Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
mechrist
Gym climber
South of Heaven
|
|
|
Apr 18, 2014 - 11:47am PT
|
"I've got a shotgun," Carol Bundy said.
"It's loaded and I know how to use it.
We're ready to do what we have to do,
but we'd rather win this in the court
of public opinion."
Grabbing another fistful of bacon,
Arden said he wants to be part of
any coming battle. His mother smiled.
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Apr 18, 2014 - 11:49am PT
|
Ron...who is the manager you talked to, I would like his name and phone number.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Apr 18, 2014 - 12:00pm PT
|
I'll have to read that one.
|
|
mechrist
Gym climber
South of Heaven
|
|
|
Apr 18, 2014 - 12:01pm PT
|
The ONLY occasion i had to have seriously armed back up on was to execute a warrant of a search and seizure on Indian lands against a family known for violence.
So the Bundys are different how? The BLM had multiple court orders to seize their cattle and were threatened with violence when they went to seize them. So, they called for backup. I'm sure it is somehow different in your mind... but only because you desperately want to support anything and everything that is anti-government, at least until Obama is out of office.
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Apr 18, 2014 - 12:03pm PT
|
This as#@&%e is nothing but a craze f*#king whack job.
"Bundy, whose ancestors have inhabited the disputed land since the 19th century, rejects this arrangement. The rancher, whose family did not respond to multiple interview requests from TIME, says he does not recognize federal authority over Nevada’s public land. “I abide by all state laws,” he said in a recent interview with the Los Angeles Times. “But I abide by almost zero federal laws.” He has warned that the impoundment of his cattle would spark a “range war,” and said in a court deposition that he would attempt to block a federal incursion, using “whatever it takes.”
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Apr 18, 2014 - 12:08pm PT
|
Grabbing another fistful of bacon,
Arden said he wants to be part of
any coming battle. His mother smiled.
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Apr 18, 2014 - 12:14pm PT
|
Ron wrote: The ONLY occasion i had to have seriously armed back up on was to execute a warrant of a search and seizure on Indian lands against a family known for violence. That out of HUNDREDS of cases i was involved with.
You just made the case for the BLM.
Damn Ron...do you think out what you write here??
Also, can you give me the name of the manager at the BLM you talked too.
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Apr 18, 2014 - 12:16pm PT
|
I wonder how much bacon Ron and Chief eat?
Must be the bacon?
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
|
Apr 18, 2014 - 12:17pm PT
|
The original BLM Rangers are damn lucky the crowd they were menacing didn't respond with violence, because it was well within their rights in that instance.
Remember, they were directly threatened with violence. "You're going to get bit" "You're going to get tazered". They had the tazers aimed and the dogs fired-up and snarling at the ends of their leashes.
No one is obligated to remain passive in the face of direct violent threats, no matter who's doing the threatening.
If law enforcement needs to issue any threat, it should be limited to "you're going to be arrested".
But they knew they didn't have a reason to arrest anybody, which is why the cops resorted to trying to push people around. When law enforcement moves away from enforcing laws, and becomes thugs, they forfeit any respect they may have earned in the past.
|
|
mechrist
Gym climber
South of Heaven
|
|
|
Apr 18, 2014 - 12:30pm PT
|
Interesting perspective Chaz. One I haven't heard a single tea bagger use with respect to the use of violence by law enforcement during Occupy movement or the WTO protests.
I don't know the law all that well, but if you threaten a law enforcement officer with violence I'm pretty sure you can expect the same (plus some) in response.
|
|
zBrown
Ice climber
Brujo de la Playa
|
|
|
Apr 18, 2014 - 12:39pm PT
|
Ein Bild sagt mehr als tausend Worte
|
|
Wade Icey
Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
|
|
|
Apr 18, 2014 - 01:05pm PT
|
If you spoke out against that homeless mans murder in the desert and dont support the protesters in Nevada you HAVE contradicted yourself for other reasons .
speaking out against murder does not equate to supporting protestors. even by the looniest of logic.
and please...stop using the phrase 'false flagship.' ain't no such thang.
|
|
BASE104
Social climber
An Oil Field
|
|
|
Apr 18, 2014 - 01:12pm PT
|
chaz hates cops and is a first rate troll. ;D
I don't like "most" cops, either, but that isn't the situation here.
I tell ya, I have been waiting for a cop to pull me over or knock on my tent and hassle me. I am on pins and needles to assert my 4th amendment rights. I don't smoke weed or even drink anymore, so I know they wouldn't find anything, but if they ever ask to search, I will flatly refuse.
Cops will lie to your face trying to get you to say something. They don't care if they send an innocent guy to prison. Just watch an interrogation on the tube. I know how they would lie to BASE jumpers in order to get them to give up their buds. Lying is just a tact they take.
I don't have much respect for this.
|
|
perswig
climber
|
|
|
Apr 18, 2014 - 01:19pm PT
|
I agree, zBrown; this thread's pretty entertaining, but WBraun's pics are a welcome respite.
Keep on keepin' on.
Dale
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Apr 18, 2014 - 01:20pm PT
|
Good summary, F.
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
|
Apr 18, 2014 - 02:13pm PT
|
Can you cite any US legal code or judicial precedent that permits anyone to engage a US officer with a firearm?
You don't lose your rights to self defense just because the aggressor is an LEO. But of course you have no right to self defense if you are resisting a lawful arrest.
I have no idea what happened here one way or the other--just making sure that no one is under the misapprehension that you don't have the right to self defense against an LEO, depending on the circumstances.
For example, here's a slightly interesting case supporting a criminal defendant's right of discovery to support his claim he was exercising his right of self defense against deputies who were in the process of arresting him using excessive force.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15520905555230302925&q=%22self+defense%22+against+%22law+enforcement%22&hl=en&as_sdt=4006
As a matter of the way the world works, you're probably not gonna get real good results claiming self defense against an LEO unless you can show he was clearly acting way over the line.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Apr 18, 2014 - 02:23pm PT
|
You don't lose your rights to self defense just because the aggressor is an LEO. But of course you have no right to self defense if you are resisting a lawful arrest.
its been 40 years since I was in law school, but yes I do think you lose any right of "self defense" when a LEO is engaging legally with you, correct me if this is untrue
regardless, I don't believe anyone was being arrested in Bundyland, were they?
except the cows...
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
|
Apr 18, 2014 - 02:39pm PT
|
Norton, I don't really understand your comment, so it's hard for me to "correct" you.
You seem to think you're disagreeing with me, but there's nothing inconsistent in our respective statements. Let me try again to clear up any confusion that you (or others) may have:
Depending on the circumstances, one may validly exercise his right of self-defense against an LEO (federal, state, UN, or otherwise). Those circumstances will be quite limited, and I have no idea if they were present in this rancher / BLM brouhaha, and whether anyone was assaulted or used legal self-defense.
I was merely concerned that a possible interpretation of Kos's statement could be something like "you have no right to self defense against a a federal officer." That statement, as I have phrased it, is incorrect.
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
|
Apr 18, 2014 - 02:42pm PT
|
The Orange County D.A. said Kelly Thomas had a right to self defense - and every right in the world to resist with everything he had - when the cop who killed him said "see these fists? they're going to f*#k you up".
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
|
Apr 18, 2014 - 02:56pm PT
|
Yes, Chaz, that may be a good example of the point I was making.
I say "may" because these incidents are heavily fact specific, and I'm just not sure what happened in the case you're referring to (although I recall the case generally, and I'm not disputing your characterization of it).
That may be a good example of where an LEO had the right to make an arrest, but the LEO began using illegal excessive force, thereby invoking a right of self-defense on the part of the putative arrestee.
I know many of the statists on this site are upset with the laws of self defense in the US (which vary somewhat depending on the jurisdiction) and the current state of our 2nd Amendment jurisprudence, but "they are what they are," at least until they're changed.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!