• 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

digitusmedius

digitusmedius

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
13,914
Reaction score
4,086
Location
Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
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.

In addition to the conspiracy charge and assault charges, the complaint accuses Bundy of the use and carry of a firearm in relation to a crime of violence; obstruction of justice; interference of commerce by extortion; and aiding and abetting.
Click to expand...

And:

The complaint said Bundy and his unnamed co-conspirators used the internet and other facilities of interstate commerce to "knowingly broadcast false, deceitful, and deceptive images and messages for the purpose of recruiting Followers."

It points specifically to a "deceptive" video called "Range War," which the complaint says Bundy used to "recruit" followers in the lead-up to the cattle removal operation, as well as to speeches Bundy and his conspirators made urging his followers to "stand up" to law enforcement.

It also accused Bundy and his conspirators of brandishing their weapons at officers, making threats and interfering with their duties.
Click to expand...

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

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.
 
Interesting line we are developing between civil disobedience and domestic terrorism.
 
TurtleDude said:
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 don't think so. That all fits with the conspiratorial nature of the acts which were to encourage armed resistance and threat to federal officers in the carrying out of lawful duties.
Click to expand...
 
digitusmedius said:
I don't think so. That all fits with the conspiratorial nature of the acts which were to encourage armed resistance and threat to federal officers in the carrying out of lawful duties.
Click to expand...

it all depends how the indictment reads. many people on both sides of the aisle are first amendment absolutists and claims that a political assertion is "false" is going to rankle lots of people. Same with stuff criticizing the government short of actually making clear and presently dangerous threats against actual members of the government
 
OrphanSlug said:
Interesting line we are developing between civil disobedience and domestic terrorism.
Click to expand...

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
 
OrphanSlug said:
Interesting line we are developing between civil disobedience and domestic terrorism.
Click to expand...

Civil disobedience generally is a passive refusal to obey laws and willingness to suffer the legal consequences, not actively threatening violence against the government or taking over public property under arms and threatening to fight to the death to remain on it. The Bundyistas have gone far beyond any semblance of the types of civil disobedience we associated with the civil rights protests of the 60s, for example. They resemble much more the Black Panther Party's ideas of armed revolution and we know how that got handled. These mooks are being handled with kid gloves by comparison.
 
TurtleDude said:
it all depends how the indictment reads. many people on both sides of the aisle are first amendment absolutists and claims that a political assertion is "false" is going to rankle lots of people. Same with stuff criticizing the government short of actually making clear and presently dangerous threats against actual members of the government
Click to expand...

It stops being just "speech" when dozens of armed men show pointing weapons at federal agents and officers. If you've seen the pictures of the showdown at Bunkerville in 2014 you will see exactly what a "clear and present danger" the BLM agents were up against. It appears the government has a good deal of evidence including video of that stand off.
 
digitusmedius said:
It stops being just "speech" when dozens of armed men show pointing weapons at federal agents and officers.
Click to expand...

you are confused. showing up with arms is an action that may or may not be illegal depending on if the arms are owned legally and if the arms are used or not used as a threat. telling people to gather is not against the law

telling people to exercise their second amendment rights is not against the law

telling people to show up and THREATEN with force of arms, government agents is likely to be illegal

and of course THREATENING government agents with firearms is illegal
 
I really dont know, would the feds just load up the charges and see what shakes out?
 
digitusmedius said:
Civil disobedience generally is a passive refusal to obey laws and willingness to suffer the legal consequences, not actively threatening violence against the government or taking over public property under arms and threatening to fight to the death to remain on it. The Bundyistas have gone far beyond any semblance of the types of civil disobedience we associated with the civil rights protests of the 60s, for example. They resemble much more the Black Panther Party's ideas of armed revolution and we know how that got handled. These mooks are being handled with kid gloves by comparison.
Click to expand...

What MLK and his followers did, like Rosa Parks was civil disobedience against unjust discriminatory laws. What the Bundy family did was exploit violence and threats against the government to further their own criminal profiteering of the government grazing rights. It is high time that Bundy get's his ass handed for his crimes.
 
TurtleDude said:
you are confused. showing up with arms is an action that may or may not be illegal depending on if the arms are owned legally and if the arms are used or not used as a threat. telling people to gather is not against the law

telling people to exercise their second amendment rights is not against the law

telling people to show up and THREATEN with force of arms, government agents is likely to be illegal

and of course THREATENING government agents with firearms is illegal
Click to expand...

You can't seriously look at even just the still pictures of the stand off at Bunkerville and tell youself that those armed men didn't represent a threat to the officers. Look at the sniper placements for christsake. Those gunsters didn't just "show up." They had federal agents in their sights.
 
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...

digitusmedius said:
Civil disobedience generally is a passive refusal to obey laws and willingness to suffer the legal consequences, not actively threatening violence against the government or taking over public property under arms and threatening to fight to the death to remain on it. The Bundyistas have gone far beyond any semblance of the types of civil disobedience we associated with the civil rights protests of the 60s, for example. They resemble much more the Black Panther Party's ideas of armed revolution and we know how that got handled. These mooks are being handled with kid gloves by comparison.
Click to expand...

I have little disagreement with either one of you, which presents the very problem I am eluding to.

The Bundy's and crew have gone too far in their concerns with government authority, and the subject motivating them itself is up for debate on who really owns who, who has or should have access to, and for what reason.

For the purposes of this thread though, there is little in the complaint that is inaccurate or some sort of overreach. Nothing about their actions suggested passive refusal to obey unjust laws, in fact they took an action suggesting some sort of proportional response they did not really get.

If I were to on my own accord go seize government property, even some other bird watching station, odds are I would be dealing with the police and really damn fast.

My issue is how we are blurring these lines depending on who is doing the action and the reason(s) behind it, in history's context the final steps of civil disobedience is outright rebellion against that authority regardless. Something has to give and often we see branding of the movement for political reasons first, for the actions secondary. There could be much more too this in the long run. Not because I agree with the Bundy's at all (and I don't, lets make that clear,) but because I see the government overreach in other aspects of our lives somewhat illustrated by TurtleDude. The Patriot Act is a classic example of sidestepping the Constitution, so is some of the fallout from the so called War on Drugs.
 
Peter King said:
What MLK and his followers did, like Rosa Parks was civil disobedience against unjust discriminatory laws. What the Bundy family did was exploit violence and threats against the government to further their own criminal profiteering of the government grazing rights. It is high time that Bundy get's his ass handed for his crimes.
Click to expand...

Exactly.
 
mak2 said:
I really dont know, would the feds just load up the charges and see what shakes out?
Click to expand...

Of course they would. Not all of the mud has to stick, but if you throw enough, some of it will.

The Bundyites were guilty of the charges, but those charges have to be proven. If they can't prove one, but can prove another, then justice is served.
 
OrphanSlug said:
My issue is how we are blurring these lines depending on who is doing the action and the reason(s) behind it, in history's context the final steps of civil disobedience is outright rebellion against that authority regardless. Something has to give and often we see branding of the movement for political reasons first, for the actions secondary. There could be much more too this in the long run. Not because I agree with the Bundy's at all (and I don't, lets make that clear,) but because I see the government overreach in other aspects of our lives somewhat illustrated by TurtleDude. The Patriot Act is a classic example of sidestepping the Constitution, so is some of the fallout from the so called War on Drugs.
Click to expand...

First I want to say that I tried to give this comment a "like" but the button wasn't there. But I do want to focus on this part and ask for a contemporary example analogous to Bundy behavior (not just general discomfort with the PA which I share in abundance) that was dealt with differently than it is now.
 
OrphanSlug said:
I have little disagreement with either one of you, which presents the very problem I am eluding to.

The Bundy's and crew have gone too far in their concerns with government authority, and the subject motivating them itself is up for debate on who really owns who, who has or should have access to, and for what reason.

For the purposes of this thread though, there is little in the complaint that is inaccurate or some sort of overreach. Nothing about their actions suggested passive refusal to obey unjust laws, in fact they took an action suggesting some sort of proportional response they did not really get.

If I were to on my own accord go seize government property, even some other bird watching station, odds are I would be dealing with the police and really damn fast.

My issue is how we are blurring these lines depending on who is doing the action and the reason(s) behind it, in history's context the final steps of civil disobedience is outright rebellion against that authority regardless. Something has to give and often we see branding of the movement for political reasons first, for the actions secondary. There could be much more too this in the long run. Not because I agree with the Bundy's at all (and I don't, lets make that clear,) but because I see the government overreach in other aspects of our lives somewhat illustrated by TurtleDude. The Patriot Act is a classic example of sidestepping the Constitution, so is some of the fallout from the so called War on Drugs.
Click to expand...

Well, yeah. There are a lot of areas where government either overreaches or simply does as it damned well pleases. But, at the same time, we all know where we are not supposed to tread, and if we do tread there, we should expect the hammer to come down. Common sense.

I may not like the drug laws, but I am not about to start selling cocaine to people at a dance club because I think my right to do so supersedes the laws against selling hard drugs. Same applies to these Bundy clowns and whatever they did to piss off the federal government.
 
mak2 said:
I really dont know, would the feds just load up the charges and see what shakes out?
Click to expand...

Well, sure. That's pretty much s.o.p., I think. There might even be a negotiating strategy to get Bundy (and the Malheur occupiers) to plead guilty to some of the more minor charges to avoid going to trial on the more serious ones. But judging by their defiance and what's probably a desire to use a trial to showcase their grievances I suspect they won't go for plea bargaining. To do so would seriously undermine their self-appointed leadership of this rebellion, I'd think.
 
calamity said:
Well, yeah. There are a lot of areas where government either overreaches or simply does as it damned well pleases. But, at the same time, we all know where we are not supposed to tread, and if we do tread there, we should expect the hammer to come down. Common sense.

I may not like the drug laws, but I am not about to start selling cocaine to people at a dance club because I think my right to do so supersedes the laws against selling hard drugs. Same applies to these Bundy clowns and whatever they did to piss off the federal government.
Click to expand...

What they did to piss off the federal government was to use public land for their own profit without paying for the privilege.
 
Dittohead not! said:
What they did to piss off the federal government was to use public land for their own profit without paying for the privilege.
Click to expand...

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.
 
digitusmedius said:
First I want to say that I tried to give this comment a "like" but the button wasn't there. But I do want to focus on this part and ask for a contemporary example analogous to Bundy behavior (not just general discomfort with the PA which I share in abundance) that was dealt with differently than it is now.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom