Cliven Bundy arrested by FBI in Portland

a reply to: xuenchen

According to Superior Court Judge Anna Von Reitz:

The "Federal officer" works under a private corporation (the ABC agency) contracted by the UNITED STATES INC. Corporation, which is bankrupt and controlled by the British Crown and Vatican, as is the Bar Association in which Bundy's attorneys are licensed and are provided performance bonds allowing them to practice law.

A message from Judge Anna Von Reitz

Interesting info.

a reply to: Flatfish

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

That was the example you used.

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.

Presumptive assumption, deadly force only authorized if in fear of ones life. Thats why they are supposed to stay behind cover.

Keep moving that goal post, its obvious to "anyone in their right mind" he was murdered.

Sorry for off topic. This thread is about Bundy's arrest.

originally posted by: intrptr
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.

That is exactly what this is.

Tiemem square US version.

Welcome to the gulags comrade intrptr.

originally posted by: Psychonautics
Your personal feelings are great

Thanks. So are yours. Both are valid.

We may never know the truth, but under the circumstances, I'm not at all surprised that this stupid "standoff" involved loss of life. And, from what I've seen, the shooting was justified. To you, it wasn't. We're both entitled to our opinions. Sorry if you're scared of mine.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: Psychonautics
Your personal feelings are great

Thanks. So are yours. Both are valid.

We may never know the truth, but under the circumstances, I'm not at all surprised that this stupid "standoff" involved loss of life. And, from what I've seen, the shooting was justified. To you, it wasn't. We're both entitled to our opinions. Sorry if you're scared of mine.

No, actually, neither are valid.

They're subjective.

Yes we're both entitled to them, no it doesn't scare me... am I talking to a child?

Once again, we understand;

You aren't surprised this stupid thing ended with someone dead, he had it coming.

Your bias is totally not showing.

originally posted by: SonOfThor
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.

Do you have proof that he was shot prior to dropping his hands? If so, I'd like to see it too!

If not, you too are making assumptions based on hearsay & speculation.

We are all commenting on what little bit of information we currently have, which is a video without sound.

I'm not "assuming" that LaVoy dropped his hands and reached for his side, I saw him do it on video with my own eyes.

Did you "see" him get shot prior to reaching for his side?

Did you "hear" him get shot prior to reaching for his side?

So, who is assuming what?

From what I've "seen" and under those circumstances, I too would have shot him the moment he dropped his hands and reached for his side.

The last thing I'm going to do in a situation like that, is to let him get the drop on me.

Lots of people loving the police state I see.

Wait till they get gung-ho in the big cities.

Seems like many opinions are based on the circumstances of the "victims".

a reply to: Flatfish

The FBI video in frame by frame tells some of the theories.

Not to mention the taser shot and all the laser spots afterwards.

originally posted by: Psychonautics
You aren't surprised this stupid thing ended with someone dead, he had it coming.

If you have to put words in my mouth to make your point, your position is not strong. You must be making assumptions about my position, because I have not once said that "he had it coming" or that "I believe the official story" or that "it's okay a man was killed because he was vocal and went against the grain."

Those are all just assumptions you have made about my position on this. Maybe you should ASK instead of ASSUMING, but sadly, that's what passes for 'debate' these days...

The last thing I'm going to do in a situation like that, is to let him get the drop on me.

Once again I have to ask since you dodged, are you in LE?

It would have been impossible for him to get the drop on you in that situation, as he was surrounded, at gunpoint, because, you know, they had the drop on him.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: Psychonautics
You aren't surprised this stupid thing ended with someone dead, he had it coming.

If you have to put words in my mouth to make your point, your position is not strong. You must be making assumptions about my position, because I have not once said that "he had it coming" or that "I believe the official story" or that "it's okay a man was killed because he was vocal and went against the grain."

Those are all just assumptions you have made about my position on this. Maybe you should ASK instead of ASSUMING, but sadly, that's what passes for 'debate' these days...

What I said is not far off the mark from the stance people are taking.

Don't be scared, say what you mean. The standoff was stupid, and you aren't surprised someone died, and it was justified.

You don't have to be a psych major to read into that bias.

originally posted by: NewzNose
a reply to: xuenchen

According to Superior Court Judge Anna Von Reitz:

She is NOT a judge, just a nutter who claims she is one!

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
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.

And you don't have an ounce of proof that he was doing anything other than reaching for his gun either, so quit accusing others of assuming everything.

Just because that's what you want to believe doesn't make it true either.

a reply to: hellobruce

Yeah, she is. Retired and teaching law in Alaska at a University, which makes her more credible than you.

originally posted by: Psychonautics

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.

Look if I were in control, I would have also shot the Bundy Ranch guy laying in the sniper position on the overpass bridge with his gun aimed at LEOs. Remember him? I would tolerate that for about ten seconds!

But then, LaVoy isn't dead because of my thoughts or actions.

He's dead because of his own thoughts & actions.

a reply to: Flatfish



You actually fell for that staged photo?

a reply to: Flatfish

And you don't have an ounce of proof that he was doing anything other than reaching for his gun either, so quit accusing others of assuming everything.

Until the Feds release the audio of this event all we can (both) do is determine what occurred based on the evidence currently released, which quite frankly raises more questions than it answers. I see your stance however I've learned that appearances can be deceiving - we need that audio released as well as any other footage that may have been obtained by the Feds.

Just because that's what you want to believe doesn't make it true either.

What I want is for justice to be served and if the ranchers and their representatives have done wrong, allow the law to take precedent and be served. What I believe is that the Feds have not been forthcoming with all of the available evidence such as the audio and this is unacceptable with such a high-profile case.

They need to release the bloody audio so justice can be served - this has been my stance since Finicum was gunned down and until they do release it and prove Finicum was reaching for a gun and disobeying instructions to keep his hands in the air, I'm sorry, but it looks like state sanctioned murder.

Do you not find it in the lease bit curious that the Feds have not released the audio? Does this not raise suspicions with you? If the audio vindicates the Feds, it would have been released by now so the fact that it has not is quite telling.

Yes, I have also made presumptions too so they need to release the audio to stop the speculation.

originally posted by: malevolent
a reply to: xuenchen

seems like thats the story. i wonder though how did he get all those weapons through airport security?

You put them in your luggage. You can have weapons in your luggage, it just needs to be locked. I've done it before.


Also, I think the weapons charges are from the incident back in 2014.

originally posted by: Psychonautics

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?

It's not like it was an unfounded assumption.

They all brought their weapons to what "they" described as a peaceful demonstration.

They made sure that everyone knew they were heavily armed.

I can't remember a single video coming out of that compound where they weren't seen brandishing their guns.

Maybe "assumed" was not the perfect word, but I think law enforcement had every reason to believe that they would also be armed during the stop.

Only an idiot would have "assumed" otherwise.

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
What I want is for justice to be served and if the ranchers and their representatives have done wrong, allow the law to take precedent and be served.

I agree.

What I believe is that the Feds have not been forthcoming with all of the available evidence such as the audio and this is unacceptable with such a high-profile case.

I don't know much about recording, but what are you expecting to hear on an audio taken from inside a helicopter? Wouldn't you just hear the sound of the chopper?