Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Talking Points Memo)   Bundy Ranch 'militia' had strict women-first policy...in case of firefights with federal agency officers   (talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 673
    More: Asinine, Ted Bundy, Bundy Ranch, police officers, firefighters, foreign exchange reserves  
•       •       •

12525 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Apr 2014 at 7:05 AM (40 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



673 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-04-15 02:08:20 PM  

grumpfuff: HeadLever: grumpfuff: Trying to act like Vicki was blameless is also silly, as she had fired shots at the feds as well.

[citation needed]

Can't find the article I read this in, so I'll give up on this point.


Yeah, Wikipedia doesn't have her firing a gun... She was holding the baby at the time.

Before the negotiators arrived at the cabin, FBI sniper Lon Horiuchi, from a position over 200 yards north and above the Weaver cabin,[49] shot and wounded Randy Weaver in the back with the bullet exiting his right armpit, while he was lifting the latch on the shed to visit the body of his dead son.[50] (The sniper testified at the later trial that he had put his crosshairs on Weaver's spine, but Weaver moved at the last second.) Then, as Weaver, his 16-year-old daughter Sara,[51] and Harris ran back toward the house, Horiuchi fired a second bullet, killing Vicki Weaver,[52] and wounded Harris in the chest. Vicki Weaver was standing behind the door through which Harris was entering the house, holding their 10-month-old baby Elisheba[51] in her arms.[53] The Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) Ruby Ridge Task Force Report (June 10, 1994) stated in section I. Executive Summary subhead B. Significant Findings that the second shot did not satisfy constitutional standards for legal use of deadly force.[54] The OPR review also found the lack of a request to surrender was "inexcusable", since Harris and the two Weavers were running for cover without returning fire and were not an imminent threat. The task force also specifically blamed Horiuchi for firing through the door, not knowing whether someone was on the other side of it. While controversy exists as to who is responsible for approving the ROE that were being followed by the sniper, the task force also condemned the so-called "rules of engagement" allowing shots to be fired with no request for surrender.[50]

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

That said, this is completely different than Ruby Ridge, and as I pointed out to someone else, there wouldn't even be the same people in the farking federal agencies...
 
2014-04-15 02:08:20 PM  

This text is now purple: Felgraf: Occupy protestors: Frustrated (Among other things) that banks were allowed to socialize the costs/risks of their business,while keeping the profits to themselves.

This guy: Pissed that the government is trying to keep him from socializing the costs of his business (Grazing on public lands without paying) while keeping the profit to himself.

Yes. You're right.They're TOTALLY the same.

That actually is a similar complaint. Bundy's problem is that the government wants to prevent him from socializing some of his costs for private profit, so it can instead confer that onto a large (and richer) group.

This is pretty much the same beef the Occupy protestors had -- "why can they do it, but not me?"


I... what?

Damn that was some impressive twisting.

No. The real point was "They SHOULDN'T do it". "Why can't they do it, but not me" was generally used to point out how absurd their actions were since, if an individual did them,they'd be considered a deadbeat. That was what the whole thing was about. That it was ridiculous banks were able to get away with what they were doing while still reaping rewards.

That doesn't men it's OK for individual people to trespass and screw over natural areas (which, BTW, he has. The complaint against him is more than just "He grazed on public property". Notice how not even the Rancher's association is sticking up for him?..)
 
2014-04-15 02:08:54 PM  

This text is now purple:  Bundy's problem is that the government wants to prevent him from socializing some of his costs for private profit, so it can instead confer that onto a large (and richer) group.


What group is that?  Please be specific.
 
2014-04-15 02:09:46 PM  

HeadLever: thaylin: You changed thoughts, it was related to the original though, but still an independent thought.

Nope.  I just characterized the refutation through the lens of the snipers that executed the ROE, instead of those that ordered the ROE.


And that is where the issue with your logic became apparent. You should have done the latter.
 
2014-04-15 02:10:57 PM  

This text is now purple: Felgraf: Occupy protestors: Frustrated (Among other things) that banks were allowed to socialize the costs/risks of their business,while keeping the profits to themselves.

This guy: Pissed that the government is trying to keep him from socializing the costs of his business (Grazing on public lands without paying) while keeping the profit to himself.

Yes. You're right.They're TOTALLY the same.

That actually is a similar complaint. Bundy's problem is that the government wants to prevent him from socializing some of his costs for private profit, so it can instead confer that onto a large (and richer) group.

This is pretty much the same beef the Occupy protestors had -- "why can they do it, but not me?"




lh4.googleusercontent.com
 
2014-04-15 02:12:22 PM  
I can't get over how all the criminal sympathizers in the thread are doing their damndest to avoid talking about the facts of the Bundy care. We're hearing about sh*t from 20 years ago with literally no bearing on whether Cliven Bundy's willingness to use women as human shields to vindicate his lawless sense of self-entitlement to privileges no other cattle rancher gets makes him a hero as his apologists claim, or a cowardly criminal as normal people say.
 
2014-04-15 02:13:13 PM  

thaylin: Just because I dont have a citation handy while at work, or even at all, does not mean that it is discounted discounted..


now you are grasping at straws straws.  And yes yes, this assertion has been discounted discounted.  Read Read the trial testimony if you must.  All shots were accounted for there. Come back and tell the class how many came from Vickie.  We'll be right here waiting.
 
2014-04-15 02:15:10 PM  

Mikey1969: grumpfuff: HeadLever: grumpfuff: Trying to act like Vicki was blameless is also silly, as she had fired shots at the feds as well.

[citation needed]

Can't find the article I read this in, so I'll give up on this point.

Yeah, Wikipedia doesn't have her firing a gun... She was holding the baby at the time.

Before the negotiators arrived at the cabin, FBI sniper Lon Horiuchi, from a position over 200 yards north and above the Weaver cabin,[49] shot and wounded Randy Weaver in the back with the bullet exiting his right armpit, while he was lifting the latch on the shed to visit the body of his dead son.[50] (The sniper testified at the later trial that he had put his crosshairs on Weaver's spine, but Weaver moved at the last second.) Then, as Weaver, his 16-year-old daughter Sara,[51] and Harris ran back toward the house, Horiuchi fired a second bullet, killing Vicki Weaver,[52] and wounded Harris in the chest. Vicki Weaver was standing behind the door through which Harris was entering the house, holding their 10-month-old baby Elisheba[51] in her arms.[53] The Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) Ruby Ridge Task Force Report (June 10, 1994) stated in section I. Executive Summary subhead B. Significant Findings that the second shot did not satisfy constitutional standards for legal use of deadly force.[54] The OPR review also found the lack of a request to surrender was "inexcusable", since Harris and the two Weavers were running for cover without returning fire and were not an imminent threat. The task force also specifically blamed Horiuchi for firing through the door, not knowing whether someone was on the other side of it. While controversy exists as to who is responsible for approving the ROE that were being followed by the sniper, the task force also condemned the so-called "rules of engagement" allowing shots to be fired with no request for surrender.[50]

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

That said, this is completely diff ...


That article is of very dubious reliability. It downplays or obfuscates every fact that makes Weaver look bad, and trumpets or exaggerates every fact that makes the government look bad. It has zero credibility.
 
2014-04-15 02:15:22 PM  

dittybopper: Prank Call of Cthulhu: The Muthaship: As Sun Tzu said, "Avoid what is strong, attack what is weak".

Of course, Sun Tzu also said crap like, "Generally, operations of war require one thousand fast four-horse chariots, one thousand four-horse wagons covered in leather, and one hundred thousand mailed troops," so what does he know?

A lot, actually.

Don't mistake period specific advice for general advice that always applies.


It's been generalized: "Get thar fustest with the mostest."
 
2014-04-15 02:16:29 PM  

Mikey1969: That said, this is completely different than Ruby Ridge, and as I pointed out to someone else, there wouldn't even be the same people in the farking federal agencies...


No doubt.  I have given the DoI kudos for this action as they seemed to have actually learned a lesson or two from the 90s.

On the flippant side, I noticed that they kept the ATF as far away as possible......
 
2014-04-15 02:16:44 PM  

HeadLever: thaylin: Just because I dont have a citation handy while at work, or even at all, does not mean that it is discounted discounted..

now you are grasping at straws straws.  And yes yes, this assertion has been discounted discounted.  Read Read the trial testimony if you must.  All shots were accounted for there. Come back and tell the class how many came from Vickie.  We'll be right here waiting.


I suggest ordering from Little Caesar's and getting a pizza pizza while you study study the trial testimony.

Just make sure you have extra pepto pepto for later.
 
2014-04-15 02:19:31 PM  

HeadLever: thaylin: Just because I dont have a citation handy while at work, or even at all, does not mean that it is discounted discounted..

now you are grasping at straws straws.  And yes yes, this assertion has been discounted discounted.  Read Read the trial testimony if you must.  All shots were accounted for there. Come back and tell the class how many came from Vickie.  We'll be right here waiting.


And was the account from their side or the feds side? Did the feds argue against them?
 
2014-04-15 02:20:01 PM  

Mikey1969: grumpfuff: HeadLever: grumpfuff: Trying to act like Vicki was blameless is also silly, as she had fired shots at the feds as well.

[citation needed]

Can't find the article I read this in, so I'll give up on this point.

Yeah, Wikipedia doesn't have her firing a gun... She was holding the baby at the time.

Before the negotiators arrived at the cabin, FBI sniper Lon Horiuchi, from a position over 200 yards north and above the Weaver cabin,[49] shot and wounded Randy Weaver in the back with the bullet exiting his right armpit, while he was lifting the latch on the shed to visit the body of his dead son.[50] (The sniper testified at the later trial that he had put his crosshairs on Weaver's spine, but Weaver moved at the last second.) Then, as Weaver, his 16-year-old daughter Sara,[51] and Harris ran back toward the house, Horiuchi fired a second bullet, killing Vicki Weaver,[52] and wounded Harris in the chest. Vicki Weaver was standing behind the door through which Harris was entering the house, holding their 10-month-old baby Elisheba[51] in her arms.[53] The Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) Ruby Ridge Task Force Report (June 10, 1994) stated in section I. Executive Summary subhead B. Significant Findings that the second shot did not satisfy constitutional standards for legal use of deadly force.[54] The OPR review also found the lack of a request to surrender was "inexcusable", since Harris and the two Weavers were running for cover without returning fire and were not an imminent threat. The task force also specifically blamed Horiuchi for firing through the door, not knowing whether someone was on the other side of it. While controversy exists as to who is responsible for approving the ROE that were being followed by the sniper, the task force also condemned the so-called "rules of engagement" allowing shots to be fired with no request for surrender.[50]

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

That said, this is completely diff ...


Yes, I already admitted I can't find where I read it and retracted the claim.
 
2014-04-15 02:20:56 PM  

Baz744: It downplays or obfuscates every fact that makes Weaver look bad,


Then go back and look at the court case.  The problem with that is the government even looks more incompetent.

No doubt that Randy Weaver was an unsavory character, however, that does not excuse the government and how they found out a way to take a failed blackmail attempt and turn it into an incident of epic proportions.
 
2014-04-15 02:23:31 PM  

thaylin: HeadLever: thaylin: Just because I dont have a citation handy while at work, or even at all, does not mean that it is discounted discounted..

now you are grasping at straws straws.  And yes yes, this assertion has been discounted discounted.  Read Read the trial testimony if you must.  All shots were accounted for there. Come back and tell the class how many came from Vickie.  We'll be right here waiting.

And was the account from their side or the feds side? Did the feds argue against them?


She voluntarily participated in a standoff against LEOs who had surrounded her house and called for her surrender. She voluntarily endangered her own children. She and she alone is responsible for what happened.

Remember folks: to conservatives "life is all about choices and personal responsibility."

Unless you're an anti-government lunatic resisting law enforcement. Then suddenly nothing you do is your fault.
 
2014-04-15 02:24:31 PM  

HeadLever: Baz744: It downplays or obfuscates every fact that makes Weaver look bad,

Then go back and look at the court case.  The problem with that is the government even looks more incompetent.

No doubt that Randy Weaver was an unsavory character, however, that does not excuse the government and how they found out a way to take a failed blackmail attempt and turn it into an incident of epic proportions.


In this case the government did things very poorly, that is not even in dispute, but that does not mean that every action is as poorly. If you held a group to their lowest accomplishment always we would all be not trusted.
 
2014-04-15 02:25:49 PM  

This text is now purple: Felgraf: Occupy protestors: Frustrated (Among other things) that banks were allowed to socialize the costs/risks of their business,while keeping the profits to themselves.

This guy: Pissed that the government is trying to keep him from socializing the costs of his business (Grazing on public lands without paying) while keeping the profit to himself.

Yes. You're right.They're TOTALLY the same.

That actually is a similar complaint. Bundy's problem is that the government wants to prevent him from socializing some of his costs for private profit, so it can instead confer that onto a large (and richer) group.

This is pretty much the same beef the Occupy protestors had -- "why can they do it, but not me?"


Wut?
 
2014-04-15 02:27:43 PM  

thaylin: And was the account from their side or the feds side?


Randy Weaver never testified during this trial.  He did not need to.  For the best non-biased article on this matter that I have been able to find read my court case link in my response to Baz744.  You can find some parallels to the Bundy issue here as well.
 
2014-04-15 02:30:44 PM  

HeadLever: thaylin: And was the account from their side or the feds side?

Randy Weaver never testified during this trial.  He did not need to.  For the best non-biased article on this matter that I have been able to find read my court case link in my response to Baz744.  You can find some parallels to the Bundy issue here as well.


From what I have read in the short period there are little parallels, other than it is the government. In one case it was an incorrect court appearance, in the latter it is someone who has lost 2 court cases already.. The only parallels I see is that it involves crazies are not the government
 
2014-04-15 02:31:22 PM  

Baz744: She voluntarily participated in a standoff against LEOs who had surrounded her house and called for her surrender. She voluntarily endangered her own children. She and she alone is responsible for what happened.


So the sniper that shot her had no culpability?  If so, why did the government settlement give the Weavers a few million dollars?
 
2014-04-15 02:33:03 PM  

HeadLever: Baz744: She voluntarily participated in a standoff against LEOs who had surrounded her house and called for her surrender. She voluntarily endangered her own children. She and she alone is responsible for what happened.

So the sniper that shot her had no culpability?  If so, why did the government settlement give the Weavers a few million dollars?


settlements do not imply guilt dude, settlements typically happen if the POTENTIAL COST outweighs the settlement. According to what I read by the sniper he did not see her.
 
2014-04-15 02:36:03 PM  

thaylin: From what I have read in the short period there are little parallels, other than it is the government. In one case it was an incorrect court appearance, in the latter it is someone who has lost 2 court cases already.. The only parallels I see is that it involves crazies are not the government


Read that court case article with a mind to the parallels (it is a good refresher and pretty non-biased of the events of this cluster).  You are right the background is different, but look for the reaction of the right wing crazies and the political motivations of the government.
 
2014-04-15 02:43:40 PM  

thaylin: settlements do not imply guilt dude,


If you would have read the article, the settlement was there to keep more dirt on the US Government's handling of this situation from coming to light.
 
2014-04-15 02:44:25 PM  
I haven't read through all 568 comments, just scanned through for pictures. TFA mentions Bundy and putting women in front, and I've seen ONE picture each of Al, Peg, and Kelly.  Maybe I missed it, but just in case, I'll put this here because it must be done:
www.klartextsatire.de

/can't believe there aren't more pics of Kelly in bikini. sadness ensues. My Fark, my Fark, why hast thou forsaken me?
 
2014-04-15 02:47:36 PM  

Baz744: She voluntarily participated in a standoff against LEOs who had surrounded her house and called for her surrender. She voluntarily endangered her own children. She and she alone is responsible for what happened.


I never understood that.  Why would you stay in a place that you know is going hill so fast?  There is no good when your house/cabin is surrounded by LEOs.  Lay down arms come out and work it all out in court if you are innocent.
 
2014-04-15 02:52:36 PM  
img.fark.net
 
2014-04-15 02:57:36 PM  

doglover: It's how you beat the US. You can't win against the US government in a firefight or the courts. They're too big and too powerful. But they're HIGHLY vulnerable to bad press and pretty bipolar of government.

You just have make the problem thorny enough for them to back down or do something stupid. When they do either, the little guy can win. That's how the Taliban has been fighting the war Afganistan. Sure, we've got military superiority in the field, but they basically control the country no matter what we do because the country wants them. We kill one, two more pop up to avenge him a little later.

It's the same thing here. The women are just as batshiat crazy anti-govenment as the men. The difference is that if a few of them get shot, the whole country will rise up against the BLM, EVEN THOUGH IT'S THEIR(the women's) FAULT THEY WERE EVEN AT THE STUPID RANCH, and Bundy might just win his retarded little war.

Now there's various ways to counter all this without it coming to bloodshed, but if the BLM is as bungling as the ATF, don't be surprised if they're not even tried. But you have to give them militia people props. They know what their odds are.


The BLM isn't bungling. They're waiting. Southern NV with triple-digit temperatures isn't comfortable, and most of these people are from out of state and probably don't have the money or time to spend indefinitely around the ranch. Instead of having a shootout that ends with another Waco, the BLM is sitting back, waiting until Bundy's supporters have gone home, and then quietly arresting him. That's exactly what they should be doing--no loss of life, justice served, everyone wins.

/Also why the FAA has a no-fly zone over the ranch.
//This isn't a war--this is a society with a crazy guy. Letting him wear himself out, then locking his ass up, is exactly how to handle it.
 
2014-04-15 03:01:21 PM  

TheBigJerk: I believe it is still technically a fallacy


Hmm. So what options are we left with? Lend equal weight to everything one specific party says? That could be written off as appeal to authority ("Neil deGrasse Tyson said it, so it must be true") or ad hominem ("Glenn Beck said it, so it's bullshiat").

This is why I don't believe no one about nuttin'.
 
2014-04-15 03:01:41 PM  
Do it russian style. Send in some Comanches, pick up the militia member parts with tweezers. The parts you can find, anyway. Make no apologies, move on.  Send that schmuck a bill from the gubmint if for anything else, being a grandstaning asshole.
Hope they have a BBQ, and chat=rge him, serving cattle the BLM took from him.
 
2014-04-15 03:01:41 PM  
Baz744:
Sorry to rain on your anti-America propaganda, but "free speech zones" are erected to protect First Amendment rights in situations where the potential for violence calls for heavy law enforcement to preserve order.

Riiight. You are literally the first person I have ever seen defend the "free speech zones". It's funny how sometimes these free speech zones are many blocks away from the actual event. It conveniently puts protesters in a place where the vast majority of attendees and especially the media covering the event won't see or hear them unless they go well out of their way.

Back in the '90s my public university added outdoor "free speech" areas on campus. There were two. Before that if people wanted to speak, they just stood pretty much where they felt like it on campus and spoke. Nothing violent occurred nor were there any major disturbances, so I don't know what prompted it, but the administration then decided that speakers had to stand in one of the two new "free speech" zones instead.

Now maybe a university, even a public one, has some legal basis for being able to do that, but it was still disturbing in a place that is supposed to foster the free exchange of ideas. It's more disturbing when the government does it at public events.

Despite the sinister connotations both those on the left and more recently (out of convenience) those on the right give to the term, the simple reality is that free speech zones  enablesafe and orderly speech activities to take place in environments where the government has a sufficiently compelling interest in security and order to arguably justify temporarily and in a limited area suppressing speechaltogether.

It seems to me that the primary security dangers at these events have jack all to do with people speaking. If people start getting violent in any way, then by all means, arrest them and remove them from the area. In your presidential debate example, if someone is agitating for violence against the president, they are breaking the law. Arrest them.

The problem with free speech zones is that they have very quickly become a convenient way to move protesters as far away as law enforcement thinks they can get away with and/or pen them in to a small area to control the size and extent of the protest. It's about making things easy and convenient for law enforcement, not about preserving anyone's rights.
 
2014-04-15 03:02:21 PM  
Came to see what happens when anti-law enforcement, damn-the-man Farkers realize have to defend their savior's law enforcement apparatus. Left amused.
 
2014-04-15 03:06:34 PM  

grumpfuff: This text is now purple: grumpfuff: Yea, there totally wasn't already one gunfight where a fed was killed already.

This is the incident where the US Marshals arrived to seize a man on date different from that on the notice letter he received, for falsified charges, and which was escalated by four Marshals shooting a 14 year-old in the back as he retreated on his own property?

No.


Please point to which of my statements are not consistent with the wikipedia article you cited.
 
2014-04-15 03:10:45 PM  

patrick767: It seems to me that the primary security dangers at these events have jack all to do with people speaking. If people start getting violent in any way, then by all means, arrest them and remove them from the area. In your presidential debate example, if someone is agitating for violence against the president, they are breaking the law. Arrest them.


How do you think they can pull one person out of a mob of people all armed?  Do you really think stupid people in numbers with guns are rational?  You try and somone gets frisky and strikes an officier and it all snowballs into a clusterfark of people getting shot.
 
2014-04-15 03:11:32 PM  

TNel: Why would you stay in a place that you know is going hill so fast?


Because she was a government-hating separatist that loved her family.

 Lay down arms come out and work it all out in court if you are innocent.

The Weavers felt that the government was out to get them.  In certain respects - they were right, though paranoia was defiantly a disease that they were all carrying.  In any case, their mistrust of the government kept them from simply surrendering.
 
2014-04-15 03:11:35 PM  

jndisharif: Came to see what happens when anti-law enforcement, damn-the-man Farkers realize have to defend their savior's law enforcement apparatus. Left amused.


Yep.  You're through the looking-glass, along with all the rest of us.  It's grimly amusing, I'll admit.
 
2014-04-15 03:12:54 PM  

TNel: Baz744: She voluntarily participated in a standoff against LEOs who had surrounded her house and called for her surrender. She voluntarily endangered her own children. She and she alone is responsible for what happened.

I never understood that.  Why would you stay in a place that you know is going hill so fast?  There is no good when your house/cabin is surrounded by LEOs.  Lay down arms come out and work it all out in court if you are innocent.


Perhaps she paranoically suspected the government had a shoot on sight order.

Which as it turns out, it did have.
 
2014-04-15 03:14:49 PM  

notto: This text is now purple:  Bundy's problem is that the government wants to prevent him from socializing some of his costs for private profit, so it can instead confer that onto a large (and richer) group.

What group is that?  Please be specific.


I suspect Bundy thinks it's Harry Reid.

Now we'll see if we can argue the similarities and differences between Bundy's group and Occupy, or whether we're going to get bogged down in the truthiness of their various apparent tenets.
 
2014-04-15 03:18:50 PM  

This text is now purple: grumpfuff: This text is now purple: grumpfuff: Yea, there totally wasn't already one gunfight where a fed was killed already.

This is the incident where the US Marshals arrived to seize a man on date different from that on the notice letter he received, for falsified charges, and which was escalated by four Marshals shooting a 14 year-old in the back as he retreated on his own property?

No.

Please point to which of my statements are not consistent with the wikipedia article you cited.


The Marshals at the time were scouting the area. They may have been there to arrest him, but they weren't actually doing it yet.

As to shooting the kid,

Accounts differ at this point as to who first opened fire but agree that DUSM Roderick shot and killed Weaver's dog and that Samuel Weaver returned fire at Roderick. After the Federal agents began firing, 14 year old Samuel Weaver was shot in the back while retreating,and DUSM Degan was shot and killed by Harris.


Interesting that you know the timeline of when things happened when Wiki says it's not known for sure.
 
2014-04-15 03:21:28 PM  

grumpfuff: This text is now purple: grumpfuff: This text is now purple: grumpfuff: Yea, there totally wasn't already one gunfight where a fed was killed already.

This is the incident where the US Marshals arrived to seize a man on date different from that on the notice letter he received, for falsified charges, and which was escalated by four Marshals shooting a 14 year-old in the back as he retreated on his own property?

No.

Please point to which of my statements are not consistent with the wikipedia article you cited.

The Marshals at the time were scouting the area. They may have been there to arrest him, but they weren't actually doing it yet.

As to shooting the kid,

Accounts differ at this point as to who first opened fire but agree that DUSM Roderick shot and killed Weaver's dog and that Samuel Weaver returned fire at Roderick. After the Federal agents began firing, 14 year old Samuel Weaver was shot in the back while retreating,and DUSM Degan was shot and killed by Harris.


Interesting that you know the timeline of when things happened when Wiki says it's not known for sure.


Oh, as to falsified charges, you'd have to be a bit more specific.
 
2014-04-15 03:27:03 PM  

grumpfuff: Interesting that you know the timeline of when things happened when Wiki says it's not known for sure.


The timeline of his statement is factually true.  The date on the notice letter for his court appearance was in error (Feb 1991).  When Weaver did not show up for the wrong date, a warrant was issued with the US Marshall's Service in which the place was staked out and the Weavers 'holed-up'.  This stakeout cumulated in the incident at the wye trails in August of 92 where Sam and Degan were killed.
 
2014-04-15 03:29:36 PM  

grumpfuff: Oh, as to falsified charges, you'd have to be a bit more specific


Obviously, he is talking about the ATF weapons charge (regarding the sawed off shotguns) where he was acquitted.  Please read my link up there if you don't know the background.
 
2014-04-15 03:30:05 PM  

This text is now purple: Perhaps she paranoically suspected the government had a shoot on sight order.

Which as it turns out, it did have.


Which wasn't something that happened overnight.  If you think they would have fired on her if she walked out waving any kind of white item then there isn't any means to continue discussion.  What happened sucked but this was something that was allowed to fester on both sides before it got to the breaking point.
 
2014-04-15 03:31:23 PM  

HeadLever: grumpfuff: Interesting that you know the timeline of when things happened when Wiki says it's not known for sure.

The timeline of his statement is factually true.  The date on the notice letter for his court appearance was in error (Feb 1991).  When Weaver did not show up for the wrong date, a warrant was issued with the US Marshall's Service in which the place was staked out and the Weavers 'holed-up'.  This stakeout cumulated in the incident at the wye trails in August of 92 where Sam and Degan were killed.


Sounded to me like he was implying the kid was killed before the fed. Maybe I should have made that more clear.
 
2014-04-15 03:32:36 PM  

dr_blasto: way south: This text is now purple: way south: One could say that it was an example of what happens when you don't leave people alone.
Of course we can't know what was really going through McVeigh's head, but revenge was among the theories. Abuses by the fed aren't soon forgotten or forgiven by some people.

McVeigh was pretty open that his motive was reprisal for Waco and Ruby Ridge.

Aye, that's what he said.
The question is if he would have not been a terrorist if the fed had not botched both situations. There's no way to prove he wouldn't have found some other grievance to base his attack on.
Violent farkwits never think they're in the wrong. They always find a justification.

He had no connection to the Branch Davidians and no connection to Randy Weaver. Because of that, it is probably a safe bet that he would have found some other equally disturbing action to justify the batshiat insane "response" he had, even if those federal actions were simple and every day things.

Crazy people do crazy shiat. They don't need a George Bush or Bill Clinton, they'll use whomever they want as an excuse.




Exactly.
But, on the flip side, they don't need more excuses. Poorly managed incidents not only encourage them but increase their ability to get help from others.
McVeigh and Nichols got quite a bit of help from those with anti government sentiments, who weren't hard to find in the nineties.

The desire to shine government boots in the behind of a rancher is giving legitimacy to the militia movement. It's all loss and no gain to pursue this man at this time.
 
2014-04-15 03:34:10 PM  

HeadLever: grumpfuff: Oh, as to falsified charges, you'd have to be a bit more specific

Obviously, he is talking about the ATF weapons charge (regarding the sawed off shotguns) where he was acquitted.  Please read my link up there if you don't know the background.


I'm not a mind reader, so I like to make sure I have the specifics of the argument correct before I respond to them.
 
2014-04-15 03:34:46 PM  

TNel: What happened sucked but this was something that was allowed to fester on both sides before it got to the breaking point.


Also, this.
 
2014-04-15 03:36:56 PM  

This text is now purple: I suspect Bundy thinks it's Harry Reid.

Now we'll see if we can argue the similarities and differences between Bundy's group and Occupy, or whether we're going to get bogged down in the truthiness of their various apparent tenets.


Counter argument: We have concrete evidence of the banks socializing losses and privatizing profits. It was called '2008'.

We have no evidence that a defunct solar deal that A) Went dead a year ago, and B) Was probably not even considered when this started *TWENTY YEARS AGO*  has anything, at all, to do with this, other than as a red herring.
 
2014-04-15 03:39:18 PM  

PsiChick: The BLM isn't bungling. They're waiting. Southern NV with triple-digit temperatures isn't comfortable



They are planning to switch to Celsius to fix that problem.

Checkmate, BLM.
 
2014-04-15 03:51:37 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: Graffito: reubendaley: Felgraf: way south: Even if it means having extreme patience and suffering the company of idiots for a few years. Its better than a shootout.

It took two decades to get to this point.

Exactly how much patience should they have?

Should people just not have to follow laws they don't feel like following?

If you and I let someone continue to take advantage of us, we eventually lose our right to compensation. I still don't know whether Bundy was a tenant or a trespasser but unlike the BLM, private citizens lose the right to seek damages after a period of time (Statute of Limitations, typically 3 years). If Bundy had done the same thing to another private landowner, I doubt that the private citizen would have stood by idly like the BLM appears to have done. So while Bundy may be in the wrong, this seems to be yet another example of government ineptitude. If Bundy was in violation of BLM rules, whose job was it to know it, whose job was it to deal with it once it was known or should have been known, and why didn't they do their job? If I don't do my job I don't have a job. If government is going to undertake to do a job, shouldn't they be held to the same standards as the citizens?

Let me ask you something?  If someone commits welfare fraud does it bother you?   If that person gets away with it for 3 years should it no longer be considered a crime?  What about illegal immigrants?  If they've managed to live here for 3 years would you grant them green cards?  What about the state of Tennessee's failure to process rape kits?  Doe that gov't incompetence turn those rapes into non-crimes?  Your support of Bundy is just as ridiculous.  You and I and our children are the victims of Bundy's welfare fraud.

Why don't you want him to pay up?

I wonder, if they had done this within three years of Bundy failing to pay the fines, would reub then be whining how mean and fast acting and unfair the federal government is?


No - as a property owner I am fully in favor if holding people accountable for their actions, whether the plaintiff is a private citizen or a governmental entity.

Read my original comment (this is directed at all of the people who responded to my post) and tell me what I wrote that equates to supporting Bundy, not wanting him to pay up or wanting people to get away with fraud or rape. My original point was actually (perhaps too subtly) critical of the government's ineffective handling of this long-standing dispute.

If wiki is accurate that "Bundy was eventually prohibited from grazing his cattle on the land by an order issued in 1998 by the United States District Court for the District of Nevada in United States v. Bundy" then the action that triggered the recent protests should have been taken in 1998.

I'm ok with people interpreting my comments and presuming to know my stripe, but dayum - give a little thought to the exercise.
 
2014-04-15 03:57:42 PM  

way south: dr_blasto: way south: This text is now purple: way south: One could say that it was an example of what happens when you don't leave people alone.
Of course we can't know what was really going through McVeigh's head, but revenge was among the theories. Abuses by the fed aren't soon forgotten or forgiven by some people.

McVeigh was pretty open that his motive was reprisal for Waco and Ruby Ridge.

Aye, that's what he said.
The question is if he would have not been a terrorist if the fed had not botched both situations. There's no way to prove he wouldn't have found some other grievance to base his attack on.
Violent farkwits never think they're in the wrong. They always find a justification.

He had no connection to the Branch Davidians and no connection to Randy Weaver. Because of that, it is probably a safe bet that he would have found some other equally disturbing action to justify the batshiat insane "response" he had, even if those federal actions were simple and every day things.

Crazy people do crazy shiat. They don't need a George Bush or Bill Clinton, they'll use whomever they want as an excuse.

Exactly.
But, on the flip side, they don't need more excuses. Poorly managed incidents not only encourage them but increase their ability to get help from others.
McVeigh and Nichols got quite a bit of help from those with anti government sentiments, who weren't hard to find in the nineties.

The desire to shine government boots in the behind of a rancher is giving legitimacy to the militia movement. It's all loss and no gain to pursue this man at this time.


I agree that proper handling will make a difference. Had BLM's LE support kept the pressure on and had the BLM wranglers continued to capture and take the cattle, we'd probably see someone get shooty.

The government put on their big-boy pants at the right time and de-escalated the situation. There was no need get immediate relief from the rancher's recalcitrance. This is a 20-year dispute. In no way should the rancher be allowed to continue to profit from his illegal grazing, though.

Someone suggested that the BLM forgive the back fines and debt. That would essentially hand the case over to the IRS.

Some farkers are meaner than others.
 
Displayed 50 of 673 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report