A staunch defender of liberty in /r/politics wants to know why, if Cliven Bundy was in the wrong, action wasn't taken by the Feds 20 years ago. Doesn't like the answers he receives. (np.reddit.com)
SubredditDrama
57 ups - 30 downs = 27 votes
69 comments submitted at 11:37:38 on Apr 25, 2014 by selfabortion
So if you're told you owe money and should move your shit and you don't ... for a long time, no problem?
I'm gonna take a wild stab and say if this was a short time, or medium, or anytime his supporters would still be arguing it.
"Why didn't they give him enough time to move his stuff, then?"
>if it was federally protected, why did the feds wait so long to tell him?
/u/Eptar keeps asking this question and ignoring the answers he's receiving. No one "waited 20 years" to tell him. In fact, the first court order for him to remove the cattle came in 1998. He just ignored the law for 20 years. People with money can get away with shit like that for a while.
Alright, then why didn't they take action to this extent 20 years ago? Why didn't they take his cattle then? Why didn't they arrest him then? Answer that.
> Alright, then why didn't they take action to this extent 20 years ago?
Because seizing property of and arresting people for non-violent crimes before court proceedings have even started would have been a huge overreaction and most likely against the law. There is such a thing as due process and Bundy got it.
You are making a transparent attempt to set up a Catch-22 here. Either the government goes all out from the start at every dispute and you can complain that they are violating people's rights or they don't and you use it as evidence that they are wrong, or they would have gone all out immediately.
I didn't mean prior to the court proceedings, and you damn well know that. After they found him doing it again, why didn't they arrest him? Why didn't they take his cattle then?
I don't know. It might be because while a court found that Bundy owned those fees and damages, they did not have a court order allowing them to actually seize his cattle. The wikipedia page on the subject explicitly mentions such a court order being granted in October 2013, so there might not have been one earlier. Maybe it was because they did not think the infraction important enough that they wanted to risk a confrontation to stop it until now. Whatever the reason, their inaction does not show that they were wrong. The courts showed the BLM was right.
Fair enough, but my biggest issue is that there was an overly-extreme amount of force used against Bundy... Now, I don't support Bundy, but I support his actions of standing up against the excessive force.
Edit: Also, thank you for actually using reasoning and not attacking me...
I'd argue that the amount of force the BLM was used was not extreme. You can have a look at the following [link.] (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/04/15/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-long-fight-between-cliven-bundy-and-the-federal-government/) It lists some of the things that happened in the conflict between ranchers and the BLM before they attempted to seize Bundy's cows. At the start of the operation to seize Bundy's cattle, Bundy called it a "range war" and he called in armed militias. At that point, I don't think it's unreasonable that the BLM brings in what amounts to SWAT teams.
They had fucking sniper teams deployed... That not excessive?
Not if they're dealing with people threatening force.
In a vacuum, if they showed up with that much force the days after the court case was over, it'd be overreach.
Instead, dealing with a guy, working with militias, saying he doesn't recognize the government. Yeah, some show of force is appropriate.
I sympathize with people who worry about federal overreach. This is just the absolute worst type of case to use to prove your point. If anything they've been too lenient.
When a bunch of sociopaths with a small arsenal of weapons who are threatening to use women and children as human shields start physically assaulting BLM agents? No, that's not really excessive.
When the place was filled with a self-proclaimed armed militia threatening them?
No, not really.
Imagine you are one of the higher-ups in the BLM. You've announced that you are going to enforce a court-order and seize cattle. In response, Bundy calls it a war and calls in an armed militia/mob. Among that group are people who love quotes such as "the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants". The chance of violence is very, very real. Are you going to send in your officers with pistols, so that they are outgunned? No, you're definitely going to go in with heavier weapons, snipers being a part of that. (Note that even the protestors has snipers, you can find a picture of one in the previous link.)
If you want a specific justification for snipers, than I can give that as well. In that crowd that is opposing you, some will be more extreme than others. This is a direct quote from one of these protestors "We’re actually strategizing to put all the women up at the front. If they are going to start shooting, it’s going to be women that are going to be televised all across the world getting shot by these rogue federal officers.” Obviously, some of these people were thinking about how a violent confrontation would have been a propaganda coup against the government. Is it unreasonable to assume that there were even more extreme people in that group ? Who would have started the shooting given an excuse ? And if that happened, would you want BLM officers to shoot wildly into that crowd, or would you want snipers with an overview of the situation, the training and the equipment to take out only those who are actually fighting ?
He threatened the officers who were there to enforce the law he had been ignoring for 20 years as a moocher. Oddly enough, they chose to defend themselves.
There were armed people there and lots if antigovernment rhetoric.
He did mention how he had guns and wasn't afraid to use them....
You think it's a good thing for Federal agents to go in unarmed when the threat of firearms being used is given?
Ooooh I love when they visit us!
Hey, listen up buddy... I have already gotten about 40 different PM's regarding this post, and I am tired of this shit. I am getting harassed from other redditors, all because of this fucking post.
No, you're being harassed by 40 other redditors because [removed personal attack by mods request goes here] you refuse to listen to what's being told to you because... I'm not sure why. Because you want a different answer even though there isn't one? You were given the information. They did start shit 20 years ago but shit takes time. You ever try buying a house? Or anything or large magnitude? Shit doesn't happen overnight.
>~~you're fucking retarded~~
10/10 made me cry from laughing
No personal attacks.
Fixed.
Sure. But why didn't they take action to this extent 20 years ago? Why didn't they take his cattle then? Why didn't they arrest him then? Answer that.
*Edit for the idiots out there: /s
Because they didn't.
Oh, that makes perfect sense. Thanks for answering my silly question.
No problem, give me a call if you have any other doubts. :D
Hey, since you're already here..
I don't mean to divert the conversation from the important question of why it took 20 years for the federal government to do anything, the answer to which is that it's obviously a conspiracy to harass a pillar of the community, but could you give us some background on your brilliant subreddit /r/RealRacism/ ?
In particular, what specific incident made you decide to take a stand against the rampant racism of /r/racism, and splinter into your own vibrant community?
Please be as detailed as you can.
r/racism is an SRS shill subreddit. It was taken over by SRS in an effort to discourage real, rational discourse about why the blacks and jews gettin them rights just ain't gonna cut it.
So they created r/realracism to foster discussion and engage in a dialogue about why white men are number 1 4ever
Because the government isn't evil and will give you like a million chances before they send in officers to enforce the rules.
To distract you from benghazi.
I lol'd
Enforcement resources. Seriously, BLM isn't exactly the most well-funded. Look at the resources they ended up needing to seize what they did. They probably felt that the better method was to pressure Bundy to do it himself, and kicked the can down the road for years until they had the resources. Most people will respond to a judge's order.
This guy completely misses the point that even if the authorities don't intervene immediatly when you infringe the law, it doesn't make your infringement justified.
So...this is going to be like the Benghazi issue for anti-government nuts.
SnapShot
(mirror | open source | create your own snapshots)
The problem with Bundy and what the BLM did is how they did it. The land is there for him to graze on, he just has not paid the requisite fee. The Federal government with the vast powers of the Treasury Department and IRS has no reason to use armed force to secure a debt. Unless this man has all of his cash under a mattress somewhere could the government just not have seized a bank account. This is the same federal government that can over the course of the weekend world wide lock up the Libyan money to the tune of $44 billion or so dollars, without armed personnel. It can't collect $300K from a man in Nevada without making him a cause celebre?
You're glossing over(read: completely omitting) the fact that there was an armed militia that got involved when such collection was attempted.
I dont think you get what I am saying, the collection should have required no personnel on the ground and simply been a letter sent to bundy, oh we just took the money out of your bank account, k thx bye.
Oh I understand what you're saying, and it's as though either you haven't even read anything about the situation or you're being willfully ignorant of the way laws, criminals, and the world work.
Apparently you don't understand how the government usually seizes money it is due. It simply takes it from the bank, there as has been no report to say they tried this, which should have been their first course of action.
You realize they did that twice through the courts, and Mr Bundy just kinda conveniently ignored it? He may have had SOME money in the bank, but no doubt it wasn't enough to cover the entire amount owed, which means civil forfeiture and seizure. And seizure means someone on the ground to go grab the cows.
I have not seen anywhere where it says they tried to sieze his assets. Yes they got a court order saying payment is due, they have not to my knowledge attempted to use the various means at their disposal to simply grab them without putting boots on the ground. Just like when you don't pay your student loans the government can find your bank account and simply take the money, your car, or your house (which is obviously not on federal land where the protest occured)
If they take your car or your house, someone has to be there to take possession, it's not like they magically fax away your Toyota. In this case, they were taking the physical land back (or, more correctly, taking over usage), which meant removing the cattle that belonged to Mr Bundy, and that requires someone physically there. If someone isn't willing to pay you the money they owe, letters aren't going to get them to pay up. There is a tipping point at which you need to have someone physically present in order to force the decisions of the court, and given that it's taken 20 years to come to this, I'd say that Mr Bundy had ample time and ample due process in which to not only give his side of the case, but pay off his debt. He did neither, was unwilling to abide by the court, and so the order was enforced.
If they take your car they simply roll up with tow truck and impound it where ever they find it then sell it. When he takes his cattle to market all they would have to do is seize the money once it begins making his way to his bank accounts. A rancher probably does have 300K flowing through his accounts over the course of years.
And if you walk out with a gun and tell the tow truck drive he can't have your car, you get a situation like what just happened in Nevada.
You dont think people have tried that when banks seize their property? The more likely thing is you are going to be the grocery store and come out and your car is just going to be gone.
They have, and what happens? Law enforcement shows up in force because you have a weapon and are threatening someone from discharging a legal court order. And yeah, they may take your car in a grocery store parking lot, they may also try to take it from your driveway (which is what happened to my ex, fortunately she wasn't so stupid as to try and stop it with a gun).
The assets were cattle, you can't do a wire transfer of cattle.
He doesnt have a house? The assets are not cattle, the government doesnt want anything but the fee, they can get it from any facet of your estate.
I don't know the details, but I don't see anything wrong with seizing the cattle when the issue is not paying your grazing fees.
b/c it stupidly inflamed the situation.
Oh, it was stupidly inflamed way before that point.
The cattle were the situation. You're just saying they had no right to enforce the law he had been breaking for 20 years and act to stop the law breaking.
So, I can just not pay taxes, and when the government finally comes around to tell me that I need to pay taxes? Then, I can continue to ignore them until they actually get tired of my shit and actually come to me AND THEN I can say, "Lol why you no take money from my bank account?"
No you don't pay taxes the government will place a lien your assets, take your tax refund, and take money directly from a bank account, and tell you after the fact, sorry this is ours now. That is how it is usually done, 300,000 is not a lot for the Federal government to find.
Fair enough, but it doesn't change that this wasn't purely over some money that was owed. It was an ongoing issue over the rancher's grazing cattle which still would have created a showdown since Bundy clearly hadn't been cooperating for 20+ years.
The cattle are supposed to be grazing there Bundy was supposed to be paying a fee for it (land management fee) to the BLM, there is no actual issue with the cattle grazing except for his protest of the fee. If he had paid or similarly if the BLM had simply taken the fee from his assets he there would have been no story.
But that's not how life works.
If I'm taking a service without paying a fee, I don't always just end up paying the fee for the service but also a penalty. There are multiple reasons for that but the two big ones that are relevant to this situation are that it encourages others to just not pay the fee and deal with the same fee at a later date (if they are even caught) and that he is creating a scenario that requires the expense of resources.
Additionally, if they just take the money from him that he is supposed to be paying, then it legitimizes the practice of skirting payment until you get caught because it's the same money one way or the other. If he wants to use the land, he should be paying for the permit BEFORE he has to be prompted over 20+ years and multiple run ins with the court.
I'm not saying he was right in the way he did it. I'm saying the government stupidly was wrong in the way they went after the assets it stupidly inflamed the situation.
This isn't the IRS, though. You are assuming that the BLM have the same powers as the IRS or that the BLM have the ability to ask the IRS or another government agency to step in and take the money straight from the bank account.
I would argue that the fact that the BLM have made multiple attempts over 20+ years to get Bundy to pay voluntarily displays the amount of tools that they have at their disposal. It's much more likely that this was the nuclear option of the BLM rather than them trying to escalate the fiasco.
not gonna argue that a paperwork smackdown would have been better, but its unlikely that he has 300k to even seize
In my defense, the answers I received did not answer my simple and direct question: Why did the feds wait so long to take action like this? If he was breaking the law, why didn't they arrest him?
>They have been taking action for 20 years. They won judgements in court and he refused to stop and refused to pay. They took the cows because after 20 years of asking him nicely and trying to get him to follow the law, they had no other option left.
>Because bureaucracy moves slowly. Because backlash and controversy from the right-wing noise machine slows the gears. Because the federal government isn't always out to get you.
>They DID tell him 20 years ago. That's why they went to court. This is the culmination of 20 years of freeloading and he lost THREE separate court cases about it. Though it's possible I'm misunderstanding your question, there's no question the Feds didn't take action. If you're talking about physical action: It takes time for the Fed bureaucracy to do things, especially something as sensitive as resolving a problem with a potentially trigger-happy rancher who refuses to recognize the government. But then, the last court case was in 2013, so it really hasn't been that long after all.
>Because seizing property of and arresting people for non-violent crimes before court proceedings have even started would have been a huge overreaction and most likely against the law. There is such a thing as due process and Bundy got it.
Quit lying. It's a fucking sin.
And we all know how Clive Bundy feels about sins.
Yep. The government isn't a single entity. Wildlife preserve isn't a role in the government with the full sway of judicial and legislative power. It's not as simple as "we won one court case so now this is priority one for the entire government."
They only have so much time, so many employees, and so much money in the budget. If a group of crazies are willing to organize a resistance, they need to allocate their resources to deal with it. This means they can't spend that money somewhere else. Ultimately, it's likely that those with the power over the last two decades to make a decision to go get all those cattle were weighing the pros and cons and just didn't think it was the best use of their time and money. They can invest all their budget to try to go after one guy's cattle, maybe saving some turtles, or they can invest that money and manpower towards habitat conversation in several areas without loonies that will thwart their efforts.
Eventually the government has to deal with all this, but it's a risky endeavor that can hurt their reputation and career aspirations. Look at the Nevada Wildlife authority's example: he tries to do his job and now several gov't employees who are in the pockets of ranchers are demanding he resign. Humans are humans; most people aren't going to risk their careers for something like this if they can get away with waiting and tackling other problems instead.
> If he was breaking the law, why didn't they arrest him?
You don't seem to understand the difference between civil and criminal law there.
You might want to repeat that another dozen times, maybe then you'll "win" the discussion.