Ending a Potential Armed Dispute without Violence Is NOT Failure

[MineralMan]

Lots of people are second-guessing the confrontation in Nevada today. In my opinion, it had the potential of becoming a big tragic mistake. The government did not have adequate presence to use intimidation as a tool in this instance, I think. It did, however, have a bunch of armed morons challenging the BLM to poop or get off the toilet.

This is purely a federal jurisdictional issue, and the local county and state are not parties to the dispute. There are court cases and judgments in place, and the federal government has the law enforcement agencies, personnel and equipment needed for enforcement in this case. Those were not in place yesterday, and could not have been brought there in a timely manner.

So, a decision was made to defer action at that time. This is about cattle and money, along with federal jurisdiction over lands under its control. Here's what will happen next:

The armed morons will drift away from the scene. The cattle owner will go about his business. The federal law enforcement people will re-plan their course of action. This is not an emergency situation. It is an ongoing issue with a long history. At some point, action will be taken to enforce the court judgments and the applicable laws.

There is absolutely no reason for a violent confrontation in this matter. Whoever made the decision yesterday to stand down and defuse the situation made an excellent decision. This can wait until a more opportune time.

In my opinion, the BLM made a wise decision in this case.

[The Straight Story]

1. Sure it is - when your mantra is all gun owners are nuts who shoot people all day long

Of course, when reality sets in and folks realize that such loons represent only a very tiny fraction of gun owners those folks get upset because it doesn't feed the stereotype they spend so much effort keeping.

Hard to foster hate and fear of a group when a bunch of armed people aren't shooting others (thankfully we don't have some 50 million shootings a day, but the way fear is peddled you would think that is what is going on).

[MineralMan]

3. You know, that's not where my thinking is going at all.

The situation was that the BLM people were not up to the situation they were facing in any way. Despite their law enforcement credentials, they were not equipped for a conflict with a large group of armed people. I suspect that they had no idea that the militia morons would show up in the numbers that did show up.

So, they retreated and bought some time at little cost. Now, they can consider other options to deal with enforcing the law and court judgments in this case. Clear heads prevailed in this incident, and nobody got killed. A good result.

What will happen next will probably be a quieter approach that avoids a similar confrontation.

This is not about the 2nd Amendment. It's about enforcing some laws in a non-emergency situation.

[The Straight Story]

6. Wasn't aimed at you

You just provided the diving board

[MineralMan]

10. I know.

It's just a discussion of the decision by whomever was in charge of the operation. I think the decision was the right one.

[Jackpine Radical]

127. I don't give a fuck if they brought in the 2nd Armored Division.

A huge military-style assault on the loonies would have been totally the wrong thing to do.

In my thinking, it's not so much about whether BLM was up to the task (you are right; they obviously were not) as it is about whether escalating the confrontation into a shooting war makes any sense, either strategically or morally.

The answer on both of those grounds is No!

By now I'm sure the gov't has pictures of every license plate & face in the encampment, & can proceed at their leisure to take whatever action is appropriate.

[MineralMan]

128. We agree on that.

This was not a situation that called for armed conflict.

The situation continues, and new plans will come into effect.

[Voice for Peace]

75. I am wondering, if you have an opinion on this,

do you think that such a situation, ie somebody breaking
the law, ignoring laws of the federal government, and a
bunch of 'militia' people show up in protest, armed..

do you think the protesters who show up armed, and in
resistance to the federal government, tend to be responsible
gun owners, or the other kind?

This is an earnest question, not trying to start anything
contentious.

[The Straight Story]

83. My thoughts on that

Is you must first define what you believe a responsible gun owner is.

I know that may sound a little off but so many define it in different ways.

Carrying a gun is not irresponsible (you kind of have to carry it to take it from one place to another....not to mention when out hunting). Leaving it lay around, walking about with the safety off, etc would not be responsible.

Cops/troops/blm/etc all carry guns around for protection. These people carried guns around as well. And given that our government seems to like to use their guns to kill others (from cops to wars to kent state/etc) I think folks might feel a tad more safe from the government in a situation like this if they were armed as well (cause asking them politely not to shoot unarmed citizens doesn't seem to work).

Now as far as breaking laws and this guy breaking one....Why all the fuss? If he was a rich banker he could break all the laws he wants, face a fine, get money from congress to pay it, etc. If he was bush and crew he could cost thousands of lives and wage illegal wars and torture people and no one does jack shit over it. You really want things to come to blow over some cows eating grass on land they have been munching on for over a hundred years?

[CanonRay]

2. I agree with you

even though I really have grown to dislike these ranchers who treat BLM (our) property as if it were their birthright. I had some experience with these people in Wyoming and Utah in the 70's. Same issues then as now.

There are a number of ways the government can get to Bundy, since they now have the court's blessing to seize his cattle. I think you'll see this quietly resolved six months or so down the road.

I think an armed response would have triggered a lot of unintended consequences.

[MineralMan]

4. Thanks. The BLM will fall back and take another

approach. The resistance they faced was not anticipated, and they were unprepared. Retreat is a strategy, and a good one in this case, I think.

[think]

5. Agree. Non violent solutions should be used in ALL cases.

Not just when a group decides to present an armed and violent defense.

Just a thought....

[MineralMan]

9. That would be nice. It's not always possible, however.

In this case, the reason for the enforcement was not an emergency, nor was it a situation where lives were in danger. Violence is a poor response to such situations, and law enforcement should learn from this.

[randome]

7. 'Wise decision' or not, we have too many twitchy armchair generals.

All of whom know better than officers on the field.

Absent evidence to the contrary, I think I'll have more faith in those who have actual experience on the subject.


[hr][font color="blue"][center]“If you're not committed to anything, you're just taking up space.”
Gregory Peck, Mirage (1965)[/center][/font][hr]

[MineralMan]

8. Yes. A lot of people on both sides of the issues are

speaking loudly. For them, with nothing to lose, it's easy. Cooler heads on the scene evaluated the situation and made a decision to end the immediate confrontation without violence. Retreat is not surrender. It's simply a strategy that allows for re-thinking the situation.

The BLM was simply not prepared for the situation that developed, and almost certainly did not anticipate what actually happened.

No lives were lost. The goal, I'm sure, is that no lives be lost.

[Hugin]

11. I heartily disagree with the BLM's capitulation.

Last edited Mon Apr 14, 2014, 11:39 PM - Edit history (1)

This is being seen and played in the extremist channels as weakness in the Federal Government.

They are already calling for similar actions in 4 other states.

Now, in order to reclaim any sort of order, Federal Law Enforcement is going to have to become even more forceful.

What message does this send to the other 1,500 or so other legal grazing stakeholders in Nevada? If I were one, I'd think twice about my payments.

Welcome to a Pirateocracy... Similar to Samalia.

[MineralMan]

12. One Battle Does Not Constitute a War.

I don't really give much of a crap what the right wing extremists think. This is really a financial issue, and is not a situation that requires or justifies a violent confrontation. It is an ongoing, longstanding issue.

The BLM decided to remove the cattle from federal land it manages. Their decision met with more resistance than was expected, and they were not prepared for that. So, they backed off. Now, they'll regroup, come up with a different strategy, and continue the effort to get non-conforming cattle grazing to stop.

This is a long-term problem in the West. It does not have a short-term solution. It doesn't end with what happened yesterday.

I'm not in charge. You are not in charge. It appears to me that someone with some considerable intelligence was in charge. Retreat is not surrender.

[randome]

13. So was Syria. So is the Ukraine.

Doesn't matter what the subject, the right-wing reflexively screams, "Weak President!" The same politicians who say government doesn't work who are working for the government. Their screeds are not to be listened to.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]“If you're not committed to anything, you're just taking up space.”
Gregory Peck, Mirage (1965)[/center][/font][hr]

[MineralMan]

17. Exactly. Wise people do not let the opposition dictate

the course of action. That's especially true in what are basically administrative enforcement issues.

Another course of action the BLM could take with these illegally grazing cattle is to kill them on the BLM property. According to reports, these cattle are not branded or marked by their owner. They could be treated as feral cattle and an invasive species on the land and simply destroyed in place.

I'm sure the BLM has given some consideration to that course of action, and may give that option more consideration now.

Grazing cattle do a great deal of damage to arid lands such as that in Nevada. Since these cattle are not marked with ownership information, the BLM would be justified in treating them as unwanted exotic species on that land. I wonder what the reaction would be to that. Should be interesting.

[packman]

98. Damn good idea

Don't they do this for wild horses every once in awhile? I know they do it for feral pigs.

[Crunchy Frog]

40. Yup.

A smallish problem has just been escalated into a much larger one.

[MohRokTah]

55. Exactly, the nutters are emboldened now.

One need only visit their forums. They've found out that showing up heavily armed means they get their way.

[Crunchy Frog]

60. It seems that this is a minority view on this board.

I'm not sure that I belong on here anymore.

[MohRokTah]

64. I'm hanging around

I intend to make an OP linking all the people poo-pooing the idea that these terrorist traitors are now emboldened when the inevitable happens.

[Crunchy Frog]

74. Good luck. I've become jaded and cynical.

It may be time for me to move on and look for a progressive discussion forum.

[Hugin]

77. Right now they are calling for the removal of Harry Reid and the dismantling of the BLM.

Both of which could happen if a few extremist show up with some small arms.

[MineralMan]

86. Uh, no. That won't happen, and they won't show up.

It's mindless bullshit.

[Hugin]

95. Seems to be the zeitgeist in the modern U.S.A.

Only a few months ago, I would have agreed with you.

But, then I witnessed a march being led by the Confederate Battle Flag on the White House while one Senator and a very few loons in Congress shut the Government down and they plan to do it again... Permanently.

[Jake Stern]

108. Would the people who think withdrawal was the best way to deal with these thugs

feel the same way if they were showing up, fully armed at polling sites in liberal/minority areas?

Wait and see, I have a feeling the day will come when an extreme RW governor calls on thugs like this to "protect" polling sites.

[frogbone gumbo]

94. weakness?

I wish these right wingers would get their stories straight.Is the government "weak" or is it a tyrannical behemoth?

[Jackpine Radical]

129. Have you ever been in armed combat?

I have. It's not something you really want to do.

The RW nutcases would have us in a war in Iran and Ukraine already. Who gives a rat's ass what they think?

The militia types are paranoid hate-freaks with delusions of significance. The proper answer to them involves, for starters, not playing into their psychotic world-view.

[Taitertots]

14. In this case it is a failure

You are only right if you want to live in a world where all our laws and court orders are subject to the whims of right wing domestic terrorist groups.

They view this as a victory. Expect armed domestic terrorist groups to show up anytime they disagree with our laws.

[MineralMan]

19. One incident does not mean anything of the sort.

That you think so indicates that you need to stop and rethink.

[Taitertots]

22. Just wait and see. The flood gates are open. Right wing crazies view this as a victory and a...

call to arms for further action.

You position is inherently saying: We enforce our laws and court orders because people could get hurt if we attempt to enforce the laws. Stop and think about what you are advocating.

[MineralMan]

33. I'll wait and see, thanks. What else would you suggest I do.

There are laws and there are laws. Some laws are designed to protect people from criminal activity. Other laws are administrative in nature and do not involve any threats to people. The BLM grazing permit laws are in the second category. How laws are enforced have to do with the nature of those laws.

The BLM has a legal right to remove cattle from the lands it manages, but the penalties for illegally grazing on such lands involve fines and other penalties. They're not about any danger to people. There is no possible reason to kill people over such laws. So, the BLM doesn't do that.

What the right-wing morons call for is irrelevant. They've been calling for such actions for years and over many things. I'm not impressed with their anger and sense of victory. I am impressed with the BLM's decision to retreat and rethink. It was a good move in the short term. What happens next will be judged next.

Since you have nothing at risk in this particular issue, I find it odd that you're calling for...what? What would you have done, if you were in charge of the BLM's process in this instance? Let's hear your plan of action, shall we?

[Taitertots]

44. Oh I get it, you want to draw arbitrary lines to avoid confrontation over laws that you think are...

Less important. Prepared to get walked all over by right wingers. It is the risk we all face when the government capitulates to domestic terrorists.

What do I think the government should have done?
Arrest Bundy for making terrorist threats ("range war" threats).
Seize all his assets to pay his debts.
Send in armed federal agents to disperse the insurrection with proportional force.
Take all his cattle and sell them to people who pay their grazing fees.

[MineralMan]

53. All of those things you suggest can still happen.

In the meantime, nobody's dead. I like it when nobody's dead. There's no need for the armed federal agents if this is handled intelligently. If they are needed, they should be planned for in advance. They were not in this situation. Since there was no plan for them, they were not available on such short notice.

If you want to know what my call would be, I'll be glad to tell you: The BLM should simply destroy all cattle being grazed illegally on federal land. Problem solved. The vultures and coyotes will clean up the area.

Then seize the guy's assets and recover all past fees and the costs of dealing with the cattle.

What's your plan, if I may ask? Let's hear it. Let's hear how you would have handled the situation in Nevada if you were the BLM official in charge of it yesterday.

I've asked several people that question. So far: crickets.

[MohRokTah]

47. They are already plotting where next to use the armed mob tactic.

It's only a matter of time before thousands start shooting.

[meanit]

49. This is being seen by the right as another capitulation

by this administration. They have exploited every other past capitulation for everything they were worth.

How will this time be any different?

[DirtyDawg]

15. Tell me...

...there's no truth to the rumor that the BLM is just getting its people out of the area so that the drones can do their job...then again...

[MineralMan]

20. No, that's not going to happen.

What could happen, though, is for the BLM to kill the trespassing cattle on federal land. They are not native species there, and are, apparently, not marked with owner's brands, either. They are essentially feral cattle.

It's something the BLM may well consider.

[Nye Bevan]

16. I'm shocked by the number of DUers thirsting for a bloody battle here.

After all, one thing I like about the Obama administration is that the default reaction to anything is not to storm in with guns blazing.

[MineralMan]

18. Such people have nothing to lose.

They are not involved, don't know anybody who is, and are just bloviating. We have violence seekers who are calling for violence from the sidelines on both sides. Both sides are wrong when they do that.

[Nye Bevan]

21. Imagine telling a grieving officer's widow "the guy owed TAXES! This was NECESSARY!" (nt)

[Blue_Adept]

73. There's a pent up demand

by some to see those that continually act in the wingnut way to finally get taken down a peg. It's not happening with the politicians, so something like this feeds into that.

When you get abused and abused by a group and called out so often as what's wrong with America, sometimes you want to see that particular group of people get a taste of reality.

Not pro/con position on my part, just how I view how some folks here and elsewhere are viewing it.

[Atticus]

82. And just who suggested anything of the sort?

I'm "shocked" that you see this as a simplistic choice between a "bloody battle" and spineless capitulation.
I agree that possible bloodshed was avoided this time. But, the barbarians won. The good guys retreated and the lesson won't be lost on these militia types that "the gummint is chicken shit!"

[Demeter]

23. Making a total FUBAR of law enforcement is (a total failure)

Why didn't they just sell the cattle?

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

24. So how would it have played out if the Feds showed up in large numbers?

Based on the liberal experience, that clown posse would have been beaten up and hauled off.

Hopefully, the dumbfuck who filmed the whole thing and posted it to YouTube has helped the police identify these clowns. Otherwise, it's completely irresponsible to punish one side and not the other. That emboldens the idiots and, if the message is: if you overwhelm the police, they will back down and there won't be consequences...that's just irresponsible and dangerous.

Let's hope the sheriff knocks on some doors.

[MineralMan]

34. What large numbers? For large numbers of federal officers to be present

would have taken advanced planning. They were not planned for, and this is purely a federal situation, involving federal laws. The state only has an interest in things like keeping the highways moving in this situation. They have no authority over BLM lands.

In order for a substantial force of federal law enforcement personnel on hand in some rural area in Nevada, time is required, since those personnel are not located anywhere near this situation. The FBI does have offices in Las Vegas, but no large force on hand there, nor the other equipment needed to subdue an armed crowd.

Being practical is a good thing.

What would you have done, exactly, had you been in charge of this BLM action? I'd be interested in hearing.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

69. If you understand implicity, I was very clear...

When I say "otherwise," I'm implying that this was acceptable action IF AND ONLY IF they knock on doors this week. If not, it sends an irresponsible and dangerous message. File this under: give them an inch and they take a mile. Happens on Wall Street, too. No punishment, "Fuck it, I'll take more next time!"

I posited my question to you to see if you would have taken a different position had there been adequate reinforcement, but you didn't want to answer that. Instead, you chose to opt out and take a "since it can't happen I won't answer" position.



OK, adequate BLM (or whatever local or state) presence and you're in charge. What's your call?

In case you didn't see the video.

I'm tired of seeing liberals get beaten and pepper sprayed and arrested whether they are provocateurs or NOT. I'm frustrated if that doesn't bother you, too.

[frogbone gumbo]

102. don't taze me bro

I'm with you and I posted a quick thought experiment elsewhere about what might have transpired if it had been a hippie commune grazing it's cattle on public lands for 20 years etc..Somehow I can't imagine Sean Hannity leaping to their defense.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

107. We agree, it's not about Hannity, it's about law enforcement...

Can you imagine letting liberals get away with this?

I'm afraid MM thinks letting law enforcement get bullied AT THE WHITE HOUSE is just dandy, too.

[forthemiddle]

88. "Time was required"??

The BLM had 20 years to plan what they would do in the event that the decisions came down there way. How much more time did they need???
I am not saying that there should have been a gun battle, far from it, there should have been better advanced planning. Otherwise this just reinforces the stereotype, that the Obama Administration is weak, when threatened, and they will back down.
Why didn't BLM know that the militia would be called out? Didn't someone say that this guy was on watch lists?
Was this another Syrian "Red Line", what about Ukraine/Russia? Regardless of foreign or domestic, this administration is not portraying America as the threat it has been for the past century. Now if that is a good thing or a bad thing is a different argument, but a whole bunch of our allies are not as comforted as they were a few years ago.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

90. lol "The BLM had 20 years to plan" GOOD POINT!!!

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

89. Hey, MM, maybe we're talking about different standoffs...

I'm referring to the video I posted above. This is the provocative "clown posse" I'm referring to, and the folks I'd like to see the sheriff pay a visit to.

After watching a massive standoff just now, I'm wondering if we're talking about different standoffs

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

125. MineralMan: Agree, Disagree, or have you already cried "Uncle"

If Bundy escapes from this incident without consequence, that sends a pretty clear message that federal law is optional so long as you have enough people with guns backing you up.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/04/14/3426222/militia-rancher-behind-bars/


I'll assume your lack of responding signifies that you cried "Uncle" yesterday.

[MineralMan]

126. Don't assume anything.

I didn't reply to your post. That's the only fact.

I'm still not going to reply. I voiced my opinion in the OP. Yours might differ from mine.

What happens next is up to people other than myself.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

131. ah... note to self: MM asks rhetorical questions

gottit!

[MineralMan]

132. I can't post this in the thread title, so:

[99Forever]

25. I've disagreed with you many times, MM.

This I wholeheartedly agree. This situation didn't rate the use of force at this juncture, no good would have come from given these fools he one thing they were spoiling for, a pitched firefight. Deal with them when it's under circumstances they can't have any control over.

[MineralMan]

35. We probably agree on more things than you think.

Force was not even possible in this situation. Neither the personnel nor equipment were on hand for it. The BLM is not a quasi-military organization and it takes time to plan for and put such a thing in place. It will be interesting to see where this goes down the road, once the militia morons return to their homes to whine on the internet.

[ewagner]

26. An armed confrontation is inevitable....

...because that's what the right wing wants...they want to foment a revolution and if it wasn't here, it will be somewhere else.

I think the Government folks deprived them of their goal yesterday....but I am worried that they will be emboldened by the government backing down...

These groups will settle for nothing less than revolution...

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

30. That's exactly what the message is IF the police take no action this week.

As I was saying, they have video now. They can identify people and pay them a visit at their homes.

Otherwise, extremely dangerous and irresponsible.

[MineralMan]

36. No, it is not inevitable.

There are many possible solutions to this illegal grazing thing. One solution is for the BLM to just kill the cattle on BLM land and leave the carcasses in place. I'm sure they're considering doing just that. Another plan would be to arrest the cattle owner at some convenient time and put him on trial for interfering with this operation.

As for the militia morons, they've been bloviating about revolution for quite some time. Their words don't worry me, and the US has more than adequate forces to turn their dream into a brief nightmare, if necessary. I hope such a thing will not be necessary.

[Adrahil]

27. BLM made a good call.

Now they need to go to court and get this sumbitch's assets frozen and they need to issue a warrant for his arrest.

[MineralMan]

37. I agree. It's not an emergency situation in any way.

[secondvariety]

51. I agree.

Maybe he'll pay attention when his checks start bouncing.

[rocktivity]

93. Which they should have done twenty years ago

According to this report, that's how long he hasn't paid his grazing fees, and he owes more than a MILLION dollars. Why did the BLM look the other way for so long -- a Nevada Mormon brotherhood thing? Put his ass and jail and seize his assets, already!


rocktivity

[DinahMoeHum]

28. This could have been another Ruby Ridge or Waco. . .

. . .for the gun nuts to exploit.

Fortunately, for now, it seems that cooler heads have prevailed.

[Jesus Malverde]

29. I think a lot of the reason people are upset is...

People have said over and over again what would the 2nd amendment arms be good for to oppose the weight of the government.

Well it turns out a lot. No doubt a shooting match would be won by the feds, but the people apparently kept them at bay with small arms, the feds unwilling to raise the stakes over some cows.

[MineralMan]

39. Had the number of militia morons been anticipated,

a larger law enforcement presence would have been in place. It was not, and the small group of BLM people there were far too small to deal with a group of armed morons.

There was no armed conflict here. There were some armed people, but no battle took place, thanks to the cool heads in charge of the situation.

Another time, that may not be the case. If the BLM decides to undertake this again, you can count on it being differently manned and equipped. This time, no preparations were in place for what actually happened.

[Jesus Malverde]

41. They brought attack dogs, Tazers and First amendment zones.

What they didn't bring was a will to start shooting people.

Nor would the occasion have called for it.

I actually don't care for this issue one way or the other, to me it was hardheadedness on both sides.

What drives me nuts are the "First amendment Zones."

I do agree with you that in the long game, the feds win.

[MineralMan]

46. Yes, well, that experiment didn't work out.

In the end, though, there was no bad result. I imagine they'll rethink this operation and decide how to proceed. However, the goal will be to conduct it in a way that doesn't result in some gun battle in the Nevada desert. That should not be the result of anything involved with enforcing administrative laws.

Too much time and too much publicity made this happen. The next time, it will be handled differently. I'm sure there are meetings going on right now with the BLM, the FBI, and the Federal Marshall's office.

[Inkfreak]

31. Right on, MM. Rec'd!

[elleng]

32. Thanks

[Crunchy Frog]

38. Capitulation to armed thugs threatening violence is MASSIVE failure.

Flush with the perception of victory, what will the armed thugs try next, and where will it end?

[MineralMan]

42. Nonsense. What will they try next?

Who knows. One thing is certain, though: The next time the BLM shows up to confiscate cattle being illegally grazed on BLM land, there will be more than a handful of people there, and they won't be armed with tasers and pepper spray. This incident was not anticipated by the BLM. They were in no way prepared for what happened.

There are also no ready forces standing by to respond to such a situation where only federal laws are being violated. If the BLM decides to repeat this confiscation, you can be sure that the personnel and equipment needed will be on hand.

Unless, of course, the BLM decides to handle it in a different way altogether, which is a real possibility.

So, as I have asked a number of others, what would you have done, exactly, if you were the BLM official in charge of this operation? Let's get the benefit of your expertise in such situations, Crunchy Frog. I'll wait here for your plan.

[MohRokTah]

52. Visit a few right wing forums for some examples of what they'll try next.

Expect hundreds of armed assholes showing up to shut down a Planned Parenthood clinic somewhere. That was one idea being floated on where to next use the armed terrorist tactic.

[MineralMan]

54. I'm familiar with such discussions, thanks.

I do not expect what you describe, and don't think such a thing will occur. If it does, then law enforcement will respond appropriately, and they have the equipment, weapons, and personnel required to deal with any such ragtag bunch of armed morons.

It's not going to happen, despite the ideas being floated by the keyboard warriors.

[MohRokTah]

56. Bookmarking your post.

I'm sure I'll have occasion to pull it up in the future.

[MineralMan]

65. Isn't it nice that DU has the tools for you to do that?

If you're still around, you're welcome to "pull up" my post.

[MohRokTah]

66. I do not look forward to it.

But it is now inevitable.

[Crunchy Frog]

57. Only time will tell. Can I say "I told you so" when it happens?

I wish that I could believe that this was a tactical retreat (which I do agree would be sensibe) rather than a simple capitulation, which is what I fear. Time will tell, though.

And I have no expertise in dealing with armed insurrection, so I won't be giving you my plan. I will say that I would hope that next time they go in with far greater planning, preparation, and manpower.

[MineralMan]

62. You can say whatever you wish.

It's an open forum.

Thank you for admitting that you have no idea what to do. Neither do most of the people proclaiming that what was done was the wrong thing to do.

[Crunchy Frog]

70. I don't have expertise in this field, but I do have some idea of what to do.

As I said in my previous post, go in with sufficient planning, preparation, and manpower. It doesn't take expertise to reach that conclusion, just common sense.

Other approaches, freeze and confiscate his assets.

I don't need to be an expert to say that capitulating to terrorists threatening violence is a bad idea and sets a bad precedent.

What's your expertise?

[meanit]

59. Exactly. Cattle my ass.

This incident had very little to do with cattle grazing and everything to do with right wing domestic terrorist thugs making the government back down under threat of armed violence.

[m-lekktor]

99. I completely agree.

in their eyes they won that *battle*! that door is now open...

[boston bean]

43. Obama didn't need a Waco, or Ruby Ridge event.

Those events are what harden the nuts to be against the government and get others to join in. Kudo's to cooler heads.

[MineralMan]

48. Nobody needs such a thing.

We have learned from those incidents and others. A repeat of them is unlikely, especially with the current administration.

[Iliyah]

45. K & R

I have always believed that the group of people who are the closest to the teachings of Jesus Christ are the liberals/progressives. That said, the BLM made a wise choice. The RWers are itching for a violent confrontation. Look at fake news and hate radio alongwith corporate media egging such.

[bl968]

50. It's impeachable.

10 U.S. Code § 333 - Interference with State and Federal law

The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy, if it—

(1) so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or

(2) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.

In any situation covered by clause (1), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.

Notice it says shall, not may

[MineralMan]

67. I'm sure they "shall" be considering what

to do next. You might notice that there is no time frame in what you posted.

[cthulu2016]

58. It is also NOT success. The world is complex.

Everybody patting themselves on the back for disavowing one or the other of two comic-book level idiocies.

Whatever.

There should not have been a bloodbath (duh)

Slightly more complex is that this is an unsustainable model of government reaction. Not that it was wrong in this instance, but that it cannot be sustained. It was a failure of the system.

It does not follow from that observation that some crazy response would be a success. Just because a is a failure of the system does not mean that any conceivable b would be a success of the system.

It is a no win situation being discussed by (some) folks who cannot think in terms other than games, featuring binary victory, and that lack of perspective poisons the whole conversation.

Usually, grown-ups will hope this sort of thing is sui generis but recognize that it is probably not. And since the response that is best in this instance is unsustainable, the correct response will change if the problem becomes sustained.

A more tactical response to a situation similar to this is not unthinkable, it is merely premature. Unwarranted at this time. Perhaps the problem will not be sustained, which would be awesome.

[Blue_Tires]

120. Agreed...

I see it as a draw or detente for now...I guess a year or two from now we'll see who the true "winner" emerges to be

[Warpy]

61. I read last night that the cattle already in BLM hands will be auctioned off

with the proceeds going to pay Bundy's grazing fees arrears. Any overage will go to Bundy, which is how it should be.

Getting rid of the paunchy "militia" guys with the Big Ugly Guns without anything being shot off but their wives' mouths by reaching an agreement with the BLM and Bundy was a massive triumph. The local law enforcement who brokered the deal are to be congratulated.

Bundy can be quietly arrested later if he continues to be a thief and troublemaker.

Relations between ranchers and the BLM are often tense, the ranchers needing to graze their cattle on public land because there is no other way to access the amount of desert scrub it takes to feed a herd. Grazing fees are low enough to ensure the rancher a profit when he sells his cattle but you know some are buttheads who resent any dollar that gets away from them.

[ancianita]

63. Indeed, BLM has. Adding an update. These guys pay close attention to multi-state public land use.

http://www.thewildlifenews.com/2014/04/07/blm-makes-progress-rounding-up-bundys-trespass-cattle/

[HooptieWagon]

68. Not enforcing US law and multiple valid court orders is a failure.

And this is a failure that has gone on for 20 years. BLM should have gone in with well-armed backup, arrested Bundy, and arrested any of his family or RWNJ friends who interfered.

[MineralMan]

72. That option is still available.

Clearly, they did not anticipate the reaction that occurred. They will, next time.

[R B Garr]

71. Would it be considered violence to arrest people for charging at LEOs?

I wonder how it would work out for me if I started charging at LEOs and using my hands to poke at them, which is what the video showed the wingnuts doing. My understanding is that a LEO doesn't need crowd approval to arrest people who are interfering with their duties.

And as has already been mentioned, this Bundy fellow is going to find out his assets have been frozen.

[MineralMan]

76. Well, clearly from the videos,

there was no law enforcement presence adequate to do that at the time. A few BLM officers armed with tasers and orders not to draw weapons was about it.

If such an action is taken in the future, I'm pretty sure there will be a larger presence there to deal with it.

[R B Garr]

100. At most times, law enforcement is outnumbered. That's pretty much the point why this can be

considered a failure. All it takes is one LEO to make an arrest. While it's important no one got hurt here, you are correct about that, it most definitely comes across as a failure for law enforcement and the BLM. They should have at least made attempts to arrest someone or several people, in particular those women who were charging at them.

Maybe this will end up like that Elliot Gonzalez case in Florida where the Feds broke into the house and seized the boy. I know it will be different because it's cattle, but that certainly was a show of force.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

78. The government appeased criminal terrorists. The BLM's decision is shit. nt

[MineralMan]

79. I see. OK.

Everyone has an opinion. Mine is in the OP.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

80. "Mine is in the OP." Yes, I saw that, no need for condescension...

The fact is those republifuck confederates defeated the U.S.government and that will embolden other republifuck confederates to do the same.

[MineralMan]

81. We'll see. I doubt that.

I also doubt that similar situations will be handled in the same way in the future. Learning from one's mistakes is a good thing. The mistake the BLM made was in underestimating the response. When the response became evident, reinforcements were not available. Whoever was in charge made the correct decision.

Now, what happens next? I'm sure that's currently under discussion by people who will be making those decisions. I'm not among that group.

Now, I'm going to a movie. I need a break.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

85. Have fun at your movie, MM! What are you going to see, if you don't mind my asking?

I saw Noah last week. Loved it.

[MineralMan]

87. The Grand Budapest Hotel.

I'm in the mood for a comedy.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

96. "I'm in the mood for a comedy." Lol, indeed, sir. My g/f and I are going to see

Grand Budapest Hotel on Tuesday night.

Enjoy =)

[MineralMan]

112. Having seen it, I can recommend it heartily.

[pinto]

84. Agree. Cooler heads prevailed.

And there is other recourse all around.

[MineralMan]

91. Thanks, pinto.

Plenty of other recourses are available. People are meeting as we write, no doubt.

[HoosierCowboy]

92. The real attention this issue should draw...

....is why the BLM or the Federal Government should allow any grazing in that area after the resulting fallout from the bomb tests back in the 1950s.
If there's a dirty secret about "government misconduct" in this case, it ought to start here.
and..
If you've been there the biggest wonder is how the cattle have any feed at all.

[MineralMan]

116. I have been there.

It's marginal grazing, but still viable. The nuclear test did not kill plants cattle eat. You are confusing two separate issues.

[packman]

97. Maybe cooler heads prevailed

But, I'm still angrier than hell that a bunch of gun-toting anti-government yahoos stopped the collection of fines and taxes due for 20 years of grazing on your and my lands. Then saying he doesn't recognize the fed gov. as he uses our money system, our roads, our lands, and god knows what else to promote his "independent" life-style.

I can see these asses killing wolves, buffalo and destroying whatever they want now and doing whatever they want to public lands because of the spineless actions taken against this asshole.

Many years back, my friend told me about being chased off of federal lands out west by a so-called rancher who insisted they were trespassing on "his" land. The guy had a gun in the pick-up, so my friend just left, but he was pissed knowing that it was public land. Point is, these clowns need to have a real lesson on who owns that land they think is theirs.

[napkinz]

101. some history ...

https://www.facebook.com/NoTeaParty

[aikoaiko]

103. Of course. Discretion and valor and all that

But I think may not realize that some of the motivation behind the loudest voices for a heavy authoritarian response is to put "gun owners" in their place or exploit dead BLM agents to put more heat in the culture war against gun owners.

[Blue_Tires]

119. There's a "culture war" against gun owners? Who knew?

What kind of "culture war" is it when the "oppressed underdog" has a 100% winning record in the past decade?

FYI, there is a much older, uglier, better-documented culture war against black folks, and if anything we're actually *losing* ground (they know they can't really do anything about Obama, so they're doling out the punishment to the rest of us as proxy)...I'd kill (literally) to have the NRA's string of successes in courtrooms, in the media and in the legislative chambers...

[aikoaiko]

122. The 35 years prior to that run of success wasn't so good for gun owners.

Except for the gang wars of prohibition, guns were pretty much a nonissue. There was an equilibrium of sorts.

Then the Gun Control Act of 1968 was enacted and it ushed in the culture war on gun IMO. Pro and anti gunners have been sniping at each other every since.

Of course, this kind of culture war pales in significance to culture wars involving race.

[Turbineguy]

104. It was the smart play.

The dispute is not worth the lives of BLM Employees. Also, these militia nuts are just itching for a good shootout. In the end, the government still has the clout to collect on fees. Of course, Mr. Bundy is free to move to a country where he can use public lands for his own benefit freely (if he can find one).

[DrewFlorida]

105. I disagree, they could have done many things to avoid an armed conflict.

They could have simply delay further implementation of the order until a later date when things had died down, then they could have shown up with a large force and enforced the law. In cities the law is enforced whether you resist or not, officers do not simply walk away and never enforce a court order, if they did the offenders would continue to use the same tactic over and over.

Why do people always set up false choices? As if there are only two possible choices of which to choose, quit, or continue with full force.

The thought that those gun toting criminals got away with breaking the law, only emboldens them to break the law again and again.

[MineralMan]

117. And what makes you think they will abandon future enforcement

Measures?

[SevenSixtyTwo]

106. No matter who's side your on,

You can't deny this is one of our freedoms that has made America great. The right to protest the federal government. The video didn't look any more violent than many other protests I've seen from the far left or far right. I've seen far worse from both sides of the political isle.
I have no dog in their fight so I'll just be watching to see how it unfolds. The BLM did the right thing.

Excellent post Mineral Man!

[Aerows]

109. I have to agree with you on this one, MM

A violent confrontation would have just added more fuel to the fire. By taking a step back and coming up with a better prepared response while allowing the protesters a chance to calm down, it prevents this from mushrooming into a far worse situation.

This could have gotten truly ugly, and I'm glad that cooler heads prevailed.

[TheKentuckian]

111. Lesson learned, never protest without a heavy show of arms.

However, if liberals tried such as usual violence would be an appropriate response but maybe the chicken hearts would be slowed down even against us if well armed instead of signs and silly and misunderstood dreams of Gandhi in their heads.

[MineralMan]

114. Is that really what you take from this?

How sad.

[840high]

110. Agree 100%.

[Downtown Hound]

113. I imagine they said the same thing about Hitler after he invaded Poland

Sorry, but I view capitulation to armed terrorists a definite failure. All this is going to do is embolden them to try this shit whenever they don't like a law. Militias everywhere are walking around with gigantic hard-ons today, and if that doesn't scare you, it should. They have now gotten the message that all they need to do is gang up and threaten to start shooting people to get what they want. I am most definitely not okay with that. Everybody else has to follow the law or go to jail. Why are they given special treatment? It's just another example of the double standard in our nation's laws.

It's only a matter of time before they try this again. How many times are we supposed to back down and let them rule by intimidation and force before we take a stand and say, "enough of this shit!"

[MineralMan]

115. Pretty brave words.

Are you someone who would be in such a situation? Or are you quarterbacking from a safe distance? Sorry, but I must disagree on all counts.

[MicaelS]

130. Then become a LEO and help enforce the law.

Put your health, safety and if necessary your life on the line. Be prepared to shed your blood if necessary. Don't send some poor bastard in uniform to do your killing for you.

We did not need another Waco or Ruby Ridge. And thankfully because cooler heads prevailed, we didn't get one.

[gristy]

118. The sentiments in the body of your post notwithstanding,

the potential for armed dispute has not ended.

[MineralMan]

121. You are correct.

It is, however, important to choose battles carefully.

[BlindTiresias]

123. Question

What should the federal government do if they try it again? What if this is interpreted as weakness by the far right and in turn emboldens others to challenge federal authority?

[MineralMan]

124. I can't suggest what they should do. I'm not any sort

of tactical law enforcement person. I am sure that they are considering all of their available option.

As for emboldening the far right, they're already emboldened. They clicked the little "b" long ago.

[Cha]

133. And, who says it's the "end"? Anyway.. it was the wise decision.. thank you, MineralMan. nt

[backscatter712]

134. The problem is this incident sets precedent.

It tells the right wing loonies that they can get their way if they gang up and wave guns at anyone standing in their way.

Personally, I would have stalled them just long enough to send in several hundred Federal Marshalls, in SWAT gear, then put their little would-be-rebellion down mercilessly.

[sarisataka]

135. I am surprised at all of the bloodthirsty people

who seem to want this to have ended in armed conflict.
Given the numbers estimated to be present on the two sides, likely over 100 could have ended up dead. I easily could see 500+ casualties overall. I know of another group always happy to send other people's kids into danger...

A Predator could have put a couple Hellfires or a JDAM into the house if they were sure Bundy was in there... That would have ended the reason for the standoff. No guarantee his 'supporters' would have packed up and gone home without a fight.

This situation has developed over the last fifteen years. There was no reason for a High Noon ending in the last few days. BLM can still get a good outcome and maybe learn from any embarrassment at trying the intimidation approach.