Still, as an observer myself, I have to say that I notice a colossal disparity in the relative forces being brought to bear in this controversy.
On the one hand, we have the overwhelmingly disproportionate, seemingly unlimited power and authority of federal law enforcement. On the other, we have this slender, relatively frail "little" man, Lavoy -- a man without any criminal history -- standing up for his First Amendment rights -- of free association, and of petitioning the federal government for redress of grievances, utilizing peaceable means.
The fact that he mounted his peaceable protest on so-called "federal lands" is completely immaterial to the exercise of his legitimate first-amendment rights. There is nothing in the First Amendment that tells a citizen where, or where not, he can mount a peaceable protest. The First Amendment makes no distinction between the private or public spheres as legitimate venues for First Amendment exercises in free association and petitions for redress....
Good grief, if we need permission from the State in order to hold such a protest, together with the manner and place where it can be held, then how is this any different from the latest rage in the Ivy Halls of Academe, to segregate "safe zones" from the rest of the public commons, where a person can elect to go so to feel "safe" from any and all incoming "hate speech?" Which is defined as "any public speech I personally dislike?"
IMHO, Lavoy was deliberately picked off, a lamb sacrificed on the alter of Washington-style political correctness. Just to make a point to the rest of us.
If it weren't to be Lavoy, going in, then it would have been somebody else. All I'm saying is, the Feds needed a sacrificial lamb to reassert their authority over the States and the People. And with Lavoy (R.I.P.), they got one. <[p> I for one am very sympathetic to this question: How can it be that the Federal Government "owns" as much as 80 to 90 percent of the territory within the boundaries of several sovereign states? And manages that territory completely independently of the State authorities, and the people the States are sworn to serve?
In the case of the Bureau of Land Management, a subsidiary of the Department of the Interior, wild horses and burros are being sacrificed to political interests at the speed of light. Jeepers, you have all you can do just to complain, to remind these callous bureaucrats that these icons of American history were never intended for the meat packer. Which, of course, would be perfectly fine with some of the "cattle interests" that pay big bucks to Washington to secure their own particular interest, against all others.
In so many ways, our American system has sunk into abject corruption. But hardly anybody can speak the language of morality anymore. Indeed, to even speak that language seems to be a huge faux pas these days....
God bless you, dear Jeff, and all your loved ones! Thank you so very much for writing!
That they did not would give the impression they were being bushwhacked.
At the same time, I have no doubt the interception teams were told to expect a gunfight.
So, who set that stage?
Someone orchestrated this situation, right down to the order for drone surveillance, and those are the lap(s) the shooting should really land in.