Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search


(5,400 posts)
14. Interesting, but I still think they should have "read them the riot act", ...
Thu Jan 28, 2016, 11:11 AM
Jan 2016

... as the saying goes. That should have happened, repeatedly, and from the beginning. We knew who they were, and what they represented. Federal law enforcement should have loudly explained the penalties they were risking. They should have also offered the carrot of being willing to use their discretion if the nonsense ended immediately. As things stand some are going to use the defense that they thought they had a tacit understanding that law enforcement saw them as peaceful protesters, and not actually committing the kinds of crimes that would have been spelled out to them. IANAL but listing the statutes being broken would have helped make the prosecutor's case easier for the more basic charges. And that would have smoothed the path for the more serious charges.

And now the bar is raised, and every bunch of wackos will want this level of deference, and "if they don't get it, it's discrimination, and because this time the government is really scared of their righteous cause, and they're martyrs" (as I imagine their claims going).

There's discretion, and then there's the rule of law. People don't want to see the rule of law go down the tubes just so those enforcing it get to look clever.

And somebody did get his wacko ass killed, so the "nip it in the bud" side has that going for it.

But I'll be impressed, and adjust my weighing of things, if the government goes after all the shitbirds on conspiracy and/or other charges. And with "all" I include the shitbirds from the standoff at the Bundy ranch. Because that helped enable what happened in this new instance of armed insurrection.

If all of this was just so the government could rack up a non-controversial win, one that doesn't upset the anti-government gun-humpers, I'll be very unimpressed.

P.S. There's something to be said for the government having an obligation to not give people too much rope to hang themselves with. Not that I think the government wasn't smart to listen in, and so on. But I think we'll be hearing more about that defense at the trials. And that goes back to why I said the riot act should have been read to them.



To this day many jurisdictions that have inherited the tradition of English common law and Scots law still employ statutes that require police or other executive agents to deliver an oral warning, much like the Riot Act, before an unlawful public assembly may be forcibly dispersed.

Because the authorities were required to read the proclamation that referred to the Riot Act before they could enforce it, the expression "to read the Riot Act" entered into common language as a phrase meaning "to reprimand severely." with the added sense of a stern warning. The phrase remains in common use in the English language.
Feds moved in when they knew all the leaders would be in two cars on a quiet stretch of road peacebird Jan 2016 #1
I thought from the start... getagrip_already Jan 2016 #2
Looks like Pete Santilli has been pretty useful. enough Jan 2016 #3
How sweet. padfun Jan 2016 #4
the charges should multiply once they secure the refuge central scrutinizer Jan 2016 #10
After the place is cleared out, I would love to see those responsible Snarkoleptic Jan 2016 #5
+1 navarth Jan 2016 #7
At least one of them can't pay back for the damages. He was complaining the gub'mint cut off his Hoppy Jan 2016 #13
is 'icle title' a typo? navarth Jan 2016 #6
My thought too! SoapBox Jan 2016 #8
In any event, navarth Jan 2016 #9
Once the power gets cut off christx30 Jan 2016 #22
I figured it out! pamela Jan 2016 #23
I heard the guy who invented auto correct died recently central scrutinizer Jan 2016 #11
thanks for the laugh! (n/t) thesquanderer Jan 2016 #12
that is excellent. navarth Jan 2016 #17
The LA Times has what I think was supposed to be the title Babel_17 Jan 2016 #15
Probably the end of "article title" that somehow got pasted into the post title Aldo Leopold Jan 2016 #16
Huh, that's got to be it, thanks Babel_17 Jan 2016 #19
Interesting, but I still think they should have "read them the riot act", ... Babel_17 Jan 2016 #14
We did not know who they all were unc70 Jan 2016 #21
I agree there's a lot that's unknown Babel_17 Jan 2016 #24
Hope FBI, et al avoided the slippery slope unc70 Jan 2016 #26
Ah, I see. I was alluding to some of that stuff though I know very little of it first hand Babel_17 Jan 2016 #29
The armed standoff hasn't ended. The Stranger Jan 2016 #18
I hate the misuse of words like protesters, activists, and occupiers starroute Jan 2016 #20
I wonder if they will round up the rest of the Bundy Ranch people now that they are on it. hollowdweller Jan 2016 #25
US v. Bundy Complaint and Affidavit Jan 27, 2016 - Interesting reading. L. Coyote Jan 2016 #27
The occupiers just got a harsh lesson about the meaning of the phrase "felony motormouth"... friendly_iconoclast Jan 2016 #28
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Where was the FBI during ...»Reply #14