Armed protest against government not a civil rights issue?

Status
Not open for further replies.
LogicMan said:
...My takeaway is that if you're the government and you want to enforce the law, depending on whom you're dealing with, there are more peaceful ways to go about doing it...
Click to expand...
Yes, there can be more peaceful ways to go about it. But, also yes, it can depend on with whom you're dealing.

So what if you're dealing with someone who had previously, and not too long ago, said the following in a deposition under oath (Bundy deposition as quoted in the United States' motion for summary judgment, pp. 14 - 15):
Q. Now, let’s go back to the question. Let’s assume the federal authorities have the authorization to present themselves on land, whether you call it your ranch or the former Bunkerville Allotment, or for that matter the new trespass lands, and they’ve got the authorization in hand to remove cattle that belongs to you and they literally, physically, take the steps necessary to accomplish that right there and you're standing by. Are you going to undertake any effort to physically stop that?

A. Yes.​

Q. What efforts would that be?

A. Whatever it takes.​

Q. Okay. Would that include -- when you say “whatever it takes,” would that include the soliciting, the assistance of neighbors, friends, family, supporters of yours to do whatever it takes in the scenario I just described?

A. Yes.​
Click to expand...
 
I don't claim to know both sides of the complete story. I do find it troubling the selective enforcement and extremes used. There are far more critical needs for that LEO manpower all over the country. Using the "law is the law",reasoning why did they not raid the IRS for documents subpoena by Congress. Why did Why did INS release 2,000 Illegal aliens with criminal history. We are to be a nation of Laws then equal application of the law should be the concern of all of us. When the law is used as a tool to set example then we are all in trouble and from what I have seen and heard, I am lead to believe it was.
 
But Bundy didn't do that. The militia forces came in after seeing the militaristic actions on the part of the feds, who IMO have no business showing up in the blatantly militarized manner that they did. My takeaway is that if you're the government and you want to enforce the law, depending on whom you're dealing with, there are more peaceful ways to go about doing it. You don't treat like a terrorist a guy who refuses to remove cattle from land.
Click to expand...

I forgot that Bundy and his family didn't do a thing to encourage militia members to come to his assistance.:rolleyes:
 
Using the "law is the law",reasoning why did they not raid the IRS for documents subpoena by Congress.
Click to expand...
I can understand the frustration, but those are really two different things.

Our way of life is based on the rule of law. People who flaunt the law are not generally considered to be good citizens. When one of those people recruits armed thugs to defy the law, what does that really make him?

I don't see Bunkerville as a victory at all. I see it as a distressing example of rule by force, and there's no place for that in our country.
 
Yes, there can be more peaceful ways to go about it. But, also yes, it can depend on with whom you're dealing.

So what if you're dealing with someone who had previously, and not too long ago, said the following in a deposition under oath (Bundy deposition as quoted in the United States' motion for summary judgment, pp. 14 - 15):
Click to expand...

I think there are still more diplomatic ways to do it. If I were the Feds, I would have tried to get Bundy to make the first move. Send out some Feds to round up the cattle, and then if Bundy and his crew present themselves armed and start threatening the Feds, who at that point at just Federal employees trying to enforce the law, then tell the Bundy's that either they have to back down or else the really big-league law enforcement is going to end up getting called in, then if he still doesn't back down, then bring in the big stuff.

Then the government is justified in saying, "We tried to do it in a peaceable manner, but he was threatening to kill our agents."
 
I can understand the frustration, but those are really two different things.

Our way of life is based on the rule of law. People who flaunt the law are not generally considered to be good citizens. When one of those people recruits armed thugs to defy the law, what does that really make him?

I don't see Bunkerville as a victory at all. I see it as a distressing example of rule by force, and there's no place for that in our country.
Click to expand...

Bundy didn't recruit all those people (militia don't just show up because some guy wants them to) and I wouldn't call them armed thugs either (to a degree, I think that term could be applied to the forces of the BLM). For one, a lot of them weren't armed, and two, of those that were armed, there were the Oath Keepers there, who are made up of military and law enforcement. And there was also a request not to wear camouflage and to keep weapons in vehicles. It's not like the Feds said, "Give up the land," and Bundy called in an army of armed militiamen ready to start a gun battle.

Such a response from the BLM I see as a distressing example of rule by force and there's no place for that in our country either, unless really needed. Remember, law enforcement has become increasingly militarized over the last three decades. Every government agency and police department it seems has a SWAT team now and armored vehicles and so forth. For example, NASA and the Department of Education EACH have a SWAT team. This creates two problems:

1) A lot of said SWAT teams aren't really trained to the level that they should be, because SWAT is supposed to be a highly-trained, specialized form of law enforcement for extreme situations

2) In order to justify the budget for a SWAT team, one must use them, and thus you have SWAT being used for all manner of different things that are completely inappropriate (for example raiding a guitar business over using the wrong wood).

In this case, it seems Bundy makes the "whatever it takes" statement, and the Feds see that as a reason to send in their army.
 
And there was also a request not to wear camouflage and to keep weapons in vehicles.
Click to expand...

I guess the still and video photos of snipers and people that looked like militia wearing handguns and camo were photo shopped.:eek:
 
Last edited:
I think there are still more diplomatic ways to do it. If I were the Feds, I would have tried to get Bundy to make the first move. Send out some Feds to round up the cattle, and then if Bundy and his crew present themselves armed and start threatening the Feds, who at that point at just Federal employees trying to enforce the law, then tell the Bundy's that either they have to back down or else the really big-league law enforcement is going to end up getting called in, then if he still doesn't back down, then bring in the big stuff.

Then the government is justified in saying, "We tried to do it in a peaceable manner, but he was threatening to kill our agents."
Click to expand...

What make you think that the Bundy crew hadn't threatened the Feds or that they weren't armed. and do you think its a little late locking the kennel after the dogs of war are let out? Are you saying that the cattle round up crew was entitled to any ranger protection given Bundy's history of not to well veiled threats?
 
When the Feds took up positions with guns trained on the protesters, the militia did the same. There was an armed standoff there for awhile. And not all militia didn't wear camouflage, but the request was there from what I understand not to. Weapons were not always kept in vehicles as there were certain points where they were needed (standoff), but if not needed, it was requested they be kept there.

What make you think that the Bundy crew hadn't threatened the Feds or that they weren't armed. and do you think its a little late locking the kennel after the dogs of war are let out? Are you saying that the cattle round up crew was entitled to any ranger protection given Bundy's history of not to well veiled threats?
Click to expand...

Protection is fine, calling out an army the way they did is not.
 
When the Feds took up positions with guns trained on the protesters, the militia did the same.
Click to expand...

Exactly what incident are you talking about when you say the Feds took up positions with guns "trained on protesters" and do you have any visual proof that such incidents ever occurred? I have seen a lot of video of tasers being pointed.

Protection is fine, calling out an army the way they did is not.
Click to expand...
Just what are you calling an army? How many persons and what were their arms?
 
Last edited:
Bundy didn't recruit all those people
Click to expand...
Not in so many words. He did ask his friend Jerry DeLemus to show up, saying "I need bodies." Given DeLemus' history of armed gatherings, it's reasonable to expect those bodies to be armed.

I wouldn't call them armed thugs either
Click to expand...
What else would I call someone who uses the threat of force to subvert the law? Some may argue that the Founders intended the RKBA to be a bulwark against tyranny, but I doubt this was what they had in mind.

People are romanticizing this and calling it a victory against oppression now. What happens when the militia types get bored and go home? The BLM will return to collect. If a few stay behind to resist, what exactly do we think will happen when a shot is fired?

Let's be bluntly honest. This was a bad idea, for a bad cause. It had, and still has, the potential to blow up into something that could hurt us very badly.
 
Don't know the specific situation, but I remember reading that for a period, there was an actual standoff. The whole thing has been called a standoff, but there was an actual standoff, with both sides pointing guns at the other for a while.
 
What else would I call someone who uses the threat of force to subvert the law? Some may argue that the Founders intended the RKBA to be a bulwark against tyranny, but I doubt this was what they had in mind.
Click to expand...

I'd say it is. Thomas Jefferson said:

And what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure.

And threat of force against the law I think is fine when "the law" is acting unnecessarily forcefully itself. We have to have adherence to the law, but that doesn't mean by such heavy-handed tactics. Much of the Occupy Wall Street protest was illegally done, but it doesn't mean that the NYPD should have just sent in police to round up all of the Occupy Wall Street folk who were illegally camping in the area and if they resisted, tased and/or shot them.

People are romanticizing this and calling it a victory against oppression now. What happens when the militia types get bored and go home? The BLM will return to collect. If a few stay behind to resist, what exactly do we think will happen when a shot is fired?

Let's be bluntly honest. This was a bad idea, for a bad cause. It had, and still has, the potential to blow up into something that could hurt us very badly.
Click to expand...

Armed citizens checking excessive governmental force is not IMO a bad idea or a bad cause.
 
As to numbers, there were over 200 armed federal agents. There were lots of M-4's, I saw at least one mp5. Every one of the Feds was armed with a sidearm, but I do not know the actual sidearm issued to the BLM. There were snipers there, too, but I could not with any specificity tell you the actual firearm they were using. The BLM had their region 3 SWAT team in full gear there as could be evidenced by the three stripes on the patches on their right shoulders. The LV SWAT team was also in residence there with all their kit.
There are some interesting sidenotes to this affair. Seems the western states themselves have been less than happy with the way BLM has been managing public lands. Big meeting today that was scheduled before all the mess at the Bundy ranch. Might be an interesting tussle shaping up that could further clarify state vs. federal rights. BLM also has taken a few paragraphs of interesting subject matter off of their website. Shades of Waco there. Just after Waco the FBI had the their entire report up on the web. I know because I read it. There were a few things in that one that were somewhat interesting, shall I say, but that lasted for only a very short time. And, by the way, Happy Easter to all on the site.
 
Last edited:
Don't know the specific situation, but I remember reading that for a period, there was an actual standoff. The whole thing has been called a standoff, but there was an actual standoff, with both sides pointing guns at the other for a while.
Click to expand...

You said. LogicMan, that Feds were pointing guns at the protesters, but this is all you can say when I called you on it and asked when this happened. Could that be because it never happened?:confused:

Much of the Occupy Wall Street protest was illegally done, but it doesn't mean that the NYPD should have just sent in police to round up all of the Occupy Wall Street folk who were illegally camping in the area and if they resisted, tased and/or shot them.
Click to expand...

No, LogicMan. Nobody was shot, unless you know something that no one else knows, and video shows that the only person tased was tased for good reason.

As to numbers, there were over 200 armed federal agents. . . . .
Click to expand...

Ronl, I only asked about what "LogicMan" was calling an army, since he painted a vision of an army of out of control Feds pointing weapons at and tasering peaceful protesters. You are talking about the small army that showed up after the armed militia showed up. That was the day after the protesters turned into an increasingly violent mob. Then there reportedly was only two or three militia members on site. I think Tom Servo best sums up the situation:

Let's be bluntly honest. This was a bad idea, for a bad cause. It had, and still has, the potential to blow up into something that could hurt us very badly.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
You said. LogicMan, that Feds were pointing guns at the protesters, but this is all you can say when I called you on it and asked when this happened. Could that be because it never happened?
Click to expand...

That is possible, but I don't read sources such as Infowars for example which tend to blow things way out of proportion, so I think it was a reputable source I read it from. It is not something I am making up. Here is a Facebook of the Oath Keepers with the rules regarding camo, guns, media interviews, etc...they also say "to bring cameras, the more cameras, the better." I doubt that they would start pointing sniper rifles first at the feds and then film themselves. That would be a titanic level of stupidity.

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=752948698072132&id=182483688451972&stream_ref=10

No, LogicMan. Nobody was shot, unless you know something that no one else knows, and video shows that the only person tased was tased for good reason.
Click to expand...

I never said anybody was shot. I'm saying that the OWS folk were violating the law, but that doesn't mean a bunch of SWAT teams would be justified to get them out. The Left generally had no problem with that sense of lawlessness when NYC basically did nothing.

And I disagree that Bundy's son being tased was for "good reason." It's not like that was a bunch of people armed with AR-15s blocking those agents, it was a bunch of unarmed people.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top