Maybe it’s time to restart the Homesteading program again to placate Mr. Bundy with all the privately owned neighbours his heart desires.
There are millions of under-privileged poverty-stricken young ethnic people in the big cities of the East. 1000s would like the chance to own their own ranch and ride under the big sky. Probably.
I’ve got to imagine Ruby Ridge and Waco play into the decision. Regardless of your opinion of the citizens in those cases, it’s hard to think the government didn’t do a spectacularly bad job of handling things.
It’s been a never ending source of bad publicity for the Democrats. (But, given the general leftward tilt of the board, I can imagine that point is not well known here.)
So, if I’m guessing, the Obama administration did the math and figured Bundy getting off is preferable to another scene like Waco. I think they made the right call.
Waymore, your post, like a few others before it, completely ignores the question asked in the OP.
Unless we have members who work for the federal agencies involved, how would we know if or when there will be arrests? Unless we have members who are psychic, how would we know if there will be any convictions? We don’t even know what charges the government might choose to file yet.
Clearly, Bundy has given you a rather painful pilondial cyst. Why don’t you just tell us who you think should be arrested, when they should be arrested, what they should be charged with, and how likely convictions are. Then we can discuss your predictions.
… how does
not answer the question
Bundy will be arrested when he and his supporters become black.
Does the guy ever leave his ranch? Can’t they just put a tail on him and then make the grab when he’s not surrounded by his followers? Or this- he’s got to sell those cattle sometime. Just file a lien on his assets and then he won’t be able to sell them.
How about a tax audit?
Scumpump, you’ve had multiple posts in this thread that are out of line for IMHO. If you don’t like the question posed in the OP, you aren’t being forced to participate. Either dial back the hostility or take it to the Pit.
(post shortened)
AFAIK, Bundy vs the BLM and federal government is still playing out in the courts. Plus Bundy has the support of governors, state and federal legislators. The protest began in 1993 when the BLM changed grazing rules. Those rules, and BLM rule, has not be firmly established by the courts.
The question is, why should the federal government resort to the use of armed federal officers to enforce a matter that is still be hammered out in the courts?
Because it only addresses the government’s actions during the standoff (which is not what the OP was about) and says nothing about arresting any of them and charging them for crimes committed during the standoff (which is what the OP was asking about).
I conclude this because the bulk of his post references two other situations that share some similarities to the Cliven Bundy situation, and I presume he brought them up because he too saw them as analogous to some degree.
However, since neither of those situations had an aftermath with surviving suspects who had successfully conspired to thwart federal agents from carrying out their lawful duties, it is clear that they are being referenced only for their standoff analogues, and not for any similarity in ensuing processes.
Therefore, his comments did not answer the question asked in the OP.
I hope that helps you to understand my previous post better, Ethilrist.
I chose to read it more as “given a choice, based on previous, somewhat-similar events, between possibly-guilty people being killed and possibly-guilty people getting away,” they chose the “not killed” option in hopes of maybe getting their money from the guy some day.
If this is the case, then sure, you let the courts settle it, then (if the government wins) enforce the ruling.
But I’d like a cite about the court case part. None of the coverage I’ve read has mentioned the court case.
Absent such a court case, letting Bundy continue to graze his cattle on BLM lands is fundamentally a sovereignty issue. If he uses the land and won’t pay the grazing fees, and it’s a settled point that the government has the authority to charge and collect those fees, then either the U.S. government is sovereign over that land, or Bundy is.
If they let him refuse to comply with the law because he and his friends have a lot of guns, rather than because the government’s right to those fees is an open legal question, then there’s a chunk of Nevada that the Federal government has effectively ceded its jurisdiction over.
You’re mistaken. Bundy stopped paying grazing fees ostensibly to protest something or other in 1993, but mostly because he’s a sovereign citizen nutjob who doesn’t recognize the federal government’s authority to collect grazing fees from him. A Federal judge issued a final ruling in 2013 allowing the BLM to seize his cattle. The legal authority for them to do so is no longer in question, nor was it in question when they were prevented from doing so last year by an armed militia.
Nothing is “still being hammered out in the courts,” as you claim. Armed federal officers should enforce legal judgments because if they don’t, you get people saying things like this:
And he’s right. They’ve effectively taken over federal land. According to the article, BLM agents no longer patrol the area because they’re afraid they’ll get shot. It’s nothing short of an armed insurrection.
Remember the freakout on Fox News when one Black Panther member stood in front of a polling station? Could you imagine the freakout if, instead of white squatters like Bundy, it was black squatters in a federal building in a city somewhere? Bundy is a leech. If he wants to graze his cattle on land that he doesn’t own, he should pay for that service.
Delicious irony would be if armed cattle rustlers stole his cattle, and local authorities wouldn’t help him out because it was Federal land.
He’d be the first to apply for a federal bailout for his business. He’s a sponge.
Beaten and imprisoned, maybe. Killed, not so much.
I do like BobLibDem’s lien idea and things of that sort. We can’t have that kind of thing happen often without consequences, otherwise it erodes the rule of law.
(post shortened)
According to Wiki, there have been several legal cases concerning Bundy. The advantage has shifted back and forth so the BLM-Bundy issue doesn’t appear to be settled. Bundy has a lot of friends in very high places.
…*Nevada governor and state lawmakers
Governor Brian Sandoval sided with Bundy, saying, “No cow justifies the atmosphere of intimidation which currently exists nor the limitation of constitutional rights that are sacred to all Nevadans. The BLM needs to reconsider its approach to this matter and act accordingly.”
Nevada Assemblywoman Michele Fiore, who supported Bundy, aiding him with his returned calves, said, “It’s time for Nevada to stand up to the federal government and demand the return of the BLM lands to the people of Nevada.”
…Arizona state lawmakers
On April 15, 2014, a group of Republican state legislators from Arizona, including Representatives Bob Thorpe (R-Flagstaff), David Livingston (R-Peoria), Kelly Townsend (R-Mesa), Senators Judy Burges (R-Sun City West), and Kelli Ward (R-Lake Havasu City) traveled to Mesquite, Nevada, to support Bundy in his standoff with the BLM.
Arizona Representative Kelly Townsend said that the scenes at the ranch amid the dispute gave her a “visceral reaction… It sounds dramatic, but it reminded me of Tiananmen Square. I don’t recognize my country at this point.” Her colleague, Bob Thorpe of Flagstaff, said that he was one of about three dozen state legislators who had sent a letter about the standoff to Nevada and federal officials. *
I’m thinking Bundy’s legislative friends out-weigh all of the armed federal officers, armed civilians, and the courts.
Explain to me what Nevada and Arizona legislators have to do with a Federal court decision concerning Federal lands. Hint: The answer is fuck-all.
Or, let’s make this easy. Cite the pending court case, in any court, that you think gives some legal ambiguity to this situation. I’ll wait.