I read English, and don’t see this interpretation. The government standing its ground as it’s entitled to do isn’t “initiating violence.” Bullies always seem to be the first ones to cry “victim,” though. Just to be clear, the anti-government yahoo gun swingers are the bullies in this scenario.
Given the lack of any sort of an attack on the corrals, it looks a lot more like a protest carried out by morons.
Or, the BLM agents are smart, and wanted the chance of anyone being killed on either side to be as close to zero as possible. Itchy trigger fingers aren’t unique to civilians, after all.
No, to be specific: I’m saying that if I was in charge of the BLM agents, I would have thanked the sheriff for his efforts, but explained that we were keeping the cattle until the bill was paid. If the armed mob decided to start shooting, I would have had my agents defend themselves.
But, I’m a guitarist and a Unix admin. No one has offered me command of anything more than a half stack or a cluster of computers. It’s probably a prudent decision on their part.
Can anyone please point out any threat the protesters made? How did they bully anyone?
And to be clear I’m defending the government here. They shouldn’t have let this dispute even come to this, but not murdering protesters was the right call here. Hooray BLM, for not starting another Waco.
When you show up armed you are trying to intimidate someone. It was Bundy who let the dispute come to this- he should have put on his big boy panties and written the check for the amount he owed. He chose to be an asshole, and other assholes came out to defend him for being an asshole. I don’t blame the feds one whit for Waco, and I wouldn’t blame them if violence broke out here either.
Should the feds have initiated violence?
The armed ccivilians came out because they thought the feds were coming to intiiate violence.
To be clear, I do applaud the BLM agents for avoiding bloodshed, if it ends here. But, if you wonder what the Bundy supporters did that was particularly nasty:
Which implies that the people that took said positions were armed.
Not true, either morally or as a matter of law, since Gourko v United States in 1894.
Agreed.
No matter the circumstances? If a federal agent just sprayed the crowd with gunfire because he got tired of standing in the heat, that’s all good with you?
Of course not. But if one of the armed protesters fired at the feds for doing their job, I have no problem with the feds firing back.
Armed thugs stopping vehicles on public roads isn’t bullying? How is the government supposed to not let the dispute come to this? That jackass thief owes a million dollars and he has no intention of paying and he’s purposely inciting anti-government militia thuggery. The government in this incidence is definitely the bigger man, as it were and by not gunning down the militia yahoos they’ve shown remarkable restraint for not letting it “come to this,” as in not escalating to the tragic events the militias were trying to provoke.
No reasonable person would.
But this means you don’t actually hold that you wouldn’t blame [the feds] if violence broke out here, you hold a more reasonable position, that blame is dependent on circumstances and conduct, correct?
Cite?
The news coverage for this story seems to be pretty poor, probably for good reason, but Wikipedia has been updated a ton today with a better timeline.
April 10th - A bunch of dump trucks are hauling something away from the contested area. Cliven Bundy’s family suspects that they’re removing evidence of Bundy’s irrigation improvements, which they think strengthen his claim to the land. They gather in the middle of the highway and stop the caravan of trucks; Cliven Bundy’s son drive in front of one of the trucks on his ATV to force it to stop, and the truck apparently “hit” the ATV. The truck was privately owned and driven by a civilian. BLM agents tried to disperse the crowd with tasers and canines, but there was very little risk of this incident erupting into deadly violence. Presumably the family dispersed and the trucks went on their way.
April 12th - Word of the BLM’s actions spread around the rural community, and a protest gathered on the same highway near where the seized cattle were being corralled. Armed militias joined the protest in support of the Bundy family. The protest shut down a public highway for 2 hours. Because of the armed presence, when the police and the BLM showed up to control the crowd and unblock the highway, they came armed. What else would they do? To their credit, they did manage to unblock the highway without violence and set up these “first amendment zones” to allow the protest to continue.
The questionable move at this point, as described in the OP, is that the BLM then released the cattle.
Actually, there’s a pic of one of the nitwits taking up a position on the overpass at the link above. It’s a good cover spot, with lots of bystanders, so the BLM agents were smart to back off.
I’d say that they’ll need to close off easy approaches like that for future problems of this nature.
That’s right. Just because the 2nd Amendment allows those people to carry firearms doesn’t mean that they had to bring them with them in this case. The fact that they did tells me that they didn’t all come with “peaceful” intentions.
Okay, I’m sorry again for misinterpreting you.
Perhaps I’m misinterpreting everyone. It certainly sounds to me that a lot of people in this thread are disappointed that the government didn’t crack down on these “yokels” who had the audacity to practice their first and second amendment rights for a cause the poster doesn’t personally agree with.
Staking out high ground and whatever “offering cover” is, sounds like it could be threatening. But just standing on the overpass probably isn’t. Again, simply being armed is not and should not be construed as a threat. I believe this might be the core argument here.
Are people allowed to exercise their first and second amendment rights at the same time? Should one, morally or legally, be allowed to bear arms at a protest? It sounds like some people believe you’re participating in an insurrection just by doing so. In my mind, if you’re not actively threatening violence, simply assembling a group where some of the members are armed is not a threat.
BLM was right to draw down. Live to fight another day, and spare a few lives while you’re at it. Bundy isn’t done with the government. They’ll make him pay his bills somehow. Killing a bunch of innocent people would do nothing except turn this from a bureaucratic nightmare into a righteous revolution.
Given that only one side had any business being armed in the first place, unless the feds opened fire first and indiscriminately, I’d likely side with the feds. Of course, if they fired first then I would assign a degree of blame to the feds.
Seriously, look at the pic at the link above. He’s pointing that rifle at something. I’m imagining he has the other people on the bridge to thank for his being alive. If they hadn’t been there, I can’t imagine a situation where he’d be allowed to leave with his rifle, at the very least.
Gotta say, it looks like that dude is pointing his weapon at BLM officers there. I’d say they’re smart to back down, but that yeah, they had a right to defend themselves in that situation.
Don’t point the muzzle of your weapon at people you don’t intend to kill, folks! Because they will be justified in using deadly force to stop you. It’s a good thing nobody died here, and this asshole not only threatened government agents, but all the innocent protesters surrounding him.
I’m even more relieved this wasn’t another bloodbath.
I saw it. That guy at least was threatening the feds. I’m even more impressed now by their restraint. I still assume most of the protesters were peaceful and not threatening, but that guy could have easily ruined it for everyone.
Ok, we’re on the same page here, it seems.
ETA: But wow, dangerous assholes are afoot. Beware.