• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

READ: The Criminal Complaint Against Cliven Bundy for the 2104 Ranch Showdown

OrphanSlug said:
That may be tough to do. I do not know of many other examples of a group seizing public property as a means to get the attention of, protest, aggravate, what have you the government they are displeased with. My personal take using myself as an example was a bit whimsical I'll admit.

We want to say that how the Bundy case was handled seems to be the exception to the rule, but only in the context of dealing with various degrees of mob mentality. Of which we have plenty of examples of protests that turned violent only to end up with a militarized police response. In all seriousness I do not know of many other examples of a "hands off" approach to dealing with some group hell bent on causing a problem. Those counter actions being successful or quick being another discussion.

It is almost like we should be asking how we got to this point, instead of looking for examples where government quickly squashed some rebellious act that seems to go well beyond everyone's opinion on civil disobedience.

Best I can do after a bourbon or two.
Click to expand...

Waco.
 
TurtleDude said:
threats against officers, menacing with weapons, etc are clearly illegal and should merit punishment
same with interference with the lawful duties of government agents.

the using the internet to disseminate "false" images or messages for the purpose of recruiting followers is going to run into some serious first amendment obstacles I predict.
Click to expand...

I somewhat agree with you on this. However, with first amendment rights come first amendment responsibilities. Cliven Bundy has every right to bitch at the government, but he doesn't have the right to incite violence.
 
OrphanSlug said:
Those guys seize government property?
Click to expand...

the above charges are for the Nevada incident in 2014 not the occupation of the birdhouse last month. I got the two confused too.
 
TurtleDude said:
threats against officers, menacing with weapons, etc are clearly illegal and should merit punishment
same with interference with the lawful duties of government agents.

the using the internet to disseminate "false" images or messages for the purpose of recruiting followers is going to run into some serious first amendment obstacles I predict.
Click to expand...

Yep. I'm curious to see how they make the "interfering with commerce" charges stick. Wire fraud approach perhaps. But, whatever it is the case will have reach if it goes to court because a lot of people are saying stupid things on the Internet.
 
danarhea said:
I somewhat agree with you on this. However, with first amendment rights come first amendment responsibilities. Cliven Bundy has every right to bitch at the government, but he doesn't have the right to incite violence.
Click to expand...

true but that's a gray area. were the Ferguson MO protestors inciting violence against governmental agents and citizens?
 
TurtleDude said:
true but that's a gray area. were the Ferguson MO protestors inciting violence against governmental agents and citizens?
Click to expand...

They didn't even charge the guy who said, "Burn this bitch down!"
 
Last edited:
calamity said:
They didn't even charge the guy who said, "Burn this bitch down!"
Click to expand...

Of course not, he might have looked like Obama or LL's son
 
OrphanSlug said:
Best I can do after a bourbon or two.
Click to expand...

Good enough and a bourbon (or two) for medicinal and cognitional purposes cannot be dismissed. As for how we got to this I suspect the memories of the Ruby Ridge and the Branch Davidian disasters were at work at the top levels of law enforcement although the circumstances for those two events were quite different from one another as they both were to the Malheur standoff. I think there was a determination to do everything possible to avoid creating martyrs out of these criminals. And it was successful even with Finicum's determination to try to be one.
 
digitusmedius said:
READ: The Criminal Complaint Against Cliven Bundy For 2014 Ranch Showdown

Looks like they're throwing the book at this parasite. About time. I love how his arrogance in leaving his compound ("Bunkerville") thinking he was untouchable made it easy to arrest him.



And:



Apology for the typo in the threat title. Hope Moderator can correct it to 2014.
Click to expand...

"knowingly broadcast false, deceitful, and deceptive images and messages for the purpose of recruiting Followers."

Is lying illegal now?

Somebody should tell Hillary.
 
Last edited:
calamity said:
Then the other band of merry nutcases decided to set fire to the federal land, IIRC. And, then they whined because there were repercussions. And, in protest, they seized a birdhouse.

Yeah. How they expected all would be forgiven because, well it was "their right and the government overreached," is beyond me.
Click to expand...

I think the complaint was about re-sentencing after the term was served, not the actual consequence in the first place.

Nobody would be happy if that happened.
 
Mason66 said:
I think the complaint was about re-sentencing after the term was served, not the actual consequence in the first place.

Nobody would be happy if that happened.
Click to expand...

Result of mandatory minimums. The first judge ignored them. It would be like a liberal judge sentencing a crack dealer to a year when the mandatory minimum is 5. That wouldn't fly either.
 
Mason66 said:
"knowingly broadcast false, deceitful, and deceptive images and messages for the purpose of recruiting Followers."

Is lying illegal now?

Somebody should tell Hillary.
Click to expand...

And Trump, Cruz, Bush, Rubio, etc, etc. As for the actual legal case against Bundy, if the government can show his lying was material to creating the armed threat against federal officers it certainly can be considered part of the overall crime.
 
Last edited:
TurtleDude said:
the war on terror and the backlash against too much government is clearly straining our constitutional boundaries. The war on drugs was a direct affront to the Second, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Ninth and Tenth amendments as have been parts of the patriot act
Click to expand...

Well, this is generally true, but not applicable to the Bunkerville situtation or the more recent rehash out on the wildlife preserve.

Taking over federal property while being heavily armed and making threats to go down fighting if the government tries to get you out has never been a constitutional right. Neither is banding together and pointing guns at a bunch of federal agents (or anyone, for that matter) in a bid to protect squatters who stole from the public by refusing to pay grazing fees for use of federal land.
 
calamity said:
Result of mandatory minimums. The first judge ignored them. It would be like a liberal judge sentencing a crack dealer to a year when the mandatory minimum is 5. That wouldn't fly either.
Click to expand...

Mandatory minimums are an abomination. That is one thing the occupiers got right.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Mandatory minimums are an abomination. That is one thing the occupiers got right.
Click to expand...

The irony here is that it is folks like those who supported the Bundy clan that demanded the minimums in the first place...when it applied to inner city drug dealers.
 
calamity said:
The irony here is that it is folks like those who supported the Bundy clan that demanded the minimums in the first place...when it applied to inner city drug dealers.
Click to expand...

Lots of people like the idea, just as long as it applies to someone else.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Lots of people like the idea, just as long as it applies to someone else.
Click to expand...

I'm a judge guy. I understand nuance. So, for me, it makes no sense to take discretion away from the guy who knows the most about an individual case.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom