Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Mixed feelings about this one:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jan/08/bundy-family-charges-dropped-nevada-armed-standoff

I have no words.

No words at all.

How badly did the prosecutor have to feth up here? Like...this case wrote itself, it was served up on a silver platter, why bother withholding evidence? You had a slam-dunk in the bag perfect moneyshot of a case...and then you just decide..."nah, let's feth this up, just for giggles".

I'd say I'm disappointed but I'm really not. After getting acquitted of pointing guns and occupying a government building I doubted they were going to get any conviction for just pointing guns and talking like meanies.

But withholding evidence? Really? That's how they fethed this up? If I hadn't seen the FBI botch a whole series of investigations in the last few years I might be shocked but my faith in the FBI is basically zero at this point. They're maybe a few ladder rungs off from being as low in my faith as the DEA and ATF which is pretty damn low.

 LordofHats wrote:
I'd say I'm disappointed but I'm really not. After getting acquitted of pointing guns and occupying a government building I doubted they were going to get any conviction for just pointing guns and talking like meanies.

But withholding evidence? Really? That's how they fethed this up? If I hadn't seen the FBI botch a whole series of investigations in the last few years I might be shocked but my faith in the FBI is basically zero at this point. They're maybe a few ladder rungs off from being as low in my faith as the DEA and ATF which is pretty damn low.

This. Seems like there was all the evidence in the world and to try to be shady seems like incompetence, or malice.

I'd go with some level of incompetence. Malice could have been achieved simply by following procedure and presenting evidence on request (especially since the evidence claimed to have been withheld isn't evidence that would have aided in Bundy's defense in my view, making its withholding all the more bizarre).

This isn't on the FBI so much as the Prosecutor. I guess the Prosecutor out there has had some problems before? At least the article I read about it alluded to some past issues.

You will also note this was an Obama appointed minority judge. So this wasn't a case of the old boys club protecting their own, unless it was fromt he Prosecution side?

This is just stunning to me...

From what I've read, the Defense stated that they only called their armed supporters AFTER the feds were surveilling them (with sniper assets as well).

The Prosecutions initially were like, "luz!!! listen to these yahoos!", while withholding exculpatory documents proving the Defense's arguments.

Blatant Brady violations really is a big deal and the government fethed up royally here.

What a cluster. Between prosecutorial missteps and a new administration that is probably not terribly interested in pursuing the case, it was doomed. I wonder if this will embolden these armed militia groups.

jmurph wrote:. I wonder if this will embolden these armed militia groups.

It'll encourage the stupid ones, for sure. The smart ones will realize that this technically wasn't a "win" for them.

There's smart militia groups?

 whembly wrote:
This is just stunning to me...

From what I've read, the Defense stated that they only called their armed supporters AFTER the feds were surveilling them (with sniper assets as well).

The Prosecutions initially were like, "luz!!! listen to these yahoos!", while withholding exculpatory documents proving the Defense's arguments.

Blatant Brady violations really is a big deal and the government fethed up royally here.

I have family down in Overton and as that deal was happening,they were telling me that people were worried about going outside because of bureau snipers.

Amazing.

So if these men had been black and did this to protest cop shootings in St. Louis, would the outcome have been the same?

#Wheremahcountrygone?

Relapse wrote:
I have family down in Overton and as that deal was happening,they were telling me that people were worried about going outside because of bureau snipers.

Why did they believe that random people were just being shot by snipers?

 Ahtman wrote:

Relapse wrote:
I have family down in Overton and as that deal was happening,they were telling me that people were worried about going outside because of bureau snipers.

Why did they believe that random people were just being shot by snipers?

I would assume they were simply nervous. When highly militarized police enter an area in mass, common citizens tend to get nervous, especially in these times where *some* cops regularly murder people, for no reason, and are acquitted of all wrong doing.

 Togusa wrote:
Amazing.

So if these men had been black and did this to protest cop shootings in St. Louis, would the outcome have been the same?

#Wheremahcountrygone?

I'm very confident in believing that US District Judge Gloria Navarro (an Obama appointee as has been pointed out in this thread already) would have dismissed the govt's case due to the Brady violations regardless of the identity of the defendents or the nature of the charges. I find it amusing that you think that BLM protestors would receive different treatment than people protesting the BLM.

 Ahtman wrote:

Relapse wrote:
I have family down in Overton and as that deal was happening,they were telling me that people were worried about going outside because of bureau snipers.

Why did they believe that random people were just being shot by snipers?

Maybe because the Feds have a history of that kind of thing.



Because a FBI HRT sniper screwed up at Ruby Creek, Idaho back in '92, and killed a woman (Vicky Weaver) holding a baby while trying to tag Randy Weaver and Kevin Harris, due to vague ROEs (based on a faulty threat assessment by the Marshall's Service) set by the FBI's on-site commander.


Lon Horiuchi, the HRT sniper is question, despite being under an (half-assed) investigation, was deployed at Waco, where there is some evidence that he fired on cultists trying to escape the burning Branch Davidian complex.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
There's smart militia groups?

Yeah. The ones that use their militia as a platform for a political agenda, or a social club that LARPs as minutemen.



The ones that go full tard and challenge the Feds directly? Not so much.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:
I'd say I'm disappointed but I'm really not. After getting acquitted of pointing guns and occupying a government building I doubted they were going to get any conviction for just pointing guns and talking like meanies.

But withholding evidence? Really? That's how they fethed this up? If I hadn't seen the FBI botch a whole series of investigations in the last few years I might be shocked but my faith in the FBI is basically zero at this point. They're maybe a few ladder rungs off from being as low in my faith as the DEA and ATF which is pretty damn low.

Back in my Pop's day in law enforcement, and continuing through my time as a flatfoot, the FBI was known as the "First Bunch of Idiots". And from time to time, they worked hard to live down to that moniker.

 Ahtman wrote:

Relapse wrote:
I have family down in Overton and as that deal was happening,they were telling me that people were worried about going outside because of bureau snipers.

Why did they believe that random people were just being shot by snipers?

Imagine you are living in a small town and you are out in the back yard with your kids or hanging laundry, only to look up on a hill and see someone camped with a rifle, pointing it in your general direction.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

Relapse wrote:
I have family down in Overton and as that deal was happening,they were telling me that people were worried about going outside because of bureau snipers.

Why did they believe that random people were just being shot by snipers?

Maybe because the Feds have a history of that kind of thing.



Because a FBI HRT sniper screwed up at Ruby Creek, Idaho back in '92, and killed a woman (Vicky Weaver) holding a baby while trying to tag Randy Weaver and Kevin Harris, due to vague ROEs (based on a faulty threat assessment by the Marshall's Service) set by the FBI's on-site commander.


Lon Horiuchi, the HRT sniper is question, despite being under an (half-assed) investigation, was deployed at Waco, where there is some evidence that he fired on cultists trying to escape the burning Branch Davidian complex.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
There's smart militia groups?

Yeah. The ones that use their militia as a platform for a political agenda, or a social club that LARPs as minutemen.



The ones that go full tard and challenge the Feds directly? Not so much.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:
I'd say I'm disappointed but I'm really not. After getting acquitted of pointing guns and occupying a government building I doubted they were going to get any conviction for just pointing guns and talking like meanies.

But withholding evidence? Really? That's how they fethed this up? If I hadn't seen the FBI botch a whole series of investigations in the last few years I might be shocked but my faith in the FBI is basically zero at this point. They're maybe a few ladder rungs off from being as low in my faith as the DEA and ATF which is pretty damn low.

Back in my Pop's day in law enforcement, and continuing through my time as a flatfoot, the FBI was known as the "First Bunch of Idiots". And from time to time, they worked hard to live down to that moniker.

I remember once when some FBI agents shot the tires on a high jacked plane full of passengers as it was taking off.

http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/F%20Disk/FBI/FBI%20Miscellaneous%201972/Item%2006.pdf

Relapse wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

Relapse wrote:
I have family down in Overton and as that deal was happening,they were telling me that people were worried about going outside because of bureau snipers.

Why did they believe that random people were just being shot by snipers?

Imagine you are living in a small town and you are out in the back yard with your kids or hanging laundry, only to look up on a hill and see someone camped with a rifle, pointing it in your general direction.

Imagine you're a representative for the Bureau of Land Management and doing your job, only to look up on a hill and see a bunch of someones camped with rifles pointing them in your general direction.

Considering that just shooting people seems to be working out better for law enforcement than sitting back and arresting people later, I wouldn’t be surprised if we return to the days of Waco.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

Relapse wrote:
I have family down in Overton and as that deal was happening,they were telling me that people were worried about going outside because of bureau snipers.

Why did they believe that random people were just being shot by snipers?

Imagine you are living in a small town and you are out in the back yard with your kids or hanging laundry, only to look up on a hill and see someone camped with a rifle, pointing it in your general direction.

Imagine you're a representative for the Bureau of Land Management and doing your job, only to look up on a hill and see a bunch of someones camped with rifles pointing them in your general direction.

It's clear from your statement you are clueless as to what was going on in the early stages of the standoff.

Whatever happened well they managed to sneak out a rather massive fail of situationthe prosecution should not have failed to win.

So I'm guessing someone royally needed up as I doubt a Obama era prosacuter would been a freind of there's.

He was not a heavily pro gun president..

 d-usa wrote:
Considering that just shooting people seems to be working out better for law enforcement than sitting back and arresting people later, I wouldn’t be surprised if we return to the days of Waco.

One of the Obama administrations biggest mistakes, in my opinion, was backing down in this standoff. You don't pull out law enforcement officers from enforcing a lawful, just, and fair court order because they are in fear of their life. The appropriate thing to have done would have been to send in the National Guard.

The lack of resolve in this situation will only further embolden the militias. The seeds have been planted for future conflict which will be worse.

Relapse wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

Relapse wrote:
I have family down in Overton and as that deal was happening,they were telling me that people were worried about going outside because of bureau snipers.

Why did they believe that random people were just being shot by snipers?

Imagine you are living in a small town and you are out in the back yard with your kids or hanging laundry, only to look up on a hill and see someone camped with a rifle, pointing it in your general direction.

Imagine you're a representative for the Bureau of Land Management and doing your job, only to look up on a hill and see a bunch of someones camped with rifles pointing them in your general direction.

It's clear from your statement you are clueless as to what was going on in the early stages of the standoff.

On March 27, 2014, 145,604 acres of federal land in Clark County were temporarily closed for the "capture, impound, and removal of trespass cattle." BLM officials and law enforcement rangers began a roundup of such livestock on April 5, and an arrest was made the next day.
On April 12, 2014, a group of protesters, some of them armed, approached the BLM "cattle gather". Sheriff Doug Gillespie negotiated with Bundy and newly-confirmed BLM director Neil Kornze, who elected to release the cattle and de-escalate the situation. As of the end of 2015, Cliven Bundy continued to graze his cattle on federal land and still had not paid the grazing fees

Anything else I should be aware of?

I mean, there's more I can quote right now but when the wackjobs who showed up to point guns at federal officials started calling it "The Battle of Bunkersville", I don't think I am really misrepresenting this as the case of the militias being in the wrong.

Personally I think it's hilarious how pointing a gun at law enforcement is acceptable so long as your an old white guy defending your freedom. Obviously drug dealers just need to rebrand themselves. They're not gangsters at all, just liberators against an oppressive government that shoots people for having a pot smell. Viva la revolution!

Nah, then they'll just be branded as thugs complaining about problems that don't exist. It's not like various movements where black people are urged to resist oppressors don't already exist and aren't already vilified.

 LordofHats wrote:
Personally I think it's hilarious how pointing a gun at law enforcement is acceptable so long as your an old white guy defending your freedom. Obviously drug dealers just need to rebrand themselves. They're not gangsters at all, just liberators against an oppressive government that shoots people for having a pot smell. Viva la revolution!

Don’t go for the straw man. Nobody decided that the Bundys weren’t guilty or in the wrong, they case was dismissed as a mistrial due to prosecutorial misconduct. If the Brady violations don’t happen there might wel have been a guilty verdict but now we’ll never know.

I'm more talking about the general attitude of reception given the Bundy's at the time, and the way the Bundy standoff has been regarded is a complete opposite of how other smaller scale incidents have been treated and I find it funny in the macabre way that these sorts of things are funny. It's not so much a comment about anyone here or the thread as a general comment about how Americans have reacted to this (and the Wildlife Refuge incident for that matter). Me and hordes of others who generally bemoan an overzealous use of violence by law enforcement have been continually irate at how this has developed even though in a general way it probably more closely reflects what we actually expect out of law enforcement, while on the opposite side suddenly there's lots of people who are more sympathetic to the "criminals" than they usually are though I've noticed most of Bundy's ardent supporters from 2014 around here are no longer such/no longer commenting/no longer present.

It's funny in the macabre way these things are funny.

 Ouze wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Considering that just shooting people seems to be working out better for law enforcement than sitting back and arresting people later, I wouldn’t be surprised if we return to the days of Waco.

One of the Obama administrations biggest mistakes, in my opinion, was backing down in this standoff. You don't pull out law enforcement officers from enforcing a lawful, just, and fair court order because they are in fear of their life. The appropriate thing to have done would have been to send in the National Guard.

The lack of resolve in this situation will only further embolden the militias. The seeds have been planted for future conflict which will be worse.

However. A alternate view. The momment the line a group of ApC, tanks and soldiers to deal with it. They just admitted the police cannot handle a bunch of men with guns and you need the army to enforce the laws there meant to do.

Much as a legal order. A smouldering ruin and video of military firing on people with heavy armour looks rather bad on TV.

No one died when they did it the way they did, blood spilled could have enraged the militias allies and help feed there naritive of the evil state, soldiers oppressing citizens. Evil government etc.

Anyway. Location was remote. No real homes or such near the land.

Isolations and seige working towards surrender beats a assault when not needed. Unless lives at risk or a danger to those nearby.

Well. Seige and negotiation best idea.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

Relapse wrote:
I have family down in Overton and as that deal was happening,they were telling me that people were worried about going outside because of bureau snipers.

Why did they believe that random people were just being shot by snipers?

Imagine you are living in a small town and you are out in the back yard with your kids or hanging laundry, only to look up on a hill and see someone camped with a rifle, pointing it in your general direction.

Imagine you're a representative for the Bureau of Land Management and doing your job, only to look up on a hill and see a bunch of someones camped with rifles pointing them in your general direction.

It's clear from your statement you are clueless as to what was going on in the early stages of the standoff.

On March 27, 2014, 145,604 acres of federal land in Clark County were temporarily closed for the "capture, impound, and removal of trespass cattle." BLM officials and law enforcement rangers began a roundup of such livestock on April 5, and an arrest was made the next day.
On April 12, 2014, a group of protesters, some of them armed, approached the BLM "cattle gather". Sheriff Doug Gillespie negotiated with Bundy and newly-confirmed BLM director Neil Kornze, who elected to release the cattle and de-escalate the situation. As of the end of 2015, Cliven Bundy continued to graze his cattle on federal land and still had not paid the grazing fees

Anything else I should be aware of?

I mean, there's more I can quote right now but when the wackjobs who showed up to point guns at federal officials started calling it "The Battle of Bunkersville", I don't think I am really misrepresenting this as the case of the militias being in the wrong.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Quite a bit more, actually. I'll just refer you to the original thread about the standoff and save myself a lot of wasted time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:
I'm more talking about the general attitude of reception given the Bundy's at the time, and the way the Bundy standoff has been regarded is a complete opposite of how other smaller scale incidents have been treated and I find it funny in the macabre way that these sorts of things are funny. It's not so much a comment about anyone here or the thread as a general comment about how Americans have reacted to this (and the Wildlife Refuge incident for that matter). Me and hordes of others who generally bemoan an overzealous use of violence by law enforcement have been continually irate at how this has developed even though in a general way it probably more closely reflects what we actually expect out of law enforcement, while on the opposite side suddenly there's lots of people who are more sympathetic to the "criminals" than they usually are though I've noticed most of Bundy's ardent supporters from 2014 around here are no longer such/no longer commenting/no longer present.

It's funny in the macabre way these things are funny.

There were people in the original thread saying the involved towns and everyone in them should be blown up.

All that being said, I can't understand how a lot of people stayed out of jail on the Bundy side and there were no reprimands on certain BLM agents.

Relapse wrote:
There were people in the original thread saying the involved towns and everyone in them should be blown up.

That whole thread was like an episode of the Twilight Zone at times.