Gov. & Cattle

[GGT]

snip


The jurisprudence governing criminalizing dangerous speech has not changed. I can't see that because it hasn't happened. You see it because you're under the misapprehension that everything you see under the sun is actually the specific subtopic you're addressing at the time somehow.

I'd maybe give a bit more credence if you'd actually go take a look at the legal standards. Hard to see a difference when you've got no flipping idea what one of them is.

I've been talking about BLM's attempts to follow court orders (seize cattle and recoup fees/fines) while considering the political/cultural climate in Bunkerville -- people with anti-government sentiments who saw this as a First and Second Amendment issue (Free Speech + guns) -- who'd made it clear they were up for a battle. The enforcement agents faced a real dilemma on how to legally follow-through in an already dangerous situation, without escalating things further.

He hasn't violated any explicit criminal laws and there are very, very few "implied" (which I assume means common law) criminal offenses anymore. I don't think there are any at the federal level. WRT criminal law, the US has switched almost entirely over to a codified collection of statutes rather than the old English common law system, though common law still predominates for procedure. You can put quotation marks around whatever words you want, either be quiet or take responsibility for your errors and many flatly-wrong statements and assertions.

And you can be as pedantic all you like, citing statutes and precedents and procedural details on Bundy's behalf...but you haven't shown that BLM was doing anything outside its legal scope. Let alone how those agents were expected to proceed when faced with an armed mob.

I've never hid that I have a number of objections to the workings of the US criminal justice system. I doubt they're the same as your objections since I expect most of your objections have way more to do with your vivid imagination than they do with reality but it's got nothing at all to do with this thread.

This thread isn't about my imagination, but realities happening in real time. That includes applying legal standards, with all its conflicting interests (and agencies), to a particular scenario that has real influences, and impacts, on multiple levels.

Cliven Bundy carries a copy of the US Constitution in his shirt pocket, but claims the federal gummint has no jurisdiction in the state of Nevada. Fuzzy, you're obviously smarter and more academically informed than Bundy, but you're just carrying a copy of papers in your shirt pocket, too.

You can use your academic smarts to whip every lay person to shame, but only on specifics (that many attorneys would also fail)....but you haven't been able to apply those details to the situation at hand, let alone explain how to things move forward in a just and peaceful way.

It's not sufficient to claim you're not particularly "exercised" about the ways/means people "exercise" their 1st Amendment Rights of Free Speech, Association/Assembly, or civil disobedience...but then ignore how it plays into the 2nd Amendment, when armed militiamen overtly threaten federal agents. Why are you deliberately ignoring the larger context and its ramifications?

[LittleFuzzy]

[QUOTE=GGT;151836]I've been talking about BLM's attempts to follow court orders (seize cattle and recoup fees/fines) while considering the political/cultural climate in Bunkerville -- people with anti-government sentiments who saw this as a First and Second Amendment issue (Free Speech + guns) -- who'd made it clear they were up for a battle. The enforcement agents faced a real dilemma on how to legally follow-through in an already dangerous situation, without escalating things further.

No, you've been talking about how Bundy is a criminal. The thread may involve everything above but the discussion between us, that's been you insisting I was wrong when I told Loki that Bundy hadn't committed a crime. I know you're now trying to Alber-argue and say we've been talking about something much broader this whole time but it's not true and we're going to keep having the argument we've actually been engaged in until you finally let the light in.

And you can be as pedantic all you like, citing statutes and precedents and procedural details on Bundy's behalf...but you haven't shown that BLM was doing anything outside its legal scope. Let alone how those agents were expected to proceed when faced with an armed mob.

I haven't tried to, I'm not going to, and it's not relevant to the objections you keep throwing at me. Try to sell the red herring to someone else. I don't like herring.

You can use your academic smarts to whip every lay person to shame, but only on specifics (that many attorneys would also fail)....but you haven't been able to apply those details to the situation at hand, let alone explain how to things move forward in a just and peaceful way.

Actually I have done that. Twice in fact. You apparently skipped over it though because it doesn't involve trying to charge Bundy with crimes he did not commit.

It's not sufficient to claim you're not particularly "exercised" about the ways/means people "exercise" their 1st Amendment Rights of Free Speech, Association/Assembly, or civil disobedience...but then ignore how it plays into the 2nd Amendment, when armed militiamen overtly threaten federal agents. Why are you deliberately ignoring the larger context and its ramifications?

Two reasons. First and foremost, the government is actually bound by the law. Considering the larger context and its ramifications is the responsibility of those who make new law (either legislatures or administrative and regulatory bodies) and not the people actually on the ground. Second, because when you say that, here, you're actually trying to Alber-argue. I never have and never will go along with your attempts to do so every time an argument turns against you besides explicitly calling out what you're trying to do.

[GGT]

No, you've been talking about how Bundy is a criminal. The thread may involve everything above but the discussion between us, that's been you insisting I was wrong when I told Loki that Bundy hadn't committed a crime. I know you're now trying to Alber-argue and say we've been talking about something much broader this whole time but it's not true and we're going to keep having the argument we've actually been engaged in until you finally let the light in.

Bundy has been violating federal laws and court decrees for over 20 years, while acknowledging his activities are in violation of federal laws and court orders. He just dismisses that as illegal or criminal behavior...because he doesn't recognize the judicial body saying so.

What are you doing, Fuzzy? Saying Bundy isn't exposed to criminal (aka illegal) charges, because he hasn't been arrested and detained by enforcement agents....when those agents were faced with armed insurgents challenging their jurisdiction?

If that's the legal "precedent" you want to use....how far does it go?

[LittleFuzzy]

Bundy has been violating federal laws and court decrees for over 20 years, while acknowledging his activities are in violation of federal laws and court orders. He just dismisses that as illegal or criminal behavior...because he doesn't recognize the judicial body saying so.

What are you doing, Fuzzy? Saying Bundy isn't exposed to criminal (aka illegal) charges, because he hasn't been arrested and detained by enforcement agents....when those agents were faced with armed insurgents challenging their jurisdiction?

If that's the legal "precedent" you want to use....how far does it go?

Is this like how Lewk refused to use correct punctuation/spelling? You're just going to keep saying "criminal" even though you know it's not, even though neither the Feds or even the journalists are trying to call it criminal and everyone on the board can recognize it, just because you either want to troll or are that flatly incapable of acknowledging reality?

[GGT]

Fuzzy, since you want to prove your academic prowess, go ahead, move this scenario forward. If you don't think Bundy did anything wrong (or criminal), explain that to constituents and judges who think otherwise.

Why are you hell-bent on protecting Bundy?

[Enoch the Red]

Fuzzy, since you want to prove your academic prowess, go ahead, move this scenario forward. If you don't think Bundy did anything wrong (or criminal), explain that to constituents and judges who think otherwise.

Why are you hell-bent on protecting Bundy?

You seem to have a problem understanding that difference between something being criminal and something being unlawful.

[LittleFuzzy]

Fuzzy, since you want to prove your academic prowess, go ahead, move this scenario forward. If you don't think Bundy did anything wrong (or criminal), explain that to constituents and judges who think otherwise.

Why are you hell-bent on protecting Bundy?

What constituents? And I'm not aware of any judge who thinks he did anything criminal. Got a cite? I'll move things forward when you demonstrate that you can finally grasp that criminal law is only one area of law. I can't move anything forward until that point because you keep insisting that anything besides crime isn't forward.

[Khendraja'aro]

You seem to have a problem understanding that difference between something being criminal and something being unlawful.

I wonder if wrong parking or speeding is criminal to her as well.

[Veldan Rath]

Kinda Lewkish, no?

[LittleFuzzy]

I wonder if wrong parking or speeding is criminal to her as well.

IIRC, traffic code violations are actually criminal-code issues for some states, so I didn't try to reach for running a red light as an example. It's still not criminal for the Feds, of course, since that's a local issue but I didn't even want to get in on Fed vs State differences with her. . . "quirky" conception of federalism.

[Khendraja'aro]

Yeah, but "mere" speeding usually isn't criminal (unless, of course, you endanger someone). Red lights are a different issue

[GGT]

What constituents? And I'm not aware of any judge who thinks he did anything criminal. Got a cite? I'll move things forward when you demonstrate that you can finally grasp that criminal law is only one area of law. I can't move anything forward until that point because you keep insisting that anything besides crime isn't forward.

Alright, since your main concern here is technical legalese....I'll stop using terms like a layperson -- where 'criminal' means unlawful or illegal acts

and 'crime' means violating *laws/legislation/codes/statutes/regulations/mandates/ordinances* (did I leave anything out there?) Please accept my apologies for using common or colloquial terms that distract Your Honor from the issues at hand.

Sarcasm aside, Bundy tried different ways to express his political views, but was found guilty liable violating *established rules* in a court of law, then ignored the judicial ruling (contempt of court). His fellow cattlemen/ranchers trade association that pays <very low, heavily subsidized> federal grazing fees, and tax payers who fund Agriculture/Farming subsidies, are the constituents who agree with the court.....and believe Bundy is on the WRONG side of things.

Other important constituents in this scenario are the residents of Bunkerville and surrounding small towns....who've registered complaints with their congressional representative and Sheriff Dept....because armed militiamen have <allegedly> set up "check-points" demanding people show 'proof of residency' in order to travel on public roads.

[LittleFuzzy]

Alright, since your main concern here is technical legalese....I'll stop using terms like a layperson -- where 'criminal' means unlawful or illegal acts

Lay people do use criminal to refer to someone engaged in illegal acts but the thing is, even the layperson is limiting their understanding of "illegal acts" to actual crimes there. Even laypeople do not look at zoning regulations and think "crime" when thinking about then those regulations aren't followed. Some may be unaware about whether an action is a crime or not and use the term mistakenly because they think something actually is a crime but they're still clear on the distinction. This blindness of yours is pretty unusual.

and 'crime' means violating *laws/legislation/codes/statutes/regulations/mandates/ordinances* (did I leave anything out there?)

No clue. But since you just threw everything and the kitchen sink wrt law into the list of "crime," I'm pretty sure you've still got no clue.

Sarcasm aside, Bundy tried different ways to express his political views, but was found violating *established rules* in a court of law,

I'm unclear on what you're saying. Did you mean he was ruled against by a court, or are you now also alleging that he didn't adhere to the rules of the court during proceedings? If you mean the latter then it is the first I've heard that claim and I'm going to again have to ask you for a cite.

then ignored the judicial ruling (contempt of court).

For the record, he has not been found to be in contempt. As yet, no attempt to initiate contempt proceedings have been made against him and any attempt to do so would actually require an evidentiary hearing *actions taken outside the sight of the court are a subset known as "indirect contempt" and need to be proven. Mitigating circumstances can preempt a finding of contempt, like the claim in that article Minx posted early on, or if Bundy can demonstrate that it's not really possible for him to comply with the court's earlier ruling(s)* He may be in contempt of court.

His fellow cattlemen/ranchers trade association that pays <very low, heavily subsidized> federal grazing fees, and tax payers who fund Agriculture/Farming subsidies, are the constituents who agree with the court.....and believe Bundy is on the WRONG side of things.

Other important constituents in this scenario are the residents of Bunkerville and surrounding small towns....who've registered complaints with their congressional representative and Sheriff Dept....because armed militiamen have <allegedly> set up "check-points" demanding people show 'proof of residency' in order to travel on public roads.

You are misusing the term "constituents." You're trying to use it as a synonym for "stakeholder" right? It's not, certainly not in the context of a legal dispute or the aftermath of one.

[GGT]

....

I'm unclear on what you're saying. Did you mean he was ruled against by a court, or are you now also alleging that he didn't adhere to the rules of the court during proceedings? If you mean the latter then it is the first I've heard that claim and I'm going to again have to ask you for a cite.

WTF....Bundy violated terms decided by court adjudications -- to stop grazing his cattle on federal lands AND to pay outstanding fines/fees.

For the record, he has not been found to be in contempt. As yet, no attempt to initiate contempt proceedings have been made against him and any attempt to do so would actually require an evidentiary hearing *actions taken outside the sight of the court are a subset known as "indirect contempt" and need to be proven. Mitigating circumstances can preempt a finding of contempt, like the claim in that article Minx posted early on, or if Bundy can demonstrate that it's not really possible for him to comply with the court's earlier ruling(s)* He may be in contempt of court.

So fucking what? None of that "excuses" Bundy from court orders to pay outstanding fees and additional fines....and to cease/desist grazing his cows on federal lands without proper permits/permissions/fees.

You are misusing the term "constituents." You're trying to use it as a synonym for "stakeholder" right? It's not, certainly not in the context of a legal dispute or the aftermath of one.

I'm using "constituents" in a political sense that ultimately translates to legislative representation. Bundy likes to say he only "recognizes" the sovereign state of Nevada, and not teh evil federal gummint.....but he doesn't/can't speak for his fellow Nevada constituents since he's not an elected official or legislator.

Again, why are you hell bent on defending Bundy's actions?

[Spenni]

WTF....Bundy violated terms decided by court adjudications -- to stop grazing his cattle on federal lands AND to pay outstanding fines/fees.



So fucking what? None of that "excuses" Bundy from court orders to pay outstanding fees and additional fines....and to cease/desist grazing his cows on federal lands without proper permits/permissions/fees.



I'm using "constituents" in a political sense that ultimately translates to legislative representation. Bundy likes to say he only "recognizes" the sovereign state of Nevada, and not the evil federal gummint.....but he doesn't/can't speak for his fellow Nevada constituents since he's not an elected official or legislator.

Again, why are you hell bent on defending Bundy's actions?

He's trying to explain to you that its not a criminal offense, its a civil offense:

Pretty much Bundy owes a whole bunch of back rent for using government property because he refuses to pay said rent. The government sued him through the courts. Got a court order for him to pay back rent, and also to collect whatever property he had left on government land to be sold at auction in order to cover said rent..... Sound familiar, now replace "rent" with fees and property " with cattle".

Now lets say the government aka the "landlord" comes to try to collect your property ( the cows) and kick you off the their land and you stop them from doing so. That legal, as long as you don't physical harm said person or entity representing the landlord ( government)it the process of preventing them from getting their stuff, your good. because the federal government in this case is not Authority, its just another party.

The sheriff on the other hand, wading through this whole mess is actually in sheriffs job description. And guess what the sheriff managed to negotiate a deal with both sides.

Now I am by no means a lawyer and business law as a class was 6 years ago. But I'm pretty sure I'm following good enough Myself.

Besides isn't fuzzy a lawyer anyway? And if he isn't he like the forum resident athourity on this. And if I am right on both of those why would argue said person, when you should just trust his answer O_o?

[GGT]

No, Fuzzy is not a lawyer, attorney, or esquire. As far as I know, he's also not a registered paralegal assistant.

[Aimless]

He does however know what "criminal" means in the legal sense you seem to be missing the point that defining something as criminal entails different consequences and different standards than defining it as a civil offense.

[LittleFuzzy]

WTF....Bundy violated terms decided by court adjudications -- to stop grazing his cattle on federal lands AND to pay outstanding fines/fees.

*bangs head into the wall* And now you're conflating rulings and contempt. GGT, listen to me. You can divide the legal process into three phases. Investigation and trial proceedings, the formal ruling (and appeals but appellant action hasn't come up here), and the post-ruling resolution. You insist on combining these incessantly. In the earlier post, you were combining the first two. You said he violated "established rules in a court" which sounds like he went against procedure in the first phase, the trial proceedings. So I asked if you meant that, or if you had mistakenly said that but meant he lost and a ruling against him was made by the court. Instead of answering that, you've now said "WTF" and started talking about Bundy's behavior in post-ruling resolution. Which would fit with the contempt discussion but we'd been talking about that in a different segment.

GGT, stop trying to communicate about law in. . . whatever framework you personally use. Please, please, if you want to talk about law use the legal framework so there's a chance of actually understanding you.

So fucking what? None of that "excuses" Bundy from court orders to pay outstanding fees and additional fines....and to cease/desist grazing his cows on federal lands without proper permits/permissions/fees.

Actually, it can and could excuse him from doing that. I tend to doubt any such conditions actually apply but as I've repeatedly said, "contempt" is just odd and I don't have a handle on procedural requirements at that level. I am not actually a lawyer. What I do know is that, so far, there has been no movement toward a contempt hearing.

I'm using "constituents" in a political sense that ultimately translates to legislative representation. Bundy likes to say he only "recognizes" the sovereign state of Nevada, and not teh evil federal gummint.....but he doesn't/can't speak for his fellow Nevada constituents since he's not an elected official or legislator.

I was afraid of that. So you are really, really, misusing the term. Nevada does not have "constituents." The federal government does not have "constituents." You use "constituents" when referring to those electing a specific or general set of legislators. It is a reference term establishing the specific set of voting public in relation to the legislators who are your topic subject. Since you're talking about someone who has no office and is running for no office, you can't use constituents. They aren't his constituents, or those of Nevada, or the country. You want "citizens."

[quote[Again, why are you hell bent on defending Bundy's actions? [/QUOTE]

I'm not defending Bundy's actions. I'm defending honest representation, reality, the law, and the English language against the assaults you keep trying to launch on them.

Spenni, IANAL, I am not a lawyer. My actual course of study in college would probably have met most ideas for "pre-law" but I haven't gone to law school. My knowledge comes from that, from a fair amount of reading, knowing how to do legal research online or in a law library, and from growing up and still living around a lot of lawyers.

Oh, and GGT? Certification is not a requirement to be a paralegal. I have, in fact, done work as a legal assistant and I believe the only statutory barrier I'd have to pass to represent myself as a paralegal here in California would be completing four hours of legal ethics education *i.e. I'd have to go attend a seminar*

[GGT]

He does however know what "criminal" means in the legal sense you seem to be missing the point that defining something as criminal entails different consequences and different standards than defining it as a civil offense.

But he's been too busy correcting my terminology to actually discuss what Bundy and his militia supporters have been doing in Bunkerville.

GGT, stop trying to communicate about law in. . . whatever framework you personally use. Please, please, if you want to talk about law use the legal framework so there's a chance of actually understanding you.

I'm trying to discuss this particular scenario -- where a man with anti-federal government beliefs butts heads with federal authorities because he doesn't recognize their legitimacy/validity, then encourages militiamen to actively confront law enforcement agents, using guns/weapons in threatening ways that escalate the situation.

That's the framework. Even though the whole mess does involve laws, it has broader implications and consequences (including politics, media, public safety, etc.) The stand-off won't be resolved by citing case law, precedent, or jurisdiction to the guy who doesn't recognize federal authority/agency/legitimacy.

I was afraid of that. So you are really, really, misusing the term. Nevada does not have "constituents." The federal government does not have "constituents." You use "constituents" when referring to those electing a specific or general set of legislators. It is a reference term establishing the specific set of voting public in relation to the legislators who are your topic subject. Since you're talking about someone who has no office and is running for no office, you can't use constituents. They aren't his constituents, or those of Nevada, or the country. You want "citizens."

OMG! Fine....CITIZENS pay the taxes that fund the BLM -- and give federal subsidies to authorized ranchers who graze cattle on specific land. Since those things are ultimately decided by elected legislative representatives (at state AND national levels), that means every tax payer and/or voter is a constituent.

Let's not get into parsing citizenship, since non-citizens and undocumented residents also pay taxes that fund federal agencies, okay?

Oh, and GGT? Certification is not a requirement to be a paralegal. I have, in fact, done work as a legal assistant and I believe the only statutory barrier I'd have to pass to represent myself as a paralegal here in California would be completing four hours of legal ethics education *i.e. I'd have to go attend a seminar*

And let's not get bogged down by yet *another* group of terms using legal standards/definitions/recognitions!


Fuzzy, have you stopped reading news reports about the situation still developing in Bunkerville and surrounding towns, or what? Just because BLM agents "stood down" didn't mean the dilemma was resolved. Bundy still refuses to pay outstanding fees and fines, continues to encourage (incite?) armed militia and separatist political groups....who are intimidating (threatening?) people using public roads, and local businesses.

Those 'constituents' are complaining to elected officials, from Assemblymen to Congressmen to Senators. Those people threw it back to the local Sheriff -- the same Sheriff who stood on a dais with Bundy as a 'supporter' of Nevada state sovereignty. Pickle-in-the-middle....who has the jurisdiction and legality authority to bring this stand-off to an end, and how should they proceed?

Where are the statutes and citations that encompasses all that?

[LittleFuzzy]

But he's been too busy correcting my terminology to actually discuss what Bundy and his militia supporters have been doing in Bunkerville.

The BLM engaged in a lawful attempt to seize property, they were opposed by a mostly₁ legal protest by militia-types, and the BLM backed down, at least temporarily. Some militia have left, others are lingering, in expectation of further federal action or to visibly support Bundy's grandstanding. You view this with alarm. I view it with apathy. You repeatedly insist it's criminal. I point out again and again that it's not. Semantics is something where position B might technically be the case but it doesn't make any actual difference. This is not so here, whether something is criminal or something else makes a great deal of difference. You may choose to be blind to that, but your blindness has never changed something.

I'm trying to discuss this particular scenario -- where a man with anti-federal government beliefs butts heads with federal authorities because he doesn't recognize their legitimacy/validity, then encourages militiamen to actively confront law enforcement agents, using guns/weapons in threatening ways that escalate the situation.

No, you got into it with me because you objected to my accurately correcting Loki and are only now finally willing to start inching toward the concession that maybe I was right. You may be trying to shift things to a different subtopic to try and avoid ever having to acknowledge there's crow on your plate but discussion really does take at least two parties.

The stand-off won't be resolved by citing case law, precedent, or jurisdiction to the guy who doesn't recognize federal authority/agency/legitimacy.

No, the "stand-off" is going to be resolved in one of three ways. The Feds are going to get Bundy from a direction protestors can't block, they're going to wait for the protestors to go away and try again, or they're going to write the whole thing off as not worth the cost. I do not think the middle option isn't particularly likely. None of your blather and concern about the idea of armed protestors matter a whit for the first and since I'm neither a "law and order" type nor a gun fearmonger, I don't mind the last in the slightest.

OMG! Fine....CITIZENS pay the taxes that fund the BLM -- and give federal subsidies to authorized ranchers who graze cattle on specific land. Since those things are ultimately decided by elected legislative representatives (at state AND national levels), that means every tax payer and/or voter is a constituent.

Let's not get into parsing citizenship, since non-citizens and undocumented residents also pay taxes that fund federal agencies, okay?

No, it does not mean every tax payer and/or voter is a "constituent," not in general and certainly not wrt thoughts/feelings/concerns about this confrontation. And GGT, if you think ranchers support the BLM on this, you're nuts. They may not support Bundy and his call to militias but they and lots of others in the West have been fighting (and losing to) federal land management for the last 40 years. They are sore and resentful. Kindly take note that your suburban (Midwest, right?) values and opinions are not universally held.

And let's not get bogged down by yet *another* group of terms using legal standards/definitions/recognitions!

Again, nothing semantic about it. Well, maybe you tried to make a point that was ultimately mere semantics, but I didn't. You decided to deride my knowledge by saying I was not a registered paralegal, which was an attempt at an authority fallacy. Unable to do more than spit wind against anything I say wrt the law, you tried to argue that my lack of such registered status indicated I had no legal background. Unfortunately, you were wrong even there. I do have a legal background and my knowledge is equivalent to that of someone qualified to represent themselves as a paralegal.

Fuzzy, have you stopped reading news reports about the situation still developing in Bunkerville and surrounding towns, or what? Just because BLM agents "stood down" didn't mean the dilemma was resolved. Bundy still refuses to pay outstanding fees and fines, continues to encourage (incite?) armed militia and separatist political groups....who are intimidating (threatening?) people using public roads, and local businesses.

Those 'constituents' are complaining to elected officials, from Assemblymen to Congressmen to Senators. Those people threw it back to the local Sheriff -- the same Sheriff who stood on a dais with Bundy as a 'supporter' of Nevada state sovereignty. Pickle-in-the-middle....who has the jurisdiction and legality authority to bring this stand-off to an end, and how should they proceed?

Where are the statutes and citations that encompasses all that?

I have, in fact, mostly been ignoring what little reference comes up in the papers since Bundy made that racist diatribe, same as I only gave the topic passing attention until it came up on here. Since you decided to bring it up, though, I've gone back and looked. And what I've found is not much from the locals. Some complaints about the local sheriff "being AWOL," a lot of criticism of the BLM, a mention that the police in Mesquite keep getting questions from abroad about whether it's safe to travel through (they say it is) and a whole bunch of verbiage from a guy from the House of Representatives, like a claim that an anonymous 5th-grader came up to him and complained about Bundy's "sense of entitlement." His grandstanding is worth even less than Bundy's. I have not seen much of any sign in the press about the locals feeling threatened by the presence of armed protesters in the general area. It wouldn't surprise me if they did feel that way but I really don't give a rat's ass about whether people feel threatened by others who are still following the law. And neither should you. The only reason you do so is, again, these are activists on the opposing side, politically. I don't recall you caring about anyone concerned about WTO protestors. You dismissed people concerned about Occupy and actively supported them and they did far more damage (including to each other) than anything that has happened or is likely to happen in that area of Nevada.

Where are the statutes and citations that encompass all that? Primarily they're in the US Constitution under protections like freedom of assembly. I think people exercising their rights and being socially and politically active is a good thing. I wish you were fair and honest enough to think the same even when you don't like the views they espouse.

^{1 I'm willing to concede the claim that the protesters engaged in misdemeanor obstruction of justice: impeding the execution of a court order. No one appears interested in prosecuting this, which is not surprising. Mass misdemeanors are routinely ignored, armed or unarmed. It's just not practical to try and punish group behavior that way.}

[GGT]

The BLM engaged in a lawful attempt to seize property, they were opposed by a mostly₁ legal protest by militia-types, and the BLM backed down, at least temporarily. Some militia have left, others are lingering, in expectation of further federal action or to visibly support Bundy's grandstanding. You view this with alarm. I view it with apathy.

The residents of Bunkerville and Mesquite don't share your apathy. Hell, US citizens don't view this with apathy, either.

You repeatedly insist it's criminal. I point out again and again that it's not. Semantics is something where position B might technically be the case but it doesn't make any actual difference. This is not so here, whether something is criminal or something else makes a great deal of difference. You may choose to be blind to that, but your blindness has never changed something.

The only thing I've said is that Bundy has repeatedly ignored and/or violated several standards -- Rules, Regulations, Laws, however you want to categorize them, as civil or criminal, local or national.

No, you got into it with me because you objected to my accurately correcting Loki and are only now finally willing to start inching toward the concession that maybe I was right. You may be trying to shift things to a different subtopic to try and avoid ever having to acknowledge there's crow on your plate but discussion really does take at least two parties.

FFS....I've been saying all along that MORE than two 'parties' are at play here, and that the sub-topics (which you flippantly ignore) influence the situation more than your legal lectures.

No, the "stand-off" is going to be resolved in one of three ways. The Feds are going to get Bundy from a direction protestors can't block, they're going to wait for the protestors to go away and try again, or they're going to write the whole thing off as not worth the cost. I do not think the middle option isn't particularly likely. None of your blather and concern about the idea of armed protestors matter a whit for the first and since I'm neither a "law and order" type nor a gun fearmonger, I don't mind the last in the slightest.

That's a strange way to defend your theories and suppositions. You're basically saying you don't give a goddamm about the citizens who've complained about armed militiamen stopping them on public roadways to check ID. Or armed men with high-powered weaponry positioned on public roadways like snipers. Or bomb threats made to hotels/motels housing BLM agents.

You don't have to be a "law and order" type to see how many wrongs or rights, conflicting interests, or legal dilemmas are at play.

Go ahead, Fuzzy --- tell everyone how to resolve this scenario, since you know so much about Law......

[Aimless]

Seriously though what the fuck is up with the armed checkpoints and roving patrols hassling residents? Put these idiots in jail ffs.

[LittleFuzzy]

Seriously though what the fuck is up with the armed checkpoints and roving patrols hassling residents? Put these idiots in jail ffs.

I've looked and found no substantiation to the claim that the people still there have been doing anything like this. It's hot air from the Congressman I mentioned. He said he has heard allegations that they've been doing this. I have no found any reporting or other material supporting this, justblogs and internet spots like gawker citing him and echoing the claim. Since I found that small spot about the Mesquite police reassuring people that yes, it's safe and since I haven't found a single news report or photo of a militia checkpoint (which is something that would appear on the wire in hours), what we're seeing here is GGT's confirmation bias leading her to parrot a pack of lies. I can't speak to "roving patrols hassling" people. All three of those terms can govern behavior ranging from someone in a militia window shopping while dressed in fatigues to a squad of militia surrounding grandmas on the street and barking hostile questions at 'em. I want to say that, again, the lack of real reporting on it is telling but it may be that's too strong a negative. I'll settle for just being skeptical and noting that the source is GGT.

The residents of Bunkerville and Mesquite don't share your apathy. Hell, US citizens don't view this with apathy, either.

I haven't seen anything from them beyond that they're tired of all this.

The only thing I've said is that Bundy has repeatedly ignored and/or violated several standards -- Rules, Regulations, Laws, however you want to categorize them, as civil or criminal, local or national.

Uh huh. That's why you've used "crime" and "criminal" something like 20 times so far in this thread.

FFS....I've been saying all along that MORE than two 'parties' are at play here, and that the sub-topics (which you flippantly ignore) influence the situation more than your legal lectures.

And reading comprehension fail. The "two parties" would be you and the person you're having a discussion with. Which I think may have been only me in this thread. I'm not certain you've engaged in an actual exchange with anyone else in here so far.

That's a strange way to defend your theories and suppositions. You're basically saying you don't give a goddamm about the citizens who've complained about armed militiamen stopping them on public roadways to check ID. Or armed men with high-powered weaponry positioned on public roadways like snipers. Or bomb threats made to hotels/motels housing BLM agents.

You don't have to be a "law and order" type to see how many wrongs or rights, conflicting interests, or legal dilemmas are at play.

Go ahead, Fuzzy --- tell everyone how to resolve this scenario, since you know so much about Law......

It's hard to care about the trauma of something which never happened. The way to solve this scenario is for you to relax your confirmation bias a bit and be a bit more skeptical about what you read on the internet. Or do you get this stuff from some station trying to challenge conservative talk radio?

[Flixy]

I'd say the only real problem might be if it sets a precedent and this kind of thing will happen more often - at some point that's likely to have a more violent outcome than now. But really, authorities not intervening in a protest in order to avoid violence (which in situations with as many guns as this is likely to end with deaths) is a good thing, not bad. Do you really want a waco like standoff over back payments?

[Enoch the Red]

But really, authorities not intervening in a protest in order to avoid violence (which in situations with as many guns as this is likely to end with deaths) is a good thing, not bad. Do you really want a waco like standoff over back payments?

This is more or less my position on the subject.

[Loki]

I.E. The government should back off whenever someone threatens it with violence.

[Flixy]

I.E. The government should back off whenever someone threatens it with violence.

No, but when threatened with violence that can easily be avoided while still achieving their goals (either later or through different means), they probably should. Avoiding deaths is a good thing. At least, I prefer to live in a country where the police avoids violence whenever it can to a country where police rigidly enforces the law, no matter what the cost.

And what exactly would be achieved by escalating the situation?

[LittleFuzzy]

I.E. The government should back off whenever someone threatens it with violence.

Force is usually a poor way to deal with large groups in any settled society. We really should cross off "machismo by proxy" as a decent rationale for almost any endeavor, Loki.

[Enoch the Red]

I.E. The government should back off whenever someone threatens it with violence.

While that is one conclusion that could be drawn from what I said, and I'm certain it is the conclusion that you think scores you the most rhetorical points, it is probably also one spawned by little to no critical thinking. Another, more insightful conclusion would be that the use of force isn't always necessary, and when confronted with a situation that might escalate quickly it makes sense to make a judgement call as to whether or not the response would fit the realities on the ground, and the associated costs in both blood and treasure. I don't think there are many sane individuals who would consider this situation worth violence on either side, let alone the monetary costs of the operation itself. This man poses no existential threat to the US Government, the state of Nevada, or his neighbors. I don't think a boot heel is necessary.

[Loki]

No, but when threatened with violence that can easily be avoided while still achieving their goals (either later or through different means), they probably should. Avoiding deaths is a good thing. At least, I prefer to live in a country where the police avoids violence whenever it can to a country where police rigidly enforces the law, no matter what the cost.

And what exactly would be achieved by escalating the situation?

Are we talking about the same police that uses SWAT teams and shoot-first tactics when trying to arrest petty drug dealers? Uses of force that I don't recall people on the right complaining about. Hypocrisy aside, law enforcement must not only enforce the law but also be seen as enforcing the law. Otherwise, the entire legal system loses legitimacy. Negotiating with a criminal in order to limit violence or waiting until the criminal is not in a crowded area is one thing. Simply refusing to enforce the law because of the possibility of violence is quite another.

While that is one conclusion that could be drawn from what I said, and I'm certain it is the conclusion that you think scores you the most rhetorical points, it is probably also one spawned by little to no critical thinking. Another, more insightful conclusion would be that the use of force isn't always necessary, and when confronted with a situation that might escalate quickly it makes sense to make a judgement call as to whether or not the response would fit the realities on the ground, and the associated costs in both blood and treasure. I don't think there are many sane individuals who would consider this situation worth violence on either side, let alone the monetary costs of the operation itself. This man poses no existential threat to the US Government, the state of Nevada, or his neighbors. I don't think a boot heel is necessary.

Are those really criteria you want to be employing when deciding whether to use force against law-breakers? Might as well abandon all operations against gangs; they cost a fortune and the gangs aren't exactly on the verge of conquering the US.