tinydancer
Diamond Member
I'm not sure how both events are related.
The Bureau of Land Mgmt only went in and removed the cattle from its grounds 20 YEARS AFTER giving Bundy warning after warning after warning.
The Feds didn't just arrive down there and militarize the whole area. They only went down and took care of the problem they had with a rancher not paying fees every other rancher pays to allow their cattle to graze on federal lands.
When retarded and other paranoid white anti-gubmint types heard that the BLM was down there to remove the cattle, they organized protests in which they were armed, blocked regular civilians from moving by creating armed checkpoints, and positioned themselves where they were filmed pointing weapons at the feds.
Even after all that, the Feds de-escalated the situation.
In Ferguson, the police killed yet another unarmed black guy and in the past few days have led an ugly offensive against our 1st amendment rights to peacefully protest.
The police have talked about people "bombing them" and massive violence by citizens, yet there is no proof of these apparent "bombings" and only story after story of innocent civilians and media being tear-gassed, bullied, and arrested for filming law enforcement.
These people are unarmed and they've been treated like garbage by an overzealous and totally paranoid police department.
If black people were to surround the police with weapons aimed at them, just like the white militia people did in the south, you can be sure that the police would kill more black people if they could instead of de-escalating tensions.
The Bundy ranch and Ferguson are two totally different events and they've played out much differently. The first was a case of law enforcement using prudence while the second is law enforcement running amok over civilians because, hey, who really cares about black people anyway, right?
You are missing the point. We are not discussing the reasons for police actions.
That's not the issue at all. It was that the "police" or "government" was militarized.
Period full stop. We can argue to the death on whether or not police action was necessary to collect a debt and that's what Bundy was about OR whether or not police action was necessary as crowd control.
But one thing is absolutely not debatable. BOTH actions were militarized. And that cannot be justified.
When an unlawful group of armed people who call themselves "militia men" but aren't part of an actual lawful state militia keep me from driving down the road because they've set up armed checkpoints because they don't like the gubmint, I have a problem with that and that would be a reason for militarized police to come and serve and protect my freedom to travel without being intimidated by a bunch of paranoid maniacs who seem ready to use their weapons.
Again, the Bundy event is totally different than this one.
Your timeline is wrong. The BLM went in that way. They went in militarized. Before the militias arrived.
And the action taken in both incidences are the same and should not be condoned under any circumstances.