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.

 

Cliven Bundy arrested by FBI in Portland

page: 1
14
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 07:04 AM
link   
Our old friend Cliven Bundy, the guy that owns the Nevada ranch where the now famous Militia/BLM standoff took place in 2014 has been arrested by the FBI.

Cliven Bundy is the father of two of the men involved with the recent standoff in Oregon.

Those two were arrested last week.

Apparently the older Bundy was in Oregon to see about "helping" the 4 remaining stand-off'ers at that wildlife refuge.

The 4 (who were named in an indictment last week) are currently surrounded by FBI teams at the refuge and might "surrender" today.

Cliven Bundy was apparently arrested for "conspiracy" and weapons charges.

Never a dull moment in this ongoing drama. Wonder why the FBI didn't arrest Cliven Bundy sooner?

Cliven Bundy Arrested


Cliven Bundy, the Nevada rancher who touched off one armed showdown with federal authorities and applauded another started in Oregon by his sons, was arrested late Wednesday at Portland International Airport and faces federal charges related to the 2014 standoff at his ranch.

Bundy, 74, was booked into the downtown Multnomah County jail at 10:54 p.m.

He faces a conspiracy charge to interfere with a federal officer -- the same charge lodged against two of his sons, Ammon and Ryan, for their role in the Jan. 2 takeover of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Burns. He also faces weapons charges.






posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 07:13 AM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

seems like thats the story. i wonder though how did he get all those weapons through airport security?
edit on 11-2-2016 by malevolent because: typing errors



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 07:15 AM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen


Wonder why the FBI didn't arrest Cliven Bundy sooner?

Because he stayed away from the protest?

All of them are going to be arrested or killed, and anyone else that gets up and takes a stand. That isn't allowed anymore.


+2 more 
posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 07:32 AM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

If any justice is to be served, then arresting and charging this individual so that he may stand trial is the correct way to go about it.

This is not the correct way to serve justice (from your source)....

Occupation spokesman Robert "LaVoy" Finicum was shot and killed by state police at the stop. He was carrying a loaded 9mm handgun and refused to follow police commands, the FBI said.


I'm sorry but law enforcement are not Judge, Jury and executioners and he was clearly ambushed and murdered, especially when one of his Killers emerged from the forest and delivered the fatal shot(s).

You can prove me wrong by releasing the audio of the event though - LaVoy Finicum should have been arrested to face trial by jury just like Mr Bundy has and will - not murdered.

Or are we all happy for the government to proceed with a Kangaroo Court when things suit?

The only type of justice any freedom loving individual should tolerate is righteous justice - let Cliven Bundy face a fair and just trial, Lavoy got no such chance.



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 07:33 AM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

GOOD!

Furthermore, I hope every one of those arrested on weapons charges ends up losing their right to buy and/or bear arms in the future.

Friggin nut-jobs!


+2 more 
posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 07:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
If any justice is to be served, then arresting and charging this individual so that he may stand trial is the correct way to go about it.


Agreed. And if arresting Cliven Bundy is the right way for justice to be served, then arresting Finicum would have been the right thing to do as well... Except he pulled a gun on the police... That will get you killed, I don't care WHO you are.



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 07:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
Wonder why the FBI didn't arrest Cliven Bundy sooner?


They apparently arrested him on charges related to his standoff two years ago. I'd say they were probably going to let that slide if he hadn't gone to Oregon to stir up more trouble.

That's more slack than most of the rest of us would get.


+3 more 
posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 07:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic


Except he pulled a gun on the police...
Do we have unequivocal proof of this or are we to rely on FBI hearsay and the chopper footage? Because I saw no weapon pulled, I saw LaVoy drop his arm(s) and he appeared to reach to his side - I saw no weapon.



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 07:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic


Except he pulled a gun on the police...
Do we have unequivocal proof of this or are we to rely on FBI hearsay and the chopper footage? Because I saw no weapon pulled, I saw LaVoy drop his arm(s) and he appeared to reach to his side - I saw no weapon.


Don't bother.

It's much easier for people to just swallow the official story.



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 07:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Well should be interesting since the occupiers last
night stated the Finicum was unarmed & that all
of his weapons were right there with them.

I wonder what kind of information will be coming out
in the court room in re to Hillary Clinton & her dealings.

Cheers
Ektar

Edit Did Mr Graham show up & did they surrender this morning?
edit on 1122016 by Ektar because: left out info



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 08:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Sublimecraft


Or are we all happy for the government to proceed with a Kangaroo Court when things suit?

He's already convicted. They arrested him for driving, just like they arrested the others when they shot Finicum. They were all 'guilty' of going somewhere.



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 08:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic


Except he pulled a gun on the police...
Do we have unequivocal proof of this or are we to rely on FBI hearsay and the chopper footage? Because I saw no weapon pulled, I saw LaVoy drop his arm(s) and he appeared to reach to his side - I saw no weapon.


And why would we have to see the gun?

If you walk in to rob a bank with your hand in your pocket, implying that you have a gun, does law enforcement have to wait until they actually see the gun before they shoot your ass? HELL NO THEY DON'T!

I could care less if LaVoy had a gun or not.

The second he did anything other than reach for the sky, I'd shoot him right where he stood.

Which by the way, appears to be exactly what they did.

Notice how everyone who followed law enforcement commands and didn't reach for their guns are still alive?

See how that works?
edit on 11-2-2016 by Flatfish because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 08:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Flatfish


If you walk in to rob a bank with your hand in your pocket, inferring that you have a gun, does law enforcement have to wait until they actually see the gun before they shoot your ass? HELL NO THEY DON'T!

He wasn't 'robbing a bank'.


Officers are trained to remain behind cover until the subject complies or chooses not to. By breaking cover, exposing themselves and walking up on him they broke the golden rule of felony stops.

They knew exactly what they were doing.



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 08:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: Flatfish

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic


Except he pulled a gun on the police...
Do we have unequivocal proof of this or are we to rely on FBI hearsay and the chopper footage? Because I saw no weapon pulled, I saw LaVoy drop his arm(s) and he appeared to reach to his side - I saw no weapon.


And why would we have to see the gun?

If you walk in to rob a bank with your hand in your pocket, inferring that you have a gun, does law enforcement have to wait until they actually see the gun before they shoot your ass? HELL NO THEY DON'T!

could care less if LaVoy had a gun or not.

The second he did anything other than reach for the sky, I'd shoot him right where he stood.

Which by the way, appears to be exactly what they did.

Notice how everyone who followed law enforcement commands and didn't reach for their guns are still alive?

See how that works?



That was arguably the most ignorant thing I've ever seen posted on this site.

You don't care if a man shot and killed for supposedly raising a gun at police, had a gun?

Speechless.


Jesus, with people like this, I guess it's not hard to see why the world works the way it does.



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 08:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Flatfish

Do you have proof he wasn't shot prior to his hands dropping down? If so I would like to see it.

If not you are making assumptions based on hearsay and speculation. By the way, that's all both sides have to go by with the footage as shown without any audio.



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 08:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Do we have unequivocal proof of this or are we to rely on FBI hearsay and the chopper footage? Because I saw no weapon pulled, I saw LaVoy drop his arm(s) and he appeared to reach to his side - I saw no weapon.


It doesn't really matter if he had a weapon or not. After he publicly vowed never to be taken alive, he reached into his clothing. That's enough for the cops to go into self-defense mode.



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 08:25 AM
link   
Your personal feelings are great, but they wouldn't hold up as defense in court.

Whatever your beliefs are, it is actually extremely important to know whether he had a weapon, because him having a weapon was cited as the reason for his death.

I honestly can't believe there are people on a site like this taking the stance you're taking.

Once again, it's okay a man was killed because he was vocal and went against the grain. Scary.



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 08:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Flatfish


If you walk in to rob a bank with your hand in your pocket, inferring that you have a gun, does law enforcement have to wait until they actually see the gun before they shoot your ass? HELL NO THEY DON'T!

He wasn't 'robbing a bank'.


Officers are trained to remain behind cover until the subject complies or chooses not to. By breaking cover, exposing themselves and walking up on him they broke the golden rule of felony stops.

They knew exactly what they were doing.


You don't have to be robbing a bank, that's not the defining criteria that allows for the use of deadly force.

Based on everything leading up to the stop, law enforcement had every right to assume that everyone in that vehicle was armed.

When LaVoy dropped his hands and reached, anyone in their right mind would assume he was going for a gun and therefore posed a threat, warranting the use of deadly force.


+4 more 
posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 08:30 AM
link   
a reply to: Flatfish


And why would we have to see the gun?
To confirm he was armed and not reaching for a gunshot wound.


implying that you have a gun
or reaching for a gunshot wound.


I could care less if LaVoy had a gun or not.
Priceless, you condone the murder of a (potentially) unarmed US citizen by US government law enforcement agents because in your opinion he's a "friggin nut-job".


Which by the way, appears to be exactly what they did.
It appears that's called state sanctioned murder.


Notice how everyone who followed law enforcement commands and didn't reach for their guns are still alive?
You're making an assumption he was reaching for a gun and have no proof that this is indeed the case, the law is not based on presumptuous non-proofs.



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 08:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: Flatfish

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Flatfish


If you walk in to rob a bank with your hand in your pocket, inferring that you have a gun, does law enforcement have to wait until they actually see the gun before they shoot your ass? HELL NO THEY DON'T!

He wasn't 'robbing a bank'.


Officers are trained to remain behind cover until the subject complies or chooses not to. By breaking cover, exposing themselves and walking up on him they broke the golden rule of felony stops.

They knew exactly what they were doing.


You don't have to be robbing a bank, that's not the defining criteria that allows for the use of deadly force.

Based on everything leading up to the stop, law enforcement had every right to assume that everyone in that vehicle was armed.

When LaVoy dropped his hands and reached, anyone in their right mind would assume he was going for a gun and therefore posed a threat, warranting the use of deadly force.



Key word bolded.

Assumptions are NOT enough to warrant use of force.

Are you in LE? Military? My father was military during the Cold War, and has been in LE for over 15 years now. Do you really want to debate me over what protocol was and WAS NOT followed that day?



new topics

top topics



 
14
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join