I’m glad the feds stepped back. They do so from a position of power and deescalating the confrontation was the right thing to do. I don’t want to see anyone hurt or this silly argument result in an unnecessary physical confrontation. Those bunch of cowboys on foot or on horses don’t stand a chance. They think they have won something but they have not.
Here is a video of the end of the encounter filmed form the cowboy side: - YouTube
Yes, and I wonder if you can recharge the camera’s battery by running a current through the operator.
Some of these militia types that showed up under the ruse of being “freedom fighters” need to get a new schtick. They are like professional protesters that will show up for any cause if the money’s right.
This one paunchy, fifty-something grizzled dude they interviewed in his camo jacket was hilarious.
“Sir, did you bring any weapons with you?”
<<long pause, dude looks furtively to the left and to the right into the empty desert>>
“I’d…rather not say.”
:rolleyes:
Be loud and proud, man! Say you smuggled an Abrams in your pants!
I expect the IRS will have the final say in this.
Isn’t this appeasement?
Yes; thank you. That’s part of the point I was trying (rather ineloquently) to make in the OP.
Considering the intelligence level of some of the armed citizens that arrived to “help” this rancher, it’s a friggin’ miracle nobody has been shot so far. In that respect, I think that the feds probably handled it in the best way for all concerned.
Still, I worry about emboldening these militias with a perceived victory. I suspect they will further challenge the Federal authorities as a result, and the next time might not go so well, especially if they increase in numbers.
I hate to think that is possible, but I just spent an hour reading comments on the buried CNN story. The level of ignorance is mind-boggling in the way people are making this rancher a hero. Considering the forum, I shouldn’t be surprised, but I still was.
This was simply bringing foreign policy principles into effect domestically. It makes no sense to go to war with our citizens to enforce domestic law if we are unwilling to go to war to enforce international law. The consistent response in all cases of facing armed resistance(at least where no one is in danger, ie hostage situation) is for the US government to refrain from violence.
And it’s not a miracle no one got shot. These are disciplined people. There wasn’t going to be any gunfire unless the government ordered it.
Besides, why give libertarians like me ammunition? Many of us(including me) have said that all law is based on the threat of deadly violence. This situation just proved me wrong. The government was unwilling to kill people over government-owned land use. That’s a GOOD thing, even if it encourages people. Nonviolent offenders should not be faced with men with guns.
No-it’s a BAD thing because it encourages people. If the government shouldn’t bring guns, how would you have them settle situations like this?
I agree they should not have caved to these thugs. The ranchers and all their supporters should have been charged with crimes. Allowing your cattle to graze on public land is theft. Intimidating federal agents cannot be tolerated. If these people hate the government so much, then stop having the government subsidize their cattle.
I don’t know enough about the situation, but I think WACO and Ruby Ridge show that sometimes it does actually make sense to just back down. In both scenarios the Feds could have ended the sieges and probably made arrests later on non-violently. In both cases the persons involved in the siege were not an imminent threat to anybody, so there was no compelling government interest to put the innocents who were involved at risk. I’ll need to read up more on Cliven Bundy and his cattle to figure out what was really going on, but sometimes it’s actually the right thing to let people get away with minor crimes like trespassing instead of being heavy-handed.
Several of the parks occupied during OWS events around the city had strict usage rules against tents, against after-hours occupation and etc, but most cities let those slide. This is because the alternative would be sending riot police into the parks and violently forcing out and arresting people who weren’t really hurting anything. Some cities even went so far as to truck in portable toilets and other sanitary equipment for public health reasons, and provided electricity hook ups. Some cities of course did send in riot police, and I’d argue they looked the worse for it.
I don’t see how this is any different, and I don’t believe it is appeasement. If they were a risk to anyone or acting violently I have no doubt the government would have responded with overwhelming force.
I think the difference is that the OWS people weren’t making money off it. These ranchers are using federal lands for private gain.
What are the laws regarding stray livestock? Can I just go to Nevada and get some free cows, since they’re wandering around on public land?
Is there a link to a good comprehensive overview of this case? It seems like there are lots of issues and no article I’ve found in my few minutes of searching seems to fully clear it up. Is Bundy in a tussle with the Feds because he hasn’t been paying grazing fees, or is it because of environmental suits about some protected tortoise has led BLM to want to close the land for grazing? Also, why was the Clark County Sheriff involved, as it appears they are the ones who negotiated this current backing down–BLM is saying they have not negotiated or agreed to anything, but just went along with what CCS had negotiated out of safety concerns.
Anyway, I think the point is if Cliven Bundy committed an actual crime which he could be arrested for I think there’s better ways of dealing with him than a huge armed conflict with hundreds of people present. If he’s not committed a crime and this is entirely a civil action, I would again think there is a more effective way of going about it than killing a bunch of people.
I think people should actually read up on Waco and Ruby Ridge, innocent children died in those instances because of an overly trigger happy government. That probably isn’t a risk here, but the proper response to trespassing isn’t mass shootings. I agree at some point the government needs to resolve this, but I don’t see any pressing need that would require it to be resolved right now with overwhelming and guaranteed to be violent police force.
Put up a fence?
No. At best, the cows might be forfeited to the BLM and you could buy them cheap at auction.
Wait. So SteveKasian isn’t going to come back and explain why I should be resisting at all costs (even bloodshed if need be) to keep my constitutional rights?
I guess to me…Cliven Bundy isn’t a violent criminal. It doesn’t appear there’s even a warrant for his arrest or anything. So at worst he’s trespassing to prevent a civil action by the BLM in regard to his cattle. I guess I don’t see how it’s in anyone’s interests for the government to get into a shooting war with a bunch of yokels over a civil court action.
Take another look at the crowd that gathered to support that freeloading yahoo and tell me how long that fence would stay intact.