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: 4
14
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 02:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

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, 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?


And yet when its someone who isn't white, not reaching for the sky and being uncooperative, there's boundless outrage and talk of proper procedures and reforms with a dose of racism and bigotry.


I couldn't care less if he was purple with pink polka dots, I still would have shot him the second he dropped his hands and reached for his gun.




posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 02:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Flatfish

originally posted by: Sargeras

originally posted by: Flatfish

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.



So then, in your mind the government is a king and we are all serfs?

Funny, I thought we were a free people, and free folks have as much of a right to point weapons at the government agents as they do at us.

The Supreme Court has already upheld this, we aren't beholden to them, we all stand on equal footing.


You also have the right to jump off a cliff without a parachute, but I wouldn't recommend exercising that right.

And you also have the right to live or die with the consequences of your actions too.

Just keep pointing your guns at LEOs and we'll see how that works out for ya.


You didn't answer my question.

Because you clearly seem to think that they have rights citizens don't, which is not the case.

They have no more right to point guns at a citizen than a citizen has a right to point one back.

The government, and all their agents are equal to every citizen.

They are not above them.



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 03:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sargeras

originally posted by: Flatfish

originally posted by: Sargeras

originally posted by: Flatfish

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.



So then, in your mind the government is a king and we are all serfs?

Funny, I thought we were a free people, and free folks have as much of a right to point weapons at the government agents as they do at us.

The Supreme Court has already upheld this, we aren't beholden to them, we all stand on equal footing.


You also have the right to jump off a cliff without a parachute, but I wouldn't recommend exercising that right.

And you also have the right to live or die with the consequences of your actions too.

Just keep pointing your guns at LEOs and we'll see how that works out for ya.


The government, and all their agents are equal to every citizen.

They are not above them.


Yeah and that's what LaVoy thought too.

It may sound good in theory, but that's not exactly how it works in reality.

Now I get the feeling those agents will be standing above his dead ass for quite some time.

I would just imagine that some will even take time out to go by and piss on his grave too.



edit on 11-2-2016 by Flatfish because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 04:49 PM
link   


All of them are going to be arrested or killed, and anyone else that gets up and takes a stand


Whatever, people make stands against things all the time, but when you take over federal buildings or attack federal agents you shouldn't be surprised when something bad happens.

If these people had more than a couple brain cells they would never have gotten in this situation to begin with.



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 05:37 PM
link   
Nine more indictments have been issued in connection with the militant take over of the Malheur wildlife refuge, charged with conspiracy.
L ink

Seven have already been arrested today in 6 different states: Blaine Cooper, Corey Lequieu, Neil Wampler, Jason Charles Blomgren, Darryl William Thorn, Wesley Kjar and Eric Lee Flores.
Two unnamed others remain at large.



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 05:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Olivine

Oh yeah, according to OregonLIve Cliven "welfare rancher" Bundy asked for a court appointed attorney.
The judge wants to see his financials.


U.S. Magistrate Judge Janice M. Stewart directed Bundy to present a financial affidavit to the court before a court-appointed attorney is assigned.

"The court only appoints counsel for those who can't afford an attorney,'' Stewart said.


No more freeloading for you, sir.

edit on 2/11/2016 by Olivine because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 07:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: NotTooHappy
a reply to: NobodiesNormal

Or, you know, if you're trying to pull out the 9mm they found on your corpse, right where you were reaching for before you got shot.
Like what actually happened.

Like what actually happened? He came out with his hands up, they shot him dead from point blank without ever seeing a weapon. Hopefully you don't get arrested and asked for your ID and get shot over "could have had a gun there".



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 07:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Flatfish


I still would have shot him the second he dropped his hands and reached for his gun.

From cover you wouldn't have to act so fast. You broke cover in a potentially hostile situation exposing yourself and the subject to harmful bodily injury…

You're fired. Pack your s***, leave your gun and badge on the desk.



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 10:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Flatfish

originally posted by: centarix

originally posted by: Flatfish
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!
I hope you lose all of your rights as well, since you don't think others should have any.

The peace-loving militia members were highly reasonable and brave souls. People like you who would murder someone for daring to have their hands near their pocket because maybe they could have a gun on the other hand... well... that might be considered less sane.

At the end of the day the cops are on video as the first to point guns. At the end of the day the gun-nutter trigger-happy cops were the first to shoot. Fact and fact. But the other side is the crazy ones, say you. Huh, interesting bias there. I guess even cold-blooded murder meets your stamp of approval.

I guess five years in prison for $100 in damages also meets your stamp of approval. Do you know both sides of the story?


The only rights these people are being denied, are those they themselves abused. Which by the way, is the best way to
lose one's rights.

The LEOs were first to draw their guns because they knew and understood the threat posed to them.

You have no proof whatsoever, that LaVoy was shot prior to dropping his hands. That's pure speculation!

And yes, they were the crazy ones if they ever thought that orchestrating an armed occupation of federal property would ever end in their favor.

In closing, I don't have to be in agreement with the court's ruling or punishment to know that you're not going to change it with a show of force.

Only a nut-job would ever contemplate such an idiotic strategy for overruling the courts.
This is a very simple dispute. You imply I don't have a right to shoot someone for putting their hand near their pocket. However, you believe cops DO have a right to shoot someone for putting their hand near their pocket. It is mind-blowing people cannot understand and appreciate the concept of equality and equal rights.

No. No. No. Either cops AND civilians both have the right to shoot someone when they have guns aimed at them, or neither do. Your dangerous philosophy of unequal rights has been the primary cause of hundreds of millions of deaths over the last 100 years. I have heard the Koran tells Muslims they can do anything they want to a non-Muslim. Unequal rights that get people raped and killed on a daily basis.

Every person involved in the murder and attempted murders of the remaining victims knew for a fact the peace-loving militia members said they would not be the ones to shoot first. How is that such a concept that the well-regulated well-controlled militia people know restraint? They are not the ones killing 1,000+ people every year with guns. Militia members are known for showing high restraint and almost never using their firearm. Yet people like you say they were lying. Yet the tape clearly shows the cops aiming their guns first and also shows the cops shooting their guns first. Fact and fact. Again. This is a straight-forward issue if you would just apply the concept of equal rights to the situation. No, if we are going to stereotype here, then let the cards land where evidence points, which is abuse by the police and peace by the militias.



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 01:20 AM
link   
Except that they weren't "peace-loving" and they weren't militia members.

They repeatedly made their threats verbally that they were in control of the People's property (even while the People were telling them we didn't want them there), and they bastardized their Second Amendment rights to carry arms ... by carrying those arms onto a public facility (and into Banks and nearby towns) intentionally intimidating the good citizens of Oregon.

How disgusting to see these misguided zealots portrayed as some kind of hero over and over again, when it is more than plain that they were nothing more than inept thuglets who came under the sway of a couple of Skousenite welfare-queen ranchers.

Particularly abhorent is the idea taht these yahoos have some "right" to ignore the Constitution and the laws of our land and do whatever they want to, when they want to, and how they want to. Not unlike someone who gets stopped by a traffic cop and starts going off that "I pay your salary; you work for me" and "I have the same rights as you do."

Well, yes, cops are citizens and from that perspective, you do have the same rights. But it is not one of those rights to do whatever you want and cover it up with the Constitution, or the Bible, or the Book of Mormon, or The Five Thousand Year Leap. You have to obey our laws, and you are not some "special snowflake" just because you don't want to obey the speed limit, or pay your taxes, or pay rent on the land that you rent from the Government.

The Constitution does not give you the right to do whatever you feel like and get away with it. It doesn't give you the right to use the national, State or local infrastructure without contributing your fair share. It doesn't give you the right to pretend that you are your own little king in your own little kingdom and screw the rest of us over with your tantrums when you don't get your way.

And for God's sake ... in the US the Militia is under a command structure with a Commander in charge ... either the Governor of a State, their appointed Officers, or the President of the United States. Sure, one dictionary meaning of the word is a group of gun-lovers who play soldier and pretend like they have some special authority the rest of us don't have, even when the rest of us are telling them to go home and stop causing trouble ... but that is not the Militia of the United States or of any State.

There's a better word for a group of people gathering their guns and ignoring the laws of our land in favor of their own selfish ambitions:INSURRECTION.

And you don't get away with it, as the Bundy Gang is rapidly discovering.



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 01:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Flatfish

He raises a good point. If you were not an LEO, and you shot someone who put their hand near their pocket, regardless of whether there was conflict between you or not, you would most likely go to prison over it. Even if that person had a gun in their pocket, even if they were reaching for it, the fact that you had a gun pointing at them makes that person perfectly justified in feeling threatened. If you were an LEO, you would not face the same penalties that you would as an average citizen.

I agree that the situations are different, I'm just pointing out the double standard. Keep in mind also, that you don't know that the person had a gun in their pocket, or that they were even reaching into their pocket, you just saw their hand drop toward their pocket. Awful lot of assumption going on here, but if you're an LEO it's okay I guess? Not okay if you are a regular guy, though.



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 01:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Though armed, they were peaceful. Not a shot fired, no one injured or killed by the occupiers. Mr. Finicum was shot by the authorities, however.

Taking over a federal building was a dangerous form of protest due to the tendency for the feds to be heavy handed in their enforcement methods, but in reality the protesters were peaceful.
edit on 12-2-2016 by TheBadCabbie because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 01:41 AM
link   
It's not a double standard. Law enforcement officers are "given the benefit of the doubt" within our legal structure yes.

But why is that so? Is it because they are, on a daily basis, charged with stopping those of us who don't wish to abide by the social contract any longer? Is it because they are, in the most real sense, continually putting their lives on the line?

I would be the first (and have shown that on this site) to decry police injustice. Abuse of the "public trust" that we bestow on our law enforcement officers should be met with the harshest reprisal when those accusations are based on real facts. But no, our system of government does not allow scofflaws to ignore whatever they don't like, nor use (abuse) their Second Amendment rights to go armed by using those arms to betray the public peace.



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 01:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheBadCabbie
a reply to: Gryphon66

Though armed, they were peaceful. Not a shot fired, no one injured or killed by the occupiers. Mr. Finicum was shot by the authorities, however.


They were not in any sense of the word peaceful. They abused their Second Amendment rights to intimidate and seize government property, they threatened repeatedly that they would respond with violence should the authorities do anything to restore the rule of law, they claimed (even though the People clearly told them they were unwanted) to be "liberating" the bird sanctuary, and that they were going to be there "for years" training more insurgents to think and act just like they were.

Nope Cabbie. They were not innocent protesters. And Lavoy Finicum was ill-used as a martyr for the cause of deadbeat religious zealots who think they are above the law. I lament his needless death, unlike some ... but the facts of the matter are obvious and legion.



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 01:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

I'm not necessarily agreeing with centaurix's overall argument, I was just agreeing that different sets of rules apply here. Flatfish was saying that he would shoot anyone who was moving their hand toward their pocket, as if that's just okay. As an LEO he might walk free after that, as an average citizen he would not. I was just agreeing that there are two sets of rules; whether they are justified or not is not an argument I'm trying to get into here.



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 02:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

We've argued whether Finicum actually made threats or not, so we can just say for the sake of argument that that's debatable and table that issue for the moment.

The other occupiers, though. Did any of them make threats? I may have to concede this point to you, if that is the case. Can you show me any direct quotes or videos of the other occupiers making threats during the occupation? The craziness of the last night or two doesn't really count in this argument I think. Who knows what all rant boy said in there. You know what I'm getting at, anyway. I truly am interested in clarity here. What about Ritzheimer, or the Bundy boys? Did they go shooting off at the mouth? Anyone else? Drunk mustache guy said some stupid stuff, right? Did he actually throw some threats out there?

If you've got direct quotes or videos of it, I'd sure appreciate you pointing them out to me. I don't like making misstatements. I can admit I'm wrong if I am, although I don't like being wrong.
edit on 12-2-2016 by TheBadCabbie because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 02:01 AM
link   
a reply to: TheBadCabbie

There was some fairly clear context to Flatfish's statement, if you or I, as a citizen, were facing off with someone that had stated they were armed, were known to be armed, and were in an active (and threatening) situation against us, well, then we would have more rights to defend than in normal situations.

And LEOs, as holders of the public trust, have even a bit more lee-way than that in arrest situations. For good reason. It's not two sets of rules ... it's the same set of rules with different options for different situations ... but perhaps that is a semantic difference.



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 02:07 AM
link   
a reply to: TheBadCabbie

The ARMED occupation is a threat! If I throw my dad's old double-barrel 12-gauge over my shoulder and march myself down to the Post Office and announce to everyone that I'm taking over the facility based on my own crazy religious beliefs, and then prevent those people from continuing their work, and make public statements that I'm going to be in charge of the PO for years and that I plan to use it to sponsor a training camp for those of like mind ...

Do you really need a video to show that the Bundy Gang seized and occupied a Federal facility by force of arms?

I am honestly flabbergasted by such seeming claims ...



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 02:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

That's not good enough. Was threatening language used by any of those in charge, or furthermore by any of the other occupiers, to your knowledge? This has been my point of contention, that though armed the occupiers were peaceful. I understand the point about the implied threat that you are making. Were any threats actually made, though? It's okay if you don't know. You've gotten my curiosity going now, I'll probably have to go and research it myself if someone doesn't put something up on it...



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 02:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheBadCabbie
a reply to: Gryphon66

That's not good enough. Was threatening language used by any of those in charge, or furthermore by any of the other occupiers, to your knowledge? This has been my point of contention, that though armed the occupiers were peaceful. I understand the point about the implied threat that you are making. Were any threats actually made, though? It's okay if you don't know. You've gotten my curiosity going now, I'll probably have to go and research it myself if someone doesn't put something up on it...


What's not "good enough"? The fact that the Bundy Gang took guns to Malheur, announced that they were taking over the facility (while carrying those guns), that they were intent on interfering with the regular operation of the facility (while they were carrying those guns), that they were trespassing on government land (still with guns), vandalized, announced that they were staying there for years and were setting up an insurrectionist training camp (still with guns)???

It's not a matter of me "not knowing" ... it is, with all respect, apparently an issue of you ignoring what was before all of our eyes for nearly two months!!!




top topics



 
14
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join