• 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!

Militia around Bundy Ranch set up checkpoints, demand papers, control taffic flow

jamesrage said:
If they want to stand up for ranchers' rights then it should be those whose land is being seized by eminnent domain for the Keystone XL, not some deadbeat who refuses to pay his bills.Its hard to rally behind a deadbeat.
Click to expand...

But they're in favor of the pipeline because exporting gasoline to China is going to make us energy independent (somehow).
 
TheNextEra said:
Doesn't matter who camed armed first, there is NOTHING that gives these "militia" people the right to stop cars and ask for "proof" of where they live.

Has nothing to do with gun rights, etc, these people right now are overstepping their bounds.
Click to expand...

Where's the proof of that? So far, all we have is a story told by a demo politician....What proof do you have that it is indeed happening?
 
CRUE CAB said:
I would love to see them try. You think the feds are ready to fight more than a million people?
Click to expand...

IF these people continue the harrassment of others by stopping them and demanding them to "prove" where they live, yes the feds will not only be willing to but people will be demanding it.

FYI these people are LOSING public support by what they are doing now.

What gives these people the right to stop cars?
 
TheNextEra said:
IF these people continue the harrassment of others by stopping them and demanding them to "prove" where they live, yes the feds will not only be willing to but people will be demanding it.

FYI these people are LOSING public support by what they are doing now.

What gives these people the right to stop cars?
Click to expand...

First you have to prove that is what is happening....So far in this thread all I see is a demo politician saying that this is happening, and the complicit local news outlet not even bothering to check it out, just taking his word and running with it....Is that what you are doing too?
 
j-mac said:
First you have to prove that is what is happening....So far in this thread all I see is a demo politician saying that this is happening, and the complicit local news outlet not even bothering to check it out, just taking his word and running with it....Is that what you are doing too?
Click to expand...

So, we're going to question the source instead of having anything to say about the reports? Can't comment honestly because of partisan concerns?

(These are all thrown at liberals who question Fox. I'm just throwing it back.)
 
rocket88 said:
So, we're going to question the source instead of having anything to say about the reports? Can't comment honestly because of partisan concerns?

(These are all thrown at liberals who question Fox. I'm just throwing it back.)
Click to expand...

I am questioning because of the lack of proof of claim. We don't just take the word of people without something to back up their claims...Or at least hopefully so....This isn't about "News 8" as much as it is about the man making the claim....
 
Jerry said:
What bout him?
Click to expand...

Well you were all upset that I think that the guy on the bridge committed a crime (even though I showed the law that he broke and the photo evidence proving it). What crimes are these militia check points committing? I agree that I would treat them the same way that you asserted regardless of law. SO far though it sounds much like a rumor, until some evidence comes forward I will treat it as a rumor. It just seems a bit hypocritical to assume innocence for the guy on the bridge but not some story about guys and a checkpoint.

I know that I have thrown people out of the area of my house before, sure they had every legal right to be there but they were up to no good and listened to me lol.

Honestly though if I lived anywhere near Bunkerville I would insist on driving through their checkpoints. After all when a local rancher was doing a similar thing as Bundy I went to the grazing allotment and broke a illegal locked gate just because he was being a asshole. My family has been hunting that area for over a century he wasnt going to stop me. hat is the thing that doesnt get out much, that ranchers on public lands believe they actually own the land and think they can dictate what happens on that land. They even go as far as locking gates and putting up no trespassing/hunting signs.
 
DiAnna said:
Yeah, just waiting for the hordes of Bundy supporters to gallop in screaming, "Revoluuuutiooooon!!!"

Totally illegal, stopping people at gunpoint, creating checkpoints, playing soldier in the hopes that they'll finally get to shoot someone so their boring lives will be redeemed in one massive bloodbath that will go down in history with Waco and Ruby Ridge.

Except it'll probably go down in history as Whacko and the Cow Huggers. A couple dozen snipers on the overpass was a bad enough provocation; this is completely out of line.
Click to expand...

Maybe we can get them all in one spot and they can have their revolution to get it out their system so we can focus on important things
 
Paleocon said:
I would be careful about that. False imprisonment isn't a felony and as such the use of deadly force in resistance or in effecting a citizen's arrest is not justified, of course if they actually point a gun at you then it is justified in self defense (no duty to retreat for a person not engaged in illegal activity), but I would be careful not to be the first to point a gun.
Click to expand...

It most certainly is in Nevada.

http://www.leg.state.nv.us/nrs/nrs-200.html#NRS200Sec460

NRS 200.460  Definition; penalties.
1.  False imprisonment is an unlawful violation of the personal liberty of another, and consists in confinement or detention without sufficient legal authority.
2.  A person convicted of false imprisonment shall pay all damages sustained by the person so imprisoned, and, except as otherwise provided in this section, is guilty of a gross misdemeanor.
3.  Unless a greater penalty is provided pursuant to subsection 4, if the false imprisonment is committed:
(a) By a prisoner in a penal institution without a deadly weapon; or
(b) By any other person with the use of a deadly weapon,
Ê the person convicted of such a false imprisonment is guilty of a category B felony and shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a minimum term of not less than 1 year and a maximum term of not more than 6 years.
4.  Unless a greater penalty is provided pursuant to subsection 5, if the false imprisonment is committed by using the person so imprisoned as a shield or to avoid arrest, the person convicted of such a false imprisonment is guilty of a category B felony and shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a minimum term of not less than 1 year and a maximum term of not more than 15 years.
5.  If the false imprisonment is committed by a prisoner who is in lawful custody or confinement with the use of a deadly weapon, the person convicted of such a false imprisonment is guilty of a category B felony and shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a minimum term of not less than 1 year and a maximum term of not more than 20 years.
[1911 C&P § 175; RL § 6440; NCL § 10122]—(NRS A 1967, 472; 1981, 614; 1995, 1190; 2003, 387)
Click to expand...
 
FreedomFromAll said:
Well you were all upset that I think that the guy on the bridge committed a crime (even though I showed the law that he broke and the photo evidence proving it).
What crimes are these militia check points committing? I agree that I would treat them the same way that you asserted regardless of law. SO far though it sounds much like a rumor, until some evidence comes forward I will treat it as a rumor. It just seems a bit hypocritical to assume innocence for the guy on the bridge but not some story about guys and a checkpoint.

I know that I have thrown people out of the area of my house before, sure they had every legal right to be there but they were up to no good and listened to me lol.

Honestly though if I lived anywhere near Bunkerville I would insist on driving through their checkpoints. After all when a local rancher was doing a similar thing as Bundy I went to the grazing allotment and broke a illegal locked gate just because he was being a asshole. My family has been hunting that area for over a century he wasnt going to stop me. hat is the thing that doesnt get out much, that ranchers on public lands believe they actually own the land and think they can dictate what happens on that land. They even go as far as locking gates and putting up no trespassing/hunting signs.
Click to expand...
In that conversation we were talking about proving something in court.

Here, we're not talking about proving something court. Here, we're talking about reacting to a situation.

Totally different laws and legal standards apply. In court you prove "beyond a reasonable doubt", but when reacting, you don't. When reacting you just have to be "in reasonable fear", you don't have to prove anything.

If I were on the bridge with that guy I would have maced him, kicked the **** out him while he was on the ground, cuffed him and called the cops; because I would have had "a reasonable fear" that he was committing or about to commit violent felines with a firearm, from attempted murder on a LEO to reckless endangerment of the protesters in his field of fire.
 
Last edited:
Paleocon said:
My bad. I noticed that there were circumstances where it is a felony, but I didn't notice the "use of a deadly weapon" provision.

So yes, it seems that if they are detaining you with a gun then you can use lethal force in self defense.
Click to expand...

Just detaining anyone, firearm or not is unlawful.

If it were I stopped by someone, other than the law, I'd be on the phone calling the law.
 
AJiveMan said:
Just detaining anyone, firearm or not is unlawful.
Click to expand...
The charges just stack up. Stop someone and it's unlawful imprisonment. Detain them more than 5 minutes and it's kidnapping. Order them out of their car and it's car-jacking. Imply any potential use of force and it's assault. Actually use force and it's battery.

Do any of these while a firearm is on your body and they're automatically federal offences.
 
Jerry said:
In that conversation we were talking about proving something in court.

Here, we're not talking about proving something court. Here, we're talking about reacting to a situation.

Totally different laws and legal standards apply. In court you prove "beyond a reasonable doubt", but when reacting, you don't. When reacting you just have to be "in reasonable fear", you don't have to prove anything.

If I were on the bridge with that guy I would have maced him, kicked the **** out him while he was on the ground, cuffed him and called the cops; because I would have had "a reasonable fear" that he was committing or about to commit violent felines with a firearm, from attempted murder on a LEO to reckless endangerment of the protesters in his field of fire.
Click to expand...

Correction: you were talking about providing something in court, I was not. And your "macing" and kicking ass make the same presumptions that I was trying to convey. But for some reason you were stuck on the court thing that you brought up despite the fact that I never did.


But it would appear that we should take these checkpoints seriously. Steven Horsford the local Congressman has made a official inquiry. SO it seems to be more than just some obscure News 8 story.


"Dear Sheriff Gillespie,

I am writing to bring your attention to the ongoing situation in northeastern Clark County which has caused many of my constituents to fear for their safety.

Residents of Bunkerville and the surrounding area have expressed concern over the continual presence of multiple out-of-state, armed militia groups that have remained in the community since the BLM halted its actions to impound the cattle of Cliven Bundy earlier this month.

My constituents have expressed concern that members of these armed militia groups:

1. Have set up checkpoints where residents are required to prove they live in the area before being allowed to pass;
2. Have established a persistent presence along federal highways and state and county roads; and
3. Have established an armed presence in or around community areas including local churches, school, and other community locations.

We must respect individual constitutional liberties, but the residents of and visitors to Clark County should not be expected to live under the persistent watch of an armed militia. Their continual presence has made residents feel unsafe and maligned a quiet community’s peaceful reputation.

Residents have expressed their desire to see these groups leave their community. I appreciate the responsiveness and accessibility you and your office have provided during this difficult time for those directly impacted by the situation. I urge you to investigate these reports and to work with local leaders to ensure that their concerns are addressed in a manner that allows the community to move forward without incident.

Sincerely,

Steven Horsford
Member of Congress"
 
AJiveMan said:
Just detaining anyone, firearm or not is unlawful.

If it were I stopped by someone, other than the law, I'd be on the phone calling the law.
Click to expand...

Right, but I'm specifically talking about whether or not it's a felony.

I agree.

Jerry said:
Do any of these while a firearm is on your body and they're automatically federal offences.
Click to expand...

Incorrect.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
Correction: you were talking about providing something in court, I was not.
Click to expand...
There's the answer to your question, then. Here and now neither of us are talking about proving anything in court, so about the guy on the bridge: irrelevant reference.
 
Paleocon said:
Right, but I'm specifically talking about whether or not it's a felony.

I agree.



Incorrect.
Click to expand...

Yes, to detain anyone unlawfully is a felony . That's usually why security guards at places like malls and walmart stores are instructed by their superiors, in some states, to obtain a description of a person or persons, their vehicle and license plate numbers if possible, and to not detain or try to detain shoplifters or employees suspected of wrongdoing or theft.
The link is but one example;

A Wal-Mart Employee Wins a False-Imprisonment Lawsuit | Dallas Legal Examiner | Dallas Texas Personal Injury Lawyer
 
danarhea said:
Actually, they are committing false imprisonment, which is highly illegal. My opinion is that the Feds should just move in and mop up.
Click to expand...

This the state's and county's jurisdiction, not the Feds. The Feds have ****ed up enough; they need to stay out of it.
 
AJiveMan said:
Just detaining anyone, firearm or not is unlawful.

If it were I stopped by someone, other than the law, I'd be on the phone calling the law.
Click to expand...

Who was detained?
 
AJiveMan said:
Yes, to detain anyone unlawfully is a felony . That's usually why security guards at places like malls and walmart stores are instructed by their superiors, in some states, to obtain a description of a person or persons, their vehicle and license plate numbers if possible, and to not detain or try to detain shoplifters or employees suspected of wrongdoing or theft.
The link is but one example;

A Wal-Mart Employee Wins a False-Imprisonment Lawsuit | Dallas Legal Examiner | Dallas Texas Personal Injury Lawyer
Click to expand...

Actually it's ordinarily a misdemeanor, as noted in the statute.
 
Paleocon said:
Actually it's ordinarily a misdemeanor, as noted in the statute.
Click to expand...

In Nevada, gross misdemeanor.
But, thanks for making me look it up.

200.460. False Imprisonment: Definition; penalties

1. False imprisonment is an unlawful violation of the personal liberty of another, and consists in confinement or detention without sufficient legal authority.

2. A person convicted of false imprisonment shall pay all damages sustained by the person so imprisoned, and, except as otherwise provided in this section, is guilty of a gross misdemeanor.

3. Unless a greater penalty is provided pursuant to subsection 4, if the false imprisonment is committed:

(a) By a prisoner in a penal institution without a deadly weapon; or

(b) By any other person with the use of a deadly weapon,
Click to expand...
 
apdst said:
This the state's and county's jurisdiction, not the Feds. The Feds have ****ed up enough; they need to stay out of it.
Click to expand...

Um, these militia members are NOT authorized by either the state or the county. They are insurgents, which need to be eliminated.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom