Not only would it have been lousy TV, but I would assume the guys with some combat military experience really didn't want to end up in an unplanned free for all firefight where they were at the bottom of a sandy ravine with no useful cover and there were an unknown number of potential opponents on the high ground - with concrete barriers for cover.
Also, if you looked carefully at the government agents, some were heavily armed, and probably well trained. Some probably not so much. I doubt as a team they had any experience in fighting their way out of what would have amounted to a close quarters ambush, had shooting started for any reason, even mistakenly. Whatever the scope of the dispute regarding the cattle, it isn't worth people getting killed over it.
Situations like the one they created can rapidly spiral out of control, and when they do people get hurt or killed on both sides. Luckily cooler heads prevailed at that moment, and an obviously tense situation was defused. At this point political leaders need to get involved to prevent a repeat of what appears to be an unnecessary and dangerous use of force.
A good starting point would be for political leaders in Congress to start asking questions to the BLM and start getting documents and emails to understand why the BLM took the course of action they did. I suspect a good number of the BLM and police agents present don't consider "trespass cattle" something worth dying for. And the public certainly doesn't think some cattle, or a debt would justify the loss of anyone's life. Whoever put them in a situation where that could have happened should be willing to explain to the public why they did so.
LOL. You mean like all the documents the feds turned over relating to F&F, the IRS and Benghazi?
I'm not advocating violence, but you should be realistic. The congress will do jack sh1t looking into this and the BLM will cooperate with free release of documents even less. The only thing that will stop this sort of thing is massive, peaceful resistance with the subtle but clear implication that if the feds instigate violence, "turn the other cheek" will not be the response.
IMO, a citizen mobilization like this taking place at more of these events of federal bullying is the only thing to do. Enough of it and the states will feel pressured to back up the people and begin to start resisting brownshirt federal overreach.
The Fed judge that signed this order needs to be brought to heel. When he signed this he knew it wasn’t right and it could blow up into a political hot potato. He wrote it as a permissive order for the BLM to carryout with the Sheriffs help. Given contracts, Federal land, and asset forfeiture it would have been the U.S. Marshall’s Service to service and enforce. But, the judge did not want the court to be involved and therefore gave it to BLM so it would no be seen as a court action. This is telling and this judge should be questioned. Federal judges are political beast. Was he compromised by Dingy Harry? What other similar orders did he sign in the past? Did Harry push his confirmation to the Federal bench through?
“Whatever the scope of the dispute regarding the cattle, it isn’t worth people getting killed over it. “
Actually, in many states, you are not allowed to shoot a buglar unless you feel your life is threatened. That is if the guy has you wallet in hand with his back to you and he is running toward the door, you have no right to shoot.