Occupied Deutschland wrote:Sociobiology wrote:because saying, "you're under arrest" magically makes someone comply. As if police never have to rely on force to arrest someone.
Of course it doesn't and sure they do.
If Bundy was viewed as a threat (and indeed made threats of violence against the BLM) he should've been arrested by that force. Not given a show-of-force.
I honestly don't see how that position is controversial.
so they should have arrested him because he might resist?
they brought sufficient force to overcome reasonably expected possible resistance, how is that controversial?
Sociobiology wrote:so your argument is, "people in the 90's were just bomb happy" and the fact that repeated violent acts have been perpetrated against the BLM in that region means nothing to how those agents should act.
Actually, no, my argument isn't that 'people in the 90s were just bomb happy', I merely wanted to call your attention to the massive leap of reasoning there is between "BLM/FS offices which managed land Bundy was on were bombed in '95 and '96" and "Bundy bombed those offices in the 90s so we need to have lots'o force with us when we go in now!".
I never made that leap, just they were attacked and this individual was threatening something of comparable endangerment to the BLM agents. Remeber BLM agents are not normally armed.
But also considering it was almost twenty years ago?
so was the begining of the case.
No, I don't think they can base current amount of force used on events of twenty years ago. That's nonsensical and ridiculous. Prior to their showing up, there's still been nothing provided to me which gives any kind of suggestion they were in enough danger to warrant the amount of force they used except references to BUndy threatening them and this hogwash over basing the decision off of 18 and 19 year old bombing incidents (that are gleaned from one rough summary of events, and may well be closed cases with perpetrators already found and convicted as the article that mentions them does so in passing).
uh source because the article says just the opposite.
The BLM shouldn't base their response off of whether Bundy was threatening them and they just felt so threatened they needed to have their 'assault weapons', sniper rifles and riot shields.
If Bundy was threatening them, they should have arrested* him, not just gone in with enough force to be sure that if he carried out any of these threats they were afeared of they could easily win.
*Had him arrested
The BLM cannot arrest someone for something like that, they brought armed police who could. And yes they should have brought sufficient force to do so if necessary. Show of force is very good way of dealing with violent threats against a legitimate authority, it is one of the few methods not likely to end in violence.
Oh and in case you missed it, the asshole with the sniper rifle in the article is ONE OF THE PROTESTORS, not a blm agent.
Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2014 9:00 pm
Basically Bundy should have just paid the fees and then fought to continue grazing all his cows, that's more in line with traditional sage brush rebellion type stuff. Oh, course the BLM shouldn't have thrown up these zones, nor tazered Bundy's son just for taking pictures from a Nevada highway of the roundup operation.
