Oregon protest leader Ammon Bundy is arrested, says source

a reply to: Phage

Ah, you mean like the freedom for women and blacks to vote. The freedom for blacks to enter the same places as whites. For people to marry whomever they wish. Stuff like that?

Seems that more rights have been acquired than lost since the founding. But maybe that's just my point of view.

You make an excellent point. We have made great improvements and advancements in many ways. And we can continue to do so. For all my griping about government tyranny, I do understand that. I wouldn't bother griping if I didn't think we could do better. We have growing pains. We make mistakes. But that's part of life. Learning, growing, evolving.

(Wow... I agreed with you, Phage... I guess anything can happen!!!)

a reply to: Informer1958

Watch the crisis actors today at the refuge, check out these videos and tell me what you think:

allnewspipeline.com...

a reply to: Phage

The government took nothing from the Bundites.

By "Bundites," I'm assuming you mean the Bundys and other protesters at Malheur. If not, then correct me, and ignore what I'm about to write...

Yes, the government did take something. They have taken lots of "things," and they have abused their power and responsibilities in the worst ways, again and again. But in this case they took a life. Life is not "nothing." None of us have the whole truth about how that happened, but we know it did. Whatever inconvenience the protesters caused, it did not warrant killing anyone.

The feds (and other authorities) have lost all credibility by their own actions. We need and deserve complete and absolute transparency from our government. Let's start by putting the vehicle on public display that was said to be shot up and the windows blown out.

(And we're back to normal!)

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: daaskapital

Yes, i called the militiamen terrorists. Sure, they haven't killed any civilians, but their desire to take up arms for political causes have led to them forcefully occupying a federal building and engaging in a gunfight with authorities. They are making no attempts to hide their desire to have a shootout with the police currently surrounding the reserve too.

So my question is the same for you: What can Americans do if Redress doesn't work in confronting a corrupt government?

It is a very simple question, yet no one on here can answer it, or they chose not to.

Pursue redress through garnering actual public support? Otherwise your use of the word "Americans" is vague and misleading.

Timothy McVeigh was an American that was seeking redress...So was Eric Rudolph..

This is America and everyone has issue with Government about something..

In this country we seek "redress" through elections, public debate, the court system..

To suggest that when an issue fails to garner broader public support and the courts disagree, taking up arms and seizing land by armed force is acceptable is to oppose a free democracy.

If the public and courts do not agree with your cause...guns are not the answer...that logic is precisely how democracies are violently replaced with tyrannies in the world.

a reply to: DelMarvel

This is about some religious nuts and other whacked out losers who want hand outs from the government and are justifying it with pseudo-patriotic blather. A bunch of buffoons who took women and children with them on an armed standoff---a courageous occupation of a bird sanctuary.

No, that's not what it's about, and you could and would know that -- if you wanted the truth.

The only danger posed to the women and children was from the feds. Not the protesters. You obviously know this, hence your feigned outrage that they "took" women and children with them... but absolutely no outrage for those who posed the real danger to them. Nor any feigned outrage for feds shooting at these unarmed women trapped in a vehicle. And then you justify it all with your own pseudo-something blather, which is really just hiding behind government guns to bully and harass and even KILL those religious nuts and other whacked out losers that YOU don't like.

Good to know.

originally posted by: BlueJacket
a reply to: Leonidas


You actually get this...Cattlemen are the scourge of this country. They tried to drag the rest of the country in, to satisfy their need to free grazing etc..and make it out to be 2nd amendment....these arseholes are the very people who fekked our country up, and now theyre tryin to fek up our right to peacefully protest by being jag offs.

"...Cattlemen are the scourge of this country." Really????


Well...I am a cattleman / rancher, and I'm reasonably certain you would not make such an idiotic statement to my face, or any other's!

Anger at your asinine statement aside; first off, not all cattlemen agree with what is happening in Oregon, and very few cattlemen agree with Bundy, their cause or anything they even have to say...so lumping all the hard working cattle industry who work pretty damn hard to provide for the country into the same boat as some extremists makes you look pretty silly...and frankly, pretty uneducated and backwards.

I hope you made that pathetic statement after a nice yummy bowl of tofu, because that's all you deserve making imbecilic statements like that!

Eff any cattleman, eff em all and stop trying to co-op the legitimacy of the 2nd amendment, with your stupid hillbilly bs. Dumb asses. Gee look I have a gun, I deserve to do what I want...yeehaaw the 2nd.,

You clearly don't have the first clue about what cattlemen really do, how they do it or why. We don't sit around all day thinking up ways to subvert the country while hiding behind the 2nd Amendment. We don't walk around all day looking for a gunfight, or swagger around like John Wayne spinning the cylinders in our pearl handled revolvers thinking up ways to piss little jerks like you off! A firearm is just a tool like any other; it is no different than a branding iron, or a horse or a rope...or a shovel for that matter. It has a place and a purpose. We don't raise cattle for the sole purpose of coveting our precious pistols and rifles, that's just not why we do it. It's a business. 999 times out of 1,000 a firearm is not even present in anything we do. Just because some knucklehead parades around in front of the MSM news cameras with a cowboy had and a rifle you think this represents all cattle ranchers??? Clearly everything you know about cattle ranching you've seen on TV.

Did you think you were going to be able to make such a jerk-ish statement on some anonymous internet forum and get away with it? ...OOPS! That no one would notice, and call you on it???

these arseholes are the very people who fekked our country up, and now theyre tryin to fek up our right to peacefully protest by being jag offs

The fact of the matter is; it was "jag off" cattle ranchers and miners who settled much of the western United States, if you cared enough to even look into some history before making ludicrous statements like you've made. Cattlemen haven't tried to "co-op" (the word is actually 'co-opt', but you probably wouldn't know this) the legitimacy of anything related to the Constitution, and certainly not the 2nd Amendment. In fact, most of us celebrate the Constitution...all of it not just one part! Your characterization of "all" cattlemen as hillbillies and dumb asses is both cavalier and offensive.

Im a ccw guy and a huge gun advocate but these guys are dillholes.

Maybe you shouldn't be allowed to be, with an attitude like yours. Our lives don't revolve around the 2nd Amendment. Just because some extremist from Arizona (Colorado City, AZ mind you...and this distinction is important) and another from Nevada decide to go pile-on with some dispute in Oregon and flap their gums in the national media doesn't mean they represent anything more than a couple tin-horn cowboys flapping their gums in the national media. They certainly don't represent me, or anyone I even know. Some of the underpinnings of their cause have merit, but they have completely twisted these issues onto a whole other level with their religious / extremist rantings and all their credibility has been lost as a result. But don't lump all cattlemen / ranchers into this boat.

And next time you go have a burger or a steak with your friends at the local pub remember this post, and remember how your generalizations made you look like a buffoon! And remember who put that steak on your plate!

...or are you a vegetarian?

Have a nice life.

a reply to: Phage

They broke the law. One did not comply with demands to surrender to arrest. If it was an act of "civil disobedience" they knew the consequences would be arrest but one at least, apparently, wanted more than that. Wanted to be martyrized. It didn't work.

According to eyewitnesses, that is not what happened.

By design, the confrontation took place where there would be no independent witnesses. At this point, all we have is the word of the authorities and the word of the protesters -- all of whom could have reason to lie to protect their own hides.

At this point, we have no evidence by which to judge.

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: Phage

The government took nothing from the Bundites.

Whatever inconvenience the protesters caused, it did not warrant killing anyone.

According to the FBI and other officers on the scene, LaVoy Finnicum exited the vehicle, charged the officers and reached for his gun that he had tucked into his front waist-belt. The FBI is weighing releasing the video and has straight-up said they have clear video of the shooting....a claim they would not make unless true and they could solidly back it up.

So far as "Whatever inconvenience the protesters caused, it did not warrant killing anyone."???

Taking the risk that some officer simply doing his job would not be able to go home to his children? Yes that would an "inconvenience" and yes..it did "warrant" killing him, as horrible an outcome as that may be.

The feds (and other authorities) have lost all credibility by their own actions. We need and deserve complete and absolute transparency from our government. Let's start by putting the vehicle on public display that was said to be shot up and the windows blown out.

(And we're back to normal!)

Ironically the Feds are the ones trying to preserve the man's dignity...but I suspect with the BS continuing to flow, this wont end until they are forced to release LaVoy's death video for grotesque YouTube consumption..

Perhaps they will find a compromise still preserving some his dignity and show the video to a few select representatives of the Bundites....where upon the rest will simply accuse them of being "schills" ...

a reply to: Phage

I will certainly not discount the possibility, in light of the fact that there is another eyewitness who provides an entirely different version.

Maybe... maybe not. I believe you are referring to the driver of the vehicle Ammon Bundy was in... He stated that he did not see what happened when Mr. Finicum was killed.

Which is weird. Ammon told his wife that he saw what happened, and he was in the same vehicle. If Ammon could see, why couldn't the driver? The obvious answer I suppose is that there was something blocking his line of sight... a tree, a vehicle, something.

It's also weird that he was the only protester taken to a local station (along with Ms Sharp), while all others were taken to Portland. And that he was only detained for a short time. I'm not even sure if he was actually charged with anything. And then he runs to youtube to say he "heard" that this is what happened. When? How? The only other witness with him was Ms Sharp and she told a completely different story.

a reply to: Indigo5

According to the FBI and other officers on the scene, LaVoy Finnicum exited the vehicle, charged the officers and reached for his gun that he had tucked into his front waist-belt.

Of course they do... they know exactly what to say in accord with the Supreme Court decision for use of lethal force.

The FBI is weighing releasing the video and has straight-up said they have clear video of the shooting....a claim they would not make unless true and they could solidly back it up.

I would be satisfied if they simply released the vehicle supposedly all shot up for public display and examination. If the car isn't all shot up, then we know that Ms. Sharp is a bald faced liar. If it is...

So far as "Whatever inconvenience the protesters caused, it did not warrant killing anyone."???

Taking the risk that some officer simply doing his job would not be able to go home to his children? Yes that would an "inconvenience" and yes..it did "warrant" killing him, as horrible an outcome as that may be.

And, likewise, Mr. Finicum won't be going home to his children, will he? An officer's life is no more valuable than Mr. Finicum. An officer has no more right to life than Mr. Finicum. An officer MIGHT have been saved... but we KNOW that Mr. Finicum is DEAD.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk


Since you are a cattleman/rancher...

Might I suggest a few items to ponder that might support your cause?

Food sources...Native food sources and safety...are a national security issue.

The USA is simply more vulnerable when we are dependent on foreign countries for our food supply. Whilst the USA races to become a services/technology economy, we should maintain and support our farming and cattle industries for no other reason than the rest of the world is an unreliable place.

Also..grass fed. Free-range grazing produces (as I am sure you know) meat that is less fatty and packed with anti-oxidents and other health benefits...it also produces more flavorful beef. Their is a national health benefit to affording ranchers land to graze their cattle on.

That said...Mixing in ideology, militia's and the sentiment that ranchers "own" the public land and basicly "eff the BLM"...is not good for the ranchers, the fed or the country as a whole.

Is the BLM a poorly managed bureaucracy? Likely so...but the USA needs ranchers and they do have a strong voice and reasonable lobby. Use it. But the message should not be states rights, it's our land!, and eff the gov! It should be about illuminating the benefits to the nation that the cattle industry provides.

And yes...Ranchers that disregard the terms of their often insanely affordable leases have no excuses...Greed and laziness...If your lease only permits 400 head of cattle to graze on public lands..don't graze 1000. Don't let the heard crap in the stream...that farmers and townspeople use the water for crops and drinking..see any large e-coli outbreaks in the news lately..perhaps tracable to water sources down-stream from public lands used for grazing...

It's a give and take...

As for the Hammonds...they knowingly took a family hunting party onto public lands and illegally poached dozens of deer, butchered them on the spot for easy transport of meat and then intentionally and aggressively started a fire to cover up the evidence..then called the local BLM claiming they started a controlled burn on their own land that accidentally spread to public land...that according to a Hammond Nephew present on the hunt who helped start the fire..

So those guys? A-holes IMO...and it wasn't the first time they burned public lands..

a reply to: Informer1958

I am going by one witnesses account that I find very credible. If I am wrong I will be happy to admit it.

I found her account very credible as well. It literally had me shaking and crying just listening to it. Maybe she's just a really good actress and deserves an Oscar. I don't know yet...

But here's the bottom line for me: The vehicle will prove her right or wrong. The car is either all shot up or it's not.

I won't watch the video if it's released. I'll just have to read what others say about.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: pteridine

What happened already is that one of the people who was told to stop apparently didn't and got himself shot. Darwin at work.

Except that now it comes out they didn't fire first nor were they threatening in any way. They had their hands out the window, the feds opened up firing over a hundred rounds. There were snipers in the woods, the passengers were painted with laser dots as they sat in the vehicles, this was an ambush planned in advance to happen right where it did.

They killed one man and arrested the others to be brought up on felony charges in some kangaroo court, some "checking of iD at roadblocks and free to go".

Your claim is one story from one person who was in the Bundy group. There are questions as to whether she actually saw what happened or was told what to say. There are additional conflicting claims from within the group. LaVoy said that he'd never go to jail and now he won't. There was no reason to target him specifically and, if you've ever been on a night op, he would be tough to identify other than as a person in the group. We will not get the other side[s] of the story until the prosecutors release them.
The police/feds did a felony traffic stop. Overwhelming force with laser sights lets the stoppees know that there is overwhelming force and all the laser dots on them helps them conclude that there is no way out. It is time to surrender and follow instructions. Maybe LaVoy didn't follow the instructions of guys with laser sights and that's how he got himself clipped. Time will tell. I tend to believe that LaVoy made his last stand, as he promised he would.
The checking names at roadblocks applies to the people still in the compound who want to leave. This statement was made at the press conference AFTER the arrests.

For the record, it is unclear if Mr Finicum had any children of his own to go home to. By his own admission the main source of income for the Finicum family was the children...the "foster" children, 'dozens' of them.

Finicum and his wife, Jeanette, raised dozens of foster children, though social workers removed the kids from the couple's home a few days after the occupation began.

Finicum said the foster kids were the family's main source of income.

Source

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: Indigo5

And, likewise, Mr. Finicum won't be going home to his children, will he? An officer's life is no more valuable than Mr. Finicum. An officer has no more right to life than Mr. Finicum. An officer MIGHT have been saved... but we KNOW that Mr. Finicum is DEAD.

???

Yes, but LaVoy was the one who made that an either/or situation when he reached for his gun.

Also - I care not how many bullet holes the Vehicle he fled in had? An armed assailant flees authorities and looks to potentially ram a roadbloack...you shoot to stop the vehicle. A pick-up truck at high speed has killed many a person....More so a danger with someone who disregards and is actively fleeing the police.

a reply to: Indigo5

Agreed for the most part.

For what its worth...

All of our beef is grass-fed to finish.

Unlike Hammond, Bundy and possibly Finicum...we own all of our land, and do not utilize federal land for grazing.

And yes, there are numerous examples of 'some' cattle ranchers abusing federal land grants. And we take issue with this.

a reply to: Boadicea

We don't know for sure why a life was taken but if a gun was pointed at a fed or any other law enforcement they had every reason to shoot. '

I believe there are a number of questions which remain unanswered which will shed considerable light on the arrest.

First of all, Finicum arrived in Oregon in a US Government truck (plates and all). This much is known. Finicum was not a government employee. How he came into possession of this vehicle is unknown. If he was foolish enough to have driven this same vehicle to the community meeting not only would he have been thought to have been armed, but also likely believed to have been in possession of stolen federal property (the vehicle).

This simple fact would change (considerably) the complexion and demeanor of law enforcement in the process of an arrest.

a reply to: Indigo5

Yes, but LaVoy was the one who made that an either/or situation when he reached for his gun.

So the feds who killed him say... but saying it doesn't make it so. They made the choice to shoot and kill him. Neither of us were there. Neither of us know what happened.

Also - I care not how many bullet holes the Vehicle he fled in had? An armed assailant flees authorities and looks to potentially ram a roadbloack...you shoot to stop the vehicle. A pick-up truck at high speed has killed many a person....More so a danger with someone who disregards and is actively fleeing the police.

All witnesses agree that Mr. Finicum did stop the vehicle... and Ms. Sharp said he was shot at without provocation when he did so. He asked the officers to let the women out of the vehicle. The vehicle was shot to hell WHILE STOPPED -- not while fleeing.

The more I think about it, the more convinced I am that when Mr. Finicum left the vehicle, he did so to make himself a target and protect the others in the vehicle. As Ms. Sharp said, when they shot at Mr. Finicum with his EMPTY hands and head outside the window, asking the officers to let the women out, they knew their lives were already in danger. If the vehicle is in the condition Ms. Sharp indicated it is, then Mr. Finicum was a hero.

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
a reply to: Gryphon66

... when you consider the political platform of the Federalists, which included corporate welfare, monetary inflation, deficit spending, government debt, and militarism, all designed to maintain the wealth and power of a privileged elite at the expense of the rest of the citizenry, the unlimited power to tax and lack of protection of property seem less like error and more like deliberate intention.

Whenever the subject of “constitutional rights” (a problematic term itself) comes up, people reflexively refer to the right of free speech. This is an important right, and one defended across the political spectrum. However, free speech, freedom of the press, and the other rights protected by the Bill of Rights, without property rights, are inconsequential – the mere window dressing of liberty. It is property that enables one to determine the course of one’s own life. Without it, the right to life is no right at all, but rather a privilege granted by those who own your labor.
www.lewrockwell.com...

The Constitution was a con job.

I'm not surprised at all that you feel that way.

Actually, i'll retract my statement & step back from this lol. I'm not bored enough to get back into this conversation as the original topic from the OP has been pretty much settled.

????

I was responding to Semicollegiate ... Um ... why would you respond to .... hmmm.