Bundy Ranch Standoff

[JohnnyH]

Can't rightly say (cowboy talk!) who came out this ahead... It has definitely inflated the sails of some (RW). That people actually held arms against the state, unpunished(?), and won terrifies others (LW)... Most of America is likely turned off by the level the protestors were willing to go to.
I'm just glad that cooler heads prevailed and compliment both sides for it. I hope it stays that way, but I am half anticipating a vulgar display of power.

Now, I could be wrong. Maybe 200+ feds was the necessary force for gathering cattle. But my money would be on someone getting told to provoke a scene.

The actual cattle roundup was done by contractors... I imagine that no one planning this thought it would have ended with an armed standoff out in the desert, otherwise there likely would have been multiples more than 200.

[Seneca]

. I hope it stays that way, but I am half anticipating a vulgar display of power.

Yep, RP is right, this isn't over. If the government shows up as a force again, it will be nasty.

[Riggerjack]

Seneca, you think 4 armed agents couldn't get the job done, before the circus came to town? Because Bundy has a long history of legal actions and hyperbole?
Seriously, when have hundreds of armed federal agents ever converged on a law enforcement task that wasn't a spectacular failure? This is just a misuse of personnel. If that much firepower is needed, military units train to work in this size of operation, feds don't.

[JohnnyH]

In my mind a county sheriff would have been sufficient and optimal... But I suppose if he was viewed as an agent of the BLM his political career would be over.

[Chad]

I agree with JohnnyH that both sides made the right decision to back off.

I think Riggerjack's "4 armed agents" scenario or something very similar is likely. Let it die down for a few months and monitor him. There will be obvious opportunities for a small group of officers to end this peacefully (unless Bundy decides to shoot his way out even when he has no chance). They wouldn't even have to get his whole family. They can arrest one of them at a time.

[Seneca]

What are they going to arrest Bundy for? Do they have a legal basis to do so?

If they have legal basis to simply put him in jail, why did they instead go for this much more complicated tactic of rounding up his herd?

I don't see how 4 agents can secure this group going about the business of rounding up his herd, the big clusterfluck that went down makes sense to me. As johnny said, darn glad nobody started shooting.

[George the original one]

There is no reason the Dry Creek project cannot choose another area for off site remediation, the government formally identified and studied other areas. Bundy's area is simply the easiest and cheapest, if only that pesky Bundy wasn't there.

Don't you think there will be a user of the land elsewhere that will raise similar objections?

[Chad]

What are they going to arrest Bundy for? Do they have a legal basis to do so?

If they have legal basis to simply put him in jail, why did they instead go for this much more complicated tactic of rounding up his herd?

I don't see how 4 agents can secure this group going about the business of rounding up his herd, the big clusterfluck that went down makes sense to me. As johnny said, darn glad nobody started shooting.

They may or may not have had anything before, but they do now. Obstructing a federal officer. Though, I would think not paying fees/fines would be enough.

[Riggerjack]

@ seneca:

don't see how 4 agents can secure this group going about the business of rounding up his herd, the big clusterfluck that went down makes sense to me. As johnny said, darn glad nobody started shooting.

As I said before, a reasonable way to go about this is wait until Bundy gathers the herd, then send 4 agents and some contract cowboys to take the gathered herd and load them up. Another approach, since there are no grazing rights on the land, is send out a helicopter, with a rifleman, and drop every one of them from the air. 2 days, tops. Cheap. Easy. No risk to BLM personnel. Certainly cheaper than the first hour of briefings prior to the opening of the circus. But then there's the political angle from feds killing cattle, rather than confiscating and butchering cattle.

Honestly, this had to have a name, "Operation Shoe Salesman", or something similar. I'd love to see that briefing. I'm sure the parking plan alone is good for 3 pages and a map.

I have yet to see any reason 200+ armed agents went there, if it wasn't to provoke a reaction.

[Riggerjack]

For those who never looked into these:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_siege
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_Ridge

I like wikipedia for this because the timeline gets laid out, and the points of controversy get pointed out. mind you this takes years of bitter bickering in the back pages, but I don't have to experience that to get the result. The ruby ridge page has become fairly one sided, but that is pretty much because the Gov side is fairly inexcusable. Imagine sending the same sniper who killed Vicki Weaver while holding a baby to go to work on Waco.

At the time these were going down, I was in the army, and these barely even made my personal radar. I wasn't much of a news watcher, and all the information was from tv news and second hand from partisans. It seemed like some crazies crossed the gov, and died in futile gestures. Well, people die every day, let's go drinking!

If it wasn't for me getting introduced to civilian gun culture, I'd never have thought about them again. And if it weren't for the internet, I'd never have any idea of what actually went down.

If you think these were crazies who went out in a blaze of glory, you should read the wiki.

@FFJ: If you don't understand the concern with "militarized police" try reading:
http://www.salon.com/2013/07/10/militar ... %E2%80%9D/

I have had one encounter with my sheriff's office. A big, burly deputy came by to address complaints about, "hundreds of shots". He was polite, professional, and I got a chance to see law enforcement from the perspective of the protected, rather than the potential perpetrator. It was a real nice change.

I like law enforcement, I like cops, I think we live in a better society because of them. I also believe that cops and military are completely different professions, with different roles and different standards. Every attempt to blend the two has had disastrous results.

[Chad]

I like law enforcement, I like cops, I think we live in a better society because of them. I also believe that cops and military are completely different professions, with different roles and different standards. Every attempt to blend the two has had disastrous results.

Agreed. We have begun to create crime for all these cops and create ways to use the militarized cops. Too many people are afraid of their own shadow and allow the encroachment of militarized police in our lives.

This is on my future reading list.

http://smile.amazon.com/Rise-Warrior-Co ... zed+police

I would also argue that the quality of the younger officers is not equivalent to the older officers. A lot of people who would have been officers 40 years ago go to college now and get white collar jobs because it pays more.

[Riggerjack]

@chad

It seems so strange to agree with you!

I listened to the audiobook version of that from the library. It has a good history on policing, but he's definitely pushing an agenda. It's an agenda I agree with, but that doesn't make it a more even handed presentation.

It also reinforced how nice life entirely on the up and up is. It still doesn't protect you, but having nothing to hide makes cops so much easier to deal with.

[Chad]

@chad

It seems so strange to agree with you!

I listened to the audiobook version of that from the library. It has a good history on policing, but he's definitely pushing an agenda. It's an agenda I agree with, but that doesn't make it a more even handed presentation.

It also reinforced how nice life entirely on the up and up is. It still doesn't protect you, but having nothing to hide makes cops so much easier to deal with.

I thought the same as I typed "agreed." Though, I don't think we are as far apart as it seems in some of these discussions.

Not surprising the author has an agenda. We all have one or at least some form of bias.

As a side note, I know a police officer who as a young cop had to go into the slum high rises alone and with no radio (tech wasn't ready or wasn't in use at the time). He said you had to rely on the generosity of fellow citizens to call for backup if stuff went down. This was in one of the worst areas of the country. Now cops won't try and arrest a non-violent marijuana user without swat backup.

[jacob]

I just saw this on Google News under U.S. headlines.

[Riggerjack]

@ Chad, I'm against militarized police from both directions. SWAT is a problem, but Generals promising to fulfill police rolls is just as bad.

Kent state
Vietnam
Irag/Afganistan

When the military gets called on to function as police, somebody is gonna die. Because that is what the military is for.

This holds a special place for me, as back in the 90's, while Mexicans were rioting in Juarez, my post general was pulling out the riot gear from storage. As someone looking at getting stuck in a riot, with zero training, I look at the policing mission as a leadership failure. I don't know if the brass and politicians don't know the difference, or simply don't care.

What I can say, is there is nobody on active duty who has ever seen a military mission, except a very few who were at the beginnings of their careers for Desert Storm. Everything else since Korea has been one form of policing failure or another.

You cannot effectively police a people you have the ability to call an artillery strike on. All you can do is walk around and dare them to kill you (patrolling). That doesn't make for peace, or stability, or healthy returning vets.

[George the original one]

I like to remind coworkers that the police are social workers with guns. When police refer to "civilians", I remind them that they are civilians with a sworn public duty and not military.

[Chad]

@ Chad, I'm against militarized police from both directions. SWAT is a problem, but Generals promising to fulfill police rolls is just as bad.

Kent state
Vietnam
Irag/Afganistan

When the military gets called on to function as police, somebody is gonna die. Because that is what the military is for.

This holds a special place for me, as back in the 90's, while Mexicans were rioting in Juarez, my post general was pulling out the riot gear from storage. As someone looking at getting stuck in a riot, with zero training, I look at the policing mission as a leadership failure. I don't know if the brass and politicians don't know the difference, or simply don't care.

What I can say, is there is nobody on active duty who has ever seen a military mission, except a very few who were at the beginnings of their careers for Desert Storm. Everything else since Korea has been one form of policing failure or another.

You cannot effectively police a people you have the ability to call an artillery strike on. All you can do is walk around and dare them to kill you (patrolling). That doesn't make for peace, or stability, or healthy returning vets.

Yeah, that's a real problem. It's definitely a lack of leadership. They don't know the difference and any that do don't care, as having anyone, the military in your case, show they are tough and doing something makes the "leaders" at least look like they are leading. We lack leadership at all levels. I still can't believe Colin Powell ignored his own rules and failed his former troops so badly by supporting the Iraq War.

Definitely can't police people with threats of war and "police" who aren't remotely part of their community.

[Seneca]

There is no reason the Dry Creek project cannot choose another area for off site remediation, the government formally identified and studied other areas. Bundy's area is simply the easiest and cheapest, if only that pesky Bundy wasn't there.

Don't you think there will be a user of the land elsewhere that will raise similar objections?

Pretty busy today so I can't dig in, but there were reports out there that covered the study of alternate areas and I don't remember near the conflict. In the final report which I linked on pg 1 of this thread, they go in to why they chose Gold Butte. When you go in and read the funding portion in that report, starting pg 26, what is particularly interesting is we are all going to be paying a big chunk of the monies used in remediation because of the special status it got in 1998 which Congress funds. From my pocket, to the bottom line of Sen Reid's son's company. Awesome.

@Rigger- We can come up with all sorts of hypos for why they decided to use 200 agents. My money is still on FUD leading to avoidance of conflict, but I guess we can never know.

[JohnnyH]

Probably never know... I see there was a celebration bbq, quite brazen. Blood must be boiling... Also, an update from the family, at least some of the cattle that were killed were hastily buried. (dead cows in link)
http://www.inquisitr.com/1220627/bundy- ... ic-images/

I imagine they want this out of the headlines at any cost... Wait a year, then send in the heavy guns (IRS)... Send in 200+ swat team for IRS warrant and no one bats an eye.

[Spartan_Warrior]

Oh, lord.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/2 ... 04821.html