Ouze wrote:

Relapse wrote:
If they hadn't done what they did, the BLM still would have been down there messing with the area.

Don't you mean "enforcing a lawful court order"?

 d-usa wrote:
It really isn't, considering similar threads we have had in the past...

Relapse wrote:
I guess it's one of those you had to be there, or know people there deals.

 Ouze wrote:

Relapse wrote:
I guess it's one of those you had to be there, or know people there deals.

No amount of being there or not being there would change my mind that the guy who was blocking the truck and shoving the cops should have been arrested for assault and obstruction of justice, and the person who kicked the police dog should have gotten the same.

Certainly, I don't think that peace officers enforcing a lawful and just order after decades of both parties having their day in court should be intimidated out of their duty by heavily armed protesters. I think that's a wildly dangerous precedent to set.

Relapse wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

Relapse wrote:
I guess it's one of those you had to be there, or know people there deals.

No amount of being there or not being there would change my mind that the guy who was blocking the truck and shoving the cops should have been arrested for assault and obstruction of justice, and the person who kicked the police dog should have gotten the same.

Certainly, I don't think that peace officers enforcing a lawful and just order after decades of both parties having their day in court should be intimidated out of their duty by heavily armed protesters. I think that's a wildly dangerous precedent to set.

We'll just have to sit back and see what Hollywood makes of it.

 Ouze wrote:

Relapse wrote:
I guess it's one of those you had to be there, or know people there deals.

No amount of being there or not being there would change my mind that the guy who was blocking the truck and shoving the cops should have been arrested for assault and obstruction of justice, and the person who kicked the police dog should have gotten the same.

Certainly, I don't think that peace officers enforcing a lawful and just order after decades of both parties having their day in court should be intimidated out of their duty by heavily armed protesters. I think that's a wildly dangerous precedent to set.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

Relapse wrote:
I guess it's one of those you had to be there, or know people there deals.

No amount of being there or not being there would change my mind that the guy who was blocking the truck and shoving the cops should have been arrested for assault and obstruction of justice, and the person who kicked the police dog should have gotten the same.

Certainly, I don't think that peace officers enforcing a lawful and just order after decades of both parties having their day in court should be intimidated out of their duty by heavily armed protesters. I think that's a wildly dangerous precedent to set.

But remember, it was not a "real" court to these militia people. It was some kind of "secret court" that passed down its verdict in the dead of night with no lawful authoritah.

 Ouze wrote:

Relapse wrote:
If they hadn't done what they did, the BLM still would have been down there messing with the area.

Don't you mean "enforcing a lawful court order"?

 Ouze wrote:
Now I realize the only mistake OWS made was not being heavily armed. If they had been, the police would have let them break whatever laws they like and they would have been heroes.

 Jihadin wrote:
BLM almost got hung for Cattle Rustling

Court order did not specify rounding up his cattle
Court order did not specify to sell his cattle
Court order did not specify destroying troughs and some other stuff
Court order did not specify running over a Tortuise(sp) burrow either

Think the 34 year old Director who owes his job to Harry Ried over reacted in a huge way.

 Jihadin wrote:
BLM almost got hung for Cattle Rustling

Court order did not specify rounding up his cattle
Court order did not specify to sell his cattle
Court order did not specify destroying troughs and some other stuff
Court order did not specify running over a Tortuise(sp) burrow either

Think the 34 year old Director who owes his job to Harry Ried over reacted in a huge way.

A group of gun-wielding protestors squares off against a government it feels holds no authority. Is it Ukraine? Or Syria?

No, Nevada.

A standoff between a cattle rancher and the US government over grazing fees escalated into something akin to an armed confrontation over the weekend - and while threats of violence were defused, there appears to be no resolution in sight.

The story starts with the desert tortoise.

The Washington Post gives a full timeline of the events leading up to the confrontation, but here's the gist.

In 1993, in response to a dropping tortoise population, the federal government set aside hundreds of thousands of acres of federal land in southern Nevada as "protected tortoise habitat". The government prohibited off-road vehicles and mineral prospecting in the area and began buying out ranchers who were grazing their cattle in the designated areas.

They reached a deal with everyone except Cliven Bundy, whose family had been raising cattle on the south-east Nevada land at issue since 1890s.

The government responded by levying fines on Mr Bundy, which he hasn't paid, and getting a court order to remove his cattle from all federal land, which he has ignored.

On 27 March, more than two decades after the dispute first arose, the federal Bureau of Land Management began rounding up Mr Bundy's cattle with the intent to auction them off to pay his government fines, which have now reached $1.2m (£710,000).

Mr Bundy and his family have continued to resist. One of the sons, Dave, was arrested during a confrontation with federal law enforcement. Another, Ammon, was tasered after he kicked a police dog.

The video of the incident has served as a rallying cry for pro-Bundy protestors, many associated with right-wing militia groups. They have flocked to the Bundy ranch from across the region.

Some of the demonstrators were armed and threatened to block government action with force. One protestor said they had plans to put women and children at the front of the crowd so they would be among the first casualties if violence broke out.

On Saturday the government called off the cow-collecting operation and gave back the cows it had collected "because of serious concern about the safety of employees and members of the public".

The Las Vegas Review-Journal editors write that federal officials are "behaving like thugs loyal to a tin-pot dictator, not public servants who swore to support and defend the US Constitution".

They say that this dispute is about more than tortoises and grazing fees.

"It's about the power of environmentalists and their federal allies to erase a way of life they disagree with," they write. "It's about the federal government's control over most of the land in the West - and 86% of Nevada - and its inability to manage all that land in a competent and productive fashion."

They conclude:

No doubt plenty of city dwellers are laughing at the rubes in ranching country over their disgust with the federal government... But this desert drama is the just the latest front in the decades-long government assault on all of our rights. If we don't defend them, eventually we'll lose them. Then the joke will be on us.

The federal government employs both patriots and tyrants, writes Townhall finance editor John Ransom. Concerned citizens need to ask federal officials to pick sides.

"We have to make it make it clear to the bureaucrats that there are only two sides in the war the federal government is waging upon the rest of us," he says. "There is the right, and there is the wrong. And it's no longer sufficient to say you're just following orders."

Legally, writes Power Line Blog's John Hinderaker, Mr Bundy "doesn't have a leg to stand on". He argues that Americans like Mr Bundy deserve sympathy, however.

"Their way of life is one that, frankly, is on the outs," he says.

They don't develop apps. They don't ask for food stamps. It probably has never occurred to them to bribe a politician. They don't subsist by virtue of government subsidies or regulations that hamstring competitors. They aren't illegal immigrants. They have never even gone to law school. So what possible place is there for the Bundys in the Age of Obama?

This confrontation is not about freedom, the Constitution or some idealised rancher way of life, others argue. What is at issue here, they say, is a disturbing precedent set by Mr Bundy's continued flouting of legal authority.

What happens next, wonders the Las Vegas Review-Journal's Steve Sebelius.

"A court order that's not enforced by the federal government is simply another piece of paper," he writes. "It's entirely likely ... that the government will once again face off with Bundy and his militia gang, and that the threat of violence will once again rear its head."

Dallas Hyland writes in Utah's St George News that this could be the start of a growing trend:

The stand-down was necessary to prevent bloodshed, but it must be recognized that if Bundy and a multitude of his supporters, militia friends, and even family members who broke the law, are allowed to go unpunished, anarchy will follow. Other groups, emboldened by the appearance of forcing a stand-down, will only continue to gain momentum. And furthermore, law enforcement as a whole will be rendered impotent as average people with disputes with current laws begin to wonder if they too can call a militia in to force the police to leave them alone.

The pro-Bundy camp is claiming victory for now, but the federal government is not throwing in the towel.

"It's not over," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada. "We can't have an American people that violate the law and then just walk away from it."

As tanks roll through eastern Ukraine, is a rebellion brewing in Nevada?

Former Arizona Sheriff Richard Mack revealed on Monday that he and other organizers who traveled to Clark County, Nev., to support Cliven Bundy during his land dispute with the feds planned to put women on the front lines in case the “rogue federal officers” started shooting.

Mack made the chilling revelation on Fox News’ “The Real Story” Monday, two days after the tense standoff between Bundy and the federal government came to a peaceful end.

“We were actually strategizing to put all the women up at the front,” he said. “If they are going to start shooting, it’s going to be women that are going to be televised all across the world getting shot by these rogue federal officers.”

Mack apparently identifies with the Tea Party and claims to have spoken at numerous rallies. He also appeared on MSNBC’s “Hardball” with host Chris Matthews to promote the movement.

Mack was elected as Graham County sheriff in 1988 and he served two terms until 1997. The former sheriff also reportedly fought against the so-called “Brady Bill,” a 1993 gun control law that instituted federal background checks on firearms purchasers in the United States.

“Mack has been a consultant on numerous cases regarding police abuse, brutality, and other misconduct by public officials. He has joined with other members of the law enforcement community to speak out in favor of drug policy reform,” according to his website.

The fight between Bundy and the Bureau of Land Management widened into a debate about states’ rights and federal land-use policy. Bundy does not recognize federal authority on land he insists belongs to Nevada.

On Saturday, the bureau released about 400 head of cattle it had seized from Bundy back to him only hours after announcing a premature halt to the roundup due to safety concerns. The operation, expected to take up to a month, ended after only a week.

The cattle were freed after hundreds of states’ rights protesters, some of them armed militia members, showed up at corrals outside Mesquite to demand the animals’ release. Las Vegas Police Lt. Dan Zehnder told The Associated Press that Clark County Sheriff Doug Gillespie was able to negotiate a resolution after talking with Bundy.

BLM filed a new complaint in U.S. court in Las Vegas in May 2012 seeking an injunction to prevent what it called Bundy's continued trespassing, and Judge Lloyd George issued another order last July authorizing the agency to impound the cattle.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/nevada-rancher-cliven-bundy-inspects-cattle-for-damage-by-feds/

 loki old fart wrote:
http://scgnews.com/bundy-ranch-what-youre-not-being-told

 d-usa wrote:

 loki old fart wrote:
http://scgnews.com/bundy-ranch-what-youre-not-being-told

I don't give a feth what illegally trespassing cattle get in the way off. They are still illegally trespassing cattle.

That's the issue that gets ignored. But I guess we are fine with criminals as long as they get in the way of something or someone we don't like...

 loki old fart wrote:
Posted as a comment on bbc web page.

32.
David
10 Minutes ago

Considering that Bundy and his family have planted pipe bombs at BLM offices, and invited armed militia members to help him, he and his family should be banned from all federal land for life. The hardworking BLM employees do not deserve the abuse this DB and his family has given them. And if he still wants to be a rancher, then as a millionaire he should go buy his own range land.

 Jihadin wrote:
Planted IED's eh.....and not in jail....

 Jihadin wrote:
I've seen human shields. This is a very weak attempt of a human shield. I'm rooting for Bundy

He's OWS but in reverse way