Gov. & Cattle

[Aimless]

Seriously though what the fuck is up with the armed checkpoints and roving patrols hassling residents? Put these idiots in jail ffs.

[LittleFuzzy]

Seriously though what the fuck is up with the armed checkpoints and roving patrols hassling residents? Put these idiots in jail ffs.

I've looked and found no substantiation to the claim that the people still there have been doing anything like this. It's hot air from the Congressman I mentioned. He said he has heard allegations that they've been doing this. I have no found any reporting or other material supporting this, justblogs and internet spots like gawker citing him and echoing the claim. Since I found that small spot about the Mesquite police reassuring people that yes, it's safe and since I haven't found a single news report or photo of a militia checkpoint (which is something that would appear on the wire in hours), what we're seeing here is GGT's confirmation bias leading her to parrot a pack of lies. I can't speak to "roving patrols hassling" people. All three of those terms can govern behavior ranging from someone in a militia window shopping while dressed in fatigues to a squad of militia surrounding grandmas on the street and barking hostile questions at 'em. I want to say that, again, the lack of real reporting on it is telling but it may be that's too strong a negative. I'll settle for just being skeptical and noting that the source is GGT.

The residents of Bunkerville and Mesquite don't share your apathy. Hell, US citizens don't view this with apathy, either.

I haven't seen anything from them beyond that they're tired of all this.

The only thing I've said is that Bundy has repeatedly ignored and/or violated several standards -- Rules, Regulations, Laws, however you want to categorize them, as civil or criminal, local or national.

Uh huh. That's why you've used "crime" and "criminal" something like 20 times so far in this thread.

FFS....I've been saying all along that MORE than two 'parties' are at play here, and that the sub-topics (which you flippantly ignore) influence the situation more than your legal lectures.

And reading comprehension fail. The "two parties" would be you and the person you're having a discussion with. Which I think may have been only me in this thread. I'm not certain you've engaged in an actual exchange with anyone else in here so far.

That's a strange way to defend your theories and suppositions. You're basically saying you don't give a goddamm about the citizens who've complained about armed militiamen stopping them on public roadways to check ID. Or armed men with high-powered weaponry positioned on public roadways like snipers. Or bomb threats made to hotels/motels housing BLM agents.

You don't have to be a "law and order" type to see how many wrongs or rights, conflicting interests, or legal dilemmas are at play.

Go ahead, Fuzzy --- tell everyone how to resolve this scenario, since you know so much about Law......

It's hard to care about the trauma of something which never happened. The way to solve this scenario is for you to relax your confirmation bias a bit and be a bit more skeptical about what you read on the internet. Or do you get this stuff from some station trying to challenge conservative talk radio?

[Flixy]

I'd say the only real problem might be if it sets a precedent and this kind of thing will happen more often - at some point that's likely to have a more violent outcome than now. But really, authorities not intervening in a protest in order to avoid violence (which in situations with as many guns as this is likely to end with deaths) is a good thing, not bad. Do you really want a waco like standoff over back payments?

[Enoch the Red]

But really, authorities not intervening in a protest in order to avoid violence (which in situations with as many guns as this is likely to end with deaths) is a good thing, not bad. Do you really want a waco like standoff over back payments?

This is more or less my position on the subject.

[Loki]

I.E. The government should back off whenever someone threatens it with violence.

[Flixy]

I.E. The government should back off whenever someone threatens it with violence.

No, but when threatened with violence that can easily be avoided while still achieving their goals (either later or through different means), they probably should. Avoiding deaths is a good thing. At least, I prefer to live in a country where the police avoids violence whenever it can to a country where police rigidly enforces the law, no matter what the cost.

And what exactly would be achieved by escalating the situation?

[Loki]

No, but when threatened with violence that can easily be avoided while still achieving their goals (either later or through different means), they probably should. Avoiding deaths is a good thing. At least, I prefer to live in a country where the police avoids violence whenever it can to a country where police rigidly enforces the law, no matter what the cost.

And what exactly would be achieved by escalating the situation?

Are we talking about the same police that uses SWAT teams and shoot-first tactics when trying to arrest petty drug dealers? Uses of force that I don't recall people on the right complaining about. Hypocrisy aside, law enforcement must not only enforce the law but also be seen as enforcing the law. Otherwise, the entire legal system loses legitimacy. Negotiating with a criminal in order to limit violence or waiting until the criminal is not in a crowded area is one thing. Simply refusing to enforce the law because of the possibility of violence is quite another.

While that is one conclusion that could be drawn from what I said, and I'm certain it is the conclusion that you think scores you the most rhetorical points, it is probably also one spawned by little to no critical thinking. Another, more insightful conclusion would be that the use of force isn't always necessary, and when confronted with a situation that might escalate quickly it makes sense to make a judgement call as to whether or not the response would fit the realities on the ground, and the associated costs in both blood and treasure. I don't think there are many sane individuals who would consider this situation worth violence on either side, let alone the monetary costs of the operation itself. This man poses no existential threat to the US Government, the state of Nevada, or his neighbors. I don't think a boot heel is necessary.

Are those really criteria you want to be employing when deciding whether to use force against law-breakers? Might as well abandon all operations against gangs; they cost a fortune and the gangs aren't exactly on the verge of conquering the US.

[Enoch the Red]

Are we talking about the same police that uses SWAT teams and shoot-first tactics when trying to arrest petty drug dealers? Uses of force that I don't recall people on the right complaining about. Hypocrisy aside, law enforcement must not only enforce the law but also be seen as enforcing the law. Otherwise, the entire legal system loses legitimacy. Negotiating with a criminal in order to limit violence or waiting until the criminal is not in a crowded area is one thing. Simply refusing to enforce the law because of the possibility of violence is quite another.

I know of several self-proclaimed conservatives who are very worried about the increasing militarization of the police.

Are those really criteria you want to be employing when deciding whether to use force against law-breakers? Might as well abandon all operations against gangs; they cost a fortune and the gangs aren't exactly on the verge of conquering the US.

I'm at something of a loss, but seeing as how you had it in bold I'll assume that you actually took the time to read it. So let's take a look at it again:

"I don't think there are many sane individuals who would consider this situation worth violence on either side, let alone the monetary costs of the operation itself. This man poses no existential threat to the US Government, the state of Nevada, or his neighbors. I don't think a boot heel is necessary."

First sentence - I think most people would agree that cattle trespassing on federal land isn't worth loss of life, let alone the costs involved for a month long cattle roundup under armed guard. I absolutely would prefer it if the government figured in the various costs of enforcing laws into the equation when deciding the appropriate response and enforcement. We could spend billions of dollars hunting down and murdering habitual traffic offenders with targeted drone strikes - but I don't think you'd find much support for doing so. Unless you are going after people who double park. There's a special level of hell reserved for them.

Second sentence - I don't think there is much of a case that this man poses a threat to anyone, and probably would happily live the rest of his days if left alone as a good neighbor and member of the community. You keep attempting to associate what has happened here with gang activity, yet repetition is a poor substitute for facts, and that comparison just hasn't been borne out. As much as you seem to want to make this man out to be a violent criminal the evidence just isn't there.

[LittleFuzzy]

Are we talking about the same police that uses SWAT teams and shoot-first tactics when trying to arrest petty drug dealers? Uses of force that I don't recall people on the right complaining about.

I'll complain about them. But they're also not a good comparison. First (and I'm half throwing this in there just because I blame my six-page fight with GGT on your earlier comments) those drug deals are being charged with a crime. It's a criminal law action and criminal law does not enshrine the proportionality the way civil law does. Second, the police go in there with overwhelming force with the deliberate intent of overawing their suspects and hoping to intimidate them into not resorting to violence at all and with the negative guarantee that if there is violence, the suspect(s) should be the only ones getting hurt by it. The round-up of Bundy's cattle, OTOH, was a civil operation, it wasn't being engaged in by police (though they requested and received police protection to cover it) and it manifestly did not have overwhelming force. I don't think it would have been remotely possible to gather overwhelming force, particularly not when the protesters were at least partly hoping to provoke violent action for PR and media-management purposes. Superior force if actual fighting erupted maybe, but sure as hell not enough to overawe the militia protesters. Which makes it an excellent example of where force absolutely should not be used by police.

Hypocrisy aside, law enforcement must not only enforce the law but also be seen as enforcing the law. Otherwise, the entire legal system loses legitimacy. Negotiating with a criminal in order to limit violence or waiting until the criminal is not in a crowded area is one thing. Simply refusing to enforce the law because of the possibility of violence is quite another.

Criminal law, again, one thing though I've already noted that when confronted with mass behavior, it is incredibly common to let a whole lot of crime go. Maybe you single a few law-breakers out for an example, to provide your demonstration of enforcing the law but that's as far as it goes. Civil law is entirely different. Civil enforcement is discretionary and absolutely relies on proportionality. Private litigants may not be rational but it is expected that the government does make rat-choices and unlike private litigants, it is constantly compelled to do so. Spending more money than you will get back is not a rat-choice. The principle that people still need to see that the law is being enforced to keep them from breaking it does still apply, I will concede that, but it has a significantly lower priority and just as importantly, our legal system has a pretty deep well when it comes to legitimacy. It can afford to spill a bit here and there. Particularly since it can always visibly enforce the law somewhere or sometime else when it's not looking at a mob.

Are those really criteria you want to be employing when deciding whether to use force against law-breakers? Might as well abandon all operations against gangs; they cost a fortune and the gangs aren't exactly on the verge of conquering the US.

Is it the criteria I want employed for civil law? You bet your fucking ass it is. And it should be for you too, and anyone else who expresses concern about things like our massive government overspending. And I'm pretty sure that most of us here on the board are absolutely fine with abandoning the war on drugs which is almost always the primary driver behind most gang operations (both the gang's operations and the police's operations against gangs). Because it's expensive and is in no way worth the cost. Economically or socially.

[LittleFuzzy]

I.E. The government should back off whenever someone threatens it with violence.

Force is usually a poor way to deal with large groups in any settled society. We really should cross off "machismo by proxy" as a decent rationale for almost any endeavor, Loki.

[Enoch the Red]

I.E. The government should back off whenever someone threatens it with violence.

While that is one conclusion that could be drawn from what I said, and I'm certain it is the conclusion that you think scores you the most rhetorical points, it is probably also one spawned by little to no critical thinking. Another, more insightful conclusion would be that the use of force isn't always necessary, and when confronted with a situation that might escalate quickly it makes sense to make a judgement call as to whether or not the response would fit the realities on the ground, and the associated costs in both blood and treasure. I don't think there are many sane individuals who would consider this situation worth violence on either side, let alone the monetary costs of the operation itself. This man poses no existential threat to the US Government, the state of Nevada, or his neighbors. I don't think a boot heel is necessary.

[GGT]

FYI: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion

[Veldan Rath]

Pfffft. Facts? What are facts when we can go on how we feel things should happen?

[Veldan Rath]

*sigh* Any time an individual (or a small number of people) does something dangerously violent or extreme....it impacts the whole nation. Therefore, it's a national threat -- whether that's hijacking a plane, bombing a building or a public event, or using weapons against innocent bystanders at a shopping mall, Community Center, or school.

Ooo, that kind of barometer won't lead to a police state or anything.

[GGT]

Ooo, that kind of barometer won't lead to a police state or anything.

Did you think the US was becoming a "police state" when airlines used new screening techniques (like metal detectors) to thwart plane hijackings....back in the "old days" of the 70's or 80's?

[Veldan Rath]

The initial stages of Security Theater?

Depends upon who put them there. The Feds, yes, as that was a foot in the door for the silliness we have now.

[GGT]

The initial stages of Security Theater?

Depends upon who put them there. The Feds, yes, as that was a foot in the door for the silliness we have now.

The US national security "theater" goes back several decades. But I wouldn't call it "silliness" to identify weaknesses, or threats. My earliest memories of 'terrorism' includes plane hijackers diverting planes to Cuba.....and the Munich Olympic Games. Viet Nam protestors, and "draft dodgers" were considered 'domestic terrorists' in my childhood, too.

"Principle" is a mixed bag for folks in my demographic group.

[Veldan Rath]

Oh no, yer not switching the discussion again. You asked if I thought the security added in the 70-80 was the beginning of a police state, not identifying threats and weaknesses.

[GGT]

Oh no, yer not switching the discussion again. You asked if I thought the security added in the 70-80 was the beginning of a police state, not identifying threats and weaknesses.

The principle dilemma remains the same.

[Veldan Rath]

Yeah, okay sure and water is wet.

[GGT]

Yeah, okay sure and water is wet.

Where do you draw the line?

[Veldan Rath]

In meaningful places.

[LittleFuzzy]

I never saw this get updated.

Bundy and 17 others were arrested in 2016 and charged with a bunch of felonies. Two have been convicted and sentenced, there was a mistrial for six others and they are undergoing retrial, two have been acquitted, and the rest still have their trials coming up, including the senior Bundy.

[Aimless]

https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/...-pardon-bundys