Wrong answer. Bundy was held on a detainer by the State of Nevada. That means he was facing different charges in a different venue. It also means he remains in custody until the State of Nevada charges are satisfied. We can have a conversation about the validity of the charges at a later date.
Mumford was directed to step aside to allow the removal of Bundy from the courtroom at the judge’s direction. His failure to comply and aggressive demeanor resulted in him being teased. Again, HIS ACTIONS caused that.
Was that a legal application of non lethal force? Yes.
Was it appropriate? Unless you were in the mind of the marshal at the time of the event, you don’t get to make that call.
Last points:
1. Most information provided about this case and this incident is from media accounts by journalists clearly hostile to Bundy and his cause. Most on this site think he’s been inappropriately prosecuted and the trial proved that fact.
2. Why then, are some on this site so quick to buy the left wing media account of this incident and condemn the marshals involved.
3. Before I get the standard fare “jack booted thugs of the federal government” response, I,would challenge some to do a little research into what the United States Marshals Service does and what it does not. Try querying the names John Perry, Josie Wells and Pat Carothers while you’re at it.
4. When I was hired, the agency aggressively hired from the military special operations community and combined that effort with seasoned law enforcement officers from local agencies. I the last few years, this administration has pushed their agenda deep into the hiring process of the DOJ but for the most part, this 3500 deputy agency is roughly 60% military veterans with some of us continuing to serve.
5. “Military Cop” is my attempt at a sarcastic joke. It’s not what I am. It’s the two things I’ve done my whole life.
RLTW
“No, he’s released on these charges. He’s acquitted. Nevada doesn’t have jurisdiction,’’ Mumford yelled, standing before the judge. “If there’s a detainer, show me.’’
The US Marshals had no written detainer and Mumford was moving the court to order his release.
The US MArshals had no business attacking Mumford. The Judge made no order to do so , made no contempt finding.
Inside the court its the Judges venue.There was nop apprehenable danger to the court of to anyone whichi would justofy the US Marshals’ action.
The US MArshals were out of order, usurping court authority and they are going to pay for that. Big Time.
You might think that the court venue is like a back ally, but fortunately it is not, and inside that court room the attorneys and the defendants are protected by the constitutional right of due process. This action violated the rights of Mumford and of Bundy to speak freely in Court, whether he was yelling or not.
The Judge would have had to issue a contempt order for the arrest of Mumford. That never happened.
The Marshals acted as if they were jack booted thugs.
>>Try querying the names John Perry, Josie Wells and Pat Carothers while you’re at it.
Hiding behind the badge of dead cops to justify the actions of bad cops is getting tiresome these days. Most cops, almost all in fact, are good people, but 6 cops against one unarmed attorney that required a Taser is excessive and Perry, Wells, and Carothers don’t excuse that—unless the attorney had something to do with killing them.
My comment would be, just who is in charge in a courtroom as long as nothing untoward has occurred? If memory serves it is the Judge, and the Judge was overruled. Frankly, were I the judge, those “boys” would be looking for a new job.
None of these people are Josie Wells.
There’s nothing wrong with the jobs you did, but the judge directed the marshals to stand back right before they acted against Mr. Mumford.
The judge needs to be allowed to say ‘contempt of court’ but she wasn’t here. The marshals took ‘the law into their own hands’ violating the rules of the courtroom, the judge is in charge and deals with the lawyer’s behavior through making a ruling.
You use the ‘liberal media’ argument to deflect from what really objectively happened in the courtroom as stated by witnesses like the defense lawyers for the defendants in the courtroom and Mr. Mumford, Ammon Bundy’s defense lawyer.
Who wouldn’t want to taze a lawyer, ANY lawyer? A sleeper hold may have been a little less dramatic to shut him up though.
I commend your service. What if the same rules applied to the Africans and their allies trashing so many cities with their rioting, looting and arson. 90% of them walk away with property and serious felonies under their belts. Ask who are the worse criminals, Bundy et al or the liberals trashing, looting and burning property.