Sorry, a boobie request was made and I thought those were a fine pair
Hotlinking posts to your server?
The Kooks are Back
- Thread starter SGaynor
- Start date
Sorry, a boobie request was made and I thought those were a fine pair
Hotlinking posts to your server?
The occupied land was managed by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service as directed by the Department of the Interior. Some of the actors were involved in potentially felonious behavior in other states that also involved federally administered lands, as well, which also allows mobilization of federal assets.
It was jurisdictional fair game, and even if it hadn't been, it's not surprising that a force that is meant to be better prepared for such events was present. They are national assets before they are Federal assets. They can be requested, and if the request is within their authority to answer, it must be answered.
It probably wasn't the best call from an escalation perspective given the views of those involved, but the presence and action of Federal assets does not surprise me.
Now, I'm not going to agree or disagree with either side of the affair because I haven't looked into the details, and it's a big fucking inter-state mess to begin with, but the foundation of that overarching narrative paints a very clear picture of who was allowed to be where from an enforcement perspective.
Sometimes it's not about what feels justified. Sometimes it's only about who has been given charge to manage what, whether or not single actors are suspected of involvement in felonious behavior in more than one state, and sometimes it's only about a smaller force requesting help. I don't know if the latter actually happened, but it's allowed.
Cheers,
Kennith
This is the part I see being a Supreme Court case. Or at least part of it. JB seems to think we should just bow down to the enforcement and allow them to fuck us right in the ass and there is nothing we/they can do about it.
However, how can land be federally managed when the feds are not allowed to own the land in the first place according to the Constitution? It seems to me it's beyond the scope of what our federal government is designed to do. To me it's like the mall cop knocking on your door to arresting you for growing weed.
Perhaps I'm wrong here. Perhaps this means nothing anyway as I still have not seen definitive evidence there was even a warrant for LaVoy's arrest.
The appropriate agencies administer land for the welfare of the nation and good of it's citizens (my words). It was put together under Truman to (again, in my words) un-fuck revolutionary and homesteading leftovers, and make sure territory was tended to in as balanced and forward-looking a manner as possible.
That said, one of the earliest precedents in this nation's history involves thirteen individually governed territories ceding land holdings directly to the Federal government, and that wasn't the last time. Various treaties forced the ownership of territory upstairs, and it's been slowly bleeding off into parks and private holdings ever since.
There's still plenty left if you want a square in the middle of nowhere. You'll find, however, that all you own are the rights to occupy the plane created by whatever set of nonlinear points you've chosen; nothing above, and nothing below.
I know it seems a bit of a cop-out nowadays, but that's the point of it all. Everything begins somewhere, and even things that happened so long ago can still cause hiccups. Until all that land is dispersed, Uncle Sam is going to have to manage it for us.
These events may have landed us in some bullshit situations, but they did happen. If they hadn't, we likely wouldn't have much land over which to argue anymore.
As for law enforcement and getting fucked in the ass... I'm personally not a fan, even having operated within and provided training for some of the organizations. I have a natural distrust and distaste for that sort of thing, and that makes discussion a struggle.
I've seen the frustrations from both ends of the common argument, and reconciling them is not an easy matter. It's one of the very few subjects in that realm of study in which I have to carefully avoid contradicting myself as a result of personal opinion in relation to a specific scenario.
Cheers,
Kennith
Now that's just not right. Rules are rules I suppose. Orrrr, did I even what to see that? Who knows with DWeb.
So was there a warrant for LaVoy for trashing some building, arguably, illegally "owned" by the federal government?
Ya I'm sure digging thru computer files to find federal employees personal info and stalking them isn't a problem for you either Chapman. You gotta be just jerking our chains here. You can't possibly believe all this dribble. When Trump gets elected he's gonna lock up people for supporting people like that. Maybe waterboard you to find out what you really know.
Weak…this shit has been being hashed out for many, many years and these guys are bat-shit crazy
It's really simple, while there may not have been a warrant for Lavoy, there were for people in the truck with him that did. Last time I checked harboring or transporting a known criminal is breaking a law or 2.
Regargless of land ownership, they trashed a building. How would you feel if it was your house that they decided was a good place to make a stand. Stole your shit and trashed it. You'd just let them go or expect the law to do something about it
Like I said, I knew I'd regret asking
It's really simple, while there may not have been a warrant for Lavoy, there were for people in the truck with him that did. Last time I checked harboring or transporting a known criminal is breaking a law or 2.
Regargless of land ownership, they trashed a building. How would you feel if it was your house that they decided was a good place to make a stand. Stole your shit and trashed it. You'd just let them go or expect the law to do something about it
Like I said, I knew I'd regret asking
Meaning?
Who had a warrant?
I could take the law into my own hands, sure. Or I could go to the local magistrate and get a warrant. One is legal, one isn't.
I think you people are thinking that I condone what these people did. I don't. I have never said that.
All I'm saying is that there is a much, much larger question that needs to be answered here. It's obvious no one here, at least of the folks who've responded, cannot accurately answer these questions. That's why this case is interesting to me. I don't think it's a conspiracy or anything like that, however I really do feel the Bundy's en all have brought an example of government overreach to light. Like I said, I think it will get interesting.
At lunch, but the 4 stories I goggled all said that there were wanted people with...
The guy I'm having lunch with is a rancher/cattle guy and he thinks these guys are bat shit crazy...lot more to this
And yes, it appears that you want to join the party with them
The guy I'm having lunch with is a rancher/cattle guy and he thinks these guys are bat shit crazy...lot more to this
And yes, it appears that you want to join the party with them
