First is the tazing of a man, essentially for no reason. I don't care whether it's 3 or 4 officers on one civilian who isn't really fighting back. Or if it is a larger scene with yelling and noise. I admire, love, and honor our public servants. Thank you to all of my friends that go out there every day with the knowledge that you might not come home. But, when an officer uses a weapon, lethal or non, on an unarmed civilian who is agitated but not on the attack, there needs to be a query or investigation.
In Nevada, during the Bundy Cattle incident, One of the Bundy boys was part of the group yelling at the BLM/Forestry officers to leave. Neither he nor anyone else was holding a weapon anymore lethal than a cell phone camera. Yet a number of officers all had their tazers out and pointed at the civilians. Then, an officer with a dog on a leash moved close enough to Mr. Bundy to allow the dog to jump on him. What's the first thing you will automatically do when an animal suddenly jumps on you? Will you find a Milk Bone? No, most of us would instinctively kick the dog. That is what got Bundy Tazed. He instinctively kicked at a dog that was allowed to approach and jump on him. He did not put himself near the dog and he did not attack.
Was it tense. Yes, it sure was. Was it stressful and maybe even a little scary for all? Absolutely. But, that is no excuse for using force on an unarmed civilian who is not even on the attack. This does seem to be more of a pattern of late.
So, whether the Bundy family owes the government money or not is NOT the issue. How an officer handles himself in a conflict with an unarmed civilian is.
Next issue:
While I was riding home from Idaho, I pulled off I-15 to check an email I was expecting. There was a section of that orange landscaping fence with a sign, "First Amendment Area." I wondered what that was all about. I thought, "Well the First Amendment applies everywhere so what's this? Would anyone actually try to say that you can only exercise the First Amendment in certain places? Nah." Well, guess what, that's exactly the intent here. The BLM attempted to create areas where American civilians would be free to exercise their rights. If we accept that there are areas where our rights apply then we by default accept that there are areas where our rights DON'T apply.
No matter what you think about the Bundy family or the federal government changing the status of property used by a family for over 100 years, issues of being told where our rights as citizens apply should concern you. If you care about what America is as compared to other nations, then this matters. That much of this really is pretty simple.