Skip to comments.Man Arrested For Punching Fellow Bar Patron In Face During "Heated Debate" Over Bundy Ranch Standoff
Posted on 04/21/2014 12:36:03 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
A heated debate over the Bundy Ranch standoff turned violent early Friday when a bar patron slugged another man in the face, resulting in his arrest for battery.
According to cops, David Craig, 54, and Brian Holt, 31, were seated next to each other at the bar at Papa Joes in Bradenton when they got into a heated debate over the Bundy Ranch, and the range wars.
Holt told a Manatee County Sheriffs Office deputy that Craig became offended by his opinion and got up to yell at him. The men, Holt said, got into each others face before Craig (seen at right) punched him in the mouth. Left with a split lip, Holt was able to provide an investigator with the license plate for Craigs Toyota Tacoma.
When a deputy later confronted Craig, he acknowledged arguing with Holt, but would leave out the fact that a battery occurred, reported Deputy Sarah Kane, who noted that Craigs vehicle had been purposely hidden behind his residence and then behind a shed in a dark area.
Charged with misdemeanor battery, Craig was booked into the county jail, from which he was released after posting $500 bond.
The sheriffs report does not detail Craigs and Holts respective positions on the dispute between Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and the federal Bureau of Land Management. Bundy, who does not recognize BLM authority over his property, owes the government more than $1 million in fees due to his cattle herd grazing on public land for more than two decades.
When BLM officials recently sought to confiscate the 67-year-old ranchers cattle, a standoff ensued, with Bundy (seen at left) and some of his armed supporters making ominous comparisons to the deadly confrontations at Ruby Ridge and the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas. U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has called Bundy and his supporters domestic terrorists. Seeking to avoid a violent confrontation, BLM workers released Bundys cattle and left the area.
In Congress, maybe ....
Well, that's a shame.
A lie told often enought, is still a lie.
Here’s the thing - I’m pretty sure you’d agree with one of them and disagree with the other...
but that’s just a guess on my part...
I can’t believe bar fights are becoming reportable news.
The Civil War happened 8 years after Brooks' cowardly assault on an unarmed man. And the first shots were fired by the "winning" side of Brooks' embarrassing violence.
Brooks and Sumner's argument was over the phenomenon that led to the Civil War.
Interesting research in that book though.
". . . some key [events] exacerbated the national debate, fraying trust, and national cohesion just a little more each time . . . The two-party system that had governed America . . . began to fall apart . . . interest in politics took the place of all other forms of news-related entertainment . . . politicians were the celebrities . . . [Politics/ideology] was becoming such a habit, the reactions so automatic, that [journalists] taking sides on every news story became inevitable."
.. I just can't avoid thinking about this from for Love & Liberty by Robin Young and it's about 1857 America.
From the account, it's fairly obvious. Intolerance to the point of provoking violence is a trait of the left. If I was a betting man, I would wager that Craig is the intolerant liberal here.
Well, I COULD be for one of them before I wasn't....right?
“I cant believe bar fights are becoming reportable news.”
No kidding. And you should see this little hole in the wall, Papa Joe’s.
Brooks’ cowardly assault on an unarmed man.
If... he had believed Sumner to be a gentleman, he might have challenged him to a duel.
Instead, he chose a light cane of the type used to discipline unruly dogs. Sumner got off light and he kept his mouth shut after that.
There is to this day a price to pay for insults no matter the pay grade. Horns still hook.
The whole issue is very complicated, and doesn't just involve rancher Bundy, isn't about unpaid taxes/fines, or that the BLM are alleged to be minions of Satan, or that endangered desert tortoises are at risk, or the whole spectacle chiefly concerns the grandfathered use of public/private/tribal land and water exploitation.
The real issue is about how both the BLM and NV ranchers are often supporting laws they agree with while ignoring the laws they don't like or care to enforce while at the same time the government agencies are sued by environmentalists into enforcing laws that neither they or the environmentalists understand or even support. One of the top issues here is about water rights, yet the codified laws about water rights in Nevada are probably the least confusing of all issues in this conflict.
It's not just this one rancher named Bundy; it's every rancher and farmer in the state of Nevada. This issue is so messed up that even different Federal agencies are at odds with one another (US Forestry Service vs. BLM) and departments and districts within the BLM are internally at odds with one another over more zealous districts making up rules as they see fit and holding them up as 'law' even if they run contrary to real laws and treaties. This conflict is more complicated and has more 'sides' in the fight than the Balkans Conflict of the 1990s.
All sides in this need to take a big step back, but the reason that this Bundy ranch incident became such a spectacle is because a landowner in Nevada finally stood up to the Feds and most surprisingly the Feds blinked.
These laws and rules and control and jurisdictions need to be addressed at the Congressional level, in my opinion.
... and to stay on topic, the fact that drunks 3000 miles away in Sarasota Florida are punching each other up in saloon fights over this incident going on in my home state is just bewildering.
Good point and true. This country is in a culture war and its divided about 50/50. This cannot continue indefinitely. One side or the other has to win. We are on the brink of a Civil War.
Maybe it was over the breed of cows...
Brooks didn't challenge Sumner to a duel because Brooks was a coward and was scared to death of the unpredictability inherent to a duel.
So he waited until he had two strong friends with him, armed himself with a club, and waited until his unarmed opponent was sitting down at a disadvantage. Then he clubbed him thirty times.
"Got off light"? You believe that the proper response when someone says that someone else is pro-slavery (and is right in saying so) is a permanent brain injury? Who raised you?
Sumner, however, did not keep his mouth shut as you falsely claim. He rehabilitated himself and returned to publc life. He continued to oppose the buying and selling of human beings, and lived to see chattel slavery extinguished in the entire country.
Brooks, the sucker-punching loser, manfully died of a cold before he was able to "honorably" run like a rabbit from the Union Army. He made the titular princess of "The Princess and the Pea" look tough.
You are a real life purebred yankee liberal, bless your heart.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.