[woodywesty]

Have you ever seen an eco advocate/terrorist maim someone? I have, saw the injuries, treated the victims, and have no respect for trespassers and criminal extortionists. Ignorance is playing the "progressive arrogance" you displayed in your above comment and attack on me you just laid out, without knowing anything about why I have my view... Criminals are criminals, elegant simplicity.

Read the Constitution and Bill of Rights.... please....

[Clarkey]

I am interested in this law.
Why was it created and passed?

Per the above, I agree 'direct action' can be criminally culpable. Assault is assault. I do question why the situation arose in the first place.

However, evidence is required in order to challenge something in a court. This law seems to preclude gathering of that.

This thread might need moving... thanks for posting.

[GlassJunkie]

I was a paramedic and police officer in NY in the 70s and 80s. Demonstrations got violent. People got hurt. People are threatened every day in the resource businesses. Once you have been bled on by the victim of a violent protest, it changes your view.... Protest/demonstrate- OK. Whistleblow- OK as long as it doesn't risk public safety (like espionage). Take pictures while following the law (no trespassing, weapons, interfereance)- Absolutely. Heck, I am a wildlife snapper. But... The end doesn't justify the means... Want access? Get a subpoena/court order....

---------- Post added 05-19-15 at 09:20 AM ----------

Read the Constitution and Bill of Rights.... please....

The bill of rights doesn't protect people that that assault others in violent protests or tresspass or infringe on privacy (states vary-wiretapping, trespass, peeping, paparazzi harassment, etc)

[MJSfoto1956]

Have you ever seen an eco advocate/terrorist maim someone? I have, saw the injuries, treated the victims, and have no respect for trespassers and criminal extortionists. Ignorance is playing the "progressive arrogance" you displayed in your above comment and attack on me you just laid out, without knowing anything about why I have my view... Criminals are criminals, elegant simplicity.

I don't think you have read the law -- you keep changing the subject and blaming "the bogeyman". This is classic government overreach, pure and simple. You are on the wrong side of this.

Michael

[monochrome]

Want access? Get a subpoena/court order....

Knock on my door - call first - write me a letter -

Ridge Runners, OTOH, are at their own risk. It's Wyoming, dummy!! What did you expect?

[monochrome]

I don't think you have read the law -- you keep changing the subject and blaming "the bogeyman". This is classic government overreach, pure and simple. You are on the wrong side of this.

Michael

Nope. No one has any reason whatsoever to go on any private land not owned by them. There is NO reason. None. Zero. No social exceptions. Nothing. NADA.

It's mine. Get a warrant or Get the F off.

[MJSfoto1956]

Nope. No one has any reason whatsoever to go on any private land not owned by them. There is NO reason. None. Zero. No social exceptions. Nothing. NADA.

Um, it is now patently clear that you have not read the law. The law has nothing to do with trespassing. It has to do with government overreach pertaining to ANY land, no mention of "your private castle" which you keep drivelling on ad nauseum. You keep changing the subject. And it is obvious your argumentative technique involves zero facts. Please get your facts straight and stay on subject and stop apologizing for poorly written laws that can and will be used against innocent people.

Michael

---------- Post added 05-19-15 at 09:52 AM ----------

I am interested in this law. Why was it created and passed?.

The law has nothing to do with violence and trespassing. Those are clever decoys. The real issue is high bacteria count in streams that cross public land. The real "trespassers" in this case are in fact the ranchers! :P

"Why the desire for ignorance rather than informed discussion? The reason is pure politics. The source of E. coli is clear. It comes from cows spending too much time in and next to streams. Acknowledging that fact could result in rules requiring ranchers who graze their cows on public lands to better manage their herds. The ranching community in Wyoming wields considerable political power and has no interest in such obligations, so the state is trying to stop the flow of information rather than forthrightly address the problem."

Michael

[GlassJunkie]

References?

Had to go deep in the closet. Glad to do it for you...

This was snapped by an AP photographer. I am the 4th face back in view with the shield with the white line on it... we were the second response team (27 guys)after the first 200 officers were overwhelmed... I remember the sign (weapon ) a yellow sign with the blue/green square of the NYS eco movement at the time. The pole cut some counter demonstrator's head open... Ah the good old days.... Guess I'm too old and Jaded....

[normhead]

Note: Not directed at the Quoted poster - a general response, so 'You' is collective, not individual.

If I own something, I own it. Just like my backyard, I don't particularly want just any old body coming onto my land and snooping around, looking for something they don't like - especially since the snooper decides what's to not like.

Stop presuming that just because someone owns some large chunk of land in a wide-open, barren state in the USA that you've likely never seen, he the owner must by definition be up to no good. Some of those tracts in Wyoming (and northern Colorado) have been owned by one family for nearly 200 years. Back then - and today - they, more than anyone, were and are proper stewards of their land. It's in their interest so to be.

Re-read your Civics textbook. This is a Consitutional Republic, not a Democracy. Wyoming is a Sovereign State. They make their laws, they have their rights - indepndent of what the Feds (and you) might think about them. Lest you are a registered voter there (while most definitely entitled to your opinion and the right to express it) you don't have a vote.

Interesting that you can tell others to stop presuming...

and then presume that because "Some of those tracts in Wyoming (and northern Colorado) have been owned by one family for nearly 200 years. " they will always be good stewards of the land. Well, they are until they aren't, and anyone can be corrupted by the promise of big bucks. If you're not going to presume, don't presume. The collection of data is necessary so we don't have to presume.

---------- Post added 05-19-15 at 10:08 AM ----------

Had to go deep in the closet. Glad to do it for you...

This was snapped by an AP photographer. I am the 4th face back in view with the shield with the white line on it... we were the second response team (27 guys)after the first 200 officers were overwhelmed... I remember the sign (weapon ) a yellow sign with the blue/green square of the NYS eco movement at the time. The pole cut some counter demonstrator's head open... Ah the good old days.... Guess I'm too old and Jaded....

As noted, the instigation of violence by one side or the other does not in any way reflect on the validity of your case. But I would like to see the story the picture was related too. My interest is in determined what the confrontation is about. I generally don't condone violence of any sort, and the picture clearly shows some people in rain coats with huge sticks... I imagine some damage was inflicted with those sticks?

I simply don't believe attacking protesters is always the right way to go. I've been involved in incidents where the violence was actually promoted by undercover police, at otherwise peaceful demonstrations. A tactic that seems to have been adopted by police departments across North America. IN this particular case, demonstrators actually held the officers in question for police to arrest, but once behind police lines they were immediately released, so seriously, what I'm looking for is specifics, who was charged, what was the nature of the confrontation? Were the instigators who were charged actually members of the organization involved? I look for facts, not presumptions and assumptions.

I would also point out that the picture you posted reminds me more than a bit of Selma. It is ingrained in my mind that police with nightsticks while always doing their duty, are only as right as the folks that send them into harm's way. And sometimes, not often, but sometimes, those guys make really bad decisions.

[MJSfoto1956]

again, all these "violence" memes are deliberate false flags meant to distract from the real issue: creeping government overreach.

"Anyone with a passing familiarity with our Constitution will recognize that the Wyoming law is unconstitutional. It runs afoul of the supremacy clause because it interferes with the purposes of federal environmental statutes by making it impossible for citizens to collect the information necessary to bring an enforcement lawsuit. The Wyoming law also violates the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech because it singles out speech about natural resources for burdensome regulation and makes it a crime to engage in a variety of expressive and artistic activities. And finally, it specifically criminalizes public engagement with federal and state agencies and therefore violates another right guaranteed by the First Amendment: the right to petition the government."

[mohb]

they will always be good stewards of the land.

If they are 'good stewards of the land' why should they need legal protection from accusations claiming otherwise?

Criminals are criminals, elegant simplicity.

So are farmers who pollute streams or rivers so why do they have a law to protect them

[GlassJunkie]

Interesting that you can tell others to stop presuming...

and then presume that because "Some of those tracts in Wyoming (and northern Colorado) have been owned by one family for nearly 200 years. " they will always be good stewards of the land. Well, they are until they aren't, and anyone can be corrupted by the promise of big bucks. If you're not going to presume, don't presume. The collection of data is necessary so we don't have to presume.

---------- Post added 05-19-15 at 10:08 AM ----------



As noted, the instigation of violence by one side or the other does not in any way reflect on the validity of your case. But I would like to see the story the picture was related too. My interest is in determined what the confrontation is about. I generally don't condone violence of any sort, and the picture clearly shows some people in rain coats with huge sticks... I imagine some damage was inflicted with those sticks?

I simply don't believe attacking protesters is always the right way to go. I've been involved in incidents where the violence was actually promoted by undercover police, at otherwise peaceful demonstrations. A tactic that seems to have been adopted by police departments across North America. IN this particular case, demonstrators actually held the officers in question for police to arrest, but once behind police lines they were immediately released, so seriously, what I'm looking for is specifics, who was charged, what was the nature of the confrontation? Were the instigators who were charged actually members of the organization involved? I look for facts, not presumptions and assumptions.

I would also point out that the picture you posted reminds me more than a bit of Selma. It is ingrained in my mind that police with nightsticks while always doing their duty, are only as right as the folks that send them into harm's way. And sometimes, not often, but sometimes, those guys make really bad decisions.

Actually none. Sad to say, but when the commander led by being ready to shoot off a teargas round, we banged our sticks against the street, folks noticed and took off. Hundreds of them...We did the mop up. People scampered/ran. The City PD got the messiest, we were able to focus on backups, calling medics and FD resources fir the fires started. Started as one type of demonstration Apartheid, then Pot groups entered, then ECO folks, then a college athletic team mouthed off and off it went. Kind of odd, the "jock" types got whooped by the others.. Silly really.

[normhead]

Actually none. Sad to say, but when the commander led by being ready to shoot off a teargas round, we banged our sticks against the street, folks noticed and took off. Hundreds of them...We did the mop up. People scampered/ran. The City PD got the messiest, we were able to focus on backups, calling medics and FD resources fir the fires started. Started as one type of demonstration Apartheid, then Pot groups entered, then ECO folks, then a college athletic team mouthed off and off it went. Kind of odd, the "jock" types got whooped by the others.. Silly really.

The biggest drawback to planing a political demonstration of any kind in North America right now, is the idiots you're going to attract that have nothing to do with your cause. Anarchists being the worst, they don't care about your cause, they just want to cause trouble. Having been in many planning sessions, I think people probably don't realize, you always have to weigh the positive effect your demonstration could have against the almost certain negative publicity if the hooligans turn up. it is practically impossible to hold a legitimate protest without hooligans turning up, and most responsible organizations are now confined to lobbying for legislation or the courtroom. No one wants their name associated with the nonsense that inevitably results from public demonstrations these days.

The anarchists and Trotskyites and criminals, claim they are against the system, but the only one's they've actually hurt, are those who would plan peaceful political protests. They've made it impossible for those events to happen.

[MJSfoto1956]

Again, all of these discussions about "violence" and "trespassing" are deliberate distractions from how this law is bad in so many ways.
For one, I can now be "threatened" for just taking an innocent landscape photo, regardless of my intent.

"The Wyoming law transforms a good Samaritan who volunteers her time to monitor our shared environment into a criminal. Idaho and Utah, as well as other states, have also enacted laws designed to conceal information that could damage their agricultural industries—laws currently being challenged in federal court. But Wyoming is the first state to enact a law so expansive that it criminalizes taking a picture on public land."

Michael

[Rondec]

I wonder what the life span if this thread will be...