You’ve omitted the events that precipating the tazing and dogs: a BLM vehicle being rammed by an ATV, and surrounded by a hostile crowd. Concern for the driver’s safety is certainly reasonable in that situation.
Also, it’s “sicced”.
Why does anyone “tote” guns? Because they don’t know what threats may befall them throughout their day and wish to keep the means to defend themselves nearby. A gun is a tool. Maybe they have to shoot rattlers in the course of their daily business. Maybe there’s a lot of crime around their neighborhood. Maybe it’s the culture they were brought up in.
Wiki specifically says the dump truck rammed the ATV. And Firefox tells me that’s misspelled. It wouldn’t be the first time.
Nobody is fucking saying this! Where are you getting this shit??
Again, you don’t need a reason to practice your rights. Why were them damn kids meddling at Kent State? Did they deserve to die?
CNN says the ATV rammed the truck.
Either way, we have a vehicle being blocked and surrounded by a hostile crowd, and an ensuing scuffle with police. It can’t be painted as an unprovoked attack on a peaceful crowd by police.
No, you didn’t!
Looks to me like scabpicker was specifically rooting for government to initiate violence in order put the protesters in their place and show them who’s boss. If I misread, I apologize.
And the OP itself lamented the government back down, as if refusing to do violence to your own citizens is a sign of weakness or something. This is the attitude against which I’m arguing in this thread.
Another question I’m wondering. Don’t quite understand why when scenarios such as this one come up it’s perfectly fine - at least as far as people like that are concerned - to come armed ready to defend whichever “cause” they think they’re supporting but if the federal government threatens any force it’s “overstepping its bounds!” or “turning this country into a police state!” or some other such nonsense.
A court order.
You do have a right to defend yourself from the police in certain circumstances.
Get your goddam hands off the goalposts.
Ok, but this appears to be more than just (for example, my own personal faves) exceeding the speed limit and possessing marijuana. This appears to be a coordinated and armed effort to recover property that was legally confiscated by the government. Most scofflaws at least acquiesce peaceably when they are caught, and resisting arrest carries a new level of penalties. When it escalates to pointing a weapon at authorities, your life is forfeit, even if the original offense was a speeding ticket.
I don’t have any cite for these folks actually raising their weapon at anyone. I’d imagine that we might be reading about a different story if they did. However, if they got the sheriff to talk the BLM agents into allowing the cattle to be returned, I’m assuming they at least took up threating positions.
I’m with you on this. Granted, the incidents at Ruby Ridge and in Waco didn’t end prettily, but they never were going to once people like Randy Weaver and David Koresh became the focus. The gun-totin’ thugs in Nevada are doing nothing but escalating matters as far as I’m concerned. They’re obviously not smart enough to try to get others to see “their side of things” without threatening violence.
No, but it’s irrelevant to your argument, they had a reason and they were not armed.
- good one!
Arming yourself is not threatening force. For either side. Threatening force is threatening force. Whichever side does that first is wrong.
No surprises, there. On either count.
Wiki says they vandalized police cars and called for “bringing the war home”.
Sounds like those kids were not only calling for violence, but participating in it. They burned the ROTC building!
Probably because it is an asymmetrical conflict; in any such contest of force, the government might win or might back down, but cannot be defeated.