Debate Score:	30
Arguments:	15
Total Votes:	30
More Stats

Federal agents and Rancher in standoff (Why has this not been debated?)

So, why the fuck is none of this being reported on, or debated, why?

For obvious reasons.

This is the most tyrannical shit i have ever seen in my life

http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/nevada/militias-mobilizing-support-embattled-clark-county-rancher-clash-federal-rangers

Wrong!!!! Side Score: 8		HEIL HITLER! Side Score: 22
Add New Argument		Add New Argument

No arguments found. Add one!

MuckaMcCaw (1970)

3 points

This is federal land. The federal government has empowered the BLM to administrate this land. They have spent 2 decades trying to work with him, but to no avail. This is not tyranny. This is not his land.

10 years ago Side: HEIL HITLER!

Support Dispute Clarify

↑ Hide Replies

gratedebator (283) Disputed

1 point

Land that was stolen in the first place?

I can't believe you buy into that "We own this land" bullshit, sure they have property rights, but its just dirt on a planet, the cows were just wandering around, i can understand how that would be a problem, but a standoff with shots being fired? Is some cows walking on dirt really affecting the federal governments work in finding terrorists and stopping threats?

I dont think cows wandering on their land is affecting their work, i think they are affecting their work by making such a big deal out of this, its stupid.

10 years ago Side: Wrong!!!!

Support Dispute Clarify

↑ Hide Replies

MuckaMcCaw (1970) Disputed

2 points

Land that was stolen in the first place?

His family never owned the land as far as I can tell. Yeah, they've been working it for generations, but it looks like it was always public land. His dispute is whether it is local or federal.

I can't believe you buy into that "We own this land" bullshit,

It is bullshit, but as long as resources are limited and population is growing, land ownership is going to exist and have its perceived uses.

This nation was built on land ownership. In this case, he's a tenant who didn't pay his rent or follow the obligations of the lease for 20 years. Know a non-government landlord who would let someone slide that long?

but a standoff with shots being fired?

Does a taser really count as "shots fired"?

Is some cows walking on dirt really affecting the federal governments work in finding terrorists and stopping threats?

He's been grazing on that land, earning his living, without paying his fees for TWO DECADES. He owes the government somewhere between $3000,000 and 1 million. That lost revenue could have helped in stopping threats.

I dont think cows wandering on their land is affecting their work, i think they are affecting their work by making such a big deal out of this, its stupid.

This has been going on for 20 years! Three presidents. Meanwhile, this dude is making a solid living while not paying his fees. Most other ranchers wouldn't get away with that for so long. Why should he?

10 years ago Side: HEIL HITLER!

Support Dispute Clarify

↓ Show Replies

gratedebator (283) Disputed

1 point

I meant stolen by the federal government from the native americans way back in the day

Sorry i exaggerated the shots fired, lol

He is a rancher, he contributes and has the capability to contribute to society way more than 95% of the population can...

Only about 4-5% of the worlds population is farmers and ranchers, and they supply all of our food.

Im sure he supplies more than he has taken.

10 years ago Side: Wrong!!!!

Support Dispute Clarify

warrior (1854) Disputed

1 point

The land belongs to Nevada. It was taken by the BLM without compensation being payed to the state (in other words stolen) to be used as a tortoise reserve. Mr Bundy payed his fees to the county but refused to pay then to the federal government as an act of peaceful civil disobedience to protest the BLMs illegitimate claim over the land. He wasn't hurting anyone and the BLM goes to his house loaded for war steals his cattle attacks his friends and family and threatens protesters. Sure Mr Bundy broke A law but for Christ sake how many laws did the Feds break?

9 years ago Side: Wrong!!!!

Support Dispute Clarify

↓ Show Replies

Cartman (18192)

1 point

Unfortunately, there were no laws broken by the feds, and not even because they aren't able to break those laws.

act of peaceful civil disobedience

It stops being peaceful when you tell the people you are protesting that you have guns if they come near you.

BLM goes to his house loaded for war

Loaded for a group of people who said they were armed, and turned out to be.

steals his cattle

To cover the money he owed.

attacks his friends and family

Ok, this was bad, but if they were armed for war like you said, these attacks would be a lot more serious.

Sure Mr Bundy broke A law

He illegally allowed his cattle to graze and threatened government officials. That is at least 2 laws.

9 years ago Side: Wrong!!!!

Support Dispute Clarify

↓ Show Replies

warrior (1854) Disputed

1 point

Unfortunately, there were no laws broken by the feds

Oh really? Let's go down the list shall we?

1) Cattle rustling with the added charge of, 2)armed robbery since force and/or fear and a weapon was used to do it.

3) assault and battery4)aggravated assault and 5)abuse under the color of authority- I'm not mad about the tazzers in fact those aren't even weapons, but slamming Amon Bundy's face into the dirt and rubbing it in with a boot all for taking pictures of a road, body slamming a pregnant women, and sticking a dog on an old lady (and if it wasn't intentional then it's negligence)

6) destruction of property- the killing of his cattle

7) menacing- pointing guns at unarmed protesters

8) making terrorist threats- telling unarmed protesters that they would shoot them if they didn't leave.

9)Evidence tampering- burying the cattle they killed.

it stops being peaceful when you tell the people you are protesting that you have guns if they come near you.

It's only considered marketing a terrorist threat if the person has the intent, ability, and opportunity to carry out the act of violence threatened at the time of issuance. Furthermore the threat cannot have been stated in a way as to insinuate that a provocative action (having not already been taken) need be taken by the threatened party before the violent action takes place.

loaded for a group of people who said they were armed and turned out to be

The only people who were armed when the BLM arrived was the BLM agents. The militia came in soon after. I guess the director of the BLM has the gift of foresight.

to cover the money he owed

Oh yeah spend 3million dollars to collect 1 million dollars great plan government. It's called a lean dipshits look it up.

he illegally allowed his cattle to graze and threatened government officials that is at least 2 laws

I already explained why his remarks weren't legally threats. And illegally grazing cattle (on land the federal government stole from the state at its formation) does not require a law enforcement response consisting of 200 armed federal agents, APCs, a SWAT team (the BLM has a SWAT team just let that sink in for a moment), police dogs, snipers, and the theft and killing of his cattle. Haven't these guys ever heard of a lean?

9 years ago Side: Wrong!!!!

Support Dispute Clarify

↓ Show Replies

Cartman (18192) Disputed

1 point

Oh really? Let's go down the list shall we?

I do have to retract my part of the statement where I said not even because they can't be accused of those crimes. Those crimes can't be charged to these government officials.

1) Cattle rustling

Redeeming property owed to them.

2)armed robbery since force and/or fear and a weapon was used to do it.

Does not apply because not robbery.

3) assault and battery 4)aggravated assault

Self defense.

5)abuse under the color of authority- I'm not mad about the tazzers in fact those aren't even weapons, but slamming Amon Bundy's face into the dirt and rubbing it in with a boot all for taking pictures of a road, body slamming a pregnant women, and sticking a dog on an old lady (and if it wasn't intentional then it's negligence)

Maybe excessive use of force. Crime count 1.

6) destruction of property- the killing of his cattle

Part of their property owed.

7) menacing- pointing guns at unarmed protesters

Correction, armed protesters.

8) making terrorist threats- telling unarmed protesters that they would shoot them if they didn't leave.

Not terrorists, government officials with that authority. But, still bad taste.

9)Evidence tampering- burying the cattle they killed.

Maybe a problem. Crime count 2. Maybe.

It's only considered marketing a terrorist threat if the person has the intent, ability, and opportunity to carry out the act of violence threatened at the time of issuance.

They had sniper rifles. They need to be arrested, you just admitted they are terrorists.

Furthermore the threat cannot have been stated in a way as to insinuate that a provocative action (having not already been taken) need be taken by the threatened party before the violent action takes place.

I am not sure what you mean. Are you saying it isn't terrorism if you say you will blow someone up only if they take another step?

The only people who were armed when the BLM arrived was the BLM agents. The militia came in soon after. I guess the director of the BLM has the gift of foresight.

False.

Oh yeah spend 3million dollars to collect 1 million dollars great plan government. It's called a lean dipshits look it up.

False.

I already explained why his remarks weren't legally threats.

Which turned into you accusing him of being a terrorist.

And illegally grazing cattle (on land the federal government stole from the state at its formation)

But, you are wrong about that.

does not require a law enforcement response consisting of 200 armed federal agents, APCs, a SWAT team (the BLM has a SWAT team just let that sink in for a moment), police dogs, snipers, and the theft and killing of his cattle. Haven't these guys ever heard of a lean?

It may not require it, but even with all that, the conflict wasn't resolved. Sounds like they need more. Plus, that sounds like an exaggeration. Unfortunately, it doesn't matter how poorly the government handles it, and they definitely handled it badly, if you committed a crime, you committed a crime.

9 years ago Side: HEIL HITLER!

Support Dispute Clarify

↓ Show Replies

warrior (1854) Disputed

1 point

Redeeming property owed them

He owed them money not his cattle. That's how he supports his family, and no don't care what the federal judge said that case should have been handled in a state court.

Does not apply because not robbery

It meets all the elements.

self defense

I didn't realize protesting ware noted such levels of "self defense" from officers.

part of their property owed

Again no

correction armed protesters

The militia were armed the protesters were not.

not terrorists

Our government is the biggest terrorists out there.

they had sniper rifles

I was talking about Mr Bundy's remarks he made years back about defending his property with guns.

I'm not sure what you mean

if I tell you that I'll shoot you if you come to my house it's not considered a terrorist threat.

False

elaborate

false

elaborate

but your wrong about that

for reasons of?

but you committed a crime

First of all no I didn't second of all if the local police beak a law while apprehending a suspect the charges against the suspect are usually dropped, the fed broke 9.

9 years ago Side: Wrong!!!!

Support Dispute Clarify

↓ Show Replies

Cartman (18192) Disputed

1 point

He owed them money not his cattle. That's how he supports his family, and no don't care what the federal judge said that case should have been handled in a state court.

Money represents what he uses to support his family, it is the same thing. It went to court twice. The court decided it was ok.

It meets all the elements.

False. It was court ordered.

I didn't realize protesting ware noted such levels of "self defense" from officers.

Then, eventually you will get shot. You can't protest officers if they are doing their job. If you interfere with their job and they tell you to move, you can no longer claim your rights are being violated, and you aren't protesting any more, you are threatening the officers.

Again no

Again wrong.

The militia were armed the protesters were not.

Both sides were armed.

Our government is the biggest terrorists out there.

I am not sure I can really argue against that statement, but if we said that you can't commit terrorism against the biggest terrorist, 9/11 wasn't terrorism either.

I was talking about Mr Bundy's remarks he made years back about defending his property with guns.

And his statements recently, and the fact that they actually had guns.

if I tell you that I'll shoot you if you come to my house it's not considered a terrorist threat.

I thought we were talking about threats in general. The government didn't attack because of terrorism.

elaborate

They weren't the only ones armed.

elaborate

They didn't spend that much money.

for reasons of?

The government didn't steal it.

First of all no I didn't second of all if the local police beak a law while apprehending a suspect the charges against the suspect are usually dropped, the fed broke 9.

Are you Bundy? Dude, no wonder you are so upset about this. I don't mean to offend you, but you need to pay your taxes. The BLM uses the money to maintain that land. If you aren't Bundy, how did you actually assume I said you committed a crime? If you actually read what I wrote, it was meant to be "one". If "one" commits a crime. Most people would have been able to figure that out. Plus, I didn't put the word but in front of that statement, you misquoted me too. And, the Feds broke no crimes like I explained, plus that doesn't even get cases thrown out. Cases get thrown out when the arresting officials illegally acquired evidence. If charges were dropped when cops used violence, no one would be in jail.

9 years ago Side: HEIL HITLER!

Support Dispute Clarify

↓ Show Replies

warrior (1854) Disputed

1 point

the court decided it was okay

Did you even read my last post it should have been handled in a state court. The federal judges ruling isn't valid.

false it was court ordered

So we can through in a charge of corruption as well. Other than that it makes no difference the courts can break the law.

you aren't protesting anymore and your threatening the officers

UN armed protesters (and they were unarmed go look at the video) are not a threat to officers under any circumstances other than a riot. Officers can only justify using deadly force if the reasonably feel they are in imminent danger of death or serious injury.

by that logic 911 wasn't terrorism either

AL quida attacked American civilians not the government.

the government didn't attack because of terrorism

"Making a terrorist threat" is simply what the charge is called.

and his statement recently and the fact that he had guns

Reguardless he was not the aggressor the BLM was

they didn't spend that much money

They spent 3 million dollars to collect a 1 million dollar debt.

the government didn't steal it

Dude look up the elements of robbery.

you miss quoted me

Go back and reread the very last line of your last post.

cases get thrown out when the cops obtain evidence illegally if they got thrown out for excessive force Noone would be in prison

First of all I resent that statement it's childish and statistically impossible(the second part) second excessive force dose get cases thrown out if it is decided that the force used constitutes a violation of the suspects constitutional rights.

9 years ago Side: Wrong!!!!

Support Dispute Clarify

↓ Show Replies

Cartman (18192) Disputed

1 point

Did you even read my last post it should have been handled in a state court. The federal judges ruling isn't valid.

False, it is a federal claim to the land, handling it in federal court is fine.

So we can through in a charge of corruption as well. Other than that it makes no difference the courts can break the law.

No, corruption is the other way around.

Just because the people you call protesters were unarmed doesn't mean you can forget about the people who were armed that supported the protesters that you don't call protesters. Deadly force? Did the cops kill someone?

AL quida attacked American civilians not the government.

They flew a plane into the pentagon. They attacked the government, so I guess you think they aren't terrorists.

Reguardless he was not the aggressor the BLM was

Technically, for the last 20 years he has been the aggressor.

They spent 3 million dollars to collect a 1 million dollar debt.

I heard it was the other way around.

Dude look up the elements of robbery.

If you owed me a dollar and took you to court you can't claim I stole my dollar back.

Go back and reread the very last line of your last post.

I did, 5 times. Try reading it the first time (since, you haven't read it yet). Do a "find" on this website. The extra word you added changes what I said. Hit the show all replies, then ctrl+f, then type the exact phrase you are quoting me saying. It only appears in your post.

Yes, I exaggerated, but since no constitutional rights were violated here, your point is worthless.

9 years ago Side: HEIL HITLER!

Support Dispute Clarify

Jace (5222)

2 points

This issue has been in the media and it has been debated, relatively more so than it merits in my opinion.

There are formal avenues for legal protest of government abuses which most other citizens (and even non-citizens) in this country utilize. Operating outside of that system is detrimental to social and legal order, as it delegitimizes both the system and the legitimate protests moving through it. If the system/government is actually so corrupt as to genuinely merit armed resistance, then those rebelling genuinely have no right to complain when the force of the object of their resistance responds accordingly (and even predictably, according to its own conduct regulations). That is how civil disobedience works, and it is partly why it is effective.

9 years ago Side: HEIL HITLER!

Support Dispute Clarify

Nox0 (1393)

1 point

Rednecks fighting redneck .

10 years ago Side: HEIL HITLER!

Support Dispute Clarify

SitaraForJesus (3819)

1 point

I actually agree with you on this. Fucked up police state SHIT!

10 years ago Side: HEIL HITLER!

Support Dispute Clarify

Add New Argument

#1	#2	#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:	Click here to send this debate via your default email application.	Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.

Debate Info

Argument Ratio

Debate Creator

Federal agents and Rancher in standoff (Why has this not been debated?)

Wrong!!!!

HEIL HITLER!

Browse More Debates

Already a Member? Login.	OR		Join CreateDebate! It's quick and easy.