Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues The Legal Forum Let's check in on the cattle abusers, deadbeat grazers, wildlife squatter Bundys

I object to the high price for a computer. I don't buy it or buy a cheaper brand, but my objection does not imply I should steal it and then make the argument the company had no right to sell it.

so we need a definition


so i ask ... does anything the Bundy family did resemble this definition? [I had other sentences at this place which I will leave for you to figure out] ergo I call them for what they are the Bundy Gang, a gang of domestic terrorists

Now you can have an opinion but it has no basis in law or the facts

Notice the words "unlawful" and further down "in furtherance of political or social objectives".
You are not the legal authority to judge them. The lawfulness of their actions have been called to question, but their actions have no been tried and found unlawful.
It's still a very open question wether the motivation for their behaviour is "furtherance of political or social objectives" or economic, ie. criminal in the way of fraud or theft.
If it is the latter, it's not terrorism.

That is clearly a political statement. Terrorists they are.

LOL ... sorry but pretzel arguments are amusing

logT beat me to it ... are you now arguing they are just plain old garden variety criminals?

again you are conflating the action with a verdict. If I murder someone and the jury does not convict me, does that imply I am innocent of committing murder?

Using your argument, I have every right to legally occupy federal buildings and keep people from entering, all because you can't figure out if my actions are unlawful. Clearly what the Bundys did in Nevada and Oregon was unlawful i.e. I can point out the federal statues which they violated, which are recorded on video and audio tapes.

If you want to side with the Bundy terrorists then at least say it correctly. The Bundys committed crimes for which they were not convicted. There is no other equivocations.

Yes! In the eyes of the legal system you are and anyone calling you a murder after that can and should be charged with slander.

Why don't you just skip all the tormented attempts at logic and just proudly admit that you are on the side of the terrorists and seditionists because you, too, hate the government and reject its legitimacy?

again we need a definition (how come you are looking up these definitions .... I hope you are not using your own made up definitions)
So if I committed murder and was acquitted, did I commit murder? I hope you don't think an acquittal erases ex post facto the act from history.

Now here is the critical difference, if I was innocent of murder, was charged, tried, and acquitted and someone says I committed murder which would harm my reputation, then I should sue. This however is not the case with the Bundy Gang. They committed the crimes in broad daylight on video camera for all the world to see their criminal activities. They were acquitted. Are you saying they were innocent of committing a crime? I hope this is not a case of you not believing your own eyes.

The Bundy's still owe the government for years and years of grazing fees. The criminal case being dismissed has no effect on their debts. It just means they can't be tried again for those particular events. A case being dismissed with prejudice is not a Get Out Of Jail Free card you can use later.

The government is perfectly free to collect the debt and if the Bundys use weapons to prevent that collection again, they CAN be arrested and charged for any new crimes. Hopefully, the prosecutors will not screw up any future case and they will be convicted.

Or maybe when they pull guns on federal officers in the future, those officers will not be so restrained and will kill them. We have a long history of not charging law enforcement officers with anything when they kill people, especially if the people have guns pointed at them.

Every single item in this quote is demonstrably false. Every single item is unsupportable.