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: 36
58
<< 33  34  35    37  38  39 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 28 2016 @ 02:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958



A murder was committed on an unarmed man,


You were not there. Nor are you in any position to make such a claim.
If you were lucky enough to be considered to be on the jury, you would be rejected by the counsel for both sides.
You have just boldly rejected the basis of our system of law.

Guilty until proven innocent.

Congratulations. You too, are a Bundite.

edit on 1/28/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 28 2016 @ 02:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Semicollegiate

I answered your question which you can discover if you read more carefully; now kindly answer mine and stop the snide innuendo.

Here, I'll make it easy: have you chosen to live in the United States after reaching adulthood? Have you taken advantage of the protections, benefits and privileges of being an American citizen?

If so, and following your tacit argument, have you repudiated your citizenship? If not, you are consenting to the US and State Constitutions, and all laws that descend from those documents.

As did the Bundites.

/shrug


Every individual is subject to the law whether he consents or not.

There is no claim to moral high ground it that however, which collectivists greedily try wallow in with their every pronouncement.



posted on Jan, 28 2016 @ 02:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate

No, the Constitution does not allow for "breaking the laws" in any shape form or fashion.

The right to trial by jury (Sixth Amendment) does not eradicate police power.

Police power descends from the State and Federal Constitutions (which I have already demonstrated apply here.)

Police have the power of arrest, and the use of deadly force to enforce the laws.

Your argument makes no practical sense.



posted on Jan, 28 2016 @ 02:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Informer1958



A murder was committed on an unarmed man,


You were not there. Nor are you in any position to make such a claim.
If you were lucky enough to be considered to be on the jury, you would be rejected by the counsel for both sides.
You have just boldly rejected the basis of our system of law.

Congratulations. You too, are a Bundite.


I am sympathetic to the "you were not there" point of view. I must say though, that Finicum did not act like a charging mad man on the you tube videos. I don't know if his arms were up, but it is most likely that he was walking towards the officers in an attempt to access the Sheriff.

I don't know why he was shot.



posted on Jan, 28 2016 @ 02:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage


Well, you weren't there, were you? You ignore the fact that for three weeks these "men" have been strutting around on youtube, sticking out their chests, packing iron, saying "I'd rather be dead than imprisoned." "All you patriots have to bring your guns and fight!" Do you think they were bluffing? Do you think the authorities thought they were bluffing?


Now you are being silly.

You are now lumping all of these men as above your statement and that is not the case here. Yes a very few did, but you are demonizing all of them.


Why on Earth do you think that law enforcement would immediately start telling the press about everything they know? Why on Earth would they give a hint to other conspirators (and yes, that is exactly the right word) about what they know.


Thank you for clearing that up for us. Now the militia are "conspirators".

I can say the same thing about our government, they are conspirators as well. The love their dirty secrets of corruption don't you agree?



posted on Jan, 28 2016 @ 02:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate
So. That would be a "no" to his question.

In my day they used to yell "America, love it or leave it." I thought it was stupid but I kind of get it. But it needs updating.

America, if you don't love it that's ok. If you can't stand it, you might as well go. If you're pissed off about something and have an idea or two about a better way, at least give it a shot, but don't be stupid.

Too wordy?

edit on 1/28/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2016 @ 02:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Semicollegiate

I answered your question which you can discover if you read more carefully; now kindly answer mine and stop the snide innuendo.

Here, I'll make it easy: have you chosen to live in the United States after reaching adulthood? Have you taken advantage of the protections, benefits and privileges of being an American citizen?

If so, and following your tacit argument, have you repudiated your citizenship? If not, you are consenting to the US and State Constitutions, and all laws that descend from those documents.

As did the Bundites.

/shrug


Every individual is subject to the law whether he consents or not.

There is no claim to moral high ground it that however, which collectivists greedily try wallow in with their every pronouncement.


You're arguing in circles and blathering meaningless ad hominem now.

I'm not going to continue with you if you don't observe basic decorum.



posted on Jan, 28 2016 @ 02:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

Yes a very few did, but you are demonizing all of them.
Which one was killed?



Now the militia are "conspirators".
The Bundites, yes.

An agreement between two or more persons to engage jointly in an unlawful or criminal act, or an act that is innocent in itself but becomes unlawful when done by the combination of actors.
legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...

Two or more persons. Check.
Unlawful act. Check
That about covers it.
edit on 1/28/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2016 @ 02:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Semicollegiate

No, the Constitution does not allow for "breaking the laws" in any shape form or fashion.

The right to trial by jury (Sixth Amendment) does not eradicate police power.

Police power descends from the State and Federal Constitutions (which I have already demonstrated apply here.)

Police have the power of arrest, and the use of deadly force to enforce the laws.

Your argument makes no practical sense.


My argument is the reason for trial by jury.

Police have no power beyond that of any citizen. They are paid to attend to lawbreakers full time, so as to free up everyone else's time.



posted on Jan, 28 2016 @ 02:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate



Police have no power beyond that of any citizen.

Quite incorrect.



posted on Jan, 28 2016 @ 02:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate

"The reason for trial by jury"? Trial by jury is a Constitutional right, tacitly. That's "the reason."

The rest of your statement is simply inaccurate.

Constitutions grant legislative power to the Representatives of the People, that power (as well as Common Law), in turn, has established subsequent powers of law enforcement.


edit on 28-1-2016 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Jan, 28 2016 @ 03:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66


No, no one was murdered. Repeating your belief doesn't make it true.


Are you kidding? The man was surrendering he put his hand up out of the window, he got out of the truck with his hands up and was shot 6 times in the back.

Now you can justify this anyway you want, murder is murder in the eyes of the courts and I can guarantee this will go to court.

And I will remind you, this thread topic is not about me, or my "opinions", stay on topic. If you don't like what I have to say ignore me and move on.



posted on Jan, 28 2016 @ 03:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

Are you kidding? The man was surrendering he put his hand up out of the window, he got out of the truck with his hands up and was shot 6 times in the back.
You...were...not...there. It bears repeating.
You have just declared yourself judge and jury. Now be seated.



posted on Jan, 28 2016 @ 03:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66
a reply to: Phage

From Our Enemy the State by Albert Jay Nock


Mayor Gaynor astonished the whole of New York when he pointed out to a correspondent who had been complaining about the inefficiency of the police, that any citizen has the right to arrest a malefactor and bring him before a magistrate. "The law of England and of this country," he wrote, "has been very careful to confer no more right in that respect upon policemen and constables than it confers on every citizen." State exercise of that right through a police force had gone on so steadily that not only were citizens indisposed to exercise it, but probably not one in ten thousand knew he had it.


All police were formed after the COTUS and none of their powers, beyond that of any other citizen, are from the Constitution.

The founding fathers controlled all of the local, non Tory, courts, Smugglers and tax evaders were almost always acquitted or not sentenced for voilating royal decrees. that is why the Red Coat Army was used so openly.

Those trials are most of the reason for trial by jury and the 6th amendment.

The law is only as just as the jury says it is.



posted on Jan, 28 2016 @ 03:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

Nope, not kidding. Yes, the Courts will decide any wrongdoing here, not you.

Thanks for the totally unnecessary reminder about basic ATS protocols. YOU addressed me, I answered.

If you don't like my answers to your loaded irrational questions, with all due respect, please stop addressing me.

Also, get the boards out of your eyes before going after the splinters in anyone else's.



posted on Jan, 28 2016 @ 03:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage


You...were...not...there. It bears repeating.
You have just declared yourself judge and jury. Now be seated.


LOL, and hows is that?



posted on Jan, 28 2016 @ 03:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate

The founding fathers controlled all of the local, non Tory, courts
No. Really, really. No. The government is given no power over the actions of the court.

The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.



posted on Jan, 28 2016 @ 03:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: Phage


Are you going to suggest that law enforcement had no reason to believe that the Bundites were armed?



Frankly, I believe the law enforcement didn't care if they were armed or not. It's my opinion at this point until more information comes out, that someone high up in our government wanted this to end and wanted someone dead, a martyr to set an example to We The People to never join the militia or any group that stands up against The Powers That Be, that We The Government will take you out, because we can.

That is the demonstration or president that was set. Media Black outs on mainstream propaganda and only a small Press Release that told us nothing.


If the authorities wanted to, they could have stormed the reserve. if they wanted to, they could have told ABC to leave the traffic stop and kill all the militiamen in the shootout. None of that happened. Instead, one man is dead and the others have been apprehended. The authorities didn't raid the reserve after the fact, and as of a couple of hours ago, were telling the militiamen to surrender and leave the reserve.

It's clear to me that the authorities could have taken more lethal measures and opted not to. They chose a traffic stop instead, which resulted in a shootout with extremists who referred to themselves as patriots willing to shoot officers.



posted on Jan, 28 2016 @ 03:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: Phage


You...were...not...there. It bears repeating.
You have just declared yourself judge and jury. Now be seated.


LOL, and hows is that?



Like this:

A murder was committed on an unarmed man, this so call rhetoric is not over to say the lease.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



The man was surrendering he put his hand up out of the window, he got out of the truck with his hands up and was shot 6 times in the back.
www.abovetopsecret.com...



edit on 1/28/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2016 @ 03:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate

You're utterly mistaken. Your quote is both out of context [strikeand is not a citation of law.

First, both the US Constitution and State Constitutions apply in this situation as noted. Dual Sovereignty, remember?

The derivation of police power from those Constitutions and from the Common Law has already been explained to you.

Your other examples sound like something out of a comic book frankly.

Bored now.

ETA: Tacitly, your quote refers to aspects of the common law regarding citizen's arrest, which does not apply in the situation under discussion, thus, out of context.
edit on 28-1-2016 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



new topics

top topics



 
58
<< 33  34  35    37  38  39 >>

log in

join