Haha, Vermi, you are SO full of shit.
What is truly terrifying about this entire discussion is that it really goes to the core about what is dysfunctional about our government. You are not making arguments. You simply repeat a belief and then choose to ignore facts that contradict that belief. I am a Republican (an actual Republican, not a RINO Tea Partier), and it terrifies me to see these Tea Party people. You simply choose to ignore reality sometimes. You just repeat slogans (which you don't fully understand) and get just enough facts to justify your position. You then conveniently ignore everything else. Climate change? A lie. Evolution? A lie. Obama an American citizen? A lie. Debit ceiling related to spending? Of course! What's even more ridiculous, is that at the end of the day you see yourselves as some sort of "freedom fighters" or "civil rights leaders. Nevermind the fact that people spewing your same type of bullshit only argue "state's rights" or abusive LEOs when it conveniently coincides with their political ideology. You don't support limited government, you support government that does exactly as you want it to do. But, back to the topic:
Here is a snippet from an AP article on the subject:
"The dispute between Bundy and federal land managers began in 1993 when he stopped paying monthly fees of about $1.35 per cow-calf pair to graze public lands that are also home to imperiled animals such as the Mojave Desert tortoise. The government also claims Bundy has ignored cancellation of his grazing leases and defied federal court orders to remove his cattle.
"We won the battle," said Ammon Bundy, one of the rancher's sons.
The bureau said Cliven Bundy still owes taxpayers more than $1 million, which includes both grazing fees and penalties, and that it would work to resolve the matter administratively and through the court system."
So, let's defuse some of the bullshit you've all been spewing. That is, of course, if you even choose to believe an AP article. After all, you Tea Partiers are victims of the big, meanie left wing media all the time. *pause to wipe a tear away on your behalf*:
This isn't private property. They are seizing his cattle because he refused to pay taxes. He attempted to defy the government's order through the use of force.
Everything else you've argued is pretty much a "NOT UH!"
The guy blocks traffic with his ATV. Vermi response: NUT UH!
Guy advances on police officers in what can ONLY be described as a violent, aggressive manner. Vermi response: NUT UH!
Guy refuses to obey lawful orders to back away: NUT UH!
And you, and those taking your position, haven't even articulated a point. If you respond to this -- and I know you will -- I am challenging you to articulate an actual argument. Most far right-wing, Tea Party, crazy hill billy fucks only think they make sense because they refuse to ever articulate an actual position that can be scrutinized and discussed.
For example, thus far your entire position amounts to: (1) cops used too much force/acted too aggressively. You pretend to acknowledge that the LEOs had a lawful right to be there, or that the protesters were interfering with that right/ignoring their lawful orders to back away. But you're only paying lipservice. Because you then take their use of force completely out of context and ignore those crucial facts (see your ridiculous comparisons to traffic stops).
If that's your only argument, get the fuck out of town son. You can see whatever you want to see on that video, any jury I've ever seen would convict his ass in ten minutes. His only chance would be to get a jury packed with crazy Tea Partiers that believe the government only has the authority to act when it does exactly as they want it to do.
So I challenge you Vermi, articulate a position. (1) Did the LEO's have a right to be at the location (where the video was shot?); (2) Did the LEO have the lawful right to remove those cattle?; (3) If they did have a lawful right to remove those cattle, did the ranchers have any lawful right to interfere?; (4) Assuming the ranchers do not have the lawful right to interfere with the execution of a lawful court order, how -- in your view -- should the LEOs respond when the ranchers begin physically resisting execution of that court order?; (5) Assuming the ranchers ignore the LEOs commands to not interfere with the execution of the court order, how can the LEOs respond? When is use of force justified? For example, when hillbilly fuck face blocks traffic with his ATV -- how can LEOs respond? Ask him to move it? When he refuses, do they just have to stand there? Do you even acknowledge that this guy was tasered immediately after driving his ATV at LEOs, blocking traffic, then refusing to back away?
I'm double dog daring you to answer those questions. I know you're going to try, and I cannot wait to see the mental gymnastics...
"Uh... uh, uh... well, no, he didn't drive his ATV at them... he uh... drove it near them. And immediately after driving his ATV at LEOs, he exercised his right to free speech! He wasn't threatening them.. he was just clenching his fists, yelling, and walking at them in a show of peace... Yea... that's the ticket... so even though he drove his ATV at them, blocked traffic, he used his insta-cast shield, "FREE SPEECH RIGHTS!" It's totally immune to logic, the law, or the responsibility of acting like an adult. That makes it all legit... yea... I got this logic thing down bro.
