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 Rancher’s Body Returned To The Family In Shocking Condition

page: 12
76
<< 9  10  11    13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 10:07 AM
link   
a reply to: spy66

I don't need to look it up, but thanks for the condescending tone, guy.

How do roadblocks tie in with anything I said about law enforcement not having a monopoly on using burners? That's right, it doesn't. At all.

Direct your rant at somebody it's relevant to. A question was asked, I answered it. Your tangential response really isn't relevant to what I said.

Though I'm very interested to know what "regulations" you're referring to in how to set up a roadblock. Are you referring to the physical setup of the roadblock and placement of vehicles and personnel? Or the legality in general? If the former, got a source for that? If the latter, I'm quite sure the LEOs would have no problem articulating their perceived need to set the roadblock up, and I doubt a legal challenge to the roadblock would prevail.




posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 10:32 AM
link   
as people are arguing back and forth over the legality issues of the roadblock used to stop mr Finicum

i have one observation - an utter lack of any case law challenging the legality of using roadblocks

still think they are illegal ?

what specifically do you think is illegal about this one ?



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 10:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
as people are arguing back and forth over the legality issues of the roadblock used to stop mr Finicum

i have one observation - an utter lack of any case law challenging the legality of using roadblocks

still think they are illegal ?

what specifically do you think is illegal about this one ?


Hey dude, Mr. Finicum was a conservative, religious, gun-toting White Man!

Geez.



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 11:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: Indigo5



Just to be clear...and this is why the BS bothers me...

Victoria Sharp is the eye-witness the Militia has put forward

at 1:36
Do you know if any of them had a gun?

Victoria: "I know that LaVoy had a gun holstered"..."I know that Ryan Payne had a gun holstered" etc. etc.


Just to be clear...

Do you know the different from a gun and a gun holstered?

Can you post where Victoria said Lavoy WAS carrying his gun?

Because it is my understanding that all of them left their guns at the refuge.



I did post where Victoria said LaVoy was carrying a gun ...right there in the post you responded to, transcript plus audio???

Seriously...what is up with that???

And the difference as to whether they had guns with them that were holstered or not holstered is irrelevant to your apparently fictional claim that eye witnesses said they didn't bring guns with them..."Eye Witnesses" said just the opposite..

They brought guns with them...



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 12:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
as people are arguing back and forth over the legality issues of the roadblock used to stop mr Finicum

i have one observation - an utter lack of any case law challenging the legality of using roadblocks

still think they are illegal ?

what specifically do you think is illegal about this one ?


According to Oregon state constitution... roadblocks are illigal. There have been no changes made.

To have one issued to stop this suspect, you would probably need a very very good legal reason. If something is illigal you would need a strong legal argument.

What would that be?
edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 02:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
as people are arguing back and forth over the legality issues of the roadblock used to stop mr Finicum

i have one observation - an utter lack of any case law challenging the legality of using roadblocks

still think they are illegal ?

what specifically do you think is illegal about this one ?


According to Oregon state constitution... roadblocks are illigal. There have been no changes made.

To have one issued to stop this suspect, you would probably need a very very good legal reason. If something is illigal you would need a strong legal argument.

What would that be?


DUI checkpoints are unconstitutional according to Oregon state law. Unless you have specific language that cites using a roadblock to stop a driver during the course of effecting an arrest, I call complete BS on this claim of yours.

Furthermore, federal rulings have determined that DUI checkpoints are not a violation of the 4th amendment, so if the roadblock was put in place by, and manned by, FBI agents then Oregon law regarding DUI checkpoints is utterly and completely moot.



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 02:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
as people are arguing back and forth over the legality issues of the roadblock used to stop mr Finicum

i have one observation - an utter lack of any case law challenging the legality of using roadblocks

still think they are illegal ?

what specifically do you think is illegal about this one ?


According to Oregon state constitution... roadblocks are illigal. There have been no changes made.

To have one issued to stop this suspect, you would probably need a very very good legal reason. If something is illigal you would need a strong legal argument.

What would that be?


DUI checkpoints are unconstitutional according to Oregon state law. Unless you have specific language that cites using a roadblock to stop a driver during the course of effecting an arrest, I call complete BS on this claim of yours.

Furthermore, federal rulings have determined that DUI checkpoints are not a violation of the 4th amendment, so if the roadblock was put in place by, and manned by, FBI agents then Oregon law regarding DUI checkpoints is utterly and completely moot.



I Guess this site is wrong about Oregon Sobriety checkpoints (also called DUI checkpoints) then.

Look for Your self, it is stated Down on the page.
www.ghsa.org...



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 02:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
as people are arguing back and forth over the legality issues of the roadblock used to stop mr Finicum

i have one observation - an utter lack of any case law challenging the legality of using roadblocks

still think they are illegal ?

what specifically do you think is illegal about this one ?


According to Oregon state constitution... roadblocks are illigal. There have been no changes made.

To have one issued to stop this suspect, you would probably need a very very good legal reason. If something is illigal you would need a strong legal argument.

What would that be?


DUI checkpoints are unconstitutional according to Oregon state law. Unless you have specific language that cites using a roadblock to stop a driver during the course of effecting an arrest, I call complete BS on this claim of yours.

Furthermore, federal rulings have determined that DUI checkpoints are not a violation of the 4th amendment, so if the roadblock was put in place by, and manned by, FBI agents then Oregon law regarding DUI checkpoints is utterly and completely moot.



I Guess this site is wrong about Oregon Sobriety checkpoints (also called DUI checkpoints) then.

Look for Your self, it is stated Down on the page.
www.ghsa.org...


And I guess in an effort to cling to some shred of being right, you've completely ignored the part of my comment (which, oddly enough, is included in your quote) where I said DUI checkpoints are illegal in Oregon.

Perhaps you can try reading my comment again and see if you're able to understand the difference between a random DUI checkpoint being deemed unconstitutional and a targeted roadblock put in place while attempting to make an arrest.

Still waiting on that source about non-DUI related roadblocks being illegal.

Gonna be a long wait, I suspect.



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 03:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5



I did post where Victoria said LaVoy was carrying a gun ...right there in the post you responded to, transcript plus audio???

Seriously...what is up with that???





You need to watch your own video, Victoria was asked, were they carrying guns? Her answers were, I DON'T KNOW.

I am asking everyone to watch this video and please show at what time mark does Victoria said they were all caring guns to this meeting?



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 03:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: Indigo5



I did post where Victoria said LaVoy was carrying a gun ...right there in the post you responded to, transcript plus audio???

Seriously...what is up with that???





You need to watch your own video, Victoria was asked, were they carrying guns? Her answers were, I DON'T KNOW.

I am asking everyone to watch this video and please show at what time mark does Victoria said they were all caring guns to this meeting?


For effs sake...........AGAIN

at 1:36
Did you see any of the men with a gun on their person or in their holsters..

Victoria: "I know that LaVoy had a gun holstered"..."I know that Ryan Payne had a gun, it was also holstered, I can't remember if Ryan (other Ryan in car) had a gun or not" "Shawna didn't have a gun" etc. etc.

WHY DO YOU KEEP MAKING STUFF UP?



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 03:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: spy66
According to Oregon state constitution... roadblocks are illigal.


Funny how you are unable to show us exactly where that is stated in their constitution....



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 05:08 PM
link   
Oregon is actually trying to amend their Constitution to allow for DUI stops (which are, specifically, not allowed now)

Link to Senate Bill 13

Section 9 is what is being amended to allow for DUI Sobriety Stops



Section 9. Unreasonable searches or seizures. No law shall violate the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable search, or seizure; and no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath, or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or thing to be seized.—


Oregon State Constitution

So called "sobriety stops" are illegal because it constitutes illegal search and seizure. There is no evidence or reasonable cause to stop every driver on a road at a certain time.

What happened with the Bundy Gang was not a random stop, but was, an effort to apprehend as peacefully as possible with as little threat to the general public as possible.

The OSP and FBI had gathered more than sufficient evidence which gave them probable cause to make the stop and the arrests and to prepare for violence from the Bundy Gang. Thankfully, most of them didn't.
edit on 5-2-2016 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 06:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

He was made an example of plain and clearly for anyone else who felt compelled to repeat the behavior of this kind and descent human being. He really seemed like a very good guy. But we know all too well that the US government was going to escalate and then CYA for official purposes while knowing full well that the right people who would be effected by this got a very specific message.

The US Government simply will not tolerate people taking up arms and speaking out against it. It cannot allow it to be perceived as weak or everyone else will do it. So the US Government does what it does best. It murders someone and makes and example of them.

I think most of us knew this was going to happen one way or the other though. It's so sad and tragic. My thoughts are with the families of these good people. I don't agree with what they did and how they did it but no one deserved what happened to them in such a way.



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 06:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: spy66
According to Oregon state constitution... roadblocks are illigal.


Funny how you are unable to show us exactly where that is stated in their constitution....


Why do i have to look for it. Dam all you People do is hang around and deny.



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 06:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
as people are arguing back and forth over the legality issues of the roadblock used to stop mr Finicum

i have one observation - an utter lack of any case law challenging the legality of using roadblocks

still think they are illegal ?

what specifically do you think is illegal about this one ?


According to Oregon state constitution... roadblocks are illigal. There have been no changes made.

To have one issued to stop this suspect, you would probably need a very very good legal reason. If something is illigal you would need a strong legal argument.

What would that be?


DUI checkpoints are unconstitutional according to Oregon state law. Unless you have specific language that cites using a roadblock to stop a driver during the course of effecting an arrest, I call complete BS on this claim of yours.

Furthermore, federal rulings have determined that DUI checkpoints are not a violation of the 4th amendment, so if the roadblock was put in place by, and manned by, FBI agents then Oregon law regarding DUI checkpoints is utterly and completely moot.

I don't think roadblocks are illegal, but I did hear a discussion during which it was said they are considered to be "antiquated" because better, less lethal methods are used more often now around the country so, I'd guess, each police dept. would have its own policy.

Anyway, here is the City of Portland Police Bureau policy on vehicle pursuits as an example. Barricading (road block) is considered to be Deadly Physical Force:

Link
edit on 5-2-2016 by tweetie because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 06:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: spy66
According to Oregon state constitution... roadblocks are illigal.


Funny how you are unable to show us exactly where that is stated in their constitution....


Why do i have to look for it. Dam all you People do is hang around and deny.


You're the one making the claim.

You're the one going down the road of DUI checkpoints somehow making using a roadblock pursuant to an arrest unconstitutional.

It's your claim. You back it up. Our job is to shoot it full of holes, which we've done.



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 06:33 PM
link   
a reply to: tweetie

Correct on all points. They're considered to be a lethal force situation because there's a substantial risk of serious injury or death to all parties. Many agencies will only use them as a last resort. Spike strips, PIT maneuvers, etc are all considered to be safer and more viable options.

My issue was, and still is, the blatant attempt to obfuscate the line between a random DUI checkpoint and a targeted arrest attempt.

You're spot on, on all points.



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 06:47 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 07:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5


For effs sake...........AGAIN

at 1:36
Did you see any of the men with a gun on their person or in their holsters..

Victoria: "I know that LaVoy had a gun holstered"..."I know that Ryan Payne had a gun, it was also holstered, I can't remember if Ryan (other Ryan in car) had a gun or not" "Shawna didn't have a gun" etc. etc.

WHY DO YOU KEEP MAKING STUFF UP?


Victoria was ask did they have guns on them and at the 1:36 time she replied "I DON'T KNOW," then she just told a lie.

Seem like Victoria cannot get her story straight.

If you are going to respond again, saying she did not say that then you will be not telling the truth.

And as for me to "make stuff up" I don't come on ATS to tell lies, what's the point in that???

I can admit when I am wrong, I have a history of it on ATS, That's what adults do.



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 07:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
as people are arguing back and forth over the legality issues of the roadblock used to stop mr Finicum

i have one observation - an utter lack of any case law challenging the legality of using roadblocks

still think they are illegal ?

what specifically do you think is illegal about this one ?


Hmmm ... maybe because they murdered a guy trying to surrender? I am pretty sure murder is illegal.




top topics



 
76
<< 9  10  11    13  14 >>

log in

join