Tonik Posted April 22, 2014 Report Share Posted April 22, 2014 Can burglers be shot? bank robbers? armed or unarmed? Bundy's cows, and by extension bundy were stealing from the federal government for 20 years. I hope when i go rob a federal bank, people will show up with guns to point at federal agents... and... they're fucking cows... guess what, if an animal comes trespassing in my yard, they are getting chased off, if they turn and attack me, they are going to die.Depending on their species, they will then either be refrigerated for later meat processing, or buried in the back yard... I answered your question already. You can't shoot someone/something unless a reasonable person would be in fear of life or limb. You even answer it yourself 'if they turn and attack me, they are going to die'. And you know what, the same rules apply to law enforcement officers, they can't just willy nilly shoot things. I am honestly shocked, considering your more liberal view of guns and shooting things, that you think shooting these apparently unarmed cows is ok. Now if these cows pointed their teets at the officers and threatened to drown them with milk I fully understand. But so far there is no evidence of that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rsvRidr Posted April 22, 2014 Report Share Posted April 22, 2014 Are the cows endangered?I didn't realize it that PETA only concern themselves with endangered animals-I thought they cared about the Ethical Treatment of all.I guess shooting animals and leaving them to rot is ok as long as you are federal agents and they are trespassing.too bad they don't think the same way when it comes to illegals crossing the border..... costing this country billions every yearversus a few hundred thousand from BundySent from my DROID RAZR Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magley64 Posted April 22, 2014 Report Share Posted April 22, 2014 I answered your question already. You can't shoot someone/something unless a reasonable person would be in fear of life or limb. You even answer it yourself 'if they turn and attack me, they are going to die'. And you know what, the same rules apply to law enforcement officers, they can't just willy nilly shoot things. I am honestly shocked, considering your more liberal view of guns and shooting things, that you think shooting these apparently unarmed cows is ok. Now if these cows pointed their teets at the officers and threatened to drown them with milk I fully understand. But so far there is no evidence of that. so how do you know these cows didnt kick the agents? that could be deadly force... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Butters Posted April 22, 2014 Report Share Posted April 22, 2014 Peta has already publicly called out the blm for unethical treatment. Stfu about Peta, nobody cares... If you're gonna talk about Peta, at least know what you're saying... "I didn't realize peta only concern themselves with endangered animals"... Uhm, they spoke out about this situation awhile ago, and never mentioned turtles at all.... Ffs /backtolibsbeinglibs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Butters Posted April 22, 2014 Report Share Posted April 22, 2014 so how do you know these cows didnt kick the agents? that could be deadly force...You're so fucking stupid. I hate living in the same society as you. Yes. The cows threw massive deadly kicks towards agents flying in helicopters above them. Please don't ever fucking have kids. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tonik Posted April 22, 2014 Report Share Posted April 22, 2014 (edited) I didn't realize it that PETA only concern themselves with endangered animals-I thought they cared about the Ethical Treatment of all.I guess shooting animals and leaving them to rot is ok as long as you are federal agents and they are trespassing.too bad they don't think the same way when it comes to illegals crossing the border..... costing this country billions every yearversus a few hundred thousand from BundySent from my DROID RAZR I saw a statement from them somewhere on the net today. PETA condemned both the BLM for killing them and Bundy for planning on killing them and said everyone should become Vegan. Edited April 22, 2014 by Tonik Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tonik Posted April 22, 2014 Report Share Posted April 22, 2014 so how do you know these cows didnt kick the agents? that could be deadly force... So far the BLM has not claimed self defense. Surprisingly, Nevada does not have a Castle Doctrine so that means it is legally required of the shooter to prove it was self defense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magley64 Posted April 22, 2014 Report Share Posted April 22, 2014 So far the BLM has not claimed self defense. Surprisingly, Nevada does not have a Castle Doctrine so that means it is legally required of the shooter to prove it was self defense. good thing a cow doesn't qualify as a person... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tonik Posted April 22, 2014 Report Share Posted April 22, 2014 good thing a cow doesn't qualify as a person... Nevada law regarding killing someones livestock if they are trespassing on you land. 569.440. (b) If any owner or occupier of any grounds or crops trespassed upon by livestock entering upon or breaking into his grounds, whether enclosed by a legal fence or not, kills, maims or materially injures the livestock so trespassing, he is liable to the owner of the livestock for all damages, and for the costs accruing from a suit for such damages, when necessarily resorted to for their recovery. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magley64 Posted April 22, 2014 Report Share Posted April 22, 2014 (edited) Isn't there already a court order giving the government permission to confiscate the trespassing cows? if the cows were legally in their posession at the time, they the cows belonged to the government not Mr. Bundy... Edited April 22, 2014 by magley64 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tonik Posted April 22, 2014 Report Share Posted April 22, 2014 Isn't there already a court order giving the government permission to confiscate the trespassing cows? if the cows were legally in their posession at the time, they the cows belonged to the government not Mr. Bundy... Dunno. But if there is such an order then cruelty to animals would apply. You have been all law and order in this tread saying Bundy was wrong. I stayed out of it because I agreed and needed to maintain my record of not agreeing with you on anything. But you need to apply the law equally and fairly to everyone if you are going to go law and order on us. So, baring evidence that the BLM agents acted in self defense can you agree that they either owe Bundy restitution for the cows, or if they were given possession by the courts then they are guilty if cruelty to animals? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magley64 Posted April 22, 2014 Report Share Posted April 22, 2014 (edited) Dunno. But if there is such an order then cruelty to animals would apply. You have been all law and order in this tread saying Bundy was wrong. I stayed out of it because I agreed and needed to maintain my record of not agreeing with you on anything. But you need to apply the law equally and fairly to everyone if you are going to go law and order on us. So, baring evidence that the BLM agents acted in self defense can you agree that they either owe Bundy restitution for the cows, or if they were given possession by the courts then they are guilty if cruelty to animals? Does shooting an animal in the head with a rifle qualify as "cruelty"? If so, there are a lot of hunters guilty of cruelty to animals. Edited April 22, 2014 by magley64 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tonik Posted April 22, 2014 Report Share Posted April 22, 2014 Does shooting an animal in the head with a rifle qualify as "cruelty"? If so, there are a lot of hunters guilty of cruelty to animals. Yes, shooting animals in the head while not hunting is cruelty, people are charged and convicted of it all the time. Now answer the question. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rsvRidr Posted April 22, 2014 Report Share Posted April 22, 2014 Peta has already publicly called out the blm for unethical treatment. Stfu about Peta, nobody cares... If you're gonna talk about Peta, at least know what you're saying... "I didn't realize peta only concern themselves with endangered animals"... Uhm, they spoke out about this situation awhile ago, and never mentioned turtles at all.... Ffs /backtolibsbeinglibsmy apologies I did not watch the news todayCalm down tough guy its just a motorcycle forumSent from my DROID RAZR Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magley64 Posted April 22, 2014 Report Share Posted April 22, 2014 (edited) Yes, shooting animals in the head while not hunting is cruelty, people are charged and convicted of it all the time. Now answer the question. Isn't that the definition of hunting? killing animals with weapons? plenty of people do it for sport... Edited April 22, 2014 by magley64 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tonik Posted April 22, 2014 Report Share Posted April 22, 2014 Neg rep for being disingenuous. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magley64 Posted April 22, 2014 Report Share Posted April 22, 2014 (edited) Neg rep for being disingenuous. so it's okay for bundy to kill cattle but not okay for the BLM to kill the same cattle? now who's being disingenuous? Edited April 22, 2014 by magley64 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReconRat Posted April 22, 2014 Report Share Posted April 22, 2014 wtf cattle... you have a gardenthe garden grows foodyou eat the food grown in the garden I go over and eat all the food in the garden which is ok since you were going to eat it anyway and now some one will say it wasn't your food it was never your propertyor it wasn't really food it was back taxes dueor you're a selfish (political party of your choice) for hording all that food you're too rich you should give it away please, some one find reality and bring it to us and let deception go home Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magley64 Posted April 23, 2014 Report Share Posted April 23, 2014 wtf cattle...you have a gardenthe garden grows foodyou eat the food grown in the gardenI go over and eat all the food in the garden which is ok since you were going to eat it anywayand now some one will say it wasn't your food it was never your propertyor it wasn't really food it was back taxes dueor you're a selfish (political party of your choice) for hording all that food you're too rich you should give it awayplease, some one find reality and bring it to us and let deception go homeIf it was his property, there would be no debate, the fact that he was stealing the raw materials for his business is the issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gump Posted April 23, 2014 Report Share Posted April 23, 2014 I saw a statement from them somewhere on the net today. PETA condemned both the BLM for killing them and Bundy for planning on killing them and said everyone should become Vegan.Lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReconRat Posted April 23, 2014 Report Share Posted April 23, 2014 If it was his property, there would be no debate, the fact that he was stealing the raw materials for his business is the issue.trolling completed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattm Posted April 23, 2014 Report Share Posted April 23, 2014 (edited) The flip side of your statement would be that the Federal Govt owns all land. Oddly enough some people have a problem with this idea. A new claim I hadn't heard before:Arizona Official: Cliven Bundy's Acts Are LegalThe only solution to this problem, Weller said, is for the government to follow through on the transfer of public land that was promised to all newly created states at statehood but honored only to the states east of Colorado. He added the government's actions against Bundy amount to a criminal shakedown for payment."That was absolutely deadly force," Weller said. "I don't know that it's hitting the news out there, but [the BLM] were killing cattle, they shot his prize bull from a helicopter through the back of the neck and killed him. Several cattle were killed as they rounded them up and pulled them into the BLM pens. It's just a devastation of force." "The Bundys and the Hages are standing on what's called their water rights and their grazing rights," which, Weller said, "were pre-existing in territorial times, long before the government took over and these states became states and these water rights are mentioned, and any federal law or policy act that comes thereafter is always stated, 'subject to pre-existing rights.'Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/NewsmaxTv/Cliven-Bundy-Barry-Weller-Nevada-land/2014/04/21/id/566807#ixzz2zcRuri78 Ah, the plot thickens. I wondered why the feds owned essentially all the land in the west. How this came to be seems to be a matter of some pretty old paperwork. Ex post facto laws are expressly forbidden by the United States Constitution in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3. Yet that does seem to be what happened when the BLM was created. Anecdotal reports from Oklahoma, Kansas, Arizona, Idaho, Texas and of course Nevada are starting to snowball as public awareness grows. Not good press in an election year. This is getting more interesting all the time. Actually the federal guvmint does own the land and has for over 100 years. See the relevant excerpt from the Nevada state constitution below: The Nevada State Constitution wrote:In obedience to the requirements of an act of the Congress of the United States, approved March twenty-first, A.D. eighteen hundred and sixty-four, to enable the people of Nevada to form a constitution and state government, this convention, elected and convened in obedience to said enabling act, do ordain as follows, and this ordinance shall be irrevocable, without the consent of the United States and the people of the State of Nevada:First. That there shall be in this state neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, otherwise than in the punishment for crimes, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.Second. That perfect toleration of religious sentiment shall be secured, and no inhabitant of said state shall ever be molested, in person or property, on account of his or her mode of religious worship.Third. That the people inhabiting said territory do agree and declare, that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States; and that lands belonging to citizens of the United States, residing without the said state, shall never be taxed higher than the land belonging to the residents thereof; and that no taxes shall be imposed by said state on lands or property therein belonging to, or which may hereafter be purchased by, the United States, unless otherwise provided by the congress of the United States. first of all there was a squirmish entitled the Mexcian American war which was completed with the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. Then there was the civil war. Then Lincoln wanted to admit new Union states to help pass his amendment. Any way, the western states all were admitted to the union with similar language in their state constitutions. Just because you are surprised with the amount of land that the fed owns out west, doesn't mean that the rest of us are also surprised. If this makes you angry take it up with Lincoln and the Congress of 1864. I am surprised that you are surprised at the amount of land the guvmint owns considering that IT FUCKING PREDATES THE VERY STATE YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. I am even more surprised that you missed this in history class. The fact that the government owns A LOT of land in the west is not new news to anyone that paid attention in history class. You can wish it away at will, but that doesn't mean you are right. Bundy lost 20 years of court cases because the law is not on his side. Pointing guns at federal agents will not change this fundamental issue. BTW: newsmax is a joke. If it was a serious news source it would report the 20 fucking years of court losses that Bundy has sustained. Here is a better question. If you were a landlord and I was a tenant, would you tolerate me not paying rent for 20 years? I don't think so.... Edited April 23, 2014 by mattm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strictly Street Posted April 23, 2014 Report Share Posted April 23, 2014 Actually the federal guvmint does own the land and has for over 100 years. See the relevant excerpt from the Nevada state constitution below: The Nevada State Constitution wrote:In obedience to the requirements of an act of the Congress of the United States, approved March twenty-first, A.D. eighteen hundred and sixty-four, to enable the people of Nevada to form a constitution and state government, this convention, elected and convened in obedience to said enabling act, do ordain as follows, and this ordinance shall be irrevocable, without the consent of the United States and the people of the State of Nevada:First. That there shall be in this state neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, otherwise than in the punishment for crimes, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.Second. That perfect toleration of religious sentiment shall be secured, and no inhabitant of said state shall ever be molested, in person or property, on account of his or her mode of religious worship.Third. That the people inhabiting said territory do agree and declare, that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States; and that lands belonging to citizens of the United States, residing without the said state, shall never be taxed higher than the land belonging to the residents thereof; and that no taxes shall be imposed by said state on lands or property therein belonging to, or which may hereafter be purchased by, the United States, unless otherwise provided by the congress of the United States. first of all there was a squirmish entitled the Mexcian American war which was completed with the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. Then there was the civil war. Then Lincoln wanted to admit new Union states to help pass his amendment. Any way, the western states all were admitted to the union with similar language in their state constitutions. Just because you are surprised with the amount of land that the fed owns out west, doesn't mean that the rest of us are also surprised. If this makes you angry take it up with Lincoln and the Congress of 1864. It doesn't make me angry. As you point out Nevada became the 36th state on October 31, 1864, as the second of two states added to the Union during the Civil War (the first being West Virginia) The feds don't claim 84% of West Virginia which was in the same time frame. Wonder if it had something to do with gold in the Utah territory while WV only had coal. The phrase"disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory" and "shall be irrevocable, without the consent of the United States and the people of the State of Nevada"is just the kind of language that lawyers love. Wonder what their definition of "unappropriated" is/was and who got to appropriate it? That and the fact that all those states are getting together to see about doing something about it is another fascinating tidbit that did make it into the mainstream media for a second or two. Sorry you don't like the source. I find the mainstream media a little unresponsive. They make no secret of the fact that they don't have news programs. Even they call their own programming news and entertainment. Yes, there is a bias according to the source no matter where you go. Knowing that doesn't make me angry either. I just consider the source and read it with a eye towards who wrote it. We still claim to have a free press in this country so I expect different takes on the same story The only people shooting were the government agents from helicopters, unless you have a media source that I didn't see. Agreed, both sides had guns. That doesn't make me angry either. I do wonder why they set up snipers around his house though. I wouldn't think they could herd his cows very well like that. Nor do people standing up the the govt make me angry. If it makes you angry you might want to consider the civil rights movement. Does that make you angry? Same idea. There were guns also in that little dust up. Right here in Ohio at Kent State. I don't think Bundy is going to win in the long run. Sure he got a little breathing room. But he is fighting City Hall on a federal level. For that matter, as old as he is they can just wait him out for a couple of years and the problem will take care of itself. They let him go this long without doing anything about it, whats a couple of more years? The land isn't going anywhere unless they sell it to somebody. I'm still impressed that the media, any media source, pick one. All treated the militias as well as they did. No tin-foil-hat jokes, no camo jokes, no inbred hillbilly jokes. Most of them played down the militia angle and focused on the back rent angle. In any case to answer your other question, no I don't really care if he grazes his cows on my part of the Nevada land. I'm not using it right now so it's ok with me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattm Posted April 24, 2014 Report Share Posted April 24, 2014 It doesn't make me angry. As you point out Nevada became the 36th state on October 31, 1864, as the second of two states added to the Union during the Civil War (the first being West Virginia) The feds don't claim 84% of West Virginia which was in the same time frame. Wonder if it had something to do with gold in the Utah territory while WV only had coal.Holy crap. I didn't realize you were this willfully delusional. Virginia became a state in 1788. The land of the state of Virginia was not PURCHASED by the federal guvmint in any treaty of any kind. West Virginia became a state with land that was previously a part of Virginia which again became a state in 1788. The reason that West Virginia was able to fairly easily split from Virginia was that it provided another state supporting the union. It had nothing to do with gold in Nevada or coal in WV. Seriously, how could these basics of history apparently escape your grasp. You are frequently surprised by FACTS that most people learn in junior high. I now get completely your support of Bundy. You believe that multiple state constitutions written over 100 years before you were born should never have been written that way. No more conversation is necessary as you appear to lack any idea of how this country was actually built. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strictly Street Posted April 24, 2014 Report Share Posted April 24, 2014 The point was supposed to point out the differences between them not to say they were the same. Looking at the post I see it doesn't get that point across well. A bad post deserves a curt response. Posting in a hurry will always get you flamed. Your assumption of my point is incorrect and your assignment of my motives are also incorrect. I am not for or against the rancher. I have pointed out that he has legal claims that he is making.The BLM also has legal claims they are making. I have plainly stated several times in this thread what my main interest was. You might have missed it. I'll say it again, the politics behind the event. Politically there is a lot coming together in this one event. Examples: Militias. Heavily armed government troops. Civil disobedience. Land rights. Election Year. Foreign policy. National debt. Political cronyism. All this from an old rancher and a few cows? Not by a long shot. There is way more going on here than you see. Relevant historical stuff might be some of these or not.In 1812, The General Land Office (GLO) was establishedThe Homestead Act of 1862Bundy's claim of 1870 starting his ranch.Taylor Grazing Act 1934 Creation of the U.S Grazing serviceBureau of Land Management (BLM) created in 19461976, Gerald Ford signed into law the Federal Land Policy and Management Act. This is the kinda thing most of this thread has been about. What law, what treaty, He said, she said, who's offended by who's comments, kicking cows, threatened authority figures, threatened citizens. Non-payment of fees. None of that really matters. What matters is what they/us/them are going to do next.How will that be decided? Politics.What is going to effect your/my life the most over this incident? Politics. Who are the players? This is where it gets interesting. The alignment of the players is unprecedented in their scope.Never have so many of them banded together behind one cause against the players in power. Enough players are there, something is going to happen over this. What, is the question.Nope, I don't have any idea what is going to happen next. But it will be far reaching. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.