Standoff in Nevada as Militias "mobilize" to support rancher

[Borgholio]

Most of the Federal action is apparently low-key and attempts to avoid violence, basically containing them until they surrender rather than provoke an outburst so yes, this might have been a case of backing down short-term to come back at these people later via law enforcement means when they're individuals rather than a group.

Again, I can't overstate how important is to actually come back later for these guys. It's rather terrifying the precedent it would send if truly was a full-fledged victory for the militias.

[Edi]

I wouldn't also be surprised if, once the furor dies down, the Feds will go after these militia assholes and arrest them on charges of obstructing justice, harassing law enforcement officers, making illegal threats and anything else that may stick in addition to giving Bundy the metaphorical assfucking he so richly deserves.

Borgholio, indeed.

[Thanas]

Yeah, I'll withhold judgement on this until half a year later.

[Elheru Aran]

I don't think anybody will seriously debate that the government could not have come down upon this militia assembly and wiped it off the map with ease-- tanks, helicopters, hell if they didn't want to bother with sending in soldiers they could've just launched a few missiles and blew a few craters into the countryside. No gunfight that way!

The big problem was that not only would that have been immoral (excessive force), it would have played fully into the paranoid conspiracy theories beloved by conservatives who view the Obama administration as the greatest menace to the United States' freedom and security ever. It could conceivably played out to the early end of Obama's presidency if it was a big enough flap, as it almost certainly would've been if they decided to go with the brute-force approach.

What they're doing with publicly calling it quits and letting the militia have their way in allowing this guy to get away with evading taxes, is a more subtle move. If they go ahead and start rounding up people once the media fervor has died down, though, that's a little more sinister and would force the question:

Do you prefer a government that straight-up confronts people in public, or one that arrests them in the dark?

[Thanas]

How is arresting them once all the evidence has been produced and you got airtight cases "arresting them in the dark"?

[Broomstick]

Historically, the arrests have been made on public charges in open court, just like any other criminal accusation. This is not a matter of a knock on the door in the middle of the night or people being "disappeared". There is nothing sinister about the government enforcing the law, it's one of the duties of government.

[Elheru Aran]

Depends on them having evidence, though. Would not be surprised if half these guys are just dickheads with a closet full of rifles who like to get together with other dickheads on the weekends and play soldier. Nothing illegal about that.

Now the obstruction of justice, that's legit, but do they have evidence that all these people were present? Unless they had someone walking around taking pictures of every person holding a gun there (and that honestly wouldn't surprise me, actually), they can't prove that they were there. The leaders of the groups, sure, but I'm thinking more about the average dickhead who decided to show up.

My main problem is I have issues with something this public being ultimately resolved in a private manner, away from the public eye. Open court may be a public venue but the news won't pay attention to a bunch of random people being quietly arrested and charged. It may be legal but it comes off rather sketchy to me.

(EDIT: I'm not necessarily saying the government shouldn't do this, and I understand why they may do so. I'm just not personally comfortable with the distance between cause and effect here. I prefer causes to have immediate effects.)

[Borgholio]

How is arresting them once all the evidence has been produced and you got airtight cases "arresting them in the dark"?

I think in this case, if you take it literally "swooping in after nightfall to make an arrest before Bundy can call for help", is a great idea. It won't be the kind of secret trial the militias are afraid of...I'm certain it'd be quite public and open. It's not sinister to wait them out like this, since it'll save lives. That's not a bad thing.

Unless they had someone walking around taking pictures of every person holding a gun there

There are some pics that are quite damming:







Sorry about the middle pic. Couldn't find one without the tripe attached.

[Broomstick]

Depends on them having evidence, though. Would not be surprised if half these guys are just dickheads with a closet full of rifles who like to get together with other dickheads on the weekends and play soldier. Nothing illegal about that.

Correct. In the US there is nothing illegal about that. What is illegal is threatening other people, whether government agents or not, and obstructing justice.

Now the obstruction of justice, that's legit, but do they have evidence that all these people were present? Unless they had someone walking around taking pictures of every person holding a gun there (and that honestly wouldn't surprise me, actually), they can't prove that they were there. The leaders of the groups, sure, but I'm thinking more about the average dickhead who decided to show up.

Strictly speaking, it's not illegal to show up with a gun on your hip at such a gathering. It's what you do at such a gathering. Just walking around talking or picketing is fine. Pointing your gun at another human being is considered a threat, however, and that can get you into trouble with the law.

Yes, lots of pictures were taken. That would place individuals at that gathering, and some of them are very obviously pointing their weapons at other human beings.

My main problem is I have issues with something this public being ultimately resolved in a private manner, away from the public eye. Open court may be a public venue but the news won't pay attention to a bunch of random people being quietly arrested and charged. It may be legal but it comes off rather sketchy to me.

Does it MATTER if this is headline news or not? As long as the arrests are done legally and fairly what's the problem here? Publicity is not always an asset for law enforcement. Open court means publicly available records. Rest assured that there will be other people watching, I've yet to see/be in a court room in the US that didn't have individuals in the viewing area watching proceedings.

I'm concerned that actually dangerous militia members be dealt with legally and fairly, I don't require making it a three ring circus. The ones who are just talk and getting together with their buddies on the weekend I don't care much about.

(EDIT: I'm not necessarily saying the government shouldn't do this, and I understand why they may do so. I'm just not personally comfortable with the distance between cause and effect here. I prefer causes to have immediate effects.)

While I tend to be of a similar mind, I can tolerate some distance between cause and effect in the interest of preventing injury and death.

[Purple]

I think that I understand the point he is trying to get at. Basically if your government just goes ahead and arrests these people a few weeks or months down the line and proceeds to slowly prosecute them individually for obstruction of justice that really would be failing to address the main issue in this case. That being that this is an organized coup against the american government. The important thing in this case isn't just to punish these particular idiots but to send the message that this kind of thing is not tolerated. And that as a functioning nation you will not allow your government to be bullied out of enforcing its own laws.

Perhaps a solution here would be to try them all as an organized criminal group with terrorist intent or something.

[Broomstick]

That is certainly an option, and in the past militia members have been accused and tried for conspiracy.

[SCRawl]

It seems to me that this standoff was going to end in one of three ways: one side backs down; the other side backs down; the one side gets massacred by the other side (and we know which way that was going to go). The government's calculation seems to have been "we're not willing to wipe you militia people out, so we might as well stop paying our guys overtime and stand them down." I hope that that calculation includes the willingness to prosecute all lawbreakers once open hostilities have ended, because if they do not then the government will have abdicated its authority to the mob.

[Havok]

Clear me up on some of the facts here...
Is this the "federal government" or is it just the BLM?
Did state agencies get involved?
Is the information that Bundy's land is earmarked for "penalty offset" use for solar power companies true?
Is the tortoise that the initial conservation effort started over endangered anymore?

[Elheru Aran]

I think that I understand the point he is trying to get at. Basically if your government just goes ahead and arrests these people a few weeks or months down the line and proceeds to slowly prosecute them individually for obstruction of justice that really would be failing to address the main issue in this case. That being that this is an organized coup against the american government. The important thing in this case isn't just to punish these particular idiots but to send the message that this kind of thing is not tolerated. And that as a functioning nation you will not allow your government to be bullied out of enforcing its own laws.

This is it, yes. The obstruction of justice is a legitimate charge, but the bigger picture may be lost, or worse, people could be turned into radical conservative martyrs against the government. Something along the lines of "They wouldn't face us when we were together, so they lied to us and took us when we were apart." Taking more prompt action wouldn't obviate that possibility entirely, but it's better to act swiftly after the crowd disperses rather than waiting who knows how long to gather evidence of wrongdoing if they don't already have it.

Havok, this is my understanding:

BLM is a Federal branch so it has the authority of the Federal government. I believe they were conducting their initial displacement of Bundy's herd with state assistance (deputies or something).

I can't honestly say about the rest. The tortoise is a footnote even if it's still endangered; the real issue was Bundy's failure to pay grazing fees for 20 years, which was sufficient reason by itself to order him to remove his herd. I doubt the solar-energy thing, if true, would have been that much of a deal; it smells more like conservative crazy-talk trying to discredit the government/Harry Reid. I heard fracking mentioned somewhere else rather than solar energy.

[Siege]

The important thing in this case isn't just to punish these particular idiots but to send the message that this kind of thing is not tolerated.

Consistently locking up the ringleaders of these ridiculous stand-offs should eventually beat into the head of even the most thick-skulled militia member the message that the federal government won't oblige their insurrection flashpoint kickstarter fantasies.

The goal of no more militia deadlocks isn't brought any closer by a grandiose power play, because every well-thinking person on the planet already knows the US government could theoretically turn these guys into a collection of craters overnight; the only idiots who don't are in the militias themselves. The only way to feasibly achieve the goal therefore is to convince these fools to give up trying to make like Wyatt Earp at the OK Corral, by making them realize that trying will just get them arrested two weeks later outside the 7-11 when there isn't a Reuters news chopper overhead to make them into big damn heroes for their crazy friends.

These militia types want the feds to overreact because they think it'll launch their glorious second American Intifadah Revolution. The way to not give them what they want is therefore to not overreact. So no crater-making, in fact if I were in charge I wouldn't even charge them with something as over-the-top as terrorism or organized crime because that'll look like trumped-up charges, and that in turn will vindicate their beliefs. Consistently lock these dudes up on charges like obstruction of justice or being a public nuisance or something instead, that ought to take the glamour off resisting the federal gub'mint after a while.

[Napoleon the Clown]

Arresting them at a late date could make the other extremists view the dudes as "martyrs" but that's a lot less damaging that if the population at large so the government go in and butcher a bunch of citizens, armed or not. As far as PR goes, arresting them later on is a much better option. And it's also much better for moral among anyone in the BLM, National Guard, or any other branch of government that could theoretically deal with the idiots.

[Ralin]

These are all very good arguments for why it was a good idea for law enforcement to back off and arrest everyone involved later.

But I imagine there's going to be one hell of a shitstorm if any of them commit some other major violent crime between now and then and someone gets hurt or killed.

[Borgholio]

But I imagine there's going to be one hell of a shitstorm if any of them commit some other major violent crime between now and then and someone gets hurt or killed.

Then the Feds have the moral high ground. They could easily say, "We tried to enforce the law, and the militia mobilized to stop us. We backed off to avoid violence, and they went hunting for violence all on their own. It's obvious that all the militia wants is bloodshed. Since they are dangerous, we must now arrest them all and consider banning all militias."

Yeah, I can't see that ending well at all. The militias could end up labelled as terrorist groups, or worse...an insurrection.

[Simon_Jester]

My point is simply that I would feel worse if the whole thing had ended in blood than with the whole thing ending in law enforcement backing off and (presumably) preparing to arrest the guilty parties later.

I am actually concerned about the prospect of the US turning its increasingly well-honed security apparatus to the oppression of its own people. So any sign that this is not happening, that the velvet glove and not the iron fist still dominates US dealings with its own dissident and radical groups* reassures me a bit on that score.

*Including the crazy stupid ones...

I agree.

My first reaction was kind of "I wish the Feds had rolled in there and stomped them hard and fast". But then reality kicked in and I remembered that as soon as they start doing that successfully it's likely to happen more and more. Just look at all the militarized bits of police forces around the US. It comes back to the old saying that "to the hammer every problem looks like a nail". Besides, if they went in with that much force it is much more likely to turn into a blood bath and another Ruby Ridge / Branch Davidians style rallying point for the lunatic militia fringe.

I really hope this guy and his supporters end up in jail but I'd much rather have the Feds do it through slow methodical law enforcement work than having a giant "homeland army" that they use throughout the US.

I think we should take this as an opportunity for introspection. It seems like a lot of us, including some who usually oppose killing by the government, have this first reaction of "I hope the government suppresses them, I hope they get violently smashed up by the forces of law." And I think that's a natural human reaction, to see some perceived evildoer or transgressor and want them punished harshly and violently.

And it takes a lot more restraint and maturity to say "wait, is violently crushing the person who I see as an evildoer actually the smart move here?" If you're a government official who actually has that kind of force at their disposal, it's even harder- which explains a lot of history's more hamhanded and brutal suppressions of groups the government didn't like.

Would it be reassuring if, say, the federal government had moved in in battalion strength to 'crush the rebellion' or whatever we want to call it?

Yes! When a well-armed and organised paramilitary group is digging in for a fight then you shut that shit down with extreme prejudice and you make damn sure you are seen doing it, lest it embolden a hundred other such groups and you have an even bigger problem on your hands.

See, this is the kind of thing I'm talking about. Your desire on seeing a bunch of transgressors is to hit them with a big authoritarian hammer and squash them.

But it's an article of faith for many of us here- probably including you, Zaune- that if you brutally suppress a foreign guerilla or terrorist organization by killing its members, you only ensure more recruits for the enemy organization.

If that's true when you do it in a foreign country, why would it stop being true in your own country? Why is calling in helicopter gunships or IFVs to "send a message" to a bunch of camo-fetishists in Nevada smart when calling in Predator drones to "send a message" to Al Qaeda is dumb?

So before you advocate going "RAAAGH LAW ENFORCEMENT SMASH PUNY REBELS," think that through.

This is it, yes. The obstruction of justice is a legitimate charge, but the bigger picture may be lost, or worse, people could be turned into radical conservative martyrs against the government. Something along the lines of "They wouldn't face us when we were together, so they lied to us and took us when we were apart." Taking more prompt action wouldn't obviate that possibility entirely, but it's better to act swiftly after the crowd disperses rather than waiting who knows how long to gather evidence of wrongdoing if they don't already have it.

Up to a point I agree.

I can't honestly say about the rest. The tortoise is a footnote even if it's still endangered; the real issue was Bundy's failure to pay grazing fees for 20 years, which was sufficient reason by itself to order him to remove his herd. I doubt the solar-energy thing, if true, would have been that much of a deal; it smells more like conservative crazy-talk trying to discredit the government/Harry Reid. I heard fracking mentioned somewhere else rather than solar energy.

Honestly it doesn't matter what the government wants to use the land for. If you don't pay your rent, the owner has a right to evict you whenever they please. If they choose to ignore your actions or pursue a protracted low-intensity legal conflict rather than make a confrontation out of it, that's their right- and by refusing to pay the rent, you've pretty much waived any right of yours to be informed, consulted, or respected in the matter.

[Isolder74]

Sadly there are those who feel that any taxation is a violation of their rights no matter how it is brought about. This sort of thing has happened again and again. From the Whiskey Rebellion to the American Civil War(which makes the caption on that photo even MORE STUPID) the president is well I'm place that the duly elected government does have the right to levy and enforce the laws of the land.

Sadly what we have here is a return to Mobocracy rather then any sign of anything positive. This sort of mob rule is never a good thing.

In the case of this story, no one supporting this deadbeat rancher can in any way claim the moral high ground. This is not the case of an evil government stepping in and oppressing someone(unless you are true believer of libertarianism extreme version) this is the government seizing basically illegal property. Like others have pointed out, this backing down is just a measure to let things cool down so that more careful channels can be used at a later date. All we don't need is more martyrs for the gun morons cause.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Clear me up on some of the facts here...
Is this the "federal government" or is it just the BLM?
Did state agencies get involved?
Is the information that Bundy's land is earmarked for "penalty offset" use for solar power companies true?
Is the tortoise that the initial conservation effort started over endangered anymore?

The Bureau of Land Management is a federal agency.

I don't believe any state agencies were involved but I'm not sure on this one.

The solar farm/Harry Reid connection is all a right wing conspiracy theory. While it is true Reid was involved in some deal with a Chinese company to build solar plants in Nevada the location for that deal was over 150 miles away from the Bundy ranch and it died in 2013 and began sometime in the mid 2000s. The Bundy issue has been going on since 1993 and became an official court order in 1998.

The desert tortoise currently shows as vulnerable which is in the threatened category of conservation.

[Zaune]

But it's an article of faith for many of us here- probably including you, Zaune- that if you brutally suppress a foreign guerilla or terrorist organization by killing its members, you only ensure more recruits for the enemy organization.

If that's true when you do it in a foreign country, why would it stop being true in your own country? Why is calling in helicopter gunships or IFVs to "send a message" to a bunch of camo-fetishists in Nevada smart when calling in Predator drones to "send a message" to Al Qaeda is dumb?

So before you advocate going "RAAAGH LAW ENFORCEMENT SMASH PUNY REBELS," think that through.

Actually, for me at least it isn't an article of faith, not in the same way it is for say Thanas. I don't honestly have a moral objection to the assassination of Al-Queda's senior leadership. They joined up with an organisation that was making war against the United States, they're legitimate military targets. I am not fine with writing off anyone who happens to be within a hundred yards as acceptable collateral damage and I question whether Al-Queda are still enough of a threat to justify the effort, but conceptually I don't see a fundamental difference between this and... I don't know, targeting Iraqi Army command posts with LGBs during Desert Storm.

And when it comes to those "camo-fetishists", I don't have a moral objection to dropping the hammer on them either, pour encourager les autres. They were the ones who decided to start pointing guns at cops who were trying to serve a warrant, they deserve zero sympathy if they get steamrollered by the National Guard. And I am also more than a little afraid that if there is any possible way these fucknuts can be construed as having got away with it, some other militia might decide to push their luck a little further and try taking over some fly-speck of a town in the desert. And if the US decides that isn't worth doing something about because it means people will call them names on talk radio then what the hell happens next?

[Thanas]

I don't like having words put in my mouth, especially not when they are contrary to my personal opinion which has been stated several times on this board.

[Lonestar]

Ah, white privilege!

Somehow I doubt the feds and local law enforcement would have turned tail if say, a bunch of dark-skinned folk in an inner city had brandished firearms while interfering with the enforcement of the law.

Somehow I doubt a bunch of dark-skinned folk in inner cities set up sniper and spotter teamswhile interfering with the enforcement of the law.

[Gandalf]

Somehow I doubt a bunch of dark-skinned folk in inner cities set up sniper and spotter teams while interfering with the enforcement of the law.

Out of curiosity, what would happen if they had set up sniper/spotter teams?