Charges Against Bundys in Ranch Standoff Case Are Dismissed

[Nexlev]

For whatever it's worth, I think the Bundy's are guilty of multiple crimes, but that there were multiple examples of government misconduct that should be addressed and I think Navarro made the right call, this is the right precedent.

To clear up a minor point, the snipers brought in by the BLM were during the cattle roundup in Nevada, about 1.5 years prior to the Malheur occupation.

 

[FriendlyFire]

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,

The American Indians would like their country back /s

Its seems most of the land left under federal ownership is mostly all the bits of crap land left after years of sales, despite this most of the ranchers cant afford to buy massive amounts of federal land
The states dont WANT this crap land because it is money losing proposition for them to manage.
In effect the Federal government has subsidized the cattle grazing and industry.

States government will either has to increase grazing fees and/or slash management cost
I suppose it could fire sale the land to private corporations and said corporations can then increases fees while also slashing management cost. No one will buy the land if they cannot make profit from it that why all that left is mostly all the crap stuff

 

[Timsup2nothin]

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"

Not to answer for Commodore...and I think I have a reasonable foundation to say that *I* am not the "empowering law enforcement, stiff criminal penalties, blue lives matter" sort...but I think a 'we have taken up arms and occupied a public building with the intent to hold it by force, killing as necessary' situation is already escalated sufficiently that the only consideration is ending it. Sorry, but in my estimation 'draw a gun, eat a bullet' is a very natural and appropriate outcome.

 

[Commodore]

ouch, dont mess with the Commodore

The guy stole from the government by allowing his cattle to graze on federal land without paying the associated fees, and tried to get a violent rebellion started when the government finally came to collect what was rightfully owed to them. That attempt at rebellion included the forcible occupation of a national wildlife reserve which resulted in the death of one of his followers.

This guy is scum and is trying to turn his own selfish attitudes into some political crusade about how "rural folk are oppressed by the evil feds!". He is willing to sacrifice the lives of others just to save a few dollars for his cattle business. If there was ever someone who completely fits the definition of "enemy of the people" Bundy is it. Someone like that doesn't deserve mercy. The fact that the federal government did show him mercy when he deserved none only serves to highlight just how in the wrong Bundy was, both legally and morally.

Also, part of the oath I took when I enlisted in the Army was to protect the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic. I would consider Bundy and anyone who follows him a domestic enemy, meaning military action against them would be completely justified.

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

The bombing would be to send a message to anyone else who may have been having thoughts of following in Bundy's footsteps. Make them seriously consider the reality of the path they are considering going down and whether or not these extremely petty and minor (and not to mention, unjustified) grievances are worth dying for.