I have the right to use government land (now with slavery!)

[Dyakovo]

Unfortunarelty, for some reason the cbs news site isn't loading for me...

Edit: Nevermind, on the third try it loaded...

Huh, the link works fine for me. anyone else having trouble?

Pretty sure it was just a glitch on my end.

[Dyakovo]

Unfortunarelty, for some reason the cbs news site isn't loading for me...

Edit: Nevermind, on the third try it loaded...

Edit the second: I'm going to need more than Rep. Bob Thorpe's word on it happening...

Well there's also the BLM lady amy leuders who confirms two protesters were briefly detained, us google it there's plenty of pics unless you believe they were staged.

Which does nothing to confirm that anyone's right to peaceful assembly was infringed upon...

[Occupied Deutschland]

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/cliven-bundys-fight-in-nevada-with-federal-government-takes-turn/

Other sites have pictures, but I figured you'd probably consider CBS more "reputable" than fox news.

Unfortunarelty, for some reason the cbs news site isn't loading for me...

Edit: Nevermind, on the third try it loaded...

Edit the second: I'm going to need more than Rep. Bob Thorpe's word on it happening...

The governor also mentioned them in particular when he talked about the situation. Also this from a Las Vegas newspaper/news-site.

Edit: Buggered the url coding

[Llamalandia]

Well there's also the BLM lady amy leuders who confirms two protesters were briefly detained, us google it there's plenty of pics unless you believe they were staged.

Which does nothing to confirm that anyone's right to peaceful assembly was infringed upon...

Well there's plenty of other sources and besides this I don't think the BLM did much to try and actually enforce the zones as I'm guessing most people made it pretty clear that in America you can generally protest and assembly peacably on most public property (certain supreme court rulings on the constitutionality of the zones notwithstanding). Also in fairness to the BLM they did take them down after the first two days if I'm not mistaken but still what kinda of moron puts up free speech zones in the first place?

[Dyakovo]

Which does nothing to confirm that anyone's right to peaceful assembly was infringed upon...

Well there's plenty of other sources and besides this I don't think the BLM did much to try and actually enforce the zones as I'm guessing most people made it pretty clear that in America you can generally protest and assembly peacably on most public property (certain supreme court rulings on the constitutionality of the zones notwithstanding). Also in fairness to the BLM they did take them down after the first two days if I'm not mistaken but still what kinda of moron puts up free speech zones in the first place?

The kind that is worried about the protests becoming less than peaceful? If they did do it, it was certainly a bad PR move on their part, though I have a hard time blaming them (though still disagreeing with it being done) considering the threats levied against them by Bundy and his criminal buddies.

[Llamalandia]

Well there's plenty of other sources and besides this I don't think the BLM did much to try and actually enforce the zones as I'm guessing most people made it pretty clear that in America you can generally protest and assembly peacably on most public property (certain supreme court rulings on the constitutionality of the zones notwithstanding). Also in fairness to the BLM they did take them down after the first two days if I'm not mistaken but still what kinda of moron puts up free speech zones in the first place?

The kind that is worried about the protests becoming less than peaceful? If they did do it, it was certainly a bad PR move on their part, though I have a hard time blaming them (though still disagreeing with it being done) considering the threats levied against them by Bundy and his criminal buddies.

I'm somewhat torn here because both sides have been heavy handed and have certainly had terrible PR on this. heck even Glenn Beck isn't happy with the way Bundy has been handling the situation and when youre to the right of Beck that's fairly impressive. 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.

[Dyakovo]

The kind that is worried about the protests becoming less than peaceful? If they did do it, it was certainly a bad PR move on their part, though I have a hard time blaming them (though still disagreeing with it being done) considering the threats levied against them by Bundy and his criminal buddies.

I'm somewhat torn here because both sides have been heavy handed and have certainly had terrible PR on this. heck even Glenn Beck isn't happy with the way Bundy has been handling the situation and when youre to the right of Beck that's fairly impressive. 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.

He wasn't tasered for taking pictures...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the ... overnment/

[Llamalandia]

I'm somewhat torn here because both sides have been heavy handed and have certainly had terrible PR on this. heck even Glenn Beck isn't happy with the way Bundy has been handling the situation and when youre to the right of Beck that's fairly impressive. 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.

He wasn't tasered for taking pictures...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the ... overnment/

Well obviously they didn't literally charged him with a crime of photography, but

April 6, 2014: Cliven Bundy's 37-year-old son is arrested for "refusing to disperse" and resisting arrest. He was released the following day. His face is covered with scratches from fighting the feds. Before he left the detention center, authorities gave him a tuna fish sandwich. "It wasn’t poison," he said. "I just ate it.”

The Nevada Cattlemen’s Association distances itself from protests over Bundy's cattle. “Nevada Cattlemen’s Association does not feel it is in our best interest to interfere in the process of adjudication in this matter."

Yes, refusing to disperse from a state highway (he was tasered on the highway and claims that he and his group weren't on the federal land itself. They were merely taking some photos of the operation from the high way which isn't it a federal crime as far as I'm aware.

This afternoon eight helicopters surrounded the family after they began taking pictures, according to Bundy’s daughter, Bailey. Their son, Dave Bundy, was arrested for taking pictures on state road 170, which has been closed, and is being held by BLM.

Ok the BLM may own the Federal land but they certainly don't have a claim to Nevada State Highways.

[Sociobiology]

The BLM planned removal operations in April 2012 as well but shelved them due to threats of violence from Bundy'. The simple fact is that having armed agents at these operations makes perfect sense based upon the context of the situation. This was actually why the order was modified as well to include ordering Bundy not to interfere with removal operations in the Trespass lands by the court in the 2013 decision. The reason why they were there is they expected a potential violent confrontation because Bundy verbalized as much before.

(Image)

If Bundy made threats of violence, he could have been, and should have been, arrested for them.
The system doesn't work if our solution to someone threatening law-enforcement officers is just arming the law-enforcement officers more so that if violence does break out they kill all those who oppose them. It works by keeping the influence of those threatening violence to the minimum. If Bundy threatened the BLM agents, he should've been arrested.

because saying, "you're under arrest" magically makes someone comply. As if police never have to rely on force to arrest someone.

the bombings started in 1995, and with the office dealing with Bundy.

Bombing federal office-buildings was kind of in style in the 90s, in case you forget. If that's the extent of the basis for your judgement, I'll take this opportunity to disregard it, because it's useless.

[/quote]
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.

[Sociobiology]

3 bombings of BLM offices
that alone would make me want to go armed.

You know I deal with the BLM all the time, they do their job well considering everything they have to do, and Bundy is just pissed because the government stopped subsidizing his cattle business, if he doesn't have enough land thats his problem, he should not have built a business that only works as long as it is sucking off the government tit.

You know on that note, and I apologize if this sounds stupid or if someone's already asked, but why exactly can't Bundy, just switch his cows to a mostly corn fed diet and graze them a little (while paying of course) I mean isn't most beef in the US corn fed anyway?

corn costs a lot more than grazing.
That and your argument assumes Bundy is a reasonable person, while his stance indicates otherwise.

[Sociobiology]

Which does nothing to confirm that anyone's right to peaceful assembly was infringed upon...

Well there's plenty of other sources and besides this I don't think the BLM did much to try and actually enforce the zones as I'm guessing most people made it pretty clear that in America you can generally protest and assembly peacably on most public property (certain supreme court rulings on the constitutionality of the zones notwithstanding). Also in fairness to the BLM they did take them down after the first two days if I'm not mistaken but still what kinda of moron puts up free speech zones in the first place?

someone with half a brain, you can not for instance physically prevent police cars from leaving the station and still call it peaceable assembly.
Protest zones are pretty common. For instance abortion protestors cannot do anything to actually block access to an abortion clinic.

[Sociobiology]

He wasn't tasered for taking pictures...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the ... overnment/

Well obviously they didn't literally charged him with a crime of photography, but

April 6, 2014: Cliven Bundy's 37-year-old son is arrested for "refusing to disperse" and resisting arrest. He was released the following day. His face is covered with scratches from fighting the feds. Before he left the detention center, authorities gave him a tuna fish sandwich. "It wasn’t poison," he said. "I just ate it.”

The Nevada Cattlemen’s Association distances itself from protests over Bundy's cattle. “Nevada Cattlemen’s Association does not feel it is in our best interest to interfere in the process of adjudication in this matter."

Yes, refusing to disperse from a state highway (he was tasered on the highway and claims that he and his group weren't on the federal land itself. They were merely taking some photos of the operation from the high way which isn't it a federal crime as far as I'm aware.

actually if you keep reading, he was tazed for attacking a police dog. He is lucky he was not shot.
they are two different events that happened on two different days.

august 6th arrested for failing to disperse
august 9th tazed for assaulting a police officer (canine)

[Occupied Deutschland]

If Bundy made threats of violence, he could have been, and should have been, arrested for them.
The system doesn't work if our solution to someone threatening law-enforcement officers is just arming the law-enforcement officers more so that if violence does break out they kill all those who oppose them. It works by keeping the influence of those threatening violence to the minimum. If Bundy threatened the BLM agents, he should've been arrested.

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 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!".

But also considering it was almost twenty years ago?

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).

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

[Dyakovo]

Well obviously they didn't literally charged him with a crime of photography, but



Yes, refusing to disperse from a state highway (he was tasered on the highway and claims that he and his group weren't on the federal land itself. They were merely taking some photos of the operation from the high way which isn't it a federal crime as far as I'm aware.

actually if you keep reading, he was tazed for attacking a police dog. He is lucky he was not shot.
they are two different events that happened on two different days.

august 6th arrested for failing to disperse
august 9th tazed for assaulting a police officer (canine)

Shhh... Don't frighten the poor boy with reality.

[Sociobiology]

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?

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.

[New Chalcedon]

This demonstrating you have zero understanding of the issue...

Well then feel free to enlighten me if you please.

It's been tried. And the term "Horses, water, drinking" comes rather strongly to mind.

[The Serbian Empire]

They sure didn't stop him amply. When all one can do is offer fines and not place a lien on the cattle I find it comedic that the government agencies like the BLM and the IRS didn't work together to ravage Bundy's cattle operation.

Why would they work together? There duties do not in any way overlap.

Isn't that land usage fee effectively a flow of revenue into the government?

[Geilinor]

Why would they work together? There duties do not in any way overlap.

Isn't that land usage fee effectively a flow of revenue into the government?

It isn't taxation, it's a fee to use federal land.

[The Serbian Empire]

Isn't that land usage fee effectively a flow of revenue into the government?

It isn't taxation, it's a fee to use federal land.

I believe many fees are in fact taxable though. However, this one might not be like the use fee I have to pay for camping at a state park in Michigan where it is also taxable with a 6% sales tax.

[New Chalcedon]

It isn't taxation, it's a fee to use federal land.

I believe many fees are in fact taxable though. However, this one might not be like the use fee I have to pay for camping at a state park in Michigan where it is also taxable with a 6% sales tax.

That's Michigan land - the fees (and taxes) are paid to Michigan, not DC.

The IRS has the job of monitoring the inflow of tax revenue to the Federal Government and enforcing compliance with the tax codes. That's it. When it comes to fees, it's the responsibility of the departments involved to ensure that they collect whatever fees are scheduled for their services.

[Tekania]

Why would they work together? There duties do not in any way overlap.

Isn't that land usage fee effectively a flow of revenue into the government?

The IRS' scope of authority is in the collection of taxes..... Neither the trespass fees imposed by the courts, nor the permit fees fall under the legal definition of a tax, and are not part of the IRS' scope.

[Llamalandia]

Well there's plenty of other sources and besides this I don't think the BLM did much to try and actually enforce the zones as I'm guessing most people made it pretty clear that in America you can generally protest and assembly peacably on most public property (certain supreme court rulings on the constitutionality of the zones notwithstanding). Also in fairness to the BLM they did take them down after the first two days if I'm not mistaken but still what kinda of moron puts up free speech zones in the first place?

someone with half a brain, you can not for instance physically prevent police cars from leaving the station and still call it peaceable assembly.
Protest zones are pretty common. For instance abortion protestors cannot do anything to actually block access to an abortion clinic.

Well, yes, but generally with clinic buffer zones its the zone of exclusion that people can't protest in that is small not the free speech zone (basically you can protest anywhere but in directly infront of the clinic doors or in way which actually blocks traffic). And there as you say it's largely meant more to stop people from literally blocking access. What was happening in this situation was that bundy's son was taking pictures from a closed Nevada State highway, he wasn't blocking any cars or any agents at the time, he was simply standing on public (state owned land ie the highway).

[Dyakovo]

Why would they work together? There duties do not in any way overlap.

Isn't that land usage fee effectively a flow of revenue into the government?

So? I don't think you understand what either the BLM or the IRS does.

[Nervium]

You sure as hell have!
And then the goverment reserves itself the right to arrest you.

[Llamalandia]

Well obviously they didn't literally charged him with a crime of photography, but



Yes, refusing to disperse from a state highway (he was tasered on the highway and claims that he and his group weren't on the federal land itself. They were merely taking some photos of the operation from the high way which isn't it a federal crime as far as I'm aware.

actually if you keep reading, he was tazed for attacking a police dog. He is lucky he was not shot.
they are two different events that happened on two different days.

august 6th arrested for failing to disperse
august 9th tazed for assaulting a police officer (canine)

Yeah, that's my bad on the dog kicking/tasering thing. He shouldna dun that. But still I maintain the arrest for failure to disperse is pure and unmitigated bullshit. I mean, there's plenty of State route it's not like his presence was an actual impediment to anyone doing their job. If some individgual protesters are somehow crossing the line in to criminal activity (like threatening to kill LEO's or something then fine arrest) but don't disperse a largely peaceful (if somewhat raucous) protest. I mean, if they were actually rioting and like turning over cop cars sure that's no longer a protest but a riot, but as far as I've seen Bundy et al weren't doing enough to warrant their forced "dispersal".