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.

 

The People Had Overwhelming Force at the Bundy Ranch, and They Showed Restraint... But When...

page: 2
51
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:
+4 more 
posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 08:35 AM
link   
Black thug shot in street? Burn down the town! Black lives matter! We demand justice!

White man shot by police? He was probably a terrorist. He deserved it.




posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 08:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: ArnoldNonymous
Black thug shot in street? Burn down the town! Black lives matter! We demand justice!

White man shot by police? He was probably a terrorist. He deserved it.


Erm, you missed out the word 'unarmed' on the first line and then the word 'armed' in the second line. Plus the words 'paranoid whackdoodle'.



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 09:25 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueAmerican

Your "patriot" friends have never enjoyed the advantage of being the one's with "overwhelming" force to bear in any situation.

Not at any time during the Bundy ranch standoff, or any time during this Oregon occupation farce.

The fact that you or anyone else thinks they did, just goes to show the depth of naïveté of both, the "patriots" and their supporters.

Do you really think those people at the Bundy ranch standoff who were aiming guns at LEOs weren't also being targeted by law enforcement snipers? Really?

The only reason any of those people are still alive today is due to the fact that law enforcement did what they're supposed to do, which is to de-escalate the situation.

No one wants another Waco, but don't let that fool you into thinking that these "patriots" represent the side with "overwhelming force."

I assure you, the first time one of these "patriots" fires a shot at law enforcement, you're gonna find out what "overwhelming force" actually looks like.

Furthermor, I seriously doubt DeezNuts will ever represent anything other than a very small but vocal, minority.



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 09:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Flatfish

Why use "patriots"?

Who are you to say who are and are not patriots?

These people felt that theur freedoms have been eroded to the point of jeopardising the lives of themselves and their families.

They have a lot of support which the media have been downplaying saying they are not wanted.

The fact is these people are all in serious trouble and felt this was the only way to have their voices heard.

So don't sit behind your keyboard judging people with your sarcasm

BTW I'm from Ireland and do not have any close links to anyone involved.

Unfortunately if they were more intelligent about this they would not have left for the meet....naivety?

Now we will see what comes out of this through the courts and how much support they really have.

I just hope no unusual gun incidents elsewhere occur to distract.



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 10:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: InMyShell
a reply to: Flatfish

Why use "patriots"?

Who are you to say who are and are not patriots?

These people felt that theur freedoms have been eroded to the point of jeopardising the lives of themselves and their families.

The Hammond's situation had absolutely nothing to do with Bundy's gang. It wasn't even in the same state and the Hammonds turned themselves in. The fact that the Bundy gang was able to freely travel to a different state, freely brandish their guns in public, and freely put out press statements & hold numerous interviews shows just how free they really were.

But every country also has laws that curtail freedoms. And any time an armed group takes over a government facility for 3 weeks & prevents the government workers from entering their now-commandeered workplace, that right to freedom is gone. And to add insult to injury, they vandalized federal property when they broke down the surveillance cameras and stole federal vehicles when their members started driving the federal vehicles that were on the property.

That isn't "freedom", it's "crime". Or is that the argument that criminals make now? "Hey, I don't respect the government's laws against stealing so I'm just practicing my freedom to acquire whatever I want." Is that it works?



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 10:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: InMyShell
a reply to: Flatfish

Why use "patriots"?

Who are you to say who are and are not patriots?


They are self described "patriots" and when they put out the call for help, it's directed to their "patriot" supporters.

They're the ones who chose that title, not me.


originally posted by:
InMyShell

These people felt that theur freedoms have been eroded to the point of jeopardising the lives of themselves and their families.

They have a lot of support which the media have been downplaying saying they are not wanted.

The fact is these people are all in serious trouble and felt this was the only way to have their voices heard.

So don't sit behind your keyboard judging people with your sarcasm.


Their rights to what?

To graze their herds on the taxpayers dime?

To destroy evidence at a crime scene by setting fire to federal land?

Give me a break!

Their voice got the same hearing that anyone else's would. The issue went before the courts and a jury of their peers convicted them. If they don't like the ruling, they can appeal it in a higher court. That's how things work over here.

Orchestrating an armed standoff with LEOs tasked with fulfilling court orders or an armed occupation of federal property are not a legal options.

This isn't about their voice not being heard, it's about them not getting their way!

That, coupled with their right-wing, anti-government mentality, including their belief that an armed revolution is inevitable.

And like I said previously, just because they are vocal doesn't mean they have a lot of support.

The Tea Party had a lot of support, the Occupy Wall St. movement had a lot of support, Trump & Sanders have a lot of support......

While these occupiers may have garnered sympathy with their anti-govt. crowd, support & sympathy are two different things.

And I'll be as sarcastic as I choose to be, it's allowed here in America.



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 11:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Flatfish


Their rights to what?

To graze their herds on the taxpayers dime?

To destroy evidence at a crime scene by setting fire to federal land?


Their right to life.

Their right to not have the government set a fire and burn cattle alive.

Their right to protect their property.

And by the way, they were not found guilty on the bogus charges of poaching by the feds, which was always just an excuse (a piss poor one at that) to harrass and terrorize the Hammonds.


And like I said previously, just because they are vocal doesn't mean they have a lot of support.


And just because the media and feds are NOT vocal doesn't mean they don't have a lot of support. They do. There are three camps:

1. Complete support for purpose and methods;
2. Complete support for purpose but not methods;
3. No support at all.

Actually, there's probably a fourth: Complete support for purpose and methods, but fear of retaliation by the feds, therefore the support is silent.

The federal agencies having been terrorizing people for decades in our name. The support is there; so is the fear.



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 11:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: 4N0M4LY
a reply to: Sublimecraft

Taking armed protest in general is wrong. He doesn't get off that easy. He deserved to be arrested and tried first and I agree with everything you said but the fact they took up and armed protest was just a bad idea. We don't live in the past. We are in the 21st century.


People thought they were living in modern times back in the Roman days too. It isn't any excuse for the government to say "We live in the 21st century so get used to it" Or for anyone to use that old line, so to speak.

And yes we do live in the past, because mankind has not matured in philosophy in regards to killing others.



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 11:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Flatfish



This isn't about their voice not being heard, it's about them not getting their way!


That's the way I see it. I don't know much about the ranchers that got sentenced to prison for 5 years for burning their own land, but I'm sure there is another side of the story that we aren't being told and details that are being left out about that too. Just like it was left out in Nevada that Cliven Bundy wasn't paying the federal grazing fee and fighting it in court since the 90's.

These folks had many options to seek a different resolution, but they chose to arm themselves and take over a federal building. They were in love with the romanticism that they were going to be hold up in a federal building shooting it out with federal agents and the nation would see their side and support them. When in actuality nobody really cared, they were annoyed by their actions. These folks lived on a ranch out of touch with mainstream America and learned the hard way.

This guy wanted to start a second American Revolution(in his mind) and said as much on camera that he went there to die. He got what he wanted. Death. He tried to drive around roadblocks and then got out of the car with his hands up. We don't know if he was instructed to get out of the truck or if he did it on his own, but the fact remains he made it clear when all this started he went there to die and the FBI and local officers acted accordingly.

The Bundy's and the folks that supported them are not "Patriots" they were armed ranches that had a beef with the government. They weren't sticking up or protecting anyone's rights doing what they did. They were acting in their own self interests hoping mainstream America would take their side. They were wrong.



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 12:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

I think they were convicted for destroying evidence at a crime scene.

I would imagine the crime they're talking about was the poaching charge.

I would also imagine it was the fact that they destroyed the evidence that had something to do with the prosecution's inability to convict on the original charge.

But none of that really matters to me one damn bit.

We have something called "due process," and while they do have rights to that, they do not have the right to utilize force to overrule the courts.

Grabbing your guns and orchestrating an occupation or standoff because you disagree with the courts is not legal or acceptable.

Regarding their alleged overwhelming support...... If I didn't know better, I'd say the residents of that nearby community were on the verge of pulling out their own guns and running those nuts out of town. Like you might see in an old Western movie.

Geez, Lindsey Graham had more support.



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 12:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Flatfish
a reply to: Boadicea

I think they were convicted for destroying evidence at a crime scene.

I would imagine the crime they're talking about was the poaching charge.


Imagine all you want. But the truth is that Dwight and Steven Hammond were convicted on arson charges of setting fires on their ranch that burned federal land. The feds charged them as terrorists acting maliciously, although no "malice" was proven. That's why their trial judge considered it unconscionable to sentence them as terrorists. The feds... the real terrorists who are harming civilians for political purposes... brought it before another judge AFTER they had served their court-ordered sentence and demanded they be re-incarcerated.


I would also imagine it was the fact that they destroyed the evidence that had something to do with the prosecution's inability to convict on the original charge.


Again, imagine all you want... but the law declares us all innocent until proven guilty. No guilt was proven.


But none of that really matters to me one damn bit.


Obviously, your lack of concern for the abuse of power and criminal behavior on the part of the feds is quite apparent. As is your lack of concern for their victims.


Regarding their alleged overwhelming support......


Please don't let your imagination put words in my mouth. I was very clear about what I was saying, I specifically qualified the kinds of support they may or may not have, not the amount of support they have.

Read it for yourself.

Inside the John Day meeting where Oregon standoff leaders were headed before arrest

And if you care one whit for the abuse of powers and crimes of the feds, read this and follow the links:

Threats, Intimidation and Bullying by Federal Land Managing Agencies

If you just want to imagine what you will, and in so doing aid and abet the real threat to all of us, just ignore the the whole truth.



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 12:36 PM
link   
a reply to: gpols

I couldn't agree with you more!

This wasn't about their voice not being heard. This was about losing in court and not getting their desired outcome, all because of the big, bad government taking away their rights.

Who took away their right to appeal the ruling? Answer....Nobody!

Why don't they exercise the rights they do have? Answer.....Because they'd rather resort to guns & violence.

What they did is pathetic, it's ignorant, it's illegal, it's archaic & uncivilized and above all else, it promotes violence.



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 01:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Flatfish

What they did is pathetic, it's ignorant, it's illegal, it's archaic & uncivilized and above all else, it promotes violence.


Are you taking about the bundy group or the government?

Can your seriously say these people need to use EXPENSIVE legal actions when they don't stand a chance in hell against the corruption of the government.
The people of the US are living under an elitist rule that has the law for the people and the elite are above the law.

These men and women used their constitutional right to take up arms against a tyrannical government.



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 02:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: InMyShell
a reply to: Flatfish

What they did is pathetic, it's ignorant, it's illegal, it's archaic & uncivilized and above all else, it promotes violence.


Are you taking about the bundy group or the government?

Can your seriously say these people need to use EXPENSIVE legal actions when they don't stand a chance in hell against the corruption of the government.
The people of the US are living under an elitist rule that has the law for the people and the elite are above the law.

These men and women used their constitutional right to take up arms against a tyrannical government.

So if I don't agree with an IRS tax ruling against someone else, I should get my family & friends together and hold a 3 week long armed occupation of a national park?



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 02:11 PM
link   
If this is a murder we’ll never know the truth, folks.

If they could murder Kennedy and hoax the autopsy then this little guy’s murder is easy.

The FBI is a criminal organization, without a doubt. So just like the times they murdered black panthers and others we don’t even know about, this will go down as a justifiable killing.

case closed


Either unite with ALL the people or go home.



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 02:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea


And if you care one whit for the abuse of powers and crimes of the feds, read this and follow the links:

Threats, Intimidation and Bullying by Federal Land Managing Agencies

If you just want to imagine what you will, and in so doing aid and abet the real threat to all of us, just ignore the the whole truth.



I'm dealing with an issue in my life that has to do with police corruption and the Law Enforcement acting more like an organized crime ring than law enforcement, but you don't see me going to round up some people to get revenge against the officers doing me wrong. Instead I reported the issue to the FBI.

The problem is the Bundy group wasn't acting in accordance with the law to begin with. Had they been I don't see any reason why the FBI (That does investigate other federal agencies) wouldn't find reason to rectify the situation. As it has been clearly documented by previous court rulings that the BLM has history of acting out of political interests.
edit on 30-1-2016 by gpols because: quotes all wrong

edit on 30-1-2016 by gpols because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 02:16 PM
link   
If your dumb enough to role into another state, armed, and not invited you have to know it will end badly. Then you occupy a Government building. In most countries an armed mob taking over a government building would be declared terrorist the military would take them out. Then you ad in all the God sent us talk, ticking off the locals, ticking off the Native Americans, fighting with other militia groups, and getting on camera saying stupid things and have a recipe for total failure.

Did these people use up all legal options? No they did not even try. Did these people exhaust their constitutional right to peacefully protest to get results? Nope. Did anybody even ask these outsiders to come help? Nope. Instead this collection of morons grab some guns and take over a building. Likely the dumbest thing anybody could have come up with. The took the spot life off of everything else and put it on themselves. And once they had it, instead of having somebody intelligent and well spoken to represent them to the press, they let the nutters lose on the air.

Is anybody really surprised the Americana people responded first by sending them sex toys and then later began demanding that somebody do something about the armed nuts that nobody wants around. The Government could have gone in at anytime and taken these guys out before they even knew what was going on.

And for people who think you grab where you have been shot before you fall, you have been watching to many movies. When you are shot you drop. No cinematic grabbing of injuries first. They guy had a gun and had made clear he planned on using it. Just because he was the only one who kept his word does not make him a victim.



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 02:22 PM
link   
a reply to: gpols


The problem is the Bundy group wasn't acting in accordance with the law to begin with.


And long before that, the BLM and other fed agencies were not acting in according with the law, which created this situation to begin with, then perpetuated and escalated it. I have never given the Bundys or their methods my support and I have stated as much many times. However, nothing the Bundys -- or anyone -- says or does changes the past, present and future abuses of power by the feds.


Had they been I don't see any reason why the FBI (That does investigate other federal agencies) wouldn't find reason to rectify the situation. As it has been clearly documented by previous court rulings that the BLM has history of acting out of political interests.


And yet, their abuses continue. What has the FBI done about it? What have our elected representives done about? What have the courts done about it? Not enough, if anything, because the abuses continue.



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 02:27 PM
link   
a reply to: TrueAmerican

I heard the organizer of the event they were headed to talking about everything that happened.

Apparently they had a lot more support than we think.

I got a way better perspective on the back burn too.

I can find a video of the interview but it aired on the most recent episode.



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 02:37 PM
link   
Let's not confuse "restraint" for "lack of balls."

It's all well and good to go hang out with your buddies, drink bad campfire coffee while you pet your AR, and thump your chest as you tell each other what magnificent patriots you are.

It's something else entirely to be there when the metal meets the meat.

As for the FBI agents being labeled murderers and terrorists? Cute and all, but nobody forced the deceased to punch the accelerator after stopping, or jump out and start running, or anything else. While it's sad that this incident didn't resolve itself in a fully peaceful manner, I'll pass on the star farming terrorist labels.







 
51
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join