

13. I don't disagree, but I am not blase about it.

[RobertEarl]

14. No use getting all worked up

Take it easy. It's just a bunch of cows and some dirt. Now that it's come to this Bundy will lose. And people screaming about Dictator Obama will stfu. Look at it as a win.

[The Straight Story]

15. No one got shot, people have the right to assemble

And why worry about guns? I have a heard plenty of times here that guns won't have any effect on the government because they have an endless supply of bombs, tanks, etc and so on.

Now, put yourself in the shoes of a cop/blm officer. Guns are but one threat - knives, bottles, cars, sheer number of people, etc all pose a threat (people in large numbers have access to a lot of methods to do harm).

You pick and choose your battles and make an effort to get the best results in given a situation. While some probably hoped this would turn ugly and confirm their biases that is not what happened.

As Carter was saying this week - the US loves to use force. And what usually happens is a lot of people die for nothing.

Just because one does not like the people protesting and their method is no reason to wish for the outcome to be one where one side we love to arm and have go to war ends up shooting innocent civilians whom we wish to have no obvious weapons (but as noted, have plenty of other ways to bring about harm).

And maybe folks wouldn't be so upset if our government would actually focus on justice - for people like bush, torturers, the banks, etc and so on (the government lets them slide and they don't carry guns, but walk around with a lot of money).

[gvstn]

16. I don't know but if this caption is correct I think some cop should have arrested this guy.

"Firepower: Protester Eric Parker from central Idaho aims his weapon from a bridge next to the Bureau of Land Management's base camp where seized cattle"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2603026/Senator-speaks-favor-Nevada-rancher-militias-join-battle-federal-agents-accused-acting-like-theyre-Tienanmen-Square-fight-disputed-ranch-land.html

That stance is not just protesting it is dangerous. Where is the crackdown like at Occupy Wall Street that everyone accepted?

[Timez Squarez]

20. Eric Parker, you are hereby under arrest.

For threatening to assault government employees... in other words, being a domestic terrorist.

That's a 25 to life in AdMax.

[TwilightGardener]

22. This man better be answering a knock on the door from LE very soon.

[defacto7]

39. If this is not a picture op

and it's really pointed where they say it is, he better get ready for a visit from the feds or the local swat team. If his ass isn't in prison within the year, then we can truly say the crazies won and we had better say bye bye to freedom, civility and our human rights because The United States as we have known it will be gone, constitution be damned.

We either have the rule of law that protect us all or we are all in jeopardy.

[airplaneman]

17. Let me guess

I guess that Cliven Bundy would not hesitate to shoot someone on his private property and he is robbing public property so that he can make even bigger profits on his cattle heard. And somehow this guy is getting gun nuts to come to his rescue by threatening BLM employees.
I'm hoping this guy gets a good chunk of his personal assets confiscated over all of this.
-Airplane

[Timez Squarez]

18. BLM needs to hand the matters over to FBI/DEA/DHS/ATFE

and take the moronic militias down and ship them off to Gitmo as domestic terrorists until November 5th, and that's a status hearing.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

92. What unit are you currently serving in?

[starroute]

19. One problem is that they're already making up fables about it

Something swam through on my Facebook page. It claimed that Bundy was grazing the cattle on his own land which had been in his family for a hundred years but that the government had slapped extra fees on it because of the endangered tortoise. It then went on to spin conspiracy theories about this all being the doing of Harry Reid because his son is involved with a Chinese company that wants to put a solar power facility on the land. Or maybe do fracking -- I've seen both versions.

I don't know where this stuff is coming from. It bothers me that nobody on the left even seems to be aware of it or be taking any steps to establish the facts of the matter. And I'm very much afraid that the right-wing myth will become of "official" account of the incident -- a new story about Obama's overreach to go with the IRS and Benghazi -- and we'll have been blindsided yet again.

[TwilightGardener]

21. "We remain disappointed..." I guess that's the letter I'll get after

20 years of non-payment to the IRS, right? IF they round up these clowns and put them in jail, then it's all good. If this is really it...we're truly fucked, if the US government backs down in the face of armed mobs.

[Rex]

25. You gotta be sitting down in protest, completely unarmed for the govt to show

you any real muscle.

THIS is what cops like to deal with, NOT wacko RWing gun nuts.

[TwilightGardener]

26. Yup. The left is doing it wrong, obviously.

[christx30]

36. It's crap like that

that kind of makes me support Bundy and the armed protestors. I mean, he's in the wrong. But look at that pig son-of-a-bitch up there. Look at how casually cruel he is being to people protesting for something they believe in. You think he gives at shit about the pain he's causing people that are of no threat to him? He's a bully. Pure and simple. I'd like to see how he would respond if he were in Nevada, with armed militia advancing on him. I'd like to see how he would respond to orders from civilians, telling him to leave.
You want to stop people like Bundy from getting sympathy in the US? Jail bastards like that pig up there. They are the jackbooted thugs that Bundy's people see when they face down the Feds. That's what the BLM looks like to them. The only way to protect yourself from that is be stronger/better armed than he is, with friends at your back.

[Yavapai]

45. I agree!

[Violet_Crumble]

54. What's crap is supporting Bundy coz you don't like cops...

Anyone who supports or advocates civilian nutcases armed with guns threatening government officials or any other citizen is seriously off the chart.

So if someone decides they're not going to pay taxes anymore, it's fine with you if they send out a call to every raving RW nutjob with a gun in the US to go and threaten the government? That's warped...

[christx30]

57. So you think the government

can just come in and no one has any right to say 'boo'. This was pure and simple, an attempted theft by the BLM. But it was stopped by Mr. Bundy and people in a show of strength. If this happens more often, we wouldn't have an out-of-control NSA. We wouldn't have things like Gitmo. And abusive people like that pepper spraying fat fucker up there would be too afraid to go to work.
That's what I see happened today in Nevada. The Feds saw the Bundys and all of their friends and the strength they showed in standing up for their rights. And they backed down. They negotiate. They have showed that not everything is "OBEY! OBEY! COMPLY! COMPLY OR DIE!!" The Feds understand that a court order is not worth the paper it is written on. They are returning his livestock, and they are paying him for what they stole.
Want to stop casual cruelty like that up there? You do what Bundy did. Peaceful protest without strength to back you just gets you arrested and pepper sprayed in the face.
My favorite quote:
“And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.”
― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

[Violet_Crumble]

58. There's peaceful protest, and then there's thugs with guns who think they're above the law...

Bundy and those militia creeps fall into the latter category. They're domestic terrorists...

I'm gobsmacked to read here at DU anyone saying that gun-toting thugs threatening anyone is peaceful protest. DU has changed a lot since I first came here years ago, that's for sure...

And 'attempted theft'? You do realise that idiot was grazing them on land that didn't belong to him and refusing to pay the fee everyone else pays for grazing their cattle on public land?

Advocating violence as a form of protest is a really bad thing to be doing, btw...

btw, there's a photo of one of those 'peaceful' protesters elsewhere in this thread. Surely you have a problem with people behaving like that?



http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4815205

[christx30]

59. "Thugs with guns that think

they're above the law."
That's pretty much how I describe many federal officials and police.
And it was a peaceful protest, in that no one was killed. No shots were fired. It was people standing their ground against what they view as a bunch of thugs. People that were not going to be herded into 'free speech zones' (which begs the question, what exists outside that zone?). Disobeying orders they did not feel a judge had any right to give. Would you follow an order to pay something from someone you did not feel had any authority over you? A thief with a badge and a court order is still a thief. And he can only steal from you as long as you keep silent. As long as you don't resist.
And, this was a protest. The difference is that there was force to back it up. If there was no force, the BLM and their thugs would have swept everyone aside like they were nothing. Don't hate the people that recognize the reality of the situation. Occupy got no where because the cops came out in force to take down the camps. And there was no clear, unifying message from weeks of protests.
Bundy's message was clear: Get the hell out of here. This message could not be ignored like Occupy was. You think NYPD could have stormed the camps if the protesters were armed and willing to fight? It would have been very bad for both sides. Most of the cops would have called in sick that day.
The Feds use force. The Feds have weapons. Most of the time they feel they can do whatever the want. You just want them to be the only ones that can. I've just seen too many abuses of power to know there have to be checks against that power. And you in your free speech zone isn't going to cut it.

[Crunchy Frog]

70. When Occupy has its own militia

the corporations will too. Which militias do you honestly think will prevail in that showdown?

I hope that you'll be very happy with the results, when law is determined soley by which interests have the greatest firepower, and even the nominal restraints that we have now, with government controlled police forces, are gone.

[Crunchy Frog]

66. DU is becoming unrecognizable to me.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

81. It looks like this piece of shit is on a road I paid for.

I neither like nor trust cops. I also hate fucked-in-the-head gunbaggers. I think I dislike both groups because of commonalities they share. So while it's a nice thought to imagine these "protestors" getting their worthless skulls blown apart, I do understand the arguments against that sort of action.

To that end, I propose airplanes dropping thousands of gallons of sewage on their heads--as much shit as we can muster in the western US, sortie after sortie until they finally crawl out of the muck and can be arrested and sent away.

[Jake Stern]

89. All of a sudden it's become hip to defend people who cheat the government

Can't help but wonder how many folks on here who defend this guy or the government standing down against these militia bullies would demand the arrest of tax cheats.

[maddezmom]

60. Yikes

Are you serious?

[christx30]

61. Yes I am.

How different would that scene have played out if it had been 150 armed and angry people instead of 7 protesters waiting it get sprayed by that abusive asshole.
Bullies are all the same. I was bullied when I was a kid. It stopped when I tripped one of them and kicked him in the face.
You show strength, even peaceful like on the Bundy ranch, you have a chance of keeping what's your's. On the other hand, see above.

[Rex]

23. Well it is a good thing they didn't call in Harold Francis Callahan.

He doesn't take kindly to outlaw milita types showing up on his doorstep. Or flagrant herds of wandering bovine.

[Taitertots]

24. I feel like we live in bizarro world. Peaceful protesters get viciously beaten and pepper sprayed.

Violent insurrectionists are given carte blanche to break the law for 20 years and dodge $1,000,000 in fines.

Basically they are saying, "Our law enforcement officers refuse to enforce court orders because criminals might try to stop us".

[JVS]

27. How is it bizarro world? Demonstrating weakness gets your weakness exploited. Demonstrating...

strength gets concessions.

"Power grows from a face full of pepperspray" said nobody ever.

[defacto7]

41. How Machiavellian. n/t

Tell that to Gandhi.

[TheKentuckian]

62. They can't because he's dead and if he wasn't he'd see he accomplished overseer status for

a few and continued subjugation for many with the loot going to the same motherfuckers.

Those folks struggling for enough for a day rental and a little food and those sleeping under their sewing machine station nor separated from their families for weeks and months at a time trying to keep them fed nor those forced from their lands and forced into wage slavery are any better off other than semantics of a middle man that looks like them.

If the goal was for the British to go home then fine but to pretend this really changed the dynamics for the people is less than forthright, the same exploitation continues to this day but if you think that he appearance of low level management makes a difference then I won't debate it much but am unconvinced of the substance.

[Crunchy Frog]

69. The loot will always go to the same motherfuckers.

When our laws and court system have been rendered inoperative and armed militias have replaced our police forces, do you really things are going to be more fair to ordinary people?

When we live under the rule of militias, it's the corporations and wealthy who will be able to afford the biggest and most powerful ones, with no restraints and not even the pretense of due process.

I hope people on here will be happy with that new world, because that's where we're headed.

[TheKentuckian]

91. I encourage nor espoused any such thing, in fact, I hold the lay down sallys and the get along

bipartisanship worshiping fools for realistic threat of such a pass as much or more than the idiots striving for such directly.

The conflict avoidance and fear have put us in an awful spot now the corruption of money and the thickness of the propaganda are deeper than ever and all we can come up with is bullshit tiger riding lessons, hand wringing, whining that the opposition moves toward their goals rather than ours, and fantasy fueled delusion that power surrenders without existential threat.

[Jesus Malverde]

28. Maybe the hippie approach to politics doesn't trump fighting in the streets.

The Gandhi approach might just get you run over unless you have a compelling moral issue.

Economic justice is not a compelling moral issue in our society, compared to civil rights etc.

Sometimes the stakes have to be higher for the state to back down.



http://peppersprayingcop.tumblr.com/

In the face of Armed marches would the US have gone to war in Iraq? Would Bush have massacred the anti-war activists? Instead they were easily ignored and dismissed.

[TheKentuckian]

64. The "Gandhi approach" has been greatly overstated in actual effect anyway and to work

requires the conscience of part of the oppressors to be leveraged to rein in the other oppressors. In modern America that circle is much smaller and has little to nothing to do with the sentiments of the population but instead of the whims of plutocracy who do not give a shit and won't give a shit unless their power is under threat, which our marching asses do not pose at all many times.

This particular tool has always been overstated in its utility.
The question of what hearts and minds will this effort leverage and what pressure can they apply to power is never asked, it seems to me. To think that the same tactics will work with reasonably similar results in every situation is beyond simplistic, approaching stupidity.

If you don't know who's mind you are trying to change then the protest is dangerously close to dead on arrival, there is no magic at play here and even if you change your minds, those folks have to be able to pressure or impact the system in a way that actually moves the needle into a different groove.

[Jesus Malverde]

67. Your words resonate with me.

Sometimes a non violent protest is predestined to fail.

The protestors need to have an absolutely clear moral high ground. Anything that can be argued away as a gray area is bound to fail.

Civil and Gay rights come to mind as something that meets that requirement. Anti-war sentiment can be argued away in context.

I participated in a huge antiwar march before the Iraq war. In retrospect we didn't take a stand so much as much as act out our role in a drama. A drama that where the antiwar forces were destined to fail.

If that same march said "over our dead bodies will you attack Iraq", were here, armed and not going anywhere. The Bush Junta would be hard pressed to massacre some americans first in order to justify the destruction of Iraq. Instead there was a loud flamboyant, self gratifying march that was huge, but in the end was nothing but spectacle. Nothing was put on the line and the "enemy" wasn't laid bare for the murderous war mongers they are.

Instead it was "not in our name". Which turns into, ok if not for you, we're invading Iraq to protect your neighbor or those threatened by bin laden and his assets. It felt good for me to take a stand but in the end it was meaningless. When all was said and done. Iraq and 4000 american troops lay dead and in ruin. The "stand" the antiwar forces took was inconsequential.

[sweetapogee]

108. and the moral of the story is:

never bring a knife (or acoustic guitar) to a gun fight.

[Boomerproud]

30. The armed militiamen love it when liberals/progressives get the crap beat out of them by police.

It means they don't have to do it themselves, except they would if it was legal.

[struggle4progress]

32. ... "The BLM will continue to work to resolve the matter administratively and judicially" ...

They have further options

[Jake Stern]

35. Indeed they do. . .

. . . .until the time comes to enforce those ruling then he'll have his armed militia homies back out at the ranch for another get together to chase off the feds which will get people on here to say how wonderful it is that this ended peacefully and that the government has more options.

Wash. Rinse. Repeat.

[struggle4progress]

37. That would show real lack of imagination

[ThoughtCriminal]

42. When he finds out that he can't sell cattle that he no longer legally owns

that pack of low IQ thugs are going to be worthless.

[Jake Stern]

40. At a minimum the government could have wimped out in style by pretending they meant business.

They didn't even try to save face and act like they're there to uphold the law. They just hightailed out of there.

I can't see Clinton just letting this go. As much as I despise Bush, it's hard to imagine Dubya's people tolerating such a open and direct challenge without some show of force.

[ZombieHorde]

53. People with guns showed up.

Then more people with guns showed up.

Then some of the gun folk decided to back down to avoid bloodshed.

You can label those people however makes you happy or unhappy, but I'm just happy no one was killed.

[politicman]

56. its effed up when the guys with guns that back down are the cops.

Yeah, and to show how effed up the country is at the moment, the folk with guns that backed down were the Law Enforcement.

The nut jobs with guns got the Law Enforcement to back down !

So next time Law Enforcement need to affect a court order for what ever reason, we know now the formula to stop them.

Put out a call for nut jobs with guns to come and scare off Law Enforcement. Beauty

[ZombieHorde]

88. Would you've been happier if they had a shoot out? nt

[politicman]

96. to be honest, yes.

To be honest, yes.

Not because I am blood-thirsty, but because if these guys showed up with guns ready to stop the law be carried out, then it is they who have put their lives on the line and it is they who have to take responsibility for the blood shed.

I dare you to not pay your taxes, and when the government eventually takes you to court and gets an order to confiscate your house, I dare you to stand in your front yard with a gun in your hand when the cops show up to carry out that order.

Then come on here and let us all know how it worked out for you.


But then again, if you can gather 200 guys with guns to come and stand with you, we now know that the government will slink away and not enforce the law to avoid blood shed, giving the crazies more power than law abiding citizens.

[ZombieHorde]

105. I am not the kind of guy who threatens people with guns.

I don't own any guns. I had a hunting rifle when I was a kid, but I don't have it any more because I'm not into hunting.

Why do you place more importance on something abstract, like law, over something real, like human life?

[politicman]

113. because with law, there would be chaos which would mean its more dangerous for human life

Because when the law can be undermined by nuts with guns, then it results in a society in chaos.

If it is shown that a couple of hundred nuts with guns can stop a law being enforced, then it is showing that the stronger you are the more chance that you can scare off the government from enforcing a court order.

If someone had challenged a law in court and lost can use violence or violent intimidation to stop the law from being carried out, then why have any laws, why have courts, etc.

Either everyone gets to defy court orders, or no one does.

If someone carries a gun and attempts to defy a court order from being carried out, then the cops have to show that they will carry point 2 guns back at that person.

If the can negotiate a way a solution where the court order is implemented, then I am all for that.
But when the cops back down from implementing a court order because they want to avoid blood shed that Bundy and his cohorts are itching for, then the government shows that they can be intimidated into not enforcing court orders.

[ZombieHorde]

114. The worst atrocities ever committed were perfectly legal.

Slavery, The Holocaust, nuclear bombs, female genital mutilation, comfort girls, the Vietnam war, apartheid, some genocides, torture, etc. Criminals have a hard time keeping up with the evils of law-abiding citizens.

You can have chaos either way. All that matters is how we treat each other.

[christx30]

95. Bundy was ready to risk death

to protect his family and his livelihood.
BLM has much less skin in the game. Do you know any cop that's willing to risk death to stop cows from grazing?

[politicman]

97. so violent intimidation is enough to stop laws being enforced?

So that's it then, as long as one is willing to risk death then the government won't enforce court orders/law.

If Bundy and his crazy gun nut friends were willing to die for their cause, that's on them.

What the government has shown now is that if someone can get a few hundred 'friends' with guns who are willing to die, that the government will back down from enforcing the law.

Because we all know that the next time the cops find a homeless man sheltering under a staircase, they will have no problem enforcing the law and lock him up, and if he is willing to die to stop the cops enforcing the law, I am sure they will accommodate his willingness with a bullet.

Even funnier is that the government has created the impression that violent intimidation is enough to scare it away from enforcing laws.

I am sure the gun nuts have taken that lesson away from this hole saga.

[christx30]

100. I'm saying that

Last edited Mon Apr 14, 2014, 01:25 PM - Edit history (1)

government has used violence, force, and intimidation to get its way for a long time. Drone strikes, 'enhanced interrogation', stop and frisk, Oscar Grant, Ruby Ridge, ect shows that they have no qualms about using violence against the people.
But this is a case where the people push back, and they 're not sure how to take it.

But about your homeless man trying to survive, if Kelly Thomas is any indication, they'll just beat him to death and be acquitted of any crime. But if it was 200 homeless people, armed with rocks, bottles, other weapons, and willing to fight the cops to get what they want, the police either have to get more backup to enforce the law, or they have to back down. Nothing has changed at all now. You bring enough guns to enforce the law or you say it's not worth it. Not everyone respects every law. Not everyone considers your cow sacred.

[Tarheel_Dem]

110. Do all you guys hang out in the Israel/Palestine forum? It's strange that the two arguing most....

vigorously for confrontation hang out in one of the more hardcore forums.

[Dems to Win]

55. BLM director should be fired immediately

BLM should have never STARTED this cattle roundup if they were not determined to finish it, and if they did not have a plan to overcome/outsmart the certain resistance.

I'd much prefer to have had the BLM do nothing about these cows for 20 more years than to have the BLM start to enforce the court order then back down in the face of armed intimidation.

BLM knew the threats they were dealing with, or damn well should have known. Has no one at BLM read the Southern Poverty Law Center's reports on right-wing militias and the 'patriot' movement, etc?

IF the BLM were going to get these cows, they should have created a plan IN ADVANCE that would deal with the likelihood of like-minded people coming to support Bundy. The BLM should have spent the money needed to get it done quickly. The BLM should have shut down the roads into the area so as to prevent the armed people from getting close to the BLM people collecting the cows.

I don't want another Waco, but I don't want to see the government back down when intimidated by armed force, either. It's sheer incompetence and lack of planning and lack of taking the threat of right-wing militias seriously by the BLM that allowed this armed confrontation to get started, and it is infuriating. The fact that the government tucked tail between their legs and slunk off and the militia nuts are cackling with glee over their victory is a terrible outcome.

The person responsible for this disaster, the director of the BLM, should be fired ASAP.

As far as future action by the BLM to bring Bundy into line, what's that going to be? Take him to court? That's worked so well for the last 20 years.... What a stupid farce.

Takeaway lessons from today:
The next time I go to a demonstration, I want it to be an armed demonstration. That's what works in this country, it's been proven today. Time for a left-wing militia.

No more getting our heads bashed in while making our statement of righteousness via non-violence. It doesn't work in 21st century America.

The young people of Occupy are still being fleeced by student loans, the bankers got away with outright theft via foreclosure of millions of people's homes, the powers that be totally ignored millions of unarmed people in streets demanding NO war in Iraq. If we'd been carrying guns, we might have won.



Pretty sick messages for our government to be sending out. I cry for my beloved country.

[forthemiddle]

75. It was just another "Red Line"

Unfortunately, the Obama Administration (rightly, or wrongly) is living up to its critics taunts of all bark, no bite.
At first it was Syria, then Russia/Ukraine, and now even in our own country.
Should BLM have started an armed conflict with the protesters?. No of course not, but they also should have NEVER started something that they couldn't finish. That makes this government, and by extension, the Obama Administration look weak, and the criticism look correct.

[Fumesucker]

99. This whole thread reminds me of a cartoon

[Exposethefrauds]

63. If I were in charge I would have brought in the FBI and even encouraged the militia's to come on

down and in one action solve much of the militia movement problem with one action that would set the example that this militia nonsense will not stand and let other wanna be militia men you will end up in jail or in a grave if you rise up with arms.

The backing down by the BLM will only embolden the militia types and those who wish to secede or form separate enclaves with in a state or region. All one has to do now is threaten the Government with guns and they, gov, backs down.


Backing down was a bad precedent to make.

[newfie11]

65. Why give the idiot back his cattle?

He owns 160 acres of nothing and scams all of us by grazing them (500 cattle) on public land without paying for a grazing permit. This is scrub land that mustangs were accused of eating to much fauna.
This is stealing and illegal.

Letting him get away with this is a wake up call for ever militia and paramilitary group in this country. This is setting a very bad precedent.

National guard, FBI, and whoever else allowed under Posse commutates should have been called in.

[ohheckyeah]

115. If that infuriates you,

how do you feel about the Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations that receive grants, subsidies, and are a danger to the environment? They get money from the federal government while small ranchers have to pay the federal government. What's fair or right about that?

[newfie11]

116. I live in Western South Dakota

Don't even go there with me. We have cattle running on ranches of 10,000 acres and more here in SD.
AND if they are using public land YES they do pay fees. If you think this should be free then you've never seen what cattle can do to land if over grazed.
Here in the Black Hills
Cattle can be run on open range from May to October BUT you PAY for it.
You want to tell me this guy doesn't sell his cows to a feed lot, give me a break!
I don't have patience for ignorant people!
Ignore!

[ohheckyeah]

117. LOL...

I'm crushed and I don't have time for jerks.

[DrDan]

76. exactly - we gave in to a bully . . . and that is not a good thing

[Tom Ripley]

80. +1000 White might makes right

[DinahMoeHum]

84. Let's face it - the gun nuts want another Ruby Ridge or Waco. . .

. . .to exploit for their own use.

[Rex]

94. I was thinking the same thing. No doubt they will build a statue in honor of this guy.

Pretend like they freed the country from tyranny! The Rwing gun nuts are totally delusional and dangerous imo.

[WhiteTara]

86. There needs to be serious consequences or there will really be

anarchy and open sedition and then civil war. Those are the People's lands and are not free to some one person.

[ancianita]

93. Here's the only update I've seen on BLM's cattle removal. The source is by a nearby land management

center out of Idaho, which got reports that Bundy's cattle were wandering over into Idaho public lands, as well. They've covered the Bundy situation over the last few years, it seems.

http://www.thewildlifenews.com/2013/08/01/19-years-later-cliven-bundy-ordered-to-remove-trespass-cattle-or-face-seizure-by-blm/

"...Total trespass cattle secured 389-

134 cattle secured by Monday night-
43 additional cattle by Tuesday night-
75 more cattle by Wednesday night-
25 more Thursday night,
12 more Friday night-

On Saturday, April 5 the U.S. Bureau of Land Management BLM) began rounding up the hundreds of cattle owned by rancher Cliven Bundy of Bunkerville, Nevada. The cattle are a mixture of trespass cattle Bundy runs on U.S. public land for which he has no permit and also apparently feral cattle, probably derived from the trespass cattle. In surveys this month, the BLM identified 908 cattle illegally on the often scenic Gold Butte public land area. Cattle are spread in groups over an incredible 750,000 acres!

When Bundy stopped paying his required grazing fees in 1993, the BLM had authorized him to graze only 152 cattle on 158,000 acres..."

I looks as if BLM is going to do what it's going to do without all the Koch and victim and vigilante-fueled theater.

[6000eliot]

101. Domestic terrorists win this one.

[sendero]

107. Those of y'all who think this is over..

... are not the brightest star in the sky.

[Quixote1818]

109. Agree. nt

[lumberjack_jeff]

111. In a nation of laws, there's only one way that this can end.

The cattle will eventually be removed from our land.

He has no more right in the name of "freedom" and "liberty" to continue to graze his cattle on federal land than I do to cut my firewood from the neighbor's forest.

I hope it gets to the inevitable resolution, (The US maintains ownership and control over how our lands are used) as peacefully and quickly as possible.

[Nine]

112. I hope those who are saying this isn't over are correct.

One thing I know for sure. Our side lost the day's news cycle. Not only because of the BLM's actions but because of the bureau's weak-sounding public statement. They basically told the world that they got scared off by some right-wing loonies with guns. This is bad in a political sense but it's also very bad in terms of federal law enforcement. You can argue that a conflict over grazing rights that's gone on for 20 years is not worth risking bloodshed. But I think that's looking at it the wrong way. By the logic you could question whether it's worth risking bloodshed to send a few kids to public school. It mattered quite a bit at Little Rock. Grazing rights may not seem important but the ability of the federal government to carry out its responsibilities without interference by private citizens is extremely important. A very bad precedent was set this week. I only hope that this is all part of a "long game."

ETA - I'm also not sure I believe all the reporting on this story. There may well be inaccuracies. That doesn't change the fact that we lost the recent news cycles.