WV Hunter
Active member
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2009
- Messages
- 1,763
Automatic Weapons huh? Why do reporters have to lie?
A counter to the Bundy sympathies
- Thread starter Big Fin
- Start date
elkantlers
Well-known member
The BLM did not want to release the cattle back but they had no choice. The BLM contacted several large stock holding facilities in several different states to take the cattle and they were turned down on all accounts.
Just to add, I'm pretty sure surprise isn't allowed by the laws/rules regarding this. I'm pretty positive that public notice has to be given prior to starting an impoundment. I think at minimum in a local paper and probably in the Federal Register as well.
T
tjones
Guest
From the MailOnline story I like this line from a Bundy supporter...
"One car parked at the site had a warning that anyone born after 1980 could have had a chip implanted in their body by the US Government."
"One car parked at the site had a warning that anyone born after 1980 could have had a chip implanted in their body by the US Government."
Time to shoot the trespassing cattle from a helicopter. Bundy can sue the government for damages. We'll consider settling 20 years from now.
jryoung
Well-known member
Brilliant, Wildlife Services could have honed their skills.
smarandr
Well-known member
Nah, then all that beef would go to waste. I like the idea of Nevada Fish and Game issuing cattle tags to illegal aliens. Then we can monitor the hunt with predator drones and when an Illegal harvests their heifer we can confiscate it and send them back to whence they came. That ought to make everyone happy
noharleyyet
Well-known member
MinnesotaHunter
Well-known member
I have no issue with them enforcing it, but was going out and seizing cattle the smart move? Why not deal with Cliven Bundy; who is the real problem? I am guessing that if the government wanted to they could have criminalized him for a number of reasons throughout the years, if for nothing else terroristic threats, and then go arrest the guy.
The problem becomes when you go out and face off with these crazies, and you don't really have a good plan to solve the problem. The BLM agents didn't follow through because they weren't ready to kill people over cows, and my argument would be that they shouldn't go out there and posture like they are willing to. You can say they had all of that stuff for self defense, but what that really means is that, I am willing to kill you with my M4 carbine over where your cows are. Once you decide to walk around with body armor and an M4 carbine, you better be damned serious about what you are willing to do.
To me this sounds like something the BLM should have worked with the IRS and had the debt levied against Bundy's taxes. I am pretty sure those D.C. lawyers could figure it out, and if he refuses to pay arrest him. I guess I just can't understand why they would go out there if they know they are going to be threatened with deadly force just to seize some cows. If you are going to go in and do something like this, then do your homework, get a warrant, and send in the marshals. It will be super easy to deal with the cows after that, plus you will have gotten rid of the real problem.
I really feel sorry for the armed professionals that went out there and risked there lives, under leadership that didn't know what the hell they were doing.
BuzzH
Well-known member
...and has absolutely nothing to do with Bundy trespassing for 20 years.
Show me a single shred of evidence that any of the Bundy leases are going to be turned into solar farms.
I'll save you the effort...there isnt any.
Double up on the tinfoil...
JoseCuervo
New member
Is there something sinister about having a Director of the BLM come from a state with lots of BLM ground?
Or is it just a good opportunity to toss some boogie man/ Harry Reid nonsense in to a discussion?
Please don't forget Fast & Furious, Benghazi, and Kenya.
MinnesotaHunter
Well-known member
So if the real issue here is Cliven Bundy has been trespassing for 20 years, and owes 1.1 Million dollars to the Federal Government, why did they only go out to seize his cows? Why haven't they arrested him? He is a criminal, correct?
JoseCuervo
New member
There was a chain of events. Mr. Bundy could have paid his fees and/or removed his cattle any time since 1993. Mr Bundy chose NOT to.
Everything after 1993 is because of Mr. Bundy.
The reason the BLM set up the perimeter and the "1st Amendment Zones" was because of threats/promises Mr. Bundy made. And, as shown by his kid's actions, he was ready to disrupt the process of gathering the cattle.
As Mr. Bundy parades around with a bunch of members of the Lawn Chair Militias, it obvious Mr. Bundy is quite comfortable with people who want to engage in violence with the Federal Government. It looks like all of the BLM's actions to prepare for the cattle gather were completely justified.
Mr. Bundy has escalated this. And, Mr. Bundy could pay his $1million any time now, and remove his cattle from My Public Lands, and this would quickly de-escalate.
noharleyyet
Well-known member
Just rolling the credits Hayduke, if they put sand in your gizzard, don't read em.
JoseCuervo
New member
They are following the Judge's orders.
The judge ordered Mr. Bundy's cows off the land.
Because thus far this has been handled through the civil process via an injunction and subsequent court orders to remove the cows.
If Mr. Bundy is in contempt of a court order, an arrest warrant can be issued and served. Do you honestly think that arresting him would make this situation any less volatile? In my opinion, it would make it more so.
Also, you still have the pink elephant in the room, which is the 900 head of livestock that are illegally grazing on BLM land. At some point, you have to "get them gone", right? Isn't that the whole point here?
Handling this via the IRS would only make Mr. Bundy delinquent with two federal agencies instead of one, so I don't see how you gain anything there.
You can keep stating that it's only about cows. I guess it is, up until the point where it's about defiance of court orders and breaking the law.
It is my guess that the BLM underestimated the number of wingnut militia members that would enter the fray, and when the realized the imminent potential for gunfire decided to regroup and reassess. I imagine the next visit will involve the FBI and US Marshalls.
MinnesotaHunter
Well-known member
Agreed, I read the court order, and I am not questioning the actions of the USFS and BLM agents that went out to round up the cows. My question is why did the Federal government (DOI) not seek to recover the money owed and consider criminal prosecution of Cliven Bundy?
It looked like they were willing to risk a lot of human life to round up those cows, so if they were that serious why not pursue the issue fully?
MinnesotaHunter
Well-known member
I think you are exactly right. The BLM and USFS thought they could roll out in force and intimidate the Bundys into compliance through the appearance of overwhelming force. (I use the word intimidate because that is exactly what it means, I am not trying to use some anti-gov boogie man word). The whole time they were not willing to use the force they were advertising. Subsequently the Bundys called their bluff and called up a bunch of their militia buddies after the agents tazed one of his sons on video tape. To be clear this occurred prior to the militias and other radicals arriving, and was in fact the catalyst that brought them. At this point the all was lost, and I have a feeling it is not going to go better if they go back. Where does this leave us? My thought is they will not be successful here if they continue to treat the cows as the issue, Cliven Bundy is making an overt decision to break the law, if they don't deal with him, this issue will continue to fester.
And, to that end I think this was and is a no-win situation for the BLM.
I work in law enforcement. It's been my repeated experience over the years that if you roll in with the entire calvary and arrest people, then you are heavy handed and taking things farther than they need to be. If you don't and things go awry, you're stupid and you should have known better.
Personally, I think the BLM was wise to attempt the approach they did at first, despite the outcome. I think if they had arrested Bundy prior to the roundup a violent outcome was guaranteed. I don't see ti so much as an attempt to intimidate, rather they were bringing what they thought were adequate resources.
I work in law enforcement. It's been my repeated experience over the years that if you roll in with the entire calvary and arrest people, then you are heavy handed and taking things farther than they need to be. If you don't and things go awry, you're stupid and you should have known better.
Personally, I think the BLM was wise to attempt the approach they did at first, despite the outcome. I think if they had arrested Bundy prior to the roundup a violent outcome was guaranteed. I don't see ti so much as an attempt to intimidate, rather they were bringing what they thought were adequate resources.
MinnesotaHunter
Well-known member
Maybe my perspective comes from operating in the different environment. I think the word intimidate has a negative connotation, but I think it is accurate and I don't necessarily think it is bad if it achieves its objective which is to prevent violence. Intimidating bad guys is ok in my view, but the situation has to be taken into account.
You might have an opinion on this. Sometimes I wonder if LE agencies struggle when they transition to a situation where they need to use more military style tactics used by SWAT, FBI, ETC? I know the military struggles when we are put into a LE role as we were in Iraq. I have never walked in your shoes, but I would assume it would require a significant change in mindset, and in a scenario like this could this be why things went a little sideways for them?
