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.

 

FBI Siege Happening Live On Phonecall

page: 40
97
<< 37  38  39    41 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 02:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: tweetie
a reply to: Gryphon66

Hehe. I knew I could count on you to slap the appropriate law on the table.

Even in the U.S. Code definition intent is key.


Nope. The guilty act + the guilty mind. Actually, the term generally used means knowledge AND intent of wrong doing.

By your logic, if my "intent" is not to kill a person by shooting them in the face, when I am compos mentis, that is the sole determinant of my guilt?

Are claiming that the Bundy Gang didn't understand what they were doing, or weren't in their right minds?

(Actually, I'd probably be willing to accede to the latter for some of them.)


In the present case "intent" can be determined by listening to the words of the people involved. Upon being questioned about violence, they were all very clear that they had no intention of doing violence to anyone. I've posted those video links for you. Listen to them.
No bombs were found at the refuge.
www.ktvz.com...



"The Malheur National Wildlife Refuge is closed and will stay closed for several weeks," said FBI Special Agent in Charge Greg Bretzing. The bomb squad found no rigged explosives or booby-traps during their sweep of the refuge headquarters on Friday. Now forensic examiners are identifying damage and collecting evidence.


They will continue the fight. Peacefully. As they have been peaceful all along. It wasn't the people that fired guns.
It was employees of government. Men, at least I'm guessing they were all males, without souls, who could shoot down a man on the side of the road with his hands raised. Those men were only following orders.




posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 02:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: tweetie

Yep. ... and it also says ...



(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or


Both ACTIONS that we have on video and audio multiple times ...

ACTION + INTENT/KNOWLEDGE


Again with the claims and no evidence.
Where is the coercion? of civilians or government? Demanding that the government, be it federal, state or local, address your grievances is protected behavior under the First Amendment of the Constitution of the US. If government officials are intimidated by armed men they must wet their britches any time they enter a courthouse. Even in our little town there are four or five of them standing around the metal detector at the entrance to the judicial building.
If I go down to the local sheriff's office and complain about this 'n that and demand that he address my complaints with the weapon in my purse that his office has authorized me to carry concealed----can he arrest me as an armed militant? Even though I've been civil, have made no threats, just complaints, have not produced my weapon, but he has a pretty good idea that it's there. But if he wants me out of his office, could he have me arrested and put through the court system 'cause he was tired of listening to my complaints?



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 02:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: diggindirt
a reply to: Gryphon66

Just look at you with that list of "facts" and nothing in the world to back up what you are saying.



Yes, you keep stating that lie repeatedly. I wish to repeat: you are lying when you say this.

Every statement I made is based on events that we have all witnessed. On video. On audio. In the written word.

And these have been linked and re-linked for you throughout the various discussions on this subject. And yet, continually, you retort with the nonsense.

They were not "protesters" they are criminals. They began by BREAKING AND ENTERING a Federal Facility. That act is against the law. As is stopping the normal operation of the facility BY FORCE OF ARMS.

You keep trying to spin the fact that they were armed in a "First and Second Amendment" issue. This is also a blatant and ridiculous misrepresentation of the facts. And you've also been told this repeatedly.

The First Amendment gives us the right to assemble peacefully and/or the right to seek redress of grievances. This means that we can gather together into groups as we wish to promote lawful agendas, and that we can take our complaints to the system of Courts and Tribunals established in the Constitution and State Constitutions for redress against the State.

The Second Amendment gives us the right to bear arms in the defense of ourselves, our family, our property, our State and our Nation.

Neither of those gives anyone the right to break into a bird sanctuary, stop the normal operation of same by force of arms, prevent Federal employees from their duties by force of arms, restrict entry and access by force of arms, etc. etc. etc.

Further: Oregon Revised Statutes -§ 164.265¹ Criminal trespass while in possession of a firearm




(1) A person commits the crime of criminal trespass while in possession of a firearm who, while in possession of a firearm, enters or remains unlawfully in or upon premises.

(2) Criminal trespass while in possession of a firearm is a Class A misdemeanor. [1979 c.603 §2]


Also: ORS 161.610 (2)



(2) The use or threatened use of a firearm, whether operable or inoperable, by a defendant during the commission of a felony may be pleaded in the accusatory instrument and proved at trial as an element in aggravation of the crime as provided in this section. When a crime is so pleaded, the aggravated nature of the crime may be indicated by adding the words with a firearm to the title of the offense. The unaggravated crime shall be considered a lesser included offense.


And further: 18 U.S. Code § 111 - Assaulting, resisting, or impeding certain officers or employees



(a)In General.—Whoever—
(1) forcibly assaults, resists, opposes, impedes, intimidates, or interferes with any person designated in section 1114 of this
title while engaged in or on account of the performance of official duties; or

(2) forcibly assaults or intimidates any person who formerly served as a person designated in section 1114 on account of the performance of official duties during such person’s term of service, shall, where the acts in violation of this section constitute only simple assault, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both, and where such acts involve physical contact with the victim of that assault or the intent to commit another felony, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both.

(b)Enhanced Penalty.—
Whoever, in the commission of any acts described in subsection (a), uses a deadly or dangerous weapon (including a weapon intended to cause death or danger but that fails to do so by reason of a defective component) or inflicts bodily injury, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 688; Pub. L. 100–690, title VI, § 6487(a), Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4386; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXII, § 320101(a), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2108; Pub. L. 104–132, title VII, § 727(c), Apr. 24, 1996, 110 Stat. 1302; Pub. L. 107–273, div. C, title I, § 11008(b), Nov. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 1818; Pub. L. 110–177, title II, § 208(b), Jan. 7, 2008, 121 Stat. 2538.)

edit on 13-2-2016 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 02:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: diggindirt

If I go down to the local sheriff's office and complain about this 'n that and demand that he address my complaints with the weapon in my purse that his office has authorized me to carry concealed----can he arrest me as an armed militant? Even though I've been civil, have made no threats, just complaints, have not produced my weapon, but he has a pretty good idea that it's there. But if he wants me out of his office, could he have me arrested and put through the court system 'cause he was tired of listening to my complaints?


Why don't you try going down to the Sheriff's office, breaking in, keeping the Sheriff and his staff from attending to their duties, telling the Sheriff you are going to be using their office for your own purposes from here on out or at least until they release someone you don't think should be in jail, and stating OVER AND OVER AND OVER that anyone who tries to stop you will be the recipient of the "defense" you're patting in your purse while making these ridiculous demands?

Try that and see what happens.



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 05:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66
Again with your silly charges of things that never happened.
You and the government are the ones being ridiculous. Two hundred troops to manage two dozen protesters? Seriously? Who is being ridiculous.
When they go looking for refuge employees who have been threatened, who are they going to find? Nobody. Because the protesters never had any contact with refuge employees. Because the place was closed, as it was scheduled to be until Spring.
You can't threaten someone who isn't there.
It was civil disobedience. The Supremes have given wide latitude to the civilly disobedient in cases where no actual harm occurred, as in this case.
I've no doubt that the state and feds can come up with a list of charges as long as the Mississippi River. Just like they originally charged the Hammonds with 19 charges, dating all the way back to the '80s. Oops, then somebody explained to the nutty prosecutor about ex post facto and they had to have another go at it. Finding a jury to convict them of anything with a good defense attorney will be a bit more difficult than writing out a bunch of charges.
I'm hoping to see Gerry Spence step up or one of his trail attorneys. Now that would be educational.
You really need to study civil disobedience laws before calling me a liar. Look at the Supreme Court rulings in the past. You might be surprised. If you're going to argue this stuff, you really need to know the facts, not what the FBI and msm tell you. This nation was built on protest.
There was also a heavy dose of the idea that evil would prevail when good men did nothing. That philosophy was attributed to Edmund Burke by JFK. "The only thing necessary for evil to prevail is that good men do nothing."
Study the foundations before you start re-roofing the nation.




edit on 13-2-2016 by diggindirt because: spelling lack of sleep



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 06:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: diggindirt

Murder has been illegal for over 6000 years.

Yet, there are still murders.

Ergo, laws against murder are failures and should be forgotten?

Ridiculous.


Indeed. You are being ridiculous. Nobody is talking about laws against murder being abolished. But making more laws against it isn't going to stop people from murdering each other. Morality stops people harming each other, not laws.

ETA: It has been delightful chatting with you but the sun is up and the birds on my porch await their morning feeding. Have a lovely day.
edit on 13-2-2016 by diggindirt because: addition



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 06:31 AM
link   
a reply to: diggindirt

Have fun at the Sheriff's office.




posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 07:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: diggindirt
a reply to: Gryphon66
Again with your silly charges of things that never happened.


To be precise, this is the lie I cited you for in these posts. You have been provided with links, references, videos, etc. across the course of a dozen threads on this topic. You yourself have linked to the same information. That the Bundy Gang seized Malheur illegally etc. is common knowledge.


originally posted by: diggindirt
a reply to: Gryphon66

You and the government are the ones being ridiculous. Two hundred troops to manage two dozen protesters? Seriously? Who is being ridiculous.

Source?


originally posted by: diggindirt
a reply to: Gryphon66

When they go looking for refuge employees who have been threatened, who are they going to find? Nobody. Because the protesters never had any contact with refuge employees. Because the place was closed, as it was scheduled to be until Spring.
You can't threaten someone who isn't there.

PANTS ON FIRE!

The Bundy Gang Occupation of Maheur began on the evening of January 2, 2016. The Refuge was closed for the FEDERAL NEW YEAR'S DAY HOLIDAY.

Source: Oregon Live

In fact, here are the normal operating hours for different areas of the Refuge.


Plan your Visit - Malheur

Hours
The Refuge is open each day from sunrise to sunset.

Visitor Center
The Visitor Center includes The Friends of Malheur Nature Shop, an information desk, views of wildlife using Marshall Pond and an expansive view of Malheur Lake. It is open Monday through Thursday from 8:00 to 4:00 and Friday from 8:00 to 3:00.

Benson Memorial Museum
The museum is open from sunrise to sunset each day of the week.


Etc. etc. etc. Post your source that the Maheur National Wildlife Refuse was closed until Spring ... or admit that you make stuff up as you go along.


originally posted by: diggindirt
a reply to: Gryphon66

It was civil disobedience. The Supremes have given wide latitude to the civilly disobedient in cases where no actual harm occurred, as in this case.


Perhaps you should alert Diana Ross.


originally posted by: diggindirt
a reply to: Gryphon66

I've no doubt that the state and feds can come up with a list of charges as long as the Mississippi River. Just like they originally charged the Hammonds with 19 charges, dating all the way back to the '80s. Oops, then somebody explained to the nutty prosecutor about ex post facto and they had to have another go at it. Finding a jury to convict them of anything with a good defense attorney will be a bit more difficult than writing out a bunch of charges.

I'm hoping to see Gerry Spence step up or one of his trail attorneys. Now that would be educational.

Source?


originally posted by: diggindirt
a reply to: Gryphon66

You really need to study civil disobedience laws before calling me a liar. Look at the Supreme Court rulings in the past. You might be surprised. If you're going to argue this stuff, you really need to know the facts, not what the FBI and msm tell you. This nation was built on protest.

As I've pointed out to you, repeatedly, you're lying about not being provided with evidence. Out of politeness, decorum and respect I had used just about every other way to refer to your constant, overt lies in this regard, but it's time to call things as they are. Quote me saying anything else.

As to the Supreme Court cases you keep claiming ... reference them. Specific cases. If not, I cite you for lying about that as well.


originally posted by: diggindirt
a reply to: Gryphon66

There was also a heavy dose of the idea that evil would prevail when good men did nothing. That philosophy was attributed to Edmund Burke by JFK. "The only thing necessary for evil to prevail is that good men do nothing."
Study the foundations before you start re-roofing the nation.

Ah, the last refuge of vapid ideology: muttering platitudes and self-righteous nonsense.

Why don't you list the times MLK took over a facility in Birmingham with a gang of armed men ... or maybe that time when Abbie Hoffman was waving a gun around at the National Mall ...

... or perhaps you have a Youtube video of Rosa Parks packin' her AK on the bus? "Don't mess with me boys, this ain't my first rodeo!"


(Oh wait, that was Joan Crawford ... and even SHE wasn't armed.)
edit on 13-2-2016 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 12:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: diggindirt

They will continue the fight. Peacefully. As they have been peaceful all along. It wasn't the people that fired guns.
It was employees of government.


Crimes involving guns and threats are not "peaceful" simply because triggers were not squeezed.

It really is a strange logic. If someone robs a store at gunpoint, but does not shoot anyone...would the incident be described as a peaceful action?

They literally illegally seized and occupied public lands and buildings fully armed, set up defenses and barricades.

Again...it is useful to imagine them as Muslims looking to bring attention to religious cause...would you have the same view? If a group of Muslims fully armed seized and occupied public buildings and lands and called for Muslims across the country to join them and bring guns and supplies?



Men, at least I'm guessing they were all males, without souls, who could shoot down a man on the side of the road with his hands raised. Those men were only following orders.


They were not following orders, they were desperately looking for him to peacefully surrender and were instead forced to oblige his suicidal/martyr intents when he repeatedly reached for his gun while shouting just shoot me.

Hands raised? Sure..but to LaVoy's disappointment, the officers were not the mindless and soulless drones he had imagined and would not shoot him with his hands in the air...so he was forced to reach for his gun to complete his suicidal/martyr fantasy...and the officers were forced to protect each others lives vs. gamble that their inaction would mean a fellow officer would die.



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 12:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: tweetie

Yep. ... and it also says ...



(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or


Both ACTIONS that we have on video and audio multiple times ...

ACTION + INTENT/KNOWLEDGE


Yeah... except they were actually on their way to meet with locals and the police. Who does that whilst allegedly intimidating and coercing the crap out of locals? Simple logics don't apply here?


...but instead they chose to employ an ambush.


videos.oregonlive.com...

ACTION & INTENT is on video. Just another glorious nanny state action to keep us all save and the democracy intact. Sure. Not.
Well... I guess the audio files from that ambush are a thread to the National Security by now. Giggle away!





posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 01:15 PM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion

Let me see if I have your argument clearly ...

You're asserting that because the erstwhile leaders of the Bundy Gang were supposedly "on their way to meet with locals" when they were apprehended, this somehow proves that they did not offer intimidation and/or coercion at any point during their thirty-five day armed occupation of the Malheur Refuge?

Simple "logics" eh?

That's patently absurd. One doesn't follow from the other. Your two conditions don't even have any relationship to each other.

As to the rest ...

Yada yada nanny state, glory to the revolution, etc. etc.

Let me know if you'd like to discuss anything other than tired, empty rhetoric that has nothing to do with the issue at hand.


edit on 13-2-2016 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 02:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66




Your two conditions don't even have any relationship to each other.


And which condition actually prevents you from posting the sort of coercion you constantly ramble about? How about running some license-plates? Well...



FBI-deer in the armory!
Yadda yadda nanny bellyfeelgood state, nothing to see here...


Too much fear in the community


Mission accomplished!




posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 02:30 PM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion

Is that the same community who told the militia to leave?



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 02:36 PM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion

Quote me.

Or keep arguing against stuff you've made up.



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 02:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: diggindirt
If I go down to the local sheriff's office and complain about this 'n that and demand that he address my complaints with the weapon in my purse that his office has authorized me to carry concealed----can he arrest me as an armed militant? Even though I've been civil, have made no threats, just complaints, have not produced my weapon, but he has a pretty good idea that it's there. But if he wants me out of his office, could he have me arrested and put through the court system 'cause he was tired of listening to my complaints?


To make that an accurate analogy, you would break into the local sheriff's office when they're not there, set up barricades outside, announce that you were going to stay for years and will resist anyone attempting to arrest you, start using their computers and plowing up the yard and send out a call for other protesters to bring their guns and join you.

You would be arrested a hell of a lot quicker than these buffoons in Oregon.



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 02:49 PM
link   
a reply to: DelMarvel

You left out "drive vehicles owned by the SO."

Pretty sure that happened in Oregon.



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 03:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

The former Fire Chief. Is that community enough for you?

Undercover FBI-agents disguised as militia, stirring up trouble. Yeah, ok. Let's talk about the community. They completely locked down said community, who wouldn't want them all gone?



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 10:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: Xcathdra

The former Fire Chief. Is that community enough for you?


"Former" for a reason...the community wanted nothing to do with his militia nonsense.


Undercover FBI-agents disguised as militia, stirring up trouble.



Right up there with the other 80% BS the Militia claimed but failed to support with any proof.



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 11:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: Xcathdra

The former Fire Chief. Is that community enough for you?


"Former" for a reason...the community wanted nothing to do with his militia nonsense.


Undercover FBI-agents disguised as militia, stirring up trouble.



Right up there with the other 80% BS the Militia claimed but failed to support with any proof.



Funniest part is he never said the FBI were pretending to be militia that is a fabrication from extremist groups websites. He said he was resigning because the local government refused to have a have a meeting with bundy. Bundy eanted ti address the local government and they declined obviously not wanting to seem intimidated by terrorists. The real person who said the FBI was pretending to be militia and said that was the reason he quit was Assemblywoman Michele Fiore. She is a right wing but job to the extreme. When asked why she didn't vote on allowing Syrian refugees into the state she said this.

"What, are you kidding me? I'm about to fly to Paris and shoot 'em in the head myself," Fiore said. "I am not OK with Syrian refugees, I am not OK with terrorists. You know, I'm OK with putting them down, blacking them out, just put a piece of brass in their nocular cavity and end their miserable life. I'm good with that."

Shows real class act here talking about shooting people some politician huh? Won't even go into other truly classy things she did. Bundy's appeal to the right wing nut jobs who believe the government is trying to take away their guns. And sadly they think they speak for all gun owners with their hate thrwats . Being a fun owner myself I can assure you these nuts don't speak for me. And if they truly believed in the constitution they would stop mis quoting it and learn that the founding fathers gave them ligitimatr ways to deal with grievences. And that there actions do nothing but threaten my right to own fire arms as they make people who own them look like neo Nazi thugs.



posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 12:05 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr




Funniest part is he never said the FBI were pretending to be militia


Of course he did, listen again. Deer in the armory? That was the hilarious part, how can you possibly miss it?



new topics

top topics



 
97
<< 37  38  39    41 >>

log in

join