Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 64

Thread: BLM Stands Down

  1. #1
    I've been given a "timeout"

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,885
    Post Thanks / Like

    BLM Stands Down

    Is the BLM's standing down in the face of law breaking a sign of "weakness" on our government's part?

    Conservatives often trot out this argument in our foreign policy decisions, recently during the Crimea crisis.

    Story here.

    Was this the right decision to diffuse a tense and dangerous situation?

  2. #2
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,171
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: BLM Stands Down

    Quote Originally Posted by OP
    Was this the right decision to diffuse a tense and dangerous situation?
    I think it was a pretty good decision. I'm not certain how "dangerous" the situation was, as no one threatened violence.. at least on the protesters side.
    So the potential for danger was averted by the gov not escalating or introducing it.. so in that sense, if the choice is "release some cows" or "start pointing guns at armed citizens"... i would say they made the right choice.
    To serve man.

  3. #3
    I've been given a "timeout"

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,885
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: BLM Stands Down

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    at least on the protesters side.
    You sure about that? I thought there was a report of a police dog being kicked.

  4. #4
    Senior Mod

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,289
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: BLM Stands Down

    In the instance where the protesters are arguing that the Federal government doesn't have a right to be there in the first place with dogs, guns, and snipers... I'd say that kicking a dog... or anybody else, for that matter... is pretty much a matter of self-defense, if the kicking was against a target that was engaged in attacking or was being used to threaten the protesters.


    What's sad is that even while this particular rancher had his standoff, the BLM did the very same thing to about 3 or 4 other ranchers in this area, including in Texas and in Utah. Nobody came to help them, and now they have lost their cattle.


    I think that it's time to shut down the BLM or at least curtail the President's ability to use them to unilaterally, and without oversight, seize land belonging to the several States without their permission.
    -=[Talthas]=-
    ODN Senior Moderator

    ODN Rules

  5. #5
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,171
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: BLM Stands Down

    Quote Originally Posted by COWBOY
    You sure about that? I thought there was a report of a police dog being kicked.
    Yes, but they also tend to refer to police men in possession of a police dog as "un-armed" when a Dog is a weapon.
    Personally I think kicking a large dog that is barking and lunging (as can be seen in many of the videos) is hardly an act of "aggression" on the part of the one doing the kicking. Rather it is the lunging dog that is acting aggressively.
    So yea, I'm pretty sure. Police tend to make an unreasonable an distinction there where non exists.

    What do you think, do you think a large barking dog that is lunging at you is an act of aggression or not?
    To serve man.

  6. #6
    I've been given a "timeout"

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,885
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: BLM Stands Down

    Quote Originally Posted by Talthas View Post
    seize land belonging to the several States without their permission.
    How is that the case here?

    ---------- Post added at 08:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:35 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post

    What do you think, do you think a large barking dog that is lunging at you is an act of aggression or not?

    I consider it doing police work and protected as such.

    How about being openly armed and approaching en masse a police position?

  7. #7
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,171
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: BLM Stands Down

    Quote Originally Posted by cowboy
    I consider it doing police work and protected as such.
    That doesn't answer the question.

    Quote Originally Posted by COWBOY
    How about being openly armed and approaching en masse a police position?
    Wouldn't that be protesting and protected as such?
    Further, wouldn't you admit that there is a distinct difference from a holstered gun and a lunging dog?

    Look Cowboy, this isn't a case that I think the police had no right to act in the way that they did, or that they didn't have the right to rush in with guns blazing.
    My contention is that they did the "wise" thing by not escalating a situation further. I'm not particularly interested in "who started it", or who the initial aggressors were.

    There are times when the police should not back down and there are times when it is better for them to do so. This is one of those instances.
    It's like a knife wielding man flailing about in the desert alone. Sure the police can insert themselves and introduce themselves do danger and in so doing "reasonably" shoot him dead.. but why not wait until the guy passes out instead and then arrest him?

    I hope you get my point here, that without some risk to other innocent peoples that need to be protected, the police were better off backing down, and dealing with it in a wise manner.
    To serve man.

  8. #8
    I've been given a "timeout"

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,885
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: BLM Stands Down

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Wouldn't that be protesting and protected as such?
    There such a thing as interfering with police action.

  9. #9
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,171
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: BLM Stands Down

    Quote Originally Posted by COWBOY
    There such a thing as interfering with police action.
    What police action? Who was there first? The protesters or the police?
    Does the fact that the police come in and try to break up a protest make the protesters inherently in violation of "interfering with police action"?

    P.S. Thanks for ignoring the important stuff.
    To serve man.

  10. #10
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,422
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: BLM Stands Down

    I am all over the place on this one. The ranchers are asking to be exempted from the law where a court ruled against them. So, while I feel sympathetic to the ranchers' claims, does this mean anyone who forcefully opposes the federal government should be excused from following the law? On the other hand, do we condone Waco style government interventions? I think, the lesson here is that government has pushed this group of people too far and if the government is not representing its citizens, then there needs to be an assessment of whether the federal government is truly acting as a representative of the people. From my understanding this whole thing is over the preservation of some sort of turtle or something. If we are preventing American citizens from earning a living to protect a turtle, something is wrong.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  11. #11
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,171
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: BLM Stands Down

    Quote Originally Posted by IBELSD
    I am all over the place on this one. The ranchers are asking to be exempted from the law where a court ruled against them. So, while I feel sympathetic to the ranchers' claims, does this mean anyone who forcefully opposes the federal government should be excused from following the law? On the other hand, do we condone Waco style government interventions? I think, the lesson here is that government has pushed this group of people too far and if the government is not representing its citizens, then there needs to be an assessment of whether the federal government is truly acting as a representative of the people. From my understanding this whole thing is over the preservation of some sort of turtle or something. If we are preventing American citizens from earning a living to protect a turtle, something is wrong.
    I am with you.
    On one hand, the man has been there literally forever. The reason for not paying the dues anymore was that the gov agencies purpose (originally) was to HELP them manage it. Then it was turned to start pushing them out. Which means (if true) that the gov agency is basically perverting it's mission from the people (not really uncommon).

    On the other hand, he doesn't have preemptive rights. The gov does own that particular land and it isn't his. If he suffers loss it is because he made the mistake of "leasing" the property from someone else and improving someone elses property for them.

    Bottom line to me is that he should remove his cattle, and the gov shouldn't have asked him too.

    ---
    On Resistance, at some point this is going to be the only way to address a gov that doesn't respond to the people it directly effects. Some far away gov changes things that everyone in that area was perfectly happy with. If the town and the state are o.k. with the man and his cattle, why should the fed do anything different? Is it because a million people out voted the small town? Who does it effect the most? The point here is that large gov is going to tend towards this kind of "management".

    The danger is that instead of serving a warrant and a summons to court, they just knock down your door with guns drawn, shoot your dog(because it is a threat), burn your house down, "accidentally" shoot your son because he was holding his toothbrush in a threatening manner, and in general insert themselves in such an offensive way so as to create violence. When I can think of a million ways to avoid such action and still achieve the same end.
    So basically, any time they avoid those kinds of tactics. I applaud them(gov) for using some gray matter.
    To serve man.

  12. #12
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,529
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: BLM Stands Down

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Bottom line to me is that he should remove his cattle, and the gov shouldn't have asked him too.
    I think I agree. I don't understand why he should be allowed to break the law for 20 years. If you don't like a law that affects your property --- breaking it for 20 years isn't going to solve the problem. I'm probably missing some dots here, as there's probably more to the issue. We have friends who are ranchers and they deal with this sort of issue effectively with something that's not even a new invention -- but one that's been around for a while: its called fences, and, yes, it keeps cattle on your property.

    On Resistance, at some point this is going to be the only way to address a gov that doesn't respond to the people it directly effects. Some far away gov changes things that everyone in that area was perfectly happy with. If the town and the state are o.k. with the man and his cattle, why should the fed do anything different? Is it because a million people out voted the small town? Who does it effect the most? The point here is that large gov is going to tend towards this kind of "management".

    The danger is that instead of serving a warrant and a summons to court, they just knock down your door with guns drawn, shoot your dog(because it is a threat), burn your house down,
    Yea, they should at least send the person a text message that they're coming to knock down their door. That way they'll be sure the notice was read and the person has time for evasive measures. That would assume a person believed they could hide from the U.S. government.
    Last edited by eye4magic; April 14th, 2014 at 02:30 PM.
    "The universe is immaterial-mental and spiritual.” --"The Mental Universe” | Nature
    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator

  13. #13
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,171
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: BLM Stands Down

    Quote Originally Posted by EYE
    I think I agree. I don't understand why he should be allowed to break the law for 20 years. If you don't like a law that affects your property --- breaking it for 20 years isn't going to solve the problem. I'm probably missing some dots here, as there's probably more to the issue. We have friends who are ranchers and they deal with this sort of issue effectively with something that's not even a new invention -- but one that's been around for a while: its called fences, and, yes, it keeps cattle on your property.
    Well, in fairness he built fences and dug wells (as I understand it) on the government land.
    So the cattle were where they were supposed to be. (from the ranchers POV).

    Quote Originally Posted by EYE
    Yea, they should at least send the person a text message that they're coming to knock down their door. That way they'll be sure the notice was read and the person has time for evasive measures. That would assume a person believed they could hide from the U.S. government.
    I just think they should knock on the door and present you with your accusation and the warrant, before they use force that involves shooting.
    You seem to be assuming that knocking down the door and shooting at people is inevitable.
    To serve man.

  14. #14
    I've been given a "timeout"

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,885
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: BLM Stands Down

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    What police action? Who was there first? The protesters or the police?
    Does the fact that the police come in and try to break up a protest make the protesters inherently in violation of "interfering with police action"?
    The video I saw it was the protestors advancing on the police and demanding the police leave. (The rangers who had been there in the culvert collecting the cattle).

    ---------- Post added at 12:24 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:22 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    My contention is that they did the "wise" thing by not escalating a situation further. I'm not particularly interested in "who started it", or who the initial aggressors were.
    So, what's your response to the OP?

    ---------- Post added at 12:27 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:24 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    If we are preventing American citizens from earning a living to protect a turtle, something is wrong.

    How about where the Keystone XL pipeline is being run over people's property (that they actually own) when they don't want it to. There are protests about that too.

  15. #15
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,171
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: BLM Stands Down

    Quote Originally Posted by COWBOY
    So, what's your response to the OP?
    The question was " Was this the right decision to diffuse a tense and dangerous situation?" and I say "yes, it was a very wise thing to do".
    If you mean the other part, where it is asked if it makes the government look weak.
    Then I say no, it doesn't really make the gov look weak.
    To serve man.

  16. #16
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,529
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: BLM Stands Down

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I just think they should knock on the door and present you with your accusation and the warrant, before they use force that involves shooting.
    I think sending 200 fed agents with guns and some snipers to surround a ranch property over a cattle issue is a big over-reach. What where they thinking?

    You seem to be assuming that knocking down the door and shooting at people is inevitable.
    I would certainly hope not, maybe if there were gun shots heard inside a home, but a rancher who is violating trespassing laws, for 200 agents with guns to show up on your property -- that's way out there.
    "The universe is immaterial-mental and spiritual.” --"The Mental Universe” | Nature
    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator

  17. #17
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,171
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: BLM Stands Down

    Quote Originally Posted by EYE
    I think sending 200 fed agents with guns and some snipers to surround a ranch property over a cattle issue is a big over-reach. What where they thinking?
    You know I wish I knew. Probably just trying to make a show of force to discourage decent, but it is much more on the military side of things.
    Again I'm glad someone showed some thought and just withdrew. But eventually we will just have an all out massacre on the streets over something like this.
    Where citizens are protesting, but armed and some agency doesn't back down and instead escalates things.
    We have had similar events in the past..

    ---------- Post added at 09:13 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:59 AM ----------

    http://video.foxnews.com/v/346928131...#sp=show-clips

    There is so much about this issue that I am not aware of, the above is a link from Foxnews from a documentary maker who was filming. It depicts the "interference with police".
    Megan Kelly agreed with me in that the Bundies have no legal foot to stand on. Basically, the police formed a line under a bridge, and the people (who were armed) were going to advance on the position (I think to just get by.. they weren't really going to assault police). A major Criticism is that the BLM is allowing Drug Cartels to use other land for crossing the boarder, with no response/enforcement at all, meaning the BLM is being selective in it's application of the law.

    The contention is that the law is simply wrong and/or unjust. The idea is that the Fed owns far to much of that state at all, and they have been there for a very long time. I am starting to understand the basis for which they reject the fed. This issue really isn't about turtles at all. It is becoming about the size of Gooberment.

    For me personally, I feel like it is better when these land issues are handled locally. The state or more specifically the county should be the one with final say. A million people from other states out voting an entire county as to what to do with land in that county, really doesn't seem like the kind of Gov we should even want.
    To serve man.

  18. #18
    I've been given a "timeout"

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,885
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: BLM Stands Down

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    I think sending 200 fed agents with guns and some snipers to surround a ranch property over a cattle issue is a big over-reach. What where they thinking?
    Where did you see that? From what I saw the rangers were outnumbered, easily, and not surrounding anything, they were in a wash.

    ---------- Post added at 12:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:00 PM ----------

    http://thinkprogress.org/justice/201...y-court-order/


    "This conflict arises out of rancher Cliven Bundy’s many years of illegally grazing his cattle on federal lands. In 1998, a federal court ordered Bundy to cease grazing his livestock on an area of federal land known as the Bunkerville Allotment, and required him to pay the federal government $200 per day per head of cattle remaining on federal lands. Around the time it issued this order, the court also commented that “[t]he government has shown commendable restraint in allowing this trespass to continue for so long without impounding Bundy’s livestock.” Fifteen years later, Bundy continued to defy this court order.

    Last October, the federal government returned to court and obtained a new order, providing that “Bundy shall remove his livestock from the former Bunkerville Allotment within 45 days of the date hereof, and that the United States is entitled to seize and remove to impound any of Bundy’s cattle that remain in trespass after 45 days of the date hereof.” A third federal court order issued the same year explains that Bundy did not simply refuse to stop trespassing on federal lands — he actually expanded the range of his trespassing. According to the third order, “Bundy’s cattle have moved beyond the boundaries of the Bunkerville Allotment and are now trespassing on a broad swath of additional federal land (the “New Trespass Lands”), including public lands within the Gold Butte area that are administered by the BLM, and National Park System land within the Overton Arm and Gold Butte areas of the Lake Mead National Recreation Area.” The third order also authorizes the federal government to “impound any of Bundy’s cattle that remain in trespass.”"

  19. #19
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,171
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: BLM Stands Down

    Quote Originally Posted by COWBOY
    "This conflict arises out of rancher Cliven Bundy’s many years of illegally grazing his cattle on federal lands. In 1998, a federal court ordered Bundy to cease grazing his livestock on an area of federal land known as the Bunkerville Allotment, and required him to pay the federal government $200 per day per head of cattle remaining on federal lands. Around the time it issued this order, the court also commented that “[t]he government has shown commendable restraint in allowing this trespass to continue for so long without impounding Bundy’s livestock.” Fifteen years later, Bundy continued to defy this court order.
    I think it is without question that what Bundy is doing is "illegal", at this point.

    The question for me is, "is he right", or "in the right". Because legal =/= right,just, moral, correct. As the reporter said, "I've never seen someone willing to die because they didn't want to pay a fine".
    Bundy and the people there were, apparently, willing to die for what they believe. I think we need to evaluate that.
    To serve man.

  20. #20
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,426
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: BLM Stands Down

    I'd say you could see it as a sign of weakness and indeed those opposing the feds on this likely do.

    Though in the end I'd say it is discretion and probably wise. Its not an issue worth people getting shot over. I'd say the feds need to find a craftier way to get this take care of.

    ---------- Post added at 09:41 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:30 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    The question for me is, "is he right", or "in the right". Because legal =/= right,just, moral, correct. As the reporter said, "I've never seen someone willing to die because they didn't want to pay a fine".
    Bundy and the people there were, apparently, willing to die for what they believe. I think we need to evaluate that.
    Well, the issues apparently are....

    1. Do traditional grazing areas constitute a greater claim to land than federal ownership?
    2. Should the federal government empowered to dictate grazing rules on federal land?
    3. Should the federal government be empowered to own land at all?
    4. Morally should a US citizen be required to pay for the use of public land?
    5. If someone refuses to follow the rules set by a land owner and is trespass can you confiscate their property on that land?

    So, how would you answer each of those?
    Feed me some debate pellets!

 

 
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 97
    Last Post: July 4th, 2011, 11:58 AM
  2. ODN Survey on Stands
    By Trendem in forum ODN Polls
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: May 23rd, 2006, 03:13 PM
  3. Replies: 2
    Last Post: September 5th, 2004, 10:45 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •