It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Oregon protest leader Ammon Bundy is arrested, says source

page: 28
58
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 04:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: antar
a reply to: DelMarvel

These demons like rawstory and the oregonian were psyops, they were slaughtering anyone who even remotely showed signs of interest in what this represents or in the Patriot movement.


Source?

Any at all?

So ... every news outlet, local and national, the entire Oregon State Police, the Governor, they're all in on the "psyops" then?

My god.




posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 04:42 PM
link   
a reply to: daaskapital


But i don't blame the police for feeling on edge considering the types of people they're dealing with.


It is nice to know that you trust the Feds and the police so much considering they have a bad history of lying and covering up their crimes.



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 04:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: RomeByFire

If "the Government" really wanted Mr. Fincom dead ... he would have had a massive coronary.

Or had a silent sniper's bullet through his brain from miles away ...

Or one of "his own" would have "had an accident while cleaning a gun" ...

The Oregon Police and Feds did everything they could to bring these guys in ... Fincom wanted to die.

And sadly, he did. And even more sadly, more decent people will die because of it.


I just truly hope that all of the attention - if any at all - happens away from the civilians of the town who repeatedly asked them to leave, they don't want them there, etc. I also hope that children won't be involved, but I fear as if that may be too late.

They had electricity and water for weeks. If the government wanted to "make an example," they would have. This is the same government that invaded two sovereign nations in weeks based on attacks that neither had to do with.



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 04:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: DelMarvel

Because police have a reputation for killing people and they wanted the opportunity to protect themselves.


And how did that turn out for them? Going up against the Federal government with there little guns?

They would of had far more power if they were unarmed and had the masses of the people actually backing them. Holding a gun to the federal governments head will get you killed, rather than protect you. What you need is the masses on your side.

Maybe there's a lesson there for anyone who actually has the delusion that a gun can protect you against TPTB.

lol, they've got plenty of guns.



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 04:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: daaskapital


But i don't blame the police for feeling on edge considering the types of people they're dealing with.


It is nice to know that you trust the Feds and the police so much considering they have a bad history of lying and covering up their crimes.


You enjoy putting words in others mouths.

How does "I don't blame," equate to "I full-heartedly trust?"

Have you ever visted downtown Chicago? I ABSOLUTELY believe that there exists police brutality and it is systematic across the board, but my heart goes out to the good cops in inner cities. I have an extended family member who was recently shot on duty in Chicago, no media frenzy, no MSM coverage, he's still recovering and this was roughly a month ago.

I don't trust police, but it doesn't mean that I can't respect them. Behind every badge exists a human being, and I've never had a bad encounter with police - but again, I ABSOLUTELY believe that there exists an epidemic of police brutality.

Stop drawing conclusions based on putting words in other people's mouths.



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 04:48 PM
link   
a reply to: DelMarvel

Cherry picking ridiculous Yellow Journalism against the on going situation doesn't help your cause.



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 04:48 PM
link   
Since no one answered my question about if it is legal to shoot at a fleeing suspect. This is what I found.



Can police officers shoot at fleeing individuals? Only in very narrow circumstances. A seminal 1985 Supreme Court case, Tennessee vs. Garner, held that the police may not shoot at a fleeing person unless the officer reasonably believes that the individual poses a significant physical danger to the officer or others in the community. That means officers are expected to take other, less-deadly action during a foot or car pursuit unless the person being chased is seen as an immediate safety risk.


LINK

So unless LaVoy Finicum did charge the police or the others arrested shot first. Then according to the law the feds do not have a reason to shoot him. Of course this is all pending the release of more information and or video of the incident. Either side could easily be lying.

I am looking at this from a legal point of view. Not if the Oregon protest/occupation was right or wrong. According the the federal government it was illegal. But even if it was did they have the legal right to shoot LaVoy Finicum? That is the lens I am viewing this through at the moment.



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 04:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: daaskapital


I have no sympathy for these terrorists. Some were earlier on livestreams telling people that they should kill authorities who block them from going to the reserve. Yeah, sounds peaceful alright.


Terrorist? So that is what Patriots defending the Constitutions are now, Terrorist? The is the garbage the mainstream propaganda News media are claiming.

Turn off the garbage and do some real research.

Let me ask you something critical here, regarding input from the public. If the general public were to hold a vote and vote for supporting or going after the militia out there, and the majority vote was a sweeping "Go After Them", what would you then do? Stomp & pout more about how it's some noble cause? Or concede that it's, in the eyes of the public, self-interest crap with no support.

Would you advocate an uprising anyway, even though the public said no? If you answer yes, I want you to consider who the enemy to the general public really is. Those indulging their own interests while ignoring everyone else. Oh wait, that makes you no different than the government, doesn't it!

For what it's worth, they have no support for a reason. Think about it, and stop blaming media & suits.
edit on 1/27/2016 by Nyiah because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 04:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Subaeruginosa


Holding a gun to the federal governments head will get you killed, rather than protect you. What you need is the masses on your side.


No one held a gun to any government head.



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 04:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: daaskapital


But i don't blame the police for feeling on edge considering the types of people they're dealing with.


It is nice to know that you trust the Feds and the police so much considering they have a bad history of lying and covering up their crimes.


Did i say i trusted them? No? Try again.

I said i can understand if the authorities are feeling on edge, especially due to the fact they're dealing with armed extremists.

I have no faith in authorities investigating themselves, but let's be real. The authorities could have raided the reserve weeks ago, and they opted to apprehend some of the suspects at a traffic stop instead. The militiamen involved had repeatedly raised the use of force as something they would be willing to use against the authorities.

Only one militiaman is dead and others are wanting to fight the authorities, even encouraging people to kill them. That tells me all i need to know about which side is wanting the bloodshed.



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 04:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

Listening to this little girl, you can hear the shock in her voice, emotions. She did GREAT for someone who just made it through this, she is amazing and must be very bright and clean cut to be this straight and consistent. I hope to put a face to her soon. My deepest prayers go out for her, for all. You btw are the only one who has stood up for the Patriot's stance on these agenda 21-30 issues. I will always trust you, my cyber friend.



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 04:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Nyiah

Again, using hypotheticals in order to push a certain narrative.

1. Who would authorize a "public vote," on this? When would it happen? Where would it happen? How would the votes be counted?

2. What are the options in this vote? According to you, we would either be given "No," or "Go After Them." Would you not be able to stray from ridiculous black-and-white thinking?

Creating hypotheticals to push a certain narrative is getting old. I have yet to get a reply regarding mine.

I get to come take over your home with a militia, and I shouldn't face any wrongdoings, even when you ask me to leave (like the citizens of the town), and I refuse to?

Sounds legit.



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 04:54 PM
link   
a reply to: RomeByFire


Stop drawing conclusions based on putting words in other people's mouths.


I did no such thing, so telling the truth is putting wrong conclusions in other people heads, really?

I do agree with most of your post, but not that last part of it. I think you are misinterpreting to what I am saying here.



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 04:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Read the posts under the poonews articles



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 04:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Nyiah

If the general public were allowed to vote on policy, we would not be a Federal Constitutional Republic, now would we?

We elect representatives, who decide our policy, which has become extremely broken due to corporate greed, self-interest, and corruption.

I would like to point out, the General Public favor certain policies, such as marijuana legalization, that the Federal government oppose.

Just to note, I don't support the actions of these militia people, they are like the federal government in the respect their actions only are to serve their self-interests.



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 04:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

OK Informer, I have to buy you a cup of coffee now. So go, take a break, get some fresh air and remember why you are so passionate and know many readers have appreciated your posts and insights, your fight.

So go now, let the trolls do their ugly work.



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 04:57 PM
link   
a reply to: RomeByFire

Your reason and logic are utterly refreshing.


Yes. As you have said here, I have no doubt that there are parts of our government that are what I and you and anyone would consider as Dark Hearted Demons from Beyond the Pale ... nor that there is injustice, daily, nor that there are factions in the government and without that would like nothing more than to do away with all this silly democratic republic pretense ...

(Dang, I can drift off into utter fantasy too ... maybe it's time for a nap.)

But that is not the day-to-day experiences of any of us. For most of us, the government provides our weather reports, keeps bad food off the store shelves, and collects too much ricken-fricken taxes from my dern paycheck.

All this drama ... for what?

Screen scroll on internet forums.

Thanks for your small candle in the dark.



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 04:58 PM
link   
a reply to: RomeByFire

Dude, read it again. My point was stripping the sitch down to overruling law & public opinion by force, not to give the jerkwads a free pass. If the militia supporters are fine & dandy with throwing everything out the window to get their way and ignoring laws along the way, it's a HUGE problem, both ethically & morally.
edit on 1/27/2016 by Nyiah because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 04:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: RomeByFire


Stop drawing conclusions based on putting words in other people's mouths.


I did no such thing, so telling the truth is putting wrong conclusions in other people heads, really?

I do agree with most of your post, but not that last part of it. I think you are misinterpreting to what I am saying here.


Let me attempt to explain this to you. A poster made a comment regarding "they understand the cops are on edge."

YOU asserted, that what they really said was that they trusted cops.

I told you that that is not what the poster said, and you are putting words in their mouth.

After putting words in their mouth - in this case, asserting they "trust the police," you then assert a conclusion based off of that.

The thing you seem to miss, the assertion made was based off of telling a poster that they didn't mean this, but really meant that.

That's called putting words in other people's mouths.



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 05:00 PM
link   
a reply to: antar

An 18 year old girl was used by her father in a complex suicide by cop.

It is impossible that she may have been instructed what to say by him beforehand?

Lambs to the slaughter.




top topics



 
58
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join