Open Letter
"Rules of Engagement"
This is the last portion of an open letter from Schuyler Barbeau. This, to me, is the pertinent part. The part I wish to emphasize. The following is from that letter.
I will further add that I, having been present in the Bunkerville, NV area and at Cliven Bundy’s house and ranch before, on, and after the “standoff” events on April 12th, 2014:
1) Did not participate in any conspiracy, confederation, or agreement to commit any offenses against the “United States” with anyone else present before, on, or after the 12th, nor was there anyone else participating in any conspiracy, confederation, or agreement to commit any offenses against the “United States” with Cliven Bundy, nor anyone else. There was no planning of anything to do anything.
This is true to my knowledge.
2) There were only three groups of people in Bunkerville or at the Bundy’s Ranch before, on, and after the events of April 12th, 2014. There were protesters, people who supported the protesters and the security for Cliven and his family and everyone else.
The first protested the heavy handed tactics of the Government, the support group handled food, water, medical, etc needs of the protest and security groups, and the security made sure Cliven and his family and everyone else stayed safe, not only from unlawful acts by the Government, but also from anyone else.
No one who was there had any other purpose or intent then to exercise their/our 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, and other rights secured by the United States Constitution and Bill Of Rights.
This is true to my knowledge.
Where the Government came up with the idea of some big conspiracy to commit a bunch of crimes is beyond me, except that they speculated off of Ryan’s and other’s fabrications and false representations. The whole point of protesting a Government’s actions is to stop those actions from continuing UNTIL there is redress.
Had all the protesters gone and stayed inside the “First Amendment Zones” they set up unconstitutionally, the BLM would have finished rounding up all of Cliven’s cattle, shipped them off, killed off even more than they did, packed up, and moved out of there and Cliven’s whole life would have been completely destroyed.
Is he supposed to, are WE supposed to, just let the Government destroy him completely and then try to hash it out in court after he’s lost everything? He would have lost all his money, house, ranch, all his property, everything, and then you expect him to pay maybe hundreds of thousands of dollars to fight the big fight in court? For years? And probably never get redress or restored?
No, I say, you assemble and stop the Government destruction until there is redress and you absolutely bear arms to protect yourself and others from this kind of tyranny. That’s exactly how our Founding Father did in the past and that’s exactly how our Founding Fathers wanted us to do it today.
"We The People" are not to ever let the Federal Government just walk all over us.
How come the Government can point their assault weapons at We The People and claim self-defense, but We The People can not point our guns at them in self-defense?
We are just citizens trying to defend ourselves from, [against?] tyranny. When I was in the Marine Corps (OOH RAH), we had to learn the four weapons safety rules. One is: Never point your weapon at anything you do not intend to shoot.
We also have Rules of Engagement. Basically, we didn’t point our weapons at anybody unless they are an enemy combatant who has a weapon and is using it, or intends to use it against us. Our Law Enforcement is trained the same way and learns the four weapon safety rules.
Does that mean that at the Bundy Ranch “standoff”, the BLM, Forrest Service and whoever else was pointing their weapons at us were INTENDING to shoot us?
Were we citizens enemy combatants to them?
We were there to exercise our rights as citizens and people of this land. It seems they had a conspiracy, confederation, or agreement to kill enemy combatants.
Sincerely, Your Defender,
/s/ Schuyler P. Barbeau
Replies