Judge declares a mistrial in Bundy case

[bshole]

Since when are the BLM, FBI and federal agencies considered "civilians" and what acts are you talking about? Grazing cattle or defending themselves?

Taj, are you aware of the definition of "especially"? Hint, it does not mean "exclusively". If you aren't going to the use language in the same way as the rest of society, there can be no communication.

You sound a little like Kent Hovind who makes up his own definition of evolution which bears almost no relation to the actual definition.

the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

 

[Victorian Gray]

https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/please-read-your-enlightened-cooperation-is-required.2508623/

Is it that you simply don't see the words, perhaps a vision problem, or are you experiencing some kind of mental breakdown?

 

[Jhhnn]

What terrorist act? Grazing cattle on land they believe they have a claim on?

There's that "believe" word. The Bundys & their supporters believe in a lot of really stupid shit, don't they?

 

[imported_tajmahal]

There's that "believe" word. The Bundys & their supporters believe in a lot of really stupid shit, don't they?

Only stupid shit to you, things such as freedom and the Constitution.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Is it that you simply don't see the words, perhaps a vision problem, or are you experiencing some kind of mental breakdown?

You mean "the must be used sparingly"? If you say so.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Taj, are you aware of the definition of "especially"? Hint, it does not mean "exclusively". If you aren't going to the use language in the same way as the rest of society, there can be no communication.

You sound a little like Kent Hovind who makes up his own definition of evolution which bears almost no relation to the actual definition.

No, the real terrorists in this escapade were the BLM, the FBI agents and the US attorneys that lied, cheated, hid evidence and broke numerous laws so badly a Federal judge had to throw the entire case out with prejudice! Read the damn stories, pull your head out of your ass and realize in this particular case the US government were the bad guys.

It's amazing to me that you hate america assholes constantly blame the government for everything except what you can blame on big business, but in a case of clear US government misconduct you try to blame someone else.

 

[brycejones]

Tajbot should the Bundy's be forced to comply with the court orders in the cases they have already lost against the BLM for grazing their cattle illegally?

 

[bshole]

No, the real terrorists in this escapade were the BLM, the FBI agents and the US attorneys that lied, cheated, hid evidence and broke numerous laws so badly a Federal judge had to throw the entire case out with prejudice! Read the damn stories, pull your head out of your ass and realize in this particular case the US government were the bad guys.

It's amazing to me that you hate america assholes constantly blame the government for everything except what you can blame on big business, but in a case of clear US government misconduct you try to blame someone else.

This is a diversion. These men you are defending occupied land not owned by themselves and threatened to shoot anybody who tried to remove them. They did this for a political objective. That is consistent with the definition of terrorism that I supplied.

It can be reasonably argued that American drone strikes are also consistent with that definition.

Federal agents lying is inconsistent with that definition. If they did that, they did do something wrong but it was not a terrorist act.

Basically you are denying the definition of terrorism and using it in a way inconsistent with standard usage. Since you reject the accepted definition of terrorism, please supply us with your definition of it.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Tajbot should the Bundy's be forced to comply with the court orders in the cases they have already lost against the BLM for grazing their cattle illegally?

I hope those cases are reviewed to find out if the BLM and other witnesses against the Bundys had a little connection to the facts as this trial did.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

This is a diversion. These men you are defending occupied land not owned by themselves and threatened to shoot anybody who tried to remove them. They did this for a political objective. That is consistent with the definition of terrorism that I supplied.

It can be reasonably argued that American drone strikes are also consistent with that definition.

Federal agents lying is inconsistent with that definition. If they did that, they did do something wrong but it was not a terrorist act.

Basically you are denying the definition of terrorism and using it in a way inconsistent with standard usage. Since you reject the accepted definition of terrorism, please supply us with your definition of it.

It didn't fit the common definition of terrorism. In fact the early FBI reports that were not given to the defense or the Bundy lawyers said the Bundys were not violent and would not respond in a violent matter. Read the damn stories!

 

[bshole]

It didn't fit the common definition of terrorism. In fact the early FBI reports that were not given to the defense or the Bundy lawyers said the Bundys were not violent and would not respond in a violent matter. Read the damn stories!

Which explains why one of them pulled a gun in an attempt to murder FBI agents on tape. Whom am I to believe, you or my lying eyes?

Pro-tip - If you find yourself in an ARMED standoff with federal agents, there is a better than even chance that you are not a peaceful person.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Which explains why one of them pulled a gun in an attempt to murder FBI agents on tape.

Pro-tip - If you find yourself in an ARMED standoff with federal agents, there is a better than even chance that you are not a peaceful person.

Are you talking about the incident in Oregon or the subject of this thread? You don't even know do you? You didn't bother reading the stories did you? Welcome home! I love you guys.

 

[brycejones]

I hope those cases are reviewed to find out if the BLM and other witnesses against the Bundys had a little connection to the facts as this trial did.

Did the Bundy's pay their grazing fees or not? If not did they continue grazing their cattle after being told to stop? These aren't exactly difficult legal issues.

 

[bshole]

Are you talking about the incident in Oregon or the subject of this thread? You don't even know do you? You didn't bother reading the stories did you? Welcome home! I love you guys.

Well in one incident the Bundy clan threatened murder of federal agents and in the other incident a member of the Clan attempted murder. Unlike you, I believe the Bundys when they say they will kill people. You evidently think they are liars.

 

[Victorian Gray]

You mean "the must be used sparingly"? If you say so.

Ah, that makes so much more sense. You're simply being a jackass. Cool.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Did the Bundy's pay their grazing fees or not? If not did they continue grazing their cattle after being told to stop? These aren't exactly difficult legal issues.

Do his water rights grant him control of the land? Is it actually BLM land or is it Nevada State land? Did the federal government illegally seize it? Yes they are difficult legal issues, especially if you live out west.

Why the hell does the Federal government claim over 80% of Nevada? Why hasn't that land been opened up for private ownership? How would you feel if the feds suddenly grabbed 80% of Connecticut or Virginia? Sorry, we need it for some government purpose.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Ah, that makes so much more sense. You're simply being a jackass. Cool.

I wasn't the one making the request.

 

[brycejones]

Do his water rights grant him control of the land? Is it actually BLM land or is it Nevada State land? Did the federal government illegally seize it? Yes they are difficult legal issues, especially if you live out west.

Why the hell does the Federal government claim over 80% of Nevada? Why hasn't that land been opened up for private ownership? How would you feel if the feds suddenly grabbed 80% of Connecticut or Virginia? Sorry, we need it for some government purpose.

By suddenly grabbed you mean since Nevada since before it was even defined as a territory let alone statehood.

This is a pathetic argument even for you. Water rights are just that water rights not the right to access the land and do whatever you want with it. All of the issues that you mentioned are long settled law and have nothing to do with the BLM being mean to poor Mr. Bundy.

He had his day in court on multiple occasions and lost. If you care about the rule of law you should want those judgements enforced.

 

[IronWing]

Do his water rights grant him control of the land? Is it actually BLM land or is it Nevada State land? Did the federal government illegally seize it? Yes they are difficult legal issues, especially if you live out west.

Why the hell does the Federal government claim over 80% of Nevada? Why hasn't that land been opened up for private ownership? How would you feel if the feds suddenly grabbed 80% of Connecticut or Virginia? Sorry, we need it for some government purpose.

Go read the main Bundy thread. No, water rights do not confer grazing rights. Yes, the federal government can own 80% of Nevada because it was federal land to begin with, no seizure. The land was open for private ownership for over 100 years. The land amenable to private development left federal ownership. The land the Bundys illegally graze is only profitable because the welfare ranchers are sponging off the the tax payers. If you weren't a useless idiot for the deadbeat Bundy welfare cheats you would know this already.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

By suddenly grabbed you mean since Nevada since before it was even defined as a territory let alone statehood.

This is a pathetic argument even for you. Water rights are just that water rights not the right to access the land and do whatever you want with it. All of the issues that you mentioned are long settled law and have nothing to do with the BLM being mean to poor Mr. Bundy.

He had his day in court on multiple occasions and lost. If you care about the rule of law you should want those judgements enforced.

Glad to see you support the rule of law so closely. If the courts decide that DACA subjects can be returned to their native countries i'm sure you'd be happy to support the courts and "the rule of law" as they are shipped out.

 

[Jhhnn]

Glad to see you support the rule of law so closely. If the courts decide that DACA subjects can be returned to their native countries i'm sure you'd be happy to support the courts and "the rule of law" as they are shipped out.

Emergency duh-version procedures?

 

[brycejones]

Glad to see you support the rule of law so closely. If the courts decide that DACA subjects can be returned to their native countries i'm sure you'd be happy to support the courts and "the rule of law" as they are shipped out.

It would be legal. See how that works? I think ending DACA and shipping those individuals to countries they have never really known is a shameful act but I also understand it can be legal. This is how adults deal with the legal system.

Now back to the thread subject. After it has been explained to you why your "questions" don't matter in the context of the Bundy's civil case. Do you support enforcement of the court judgement's against them?

 

[brycejones]

Emergency duh-version procedures?

Isn't it amazing how tajbot always pivots when backed into a corner and tries to run away?

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Emergency duh-version procedures?

Not at all, I just find it funny that the people that shout "rule of law" are the last ones that want to live by it.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

It would be legal. See how that works? I think ending DACA and shipping those individuals to countries they have never really known is a shameful act but I also understand it can be legal. This is how adults deal with the legal system.

Now back to the thread subject. After it has been explained to you why your "questions" don't matter in the context of the Bundy's civil case. Do you support enforcement of the court judgement's against them?

The story isn't over yet, investigations of the previous rulings would be in order. There is some dispute on the amount of money that is owed etc.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jan/10/cliven-bundy-may-sue-federal-government-malicious-/