Armed protest against government not a civil rights issue?

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

It was a bit over the top, but the guy was refusing to desist, refusing to pay over $1 million in fees, and he'd made cracks about resisting with force. I don't blame anyone for being prepared.

But there were something like 600 (or was it 900) cattle TOTAL wandering around how many hundred thousand acres of scrub land, miles from Bundy's homestead. If all the feds had wanted to do was to round up the cattle, they could easily have done so and they could have gathered up at least the 400 or so they finally managed to (temporarily) corral before Mr. Bundy was even aware they were doing it.

This turned into a confrontation because (IMHO) both sides wanted to make it a confrontation.

[Dreaming100Straight]

Someone above stated that the Bundy's were defrauding the public intrest. Maybe, but I think once the bills for the last weeks action roll in, we may see the real fraud!

What does the cost of dealing with the past weeks circumstances have to do with the decision of the BLM to enforce the laws of the United States? The primary reason it turned out to be so costly was the response by Bundy and friends. I am not saying that BLM didn't make some mistakes. Had it had sufficient forces with proper riot control training on site, I suspect a bad situation would not have turned worse. Referring to when the truck was blocked and the Bundy son had to be tasered.

ETA: Costs of executing a judgment are often added to the judgment. For instance, the cost of having a sheriff execute a money judgment or cost of forclosure on a mortgage.. I doubt it would happen, but wonder if any of the costs of the past week will be added onto the judgment against Bundy.

[ronl]

I just would like to know who the idiot was who ordered in all the armed officers? The entire action was far too extreme. As mentioned before, a federal lien could have been placed on the property and legal matters could have been taken further, but no, call in the armored vehicles and the thugs armed with automatic weapons and sniper rifles. Institute a no fly zone over the man's home. Ordinary citizens were threatened, some injured, over some cows grazing on property no one else used. This is how the Federal Government now treats its citizens? All this because Mr. Bundy made the statement that he would defend his property? There is a lot more to this story than simply grazing rights and a fine. And all some of you here are worried about is how it looks to the public? You ought to be ashamed of yourselves. All those who also called the protesters names should also apologize as there were more than a few vets and LEO's there. The fact of their presence should have been cause for sober reflection. I don't really care about whether Mr. Bundy is right or wrong. That, to me, is simply a sideshow. The issue is how it was handled. There is no way the Federal Gov. can ever justify such heavy handed action over such an insignificant matter. One thing the incident did prove is the absolute necessity of the right to keep and bear arms. There is the real possibility that without the presence of armed protesters, people could have died at the hands of our own gov.. Just goes to show how wise the Founding Fathers really were.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by ronl

I don't really care about whether Mr. Bundy is right or wrong. That, to me, is simply a sideshow. The issue is how it was handled. There is no way the Federal Gov. can ever justify such heavy handed action over such an insignificant matter.

That's the bottom line.

I found a reference to the size of the BLM tract in use by Bundy. 600,000 acres. On which he was grazing approximately 900 cattle. 600,000 acres is the size of entire counties in some of the smaller, eastern states. The feds could have done any number of things differently and achieved far better results, but for their own reasons they chose to engage in chest thumping, and it didn't work out as planned.

If the .gov can freeze or seize assets (such as bank accounts) of foreign nationals who are suspected of being terrorists, they could certainly have attached the bank accounts of an American family right here in the U.S. The fact that they chose to initiate an armed conflict rather than walking into a bank with a piece of paper is sobering.

[jrinne0430]

The problem is, there are plenty of folks who want an armed confrontation with the government so they can prove their patriotism or whatever. It only takes one of those yahoos to touch off a firestorm through malice, impulsiveness, or just simple error (waving the Gadsden flag with one hand and having an ND with the other).

The same could be said about the Feds. Given their history of heavy handed responses in the past, and the arrival of the militias (or whom ever), this powder keg could have easily went off. To this day, it is debated who fired first at Waco. If it was not to be NV, then it will be somewhere else when these confrontations turn south.

Reid on Monday told KRNV-TV in Reno: “It’s not over. We can’t have an American people that violate the law and then just walk away from it. So it’s not over.”

[barnbwt]

I know some argue that because the feds declared this land theirs way back when (along with 90% of the state), when Nevada didn't have two farmers to rub together that could fight the siezures, that they can legally do anything to exclude anyone from their property. It is probably legal, but hardly right, and we should not tolerate that discrepancy in the law.

"To this day, it is debated who fired first at Waco."
Geraldo Rivera's mouth.

“It’s not over. We can’t have an American people that violate the law and then just walk away from it. So it’s not over.”
Senators, on the other hand...

"I just would like to know who the idiot was who ordered in all the armed officers? The entire action was far too extreme."
That's apparently how land managers do things, now. Do recall the actions of park rangers during the most recent government shutdown, in closing our national parks in the most childish, capricious, and expensive manner, just to put the 'squeeze' on us impudent peasants. A wise electorate would demand the next president/congress fire a whole slew of officers in that organization, and make it very clear to the ground level folks that such intimidation will not be tolerated. Entire ranger stations would be fired/closed if these reports keep coming in; if they really do care for the wilderness' security like they claim, they will pipe down so as to keep their stations open.

TCB

[psalm7]

Militerized Federal Police / Armed Patriots both sides have been spoiling for a fight for decades . I'm sure the Government has its eyes on alot of land as we move closer to a socialist state . I can't agree with the behavior of the indavidual that starts some of these situations but I have no tolerance for abuse of of power from any Government agency . Several years ago not far from here a dozen officers surounded a 135 lb drunk in a traffic stop . The idot gets out waving a little pocket knife around . I could have disarmed him by myself with OC spray or night stick . They blew his head off because proceadures had to be followed . Or realy to make a confirmed kill . No big deal just a drunk but he had a family You take this on a bigger scale and you have the Feds saying if you don't bend to our will you better have good life insurance .

[guruatbol]

When I last posted, I had only heard about this from a couple news outlets in NV and here. I live near the area and I guess what bothers me more than anything has nothing to do with Bundy being right or wrong.

It has reinforced my feelings that our government has grown too large and become exactly what our founding fathers feared it would. People in big cities and in arm chairs all over the place are deciding that we don't need the protection of what the founding fathers put into the constitution any longer that times have changed.

Well, after seeing what our government is capable of I will tell you times have not changed and we have what we the people deserve at this point. At this point I am scared of my own government and as a retired LEO have seen it from the inside and can tell you it wasn't always like this.

I am scared for my grandson's future.

I don't care if Bundy is right or wrong, I care about how the people there were treated by the government. Mr. President, you are a very smart person, though I disagree with you, you know civics, stop this madness before we have a civil war on our hands!

God save and bless the USA.

[Panfisher]

I will throw this in since it was brought up. It was NOT Park Rangers who closed parks, campgrounds and national monuments, that order came from WAY up the food chain. At its core it is pretty basic, you cannot use public land for grazing without paying for it, and he quit paying for it 20 years ago, so there was no rush to condem anyone or anything, the BLM has checked every box, dotted every i, and crossed every t legally. I would be like occupying a closed army base, not paying any rent, then assuming that they aren't going to remove you by force at some point. The claims of ancestral grazing rights etc. simply don't hold any legal water so to speak. Pick say a federally built/managed lake in the midwest, does the family that used to own the land that is now owned by the federal government have any "right" to farm, graze or utilize the land in any way that every other citizen doesn't have the right to? Answer is no. I fully understand the fact that cattle ranching is especially tough in the arid west, however that doesn't give anyone the right to the use of public lands for personal gain without paying for the use. Weather patterns and climate change is likely to make grazing more problematic it future years.

[JimDandy]

What discrepancy in the law?

In a general way, and this may be inaccurate in some places, so if any lawyer wants to correct it, feel free-

The Federal Government doesn't own land. The People own the land, and the Federal Government holds it in something like a trust. For various reasons, The People may not be allowed on The People's land, but that's part of held in trust. We gave it to our elected representatives to manage. And for reasons ranging from National Security, to personal security, to protecting natural resources, and others, we've decided (through our representatives) we aren't allowed on our land in some places.

The United States got the land in 1848, ceded from Mexico in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. This treaty ended a war between Mexico and the United States- NOT just the two farmers Nevada had to rub together. People from all over the US fought in that war. I see no discrepancy that people from all over the US should have some stake in the land we acquired as a result of that fighting and bloodshed.

I have no idea when my family came to this country, but I'm fairly certain my tax burden wouldn't get a rebate if some debt from that time period were collected, so I'm also not interested in losing my 1/316,128,839th or so. The same is true of someone who takes the citizenship oath tomorrow. If the State of Nevada wants to buy some of this land, my representative should listen. If you want them to give it away, I hope they laugh you out the door.

We already gave Nevada more than enough free land in the enabling act

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by JD

The Federal Government doesn't own land. The People own the land, and the Federal Government holds it in something like a trust.

In my state, title is held in the name of the trustee, and one can't always tell who the beneficial owner is. So, even if the trustee role of the federal control were valid, we are still left to ask for whose benefit the land is held.

I distrust detached references to "The People" in political rhetoric. It hasn't sufficient meaning to stand for anything other than an accusation that one's opponent is of "The People", and has a sort of Madame DeFarge ring to my ear.

[Wyoredman]

What does the cost of dealing with the past weeks circumstances have to do with the decision of the BLM to enforce the laws of the United States?

If the argument is the loss of public funds, then all loss of public funds should be considered. If collection of $1million costs $2million, the public losses. That is the point. It may have cost the People more than we had to gain for the BLM to make it's point!

At least it didn't cost us an American life!

[JimDandy]

I distrust detached references to "The People" in political rhetoric.

Well it wasn't political rhetoric, and I thought about that after I submitted it. In this case, I was using it to refer to the citizenry. My afterthought was more along the lines of I'm not sure how "The People" has been interpreted since, and may or may not include non-citizens- for example The People in the second amendment may have been as non-citizens do appear to have the right. For accuracy, I have no issues with reading The People in my post as The Citizenry Of The United States.

I guess what bothers me more than anything has nothing to do with Bundy being right or wrong.

Well, after seeing what our government is capable of I will tell you times have not changed and we have what we the people deserve at this point. At this point I am scared of my own government and as a retired LEO have seen it from the inside and can tell you it wasn't always like this.

Really? As a retired LEO it doesn't bother you that Bundy, at some level, may have stolen acres and acres of land?

As a retired LEO it doesn't bother you that after learning he may be forcibly evicted from the land, and his offending property seized through the due process of law via a legal court order he made what many have determined was or may reasonably inferred to have been, a threat of violence?

Drawing on your experience as a retired LEO, had you been tasked with carrying out these court orders- rounding up somewhere around 1000 head of cattle (which don't herd very well) over hundreds of acres, how many people would you bring? How many helicopters? Given the number of total whackjobs out there today, if someone made a statement drawing your and your subordinates safety into question, how many would you bring just for security?

If some guy drug a cot, and a mini-fridge into the local courthouse, and said he was going to live there now, and he'd do "whatever it takes" to keep LEO's from evicting him from the premises, what would you have done?

Edit to Add:

If the argument is the loss of public funds, then all loss of public funds should be considered. If collection of $1million costs $2million, the public losses. That is the point. It may have cost the People more than we had to gain for the BLM to make it's point!

You're assuming the loss of this guy's grazing fees were the only thing we'd lose. One guy gets to graze on these lands without paying, and EVERY guy gets to graze on public lands without paying. I don't know how much the BLM gets a year(doing some quick research, it's about 10 million), but I'd bet that eventually they get more than 3 million in grazing fees before the Feds quit offering grazing land.

[jrinne0430]

Drawing on your experience as a retired LEO, had you been tasked with carrying out these court orders- rounding up somewhere around 1000 head of cattle (which don't herd very well) over hundreds of acres, how many people would you bring? How many helicopters? Given the number of total whackjobs out there today, if someone made a statement drawing your and your subordinates safety into question, how many would you bring just for security?

If some guy drug a cot, and a mini-fridge into the local courthouse, and said he was going to live there now, and he'd do "whatever it takes" to keep LEO's from evicting him from the premises, what would you have done?

I believe the argument is based on the Feds response to this issue. I don’t know how many personnel it takes to round up cattle but needing most of them armed to perform the task is not required. If Mr Bundy threatened violence, then why was he not arrested? The Feds typical heavy handed response made a bad situation worse. Creating these so called “free speech” zones, really? Their actions invite the whackjobs you mentioned and all it would take is a wrong move from either side and we would have a disaster on our hands. Also, Sen Reid’s comments does nothing but to fan the flames on this situation which, as for now, appears to be calming.

[JimDandy]

If Mr Bundy threatened violence, then why was he not arrested?

Because the standard making protective measures prudent is far less than the standard for an arrest, let alone a conviction.

If I tell you I'm going to stop you no matter what, you'd have a pretty tough time justifying shooting me in self defense. But you'd have a pretty easy time justifying your concealed carry license (at least in most places.).

Edit to add. Rounding up cattle sucks. My grandfather had a dairy farm. If even one cow got out it took multiple people on multiple sides significant time to herd that thing back into the yard. Given the size of the land, if even half the 200 were there to round up the cattle on horseback with a helicopter vectoring them in on the cattle while the other hundred set up the corral and "guarded" the trucks etc. it still would have been pretty labor intensive. I think in the time they were working, they got less than 200, but I'm not sure.

[Wyoredman]

You're assuming the loss of this guy's grazing fees were the only thing we'd lose.

I don't assume anything.

I may speculate that we are losing access to and freedoms on our public lands, based on personal experience. But I don't assume anything.

Just discussing the ins and outs.

A previous post argued that the loss of $1million owed by Bundy was the justification for the standoff. I present, if we spend $2 million to collect $1million, we need to re-think the collection procedures. Simple.

[jrinne0430]

Quote:
If Mr Bundy threatened violence, then why was he not arrested?

Because the standard making protective measures prudent is far less than the standard for an arrest, let alone a conviction.

If I tell you I'm going to stop you no matter what, you'd have a pretty tough time justifying shooting me in self defense. But you'd have a pretty easy time justifying your concealed carry license (at least in most places.).

If Bundy truely threated to harm the BLM personnel, you would assume he would have been arressted. Did BLM not taser someone over filming or being outside of the "free speech" zone? As stated earlier, BLM's actions just made a small situation into a much larger one.

Edit: Can someone explain how the turtles came into play with this?

[JimDandy]

Price of beef on the hoof appears to be about 80 cents a pound. Average weight is about 1500 pounds. That makes this herd somewhere around a million bucks.

Costs are estimated at about 3 million to round them up. So we're paying 3 million to maintain the 10 million dollar income from BLM grazing permits, seize 1 million worth of beef to auction off and recoup the 1 million in back fees owed by Mr Bundy.

A one off cost of 2 million to continue earning 10 million a year seems steep but certainly worth doing rather than throwing away the 10 million a year.

Edit to Add:

Did BLM not taser someone over filming or being outside of the "free speech" zone?

The video shows officers (from somewhere I know not where- Maybe BLM, maybe Park Rangers, maybe locals drafted to help regardless they're unidentified in the video) ordering the guy to get back. He advances on them rather than following their orders. One of the police dogs reacts to his body language and actions and lunges. He kicks the dog and gets tasered. Martin Luther King this guy is not.

[Wyoredman]

A one off cost of 2 million to continue earning 10 million a year seems steep but certainly worth doing rather than throwing away the 10 million a year.

...

Requires the ASSUMPTION that every other grazing lease holder in the U.S. will default on their yearly payments. If this were true, the Government would then need to spend how much to round up every other trespassing herd? Circle Logic!

[JimDandy]

Requires the ASSUMPTION that every other grazing lease holder in the U.S. will default on their yearly payments.

Actually it posits that losing about a million bucks of beef will be a deterrence to further theft.

[KyJim]

From where I sit from afar, it looks like Mr. Bundy is flat out in the wrong. It also appears the federal government initally over-reacted. In addition to attaching bank accounts, a lien on the cattle would have effectively shut Bundy down. If he sold any cattle subject to the lien, the government could have seized the cattle or required the buyer to pay the government for the cost of the cattle. It wouldn't take long for Mr. Bundy to be forced to come to the table or go out of business. Of course, there also seems to be lingering in the background the right to even graze some of the land due to some endangered wildlife. I'm not sure how you resolve that.

Fortunately, cooler heads prevailed just in time. I keep thinking of the mistakes at Waco --- if ATF had not been so hot to make a point, a tragedy could have easily been prevented. If they absolutely had to pursue the illegal weapons charge (barrel short about a 1/4 inch, IRRC), they could have waited for Koresh to come into town and arrested him without a raid of the type they conducted.

[jrinne0430]

KyJim, I agree. Though, as with Waco, it seems that the Feds had something to prove , then the miltia showed up...Either way, this could have ended very badly for both parties. Let’s just hope smarter heads prevail.

Edit: Hopefully this is the end of it but then again maybe not. As Sen Reid said “It’s not over. We can’t have an American people that violate the law and then just walk away from it. So it’s not over.” Maybe they will try to take his land, home, etc.

[44 AMP]

This is just ugly.

And while it is certainly possible that the presence of "milita" groups protesting, armed, or not, wackjobs, or not, could turn a bad situation into a worse one, it is also possible that they would keep a bad situation from getting worse.

Maybe the reason it didn't become a Ruby Ridge, or worse, Waco, was because of the possibility of an armed conflict.

One thing for sure, these days, with all the cameras/phones and the Internet, its much tougher for the Govt to present only their side of what happens...

[psalm7]

The short barrel shot gun was one of the factors in the Ruby Ridge incident at Waco there was dummy grenades and possible converted semi auto's . But there is no excuse for the Federal hadeling of either . I have no doubt that if there had not been a visible reaction from citizens this would have been another massacre to show the sheep what happens if you fell to bow when your leaders say bow . But Bundy didn't handel this right neither but with all the resorces of the Federal Government they do not need to be in the bussiness of deploying Snipers or any armed troops when they have the upper hand in the waiting game . I don't remember them surounding the Wal Street ocupiers when they were disrupting others lives and commiting crimes was the norm public intoxacation , drugs , theft just to name a few .

[jrinne0430]

I guess the Occupy Wall Street protesters were in the authorized “free speech” zones.