Charges Against Bundys in Ranch Standoff Case Are Dismissed

[hobbsyoyo]

Even I knew that because I bothered researching before commenting (on the other thread). But I also had a first reaction of "black lives matter? WTH?" when first say it. It is interesting how many people just assumed it meant another thing. As I have mentioned before, reasoning based on prejudiced is ineradicable, people just don't have the time to research things properly and when they don't, just assume whatever better fits their world-view or convenience.

Trial by mass media and public opinion will always be a problem.

It's really not when you consider we've had a wave of hyperconservative DL's show up and shoehorn every conversation into an attack on anything they perceive as liberal.

 

[Broken_Erika]

It's really not when you consider we've had a wave of hyperconservative DL's show up and shoehorn every conversation into an attack on anything they perceive as liberal.

Shoehorns are a conspiracy created by the liberal media elite to sell communist footwear! Real 'Muricans use Chainsaws!

 

[Commodore]

they never have committed violence,

Yes they have. Remember when Bundy's people seized a national wildlife refuge? Yeah, that was a violent act. One of his people even ended up getting shot (rightfully so) by police when the standoff came to an end because he violently resisted.

Also, committing violence doesn't necessarily involve the actual use of force. The threat of the use of force is a violent act as well. If I enter your home with a gun, just sit down on your couch and start watching TV, and I subtly flash the gun every time it looks like you are going to ask me to leave, I have just committed a violent act against you despite not actually shooting you.

That's what Bundy's militia did in Oregon. They took over the wildlife refuge's HQ while armed and threatened to use those weapons against anyone who attempted to drive them out. That is a violent act.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Yes they have. Remember when Bundy's people seized a national wildlife refuge? Yeah, that was a violent act. One of his people even ended up getting shot (rightfully so) by police when the standoff came to an end because he violently resisted.

Also, committing violence doesn't necessarily involve the actual use of force. The threat of the use of force is a violent act as well. If I enter your home with a gun, just sit down on your couch and start watching TV, and I subtly flash the gun every time it looks like you are going to ask me to leave, I have just committed a violent act against you despite not actually shooting you.

That's what Bundy's militia did in Oregon. They took over the wildlife refuge's HQ while armed and threatened to use those weapons against anyone who attempted to drive them out. That is a violent act.

That is so obviously a violent act that the fact you had to explain it is remarkable in itself.

 

[Berzerker]

Has friend shot dead - got off. Men with idiot terrorism sentences for weed fires - still in prison. Despite the fact that this isn't a total loss, it's still a straight loss for anyone that isn't a ... well, people of contemptible character. You know, violent losers and wannabe violent losers.

I agree this was a sordid affair and I blame Bundy for starting it... I was sympathetic at first because I object to the feds owning so much land out west, but if they didn't own it someone else would - the states, counties, private buyers, etc... If any of those owned the land he was using for his livestock he'd owe them instead of Uncle Sam. What happens if he doesn't wanna pay them either? He complains, recruits martyrs to his 'cause', and gets his friend killed. But he got off instead when he should be in jail. And in a way he is, I'm sure he's figured out his role in his friend's death. Now he's a prisoner to the remorse anyone with a conscience would feel.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I agree this was a sordid affair and I blame Bundy for starting it... I was sympathetic at first because I object to the feds owning so much land out west, but if they didn't own it someone else would - the states, counties, private buyers, etc... If any of those owned the land he was using for his livestock he'd owe them instead of Uncle Sam. What happens if he doesn't wanna pay them either? He complains, recruits martyrs to his 'cause', and gets his friend killed. But he got off instead when he should be in jail. And in a way he is, I'm sure he's figured out his role in his friend's death. Now he's a prisoner to the remorse anyone with a conscience would feel.

You assume that he has a functional conscience. In much greater probability he considers his dead friend a martyr that was unjustly slain in the battle against injustice that he is totally right to be waging.

 

[Commodore]

But he got off instead when he should be in jail. And in a way he is, I'm sure he's figured out his role in his friend's death. Now he's a prisoner to the remorse anyone with a conscience would feel

Bundy doesn't strike me as someone with a conscience though. He most likely still blames the feds for his friend's death.

 

[Farm Boy]

There's Hateboner, on queue.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

There's Hateboner, on queue.

Is defending the Bundy clan a hill worth anyone dying on, really?

 

[Farm Boy]

No, not even LaVoy, but evil men will kill regardless.

Speaking of death and who we're afraid of, a helpful guide how not-to-be-a-federal terrorist while we're at it.

Spoiler :

 

[Berzerker]

I watched the video about burns, must resist the diy vids following it

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I watched the video about burns, must resist the diy vids following it

I did too. Must say that California is much more authoritarian when it comes to controlled burns.

 

[Nexlev]

I didn't think it was necessary to specify that I meant violence against a person.

I thought it was clear what I meant though. The Bundy's committed violence against government property I suppose, and you could say that Keystone protestors and wounded knee protesters committed violence against real property as well.

I guess we could have that debate, but someone is going to have to mansplain to the judge about how the federal governments enforcement actions were totally justified to defend against the imminent threat to the refuge. Not it!

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I didn't think it was necessary to specify that I meant violence against a person.

I thought it was clear what I meant though. The Bundy's committed violence against government property I suppose, and you could say that Keystone protestors and wounded knee protesters committed violence against real property as well.

I guess we could have that debate, but someone is going to have to mansplain to the judge about how the federal governments enforcement actions were totally justified to defend against the imminent threat to the refuge. Not it!

The threat was to staff and users of the refuge. That's what an armed occupation is...a threat to anyone who has need or desire to use the place being occupied.

Mansplained?

 

[Berzerker]

hateboner, that was funny... these guys were out there in the dead of winter, they wouldn't have lasted very long if they were being ignored... If it bleeds, it leads. Sometimes that might include making the blood start flowing. But now that I remember this case, they weren't up there because of Bundy, they were up there because some people had a burn get out of control and the govt didn't like it, or they actually wanted to move them off their land, or something.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Well, the people who "had a burn get out of control" were never more than borderline convincing about whether they really had any interests in controlling it. They had no evidence they had prepared by watching the recommended videos, for example. Some people were left to imagine that perhaps they had just started the fire as a protest, then when the word "arson" started getting casually tossed about they came up with the whole 'lost control of a controlled burn' defense off the cuff.

I make no claims as to what actually happened.

 

[Commodore]

I didn't think it was necessary to specify that I meant violence against a person.

They did commit violence against people though. They threatened to shoot any government agent that attempted to dislodge them from a space they were illegally occupying. And remember, we have already established that threatening the use of force is a violent act just as much as actually using force is.

There's simply no way you can spin this to make Bundy and his little band of wannabe terrorists look like an innocent group of peaceful, nonviolent protestors.

As an aside, I think Bundy and his ilk got off pretty light by just being arrested. If I were president at the time, I would have declared his little group to be a violent insurgency attempting to overthrow the government and ordered the Air Force to drop a bomb on the building they were occupying.

 

[Berzerker]

ouch, dont mess with the Commodore

 

[Timsup2nothin]

As an aside, I think Bundy and his ilk got off pretty light by just being arrested. If I were president at the time, I would have declared his little group to be a violent insurgency attempting to overthrow the government and ordered the Air Force to drop a bomb on the building they were occupying.

There were ways to kill them all without doing that much damage to the building. I supported those, at the time.

 

[Nexlev]

Fair enough Commodore, I think I missed the overall point of your post. I think ultimately we're just on different paradigms, you value the rule of law more than I do and I value non-violence towards citizens more.... law enforcement should avoid escalating the situation. It seems you're pretty congruent, not to typecast but you sound like the kind of conservative that believes in empowering law enforcement, stiff criminal penalties, "blue lives matter"