I know pretty much nothing of this Stefan Molyneux guy and why he's apparently reviled.
I have noticed his name crop up once or twice really recently on stuff I've been watching and this forum, and after a quick look at wiki he does seem shady.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: [I'm sure you'll think that there is no disparity in how you view these events. Just make sure your electron microscope is fully charged for your hair splitting, and you have some strong backs to move those goalposts.
I am absolute comfortable seeing a marked difference between how this guy was treated and how Tamir Rice was treated, sure. I absolutely see a totally fundamental difference which I won't bother explaining because A.) other people already have here and B.) You've already poisoned the well with the above phrasing.
Waiting to see the bullet wounds and what direction they came from.
What does Tamir Rice have to do with this anyway? Kid was straight murdered, much like Deven Guilford and John Crawford the III. This whole blockade was an ambush, and I can't blame Finicum for dying with his boots on because that's more than quite a few people can even do. While this man did reach for his waistline twice, it's unclear on if he was hit or simply panicking. Given the fact he said he didn't want to spend the rest of his days in a cement box (prison), it is reasonable to say that he was reaching for his sidearm.
It's unfortunate that the Bundy involvement turned the American public in favor of the BLM's actions, and also in favor of the unconstitutional sentencing of the Hammond family. As for the supposedly witty anti-militia folks here, keep in mind a majority of the militiamen did not help the Bundy's, and quite a few actually spoke out. I remain sympathetic to their cause, but I don't agree with all of their reasons for doing what they did -- unsurprisingly their involvement turned the public against them because a) white guys b) white guys with guns c) claiming divine inspiration d) militia. I'm honestly not surprised.
From personal interactions with militia members, I'd say the anti militia folks here have a great deal more wit than those who are in a militia.
It's unfortunate that the Bundy involvement turned the American public in favor of the BLM's actions, and also in favor of the unconstitutional sentencing of the Hammond family. As for the supposedly witty anti-militia folks here, keep in mind a majority of the militiamen did not help the Bundy's, and quite a few actually spoke out. I remain sympathetic to their cause, but I don't agree with all of their reasons for doing what they did -- unsurprisingly their involvement turned the public against them because a) white guys b) white guys with guns c) claiming divine inspiration d) militia. I'm honestly not surprised.
No, it's because the Bundies are total knobheads.
Most Americans are pretty law abiding and respectful of the rules of law. Was the sentence on the Hammonds unconstitutional? Then challenge it in court.
Instead of doing that, a load of so-called militia turn up uninvited, unwanted and proceed to act like a bunch of bell-ends for weeks creating a media circus before they stupidly get themselves arrested by wandering around outside their safe zone.
It's not surprising this kind of behaviour has pissed people off.
They are currently challenging it and willfully went to their sentences after receiving them, I can't say I'm entirely sure what you're arguing there.
Kilkrazy wrote: Most Americans are pretty law abiding and respectful of the rules of law. Was the sentence on the Hammonds unconstitutional? Then challenge it in court
And, although it's been said in this thread, I think it bears repeating. These guys had their day in court, way more than most do. They got all the way to the SCOTUS, and lost. The idea that their sentencing was unconstitutional simply is not factually accurate.
The sentence some not fit the crime. Stephen Molyneux covered this quite well. The argument being displayed here is "We've gakked stuff up with our legal system before so it's alright if you gak it up again!". The precedents they list as a defense of the sentencing are stretches to the nth degree.
How does their sentence not fit the crime? I mean, I am not a fan of Mandatory Sentences at all, but these guys started a wildfire that burned a lot of land and put people at risk.
How does their sentence not fit the crime? I mean, I am not a fan of Mandatory Sentences at all, but these guys started a wildfire that burned a lot of land and put people at risk.
Because a Judge in possession of the (in theory) entire facts determined that they deserved a lighter sentence for some reason.
How does their sentence not fit the crime? I mean, I am not a fan of Mandatory Sentences at all, but these guys started a wildfire that burned a lot of land and put people at risk.
Because a Judge in possession of the (in theory) entire facts determined that they deserved a lighter sentence for some reason.
Which is illegal and unfitting of the crime by law.
Because a Judge in possession of the (in theory) entire facts determined that they deserved a lighter sentence for some reason.
But he disobeyed his mandate, and probably would have been removed from office if he didn't voluntarily leave. He knew this, and that's why the sentencing was carried out on his last day.
How does their sentence not fit the crime? I mean, I am not a fan of Mandatory Sentences at all, but these guys started a wildfire that burned a lot of land and put people at risk.
Because a Judge in possession of the (in theory) entire facts determined that they deserved a lighter sentence for some reason.
...and got it wrong. This has now been corrected and the proper sentence was handed out. A mistake was made, it was caught and corrected - you might not like it for whatever personal reasons you have, but as of yet you've shown no rational reason for opposing the corrected sentence.
Kilkrazy wrote: None of those articles you have linked to show the Bundies using the courts to challenge the sentence on the Hammonds as un-constitutional.
And again they have nothing to do with one another. And again, what are you trying to argue here?
Sure, the Bundy militia called for the release of the Hammonds, though the Hammonds chose to fight their sentencing while being incarcerated. Two completely different groups.
How does their sentence not fit the crime? I mean, I am not a fan of Mandatory Sentences at all, but these guys started a wildfire that burned a lot of land and put people at risk.
Because a Judge in possession of the (in theory) entire facts determined that they deserved a lighter sentence for some reason.
Which is illegal and unfitting of the crime by law.
"Whoever maliciously damages or destroys, or attempts to damage or destroy, by means of fire or an explosive, any building, vehicle, or other personal or real property in whole or in part owned or possessed by, or leased to, the United States, or any department or agency thereof, or any institution or organization receiving Federal financial assistance, shall be imprisoned for not less than 5 years and not more than 20 years, fined under this title, or both."
They were charged as both terrorists and arsonists, from my point of view this was not the way to charge them for a couple of range fires. Then again I'm not a statist.
Ustrello wrote: They burned public land to cover up poaching and almost killed a few fighter fighters. I say 5 years was too light
If I recall, the testimony given that the Hammonds were poaching was thrown out of court due to the witness's unreliability due to mental illness and estrangement from the family.
Kilkrazy wrote: None of those articles you have linked to show the Bundies using the courts to challenge the sentence on the Hammonds as un-constitutional.
And again they have nothing to do with one another. And again, what are you trying to argue here?
Sure, the Bundy militia called for the release of the Hammonds, though the Hammonds chose to fight their sentencing while being incarcerated. Two completely different groups.
How does their sentence not fit the crime? I mean, I am not a fan of Mandatory Sentences at all, but these guys started a wildfire that burned a lot of land and put people at risk.
Because a Judge in possession of the (in theory) entire facts determined that they deserved a lighter sentence for some reason.
Which is illegal and unfitting of the crime by law.
"Whoever maliciously damages or destroys, or attempts to damage or destroy, by means of fire or an explosive, any building, vehicle, or other personal or real property in whole or in part owned or possessed by, or leased to, the United States, or any department or agency thereof, or any institution or organization receiving Federal financial assistance, shall be imprisoned for not less than 5 years and not more than 20 years, fined under this title, or both."
They were charged as both terrorists and arsonists, from my point of view this was not the way to charge them for a couple of range fires. Then again I'm not a statist.
My argument put simply was that the Bundies were being complete spankers because legal remedies were available for the dispute they weren't involved in, but rather than take advantage of these they made a huge public nuisance of themselves, which unsurprisingly resulted in them becoming unpopular.
You replied that these links showed the legal process was unconstitutional, and the Bundies challenged it in court, as shown by the articles to which you linked.
Kilkrazy wrote: None of those articles you have linked to show the Bundies using the courts to challenge the sentence on the Hammonds as un-constitutional.
And again they have nothing to do with one another. And again, what are you trying to argue here?
Sure, the Bundy militia called for the release of the Hammonds, though the Hammonds chose to fight their sentencing while being incarcerated. Two completely different groups.
How does their sentence not fit the crime? I mean, I am not a fan of Mandatory Sentences at all, but these guys started a wildfire that burned a lot of land and put people at risk.
Because a Judge in possession of the (in theory) entire facts determined that they deserved a lighter sentence for some reason.
Which is illegal and unfitting of the crime by law.
"Whoever maliciously damages or destroys, or attempts to damage or destroy, by means of fire or an explosive, any building, vehicle, or other personal or real property in whole or in part owned or possessed by, or leased to, the United States, or any department or agency thereof, or any institution or organization receiving Federal financial assistance, shall be imprisoned for not less than 5 years and not more than 20 years, fined under this title, or both."
They were charged as both terrorists and arsonists, from my point of view this was not the way to charge them for a couple of range fires. Then again I'm not a statist.
My argument put simply was that the Bundies were being complete spankers because legal remedies were available for the dispute they weren't involved in, but rather than take advantage of these they made a huge public nuisance of themselves, which unsurprisingly resulted in them becoming unpopular.
You replied that these links showed the legal process was unconstitutional, and the Bundies challenged it in court, as shown by the articles to which you linked.
But they don't.
Neg. That is not what was said. Here's what I said.
"Secondly, that's my point exactly. Wrong place and the wrong time. However being white gun owners on the right persuasion is not helping their case. You'll see plenty of back in forth on this topic of their skin color alone and questions as to what would happen if, say, a <other race/other religious group> took over instead: "
The jyst of my post is that the Bundy involvement turned the American public against them and even cited white men with guns as an example, of which those articles do talk about. Though if you thought I was referring to the Bundy's then I apologize for the poor wording and you're simply mistaken. I was referring to the Hammonds of whom voluntarily turned themselves in and elected to fight their sentences from prison.
The Airman wrote: They were charged as both terrorists and arsonists,
Yeah, when you have the defendant tell someone to "drop lit matches on the ground so as to 'light up the whole country on fire,'" that isn't an unexpected outcome.
from my point of view this was not the way to charge them for a couple of range fires.
Then again I'm not a statist.
But your "point of view" still isn't correct, Ayn Rand.
The Airman wrote: They were charged as both terrorists and arsonists,
Yeah, when you have the defendant tell someone to "drop lit matches on the ground so as to 'light up the whole country on fire,'" that isn't an unexpected outcome.
from my point of view this was not the way to charge them for a couple of range fires.
Then again I'm not a statist.
But your "point of view" still isn't correct, Ayn Rand.
That testimony came from the estranged member of the family, of which was dismissed the first time around.
The Airman wrote: "Whoever maliciously damages or destroys, or attempts to damage or destroy, by means of fire or an explosive, any building, vehicle, or other personal or real property in whole or in part owned or possessed by, or leased to, the United States, or any department or agency thereof, or any institution or organization receiving Federal financial assistance, shall be imprisoned for not less than 5 years and not more than 20 years, fined under this title, or both."
They were charged as both terrorists and arsonists, from my point of view this was not the way to charge them for a couple of range fires. Then again I'm not a statist.
What terrorism charges were they convicted of? If the US Attorney is lying, it should be super, super easy to prove, with it being an open record... right?
Also, you know they were convicted of two separate arsons, and regardless of the testimony of the nephew, he actually confessed to one of them, right?
You're entitled to your own opinions, but you're not entitled to your own facts, as they say.
That I could question, as 'to administer justice and uphold the law' might be two different things. U.S. District Judge Mark Bennett was the subject of an interesting story in the Washington Post about six months ago, where he pointed out that Congress forcing minimum sentences had stripped the judges of their discretionary power in cases where there was obvious mitigating circumstances, where the sentence he handed down was not only not of his own choosing, but unjust.
I would make the argument at that point that minimum sentencing was a violation of the separation of powers. Further, it forces sentences that, while not unusual, would certainly be considered cruel, and more than few US Judges has said as much..
While in the case of the Hammonds, it's it's not as clear cut as to what the mitigating factors where, but the legal notion of a minimum sentence which underpins their return to jail is deeply flawed.
The Airman wrote: "Whoever maliciously damages or destroys, or attempts to damage or destroy, by means of fire or an explosive, any building, vehicle, or other personal or real property in whole or in part owned or possessed by, or leased to, the United States, or any department or agency thereof, or any institution or organization receiving Federal financial assistance, shall be imprisoned for not less than 5 years and not more than 20 years, fined under this title, or both."
They were charged as both terrorists and arsonists, from my point of view this was not the way to charge them for a couple of range fires. Then again I'm not a statist.
What terrorism charges were they convicted of? If the US Attorney is lying, it should be super, super easy to prove, with it being an open record... right?
Also, you know they were convicted of two separate arsons, and regardless of the testimony of the nephew, he actually confessed to one of them, right?
You're entitled to your own opinions, but you're not entitled to your own facts, as they say.
I'll admit I could be mistaken here, however they were charged under the 'Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996', of which they were convicted of arson and forced to serve for five years each even though it was ruled that they would not serve such a term the first time. I'll admit that you got me there and I have no problem admitting that I was mistaken, nor am I going to accuse the US attorney presiding over this case a liar. However, I would call him and the people he answers to cruel and it looks like an attempt to make an example out of the Hammonds.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: If there's a legal argument, the militia could go and make it.
The militia tried to, while throwing in a bunch of other points as well that had nothing to do with the sentencing of which not only made the situationw orse, but turned the public against them. Again, for the third time, the Bundy militia cannot and does not speak for the Hammonds, as the Hammonds elected to serve their sentences whilst trying to appeal.
The Airman wrote: Again, for the third time, the Bundy militia cannot and does not speak for the Hammonds, as the Hammonds elected to serve their sentences whilst trying to appeal.
You're wasting your time. Once they have an idea in their head, whatever you actually posted is irrelevant.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: Are we in favor of activist judges now?
Beats increasing the power of the executive branch, which is what minimum sentencing effectively does.
The Airman wrote: The militia tried to, while throwing in a bunch of other points as well that had nothing to do with the sentencing of which not only made the situationw orse, but turned the public against them. Again, for the third time, the Bundy militia cannot and does not speak for the Hammonds, as the Hammonds elected to serve their sentences whilst trying to appeal.
The Hammonds have been fairly upfront from the beginning that the Bundy clowns weren't really acting on their behalf but using them as a handy hook to lay their hat on, as it were. So I don't think that last part is really disputed. I think what Kilkrazy is trying to do is argue against the Bundys, not the Hammonds, who are fundamentally bystanders since this started. If I recall, the Hammonds said they should go home from day one, or close to it.
I also don't think they can appeal further. They petitioned the SCOTUS and were denied cert. I could be mistaken but I believe they are out of legal remedies at this point.
The Airman wrote: Again, for the third time, the Bundy militia cannot and does not speak for the Hammonds, as the Hammonds elected to serve their sentences whilst trying to appeal.
You're wasting your time. Once they have an idea in their head, whatever you actually posted is irrelevant.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: Are we in favor of activist judges now?
Beats increasing the power of the executive branch, which is what minimum sentencing effectively does.
You mean we have an understanding in our heads of how the law works?
How does minimum sentencing effectively increase the power of the executive branch?
How does minimum sentencing effectively increase the power of the executive branch?
Yeah, I could have sworn some, if not most of it, was written by the legislative branch as part of the laws?
Truthfully, I do somewhat agree that it does increase the power of the executive a bit.
One of the worries I have with minimum sentences is that it allows prosecutors to have some extra power towards forcing plea-bargains from people that may every well be innocent. Imagine that you were picked up, arrested, you know that you didn't do anything wrong but you also know that your case looks really bad and that it is more than likely that a jury is going to rule against you.
If you were given the choice of "we can charge you with this, the MINIMUM you will get is 5 years, no matter what. But if you agree to plead guilty to this other thing you are only looking at 6 months to 2 years. What will it be?" Do you take your chance that a jury will rule in your favor because you know you are innocent, but you are looking at a minimum sentence if they rule against you with possibly more years on top of that? Or do you take the hit and do 2 years max?
How does their sentence not fit the crime? I mean, I am not a fan of Mandatory Sentences at all, but these guys started a wildfire that burned a lot of land and put people at risk.
Because a Judge in possession of the (in theory) entire facts determined that they deserved a lighter sentence for some reason.
I guess that could be true with all their melodramatic made up tales of heroics and sacrifices they were willing to make for their children they've told me.
That I could question, as 'to administer justice and uphold the law' might be two different things.
You really can't dispute the notion that the judge violated his mandate, he did. He was empowered by the Federal Government to uphold Federal Law, administering justice in that context, and he didn't do so.
I would make the argument at that point that minimum sentencing was a violation of the separation of powers.
So you're arguing that legislation which criminalizes things like theft, murder, rape, or arson are not violations of the separation of powers but once a law mandates a sentence it is? That seems a bit far fetched.
Dreadwinter wrote: How does minimum sentencing effectively increase the power of the executive branch?
Because it effectively takes sentencing (held by the judge, a member of the judicial branch) and puts it in the hands of the prosecutor (a member of the executive branch) because it's the prosecutor that decides what charges will be brought, allowing them to over-charge the defendant, stacking up massive mandatory sentences, and stack the deck in their favor of forcing a plea deal.
LordofHats wrote: Mandatory minimums have already been upheld by the Supreme Court as Constitutional. Whether or not they're a good idea is another matter.
They aren't a good idea, IMO. It takes too much discretion from judges. If you have judges who are consistently making bad calls, there are other remedies for that, more appropriate ones.
Because it effectively takes sentencing (held by the judge, a member of the judicial branch) and puts it in the hands of the prosecutor (a member of the executive branch) because it's the prosecutor that decides what charges will be brought, allowing them to over-charge the defendant, stacking up massive mandatory sentences, and stack the deck in their favor of forcing a plea deal.
That's wrong, the prosecutor decides which charges to prosecute, he has no role in making a charge. Indeed, judges are closer to that process.
LordofHats wrote: Mandatory minimums have already been upheld by the Supreme Court as Constitutional. Whether or not they're a good idea is another matter.
Which case? Most of the one's lately have been chipping away at it.
LordofHats wrote: Mandatory minimums have already been upheld by the Supreme Court as Constitutional. Whether or not they're a good idea is another matter.
They aren't a good idea, IMO. It takes too much discretion from judges. If you have judges who are consistently making bad calls, there are other remedies for that, more appropriate ones.
Agreed. I was more getting to the point that 'Constitutional' is a legal category and doesn't really = good idea on its own face. Jim Crow and Slavery were Constitutional for awhile :
My brief googling tells me that SCOTUS upheld the concept of mandatory minimums in two cases. Harmelin vs Michigan upheld a mandatory lifetime without parole sentence, and Ewing vs California ruled that 3 strikes - a form of mandatory sentencing - was constitutional.
Ouze wrote: My brief googling tells me that SCOTUS upheld the concept of mandatory minimums in two cases. Harmelin vs Michigan upheld a mandatory lifetime without parole sentence,
Interestingly, as far as Harmlin goes, Michigan's supreme court struck down the minimum sentencing as unconstitutional. Miller v Alabama recently called into question the legal underpinning of mandatory sentencing, though, as the ruling stated that judges have to consider all the factors before passing sentence, regardless of mandated sentencing requirements. In that particular case, it was mandatory life sentences without parole for children, but in principal, the same would apply for other mandatory sentences.
LordofHats wrote: Mandatory minimums have already been upheld by the Supreme Court as Constitutional. Whether or not they're a good idea is another matter.
They aren't a good idea, IMO. It takes too much discretion from judges. If you have judges who are consistently making bad calls, there are other remedies for that, more appropriate ones.
Agreed 100%.
I never agreed with mandatory minimums, personally or professionally. Judges should have the final say in sentencing, and as you have said, there are ways to deal with bad calls.
Mandatory minimums were also a headache for those of us working in the system. We even have 'em in my State for minor felonies, like shoplifting. Crazy.
Kilkrazy wrote: If there's a legal argument, the militia could go and make it.
The militia tried to, while throwing in a bunch of other points as well that had nothing to do with the sentencing of which not only made the situationw orse, but turned the public against them. Again, for the third time, the Bundy militia cannot and does not speak for the Hammonds, as the Hammonds elected to serve their sentences whilst trying to appeal.
I know. That is a big part of why they managed to make themselves unpopular, rather than because they are white Christian men with guns. There are a lot of white Christian men with guns in Oregon already, who don't go about occupying public buildings and issuing violent messages.
If the Hammonds have become tainted by association, that is unfortunate for them, but it emphasises the disruptive character of the militia's chosen method of involvement.
BaronIveagh wrote: If true, I wonder if there will be a #whitelivesmatter?
Was this a case of a black policemen killing a white guy in a country with a rich and long history of black people oppressing white people?
If the answer to my question is no, then the answer to your question is likely no too .
She clearly says someone crashed into a snowbank, and "...we all got down on the floorboards...", but the rest is freaked out gibberish. Definitely not a reliable narrator.
Doesn't match the video, either. According to her, she described a conversation that would have taken minutes before he got out. The video shows he got immediately after crashing.
“loves nothing more than God”? Religious extremists? Or just US people being US people?
Eh, We often have southern Christian fundamentalist, midwest Mormon Cult-like groups... and then offshoots like quiverfull people who want to pack the earth with their babies to help in the final battle against non-believers... For the most part, these groups abuse themselves and their families and are not outwardly violent, but many do have extreme religious views which do manifest in to violence, usually around abortion clinics.
Finicum, I believe was Catholic. Or at least that is the religion he was taking money from for adopting children. He seems more like he was just a county supremacist who wanted federal lands handed over to whatever person was standing near them at the time for personal profit.
That seems more like a generic tag church goers put on their resume or dating profile in this case over some motivation for his actions, but I haven't seen too much of his video blog to know how much he ranted on stuff from a religious angle.
https://www.onecowboystandforfreedom.com/about-american-fight-for-freedom/
Seemed more like a doomsday prepper/militaman over fundamentalist.
Yeah it's clearly not his religious belief that he was fighting for in this specific case, but this kind of sentence really feels like religious extremist when you pause and think about it…
Quote from your link:
“By their actions the Federal Government has become lawless and stalks the liberties of this land under the guise of social justice.”
So it's one more brave fighter trying to repel the hordes of evil Social Justice Warrior? Damn, they get smarter every time!
Also, remember freedom is important because some people have many children…
So, a Catholic that have tons of children, and rant about abortion (Democracy is bad because it allows people to vote for laws that support abortion. I guess autocracy is better because… oh wait, it does not prevent it either! Maybe anarchy? Yeah, I guess anarchy does not allow for laws or something…). Could he potentially be a religious extremist? He does check quite a few boxes imo.
Far right politics traditionally conflate 'Americaness' with 'Christianness' so it's really not that odd too see that in their rhetoric (in the sense that it's to be expected). Now that being said, whether or not Finicum himself conflated Americaness' with 'Christianess' idk. Rhetoric has a tendency to be picked up and carried by others, sometimes without full knowledge/consideration of the underlying assumptions.
Relapse wrote: Which is ironic, since the tribes were warring against each other and taking each other's lands before White people showed up on the continent.
Things people say to justify colonial thinking for $200 Alex.
Relapse wrote: Which is ironic, since the tribes were warring against each other and taking each other's lands before White people showed up on the continent.
Things people say to justify colonial thinking for $200 Alex.
No justification in what the Whites did, it was a series of atrocities, one piled on the other that shame us as a nation. The thing is, though, the tribes were no angels when it came to making war on each other, and to paint them as helpless innocents is revisionist. The Aztec Empire, for example well illustrates my statement.
Relapse wrote: Which is ironic, since the tribes were warring against each other and taking each other's lands before White people showed up on the continent.
Things people say to justify colonial thinking for $200 Alex.
No justification in what the Whites did, it was a series of atrocities, one piled on the other that shame us as a nation. The thing is, though, the tribes were no angels when it came to making war on each other, and to paint them as helpless innocents is revisionist. The Aztec Empire, for example well illustrates my statement.
Plus the various tribes were more than happy to sell each other out. And the vast majority of natives were killed by disease, which would have happened weather relations were peaceful or not.
Relapse wrote: Which is ironic, since the tribes were warring against each other and taking each other's lands before White people showed up on the continent.
Things people say to justify colonial thinking for $200 Alex.
No justification in what the Whites did, it was a series of atrocities, one piled on the other that shame us as a nation. The thing is, though, the tribes were no angels when it came to making war on each other, and to paint them as helpless innocents is revisionist. The Aztec Empire, for example well illustrates my statement.
Right, what with those firearms they had and all those horses. Certainly not helpless innocents.
The tribes where not entirely innocent in the events, there was bad on both sides. The various germs, virus and such the Natives had zero resistance to. What was a few weeks rest for a white, could kill them.
Admitaly, small pox blankets never help
They knew Native Americans had no resistance so exploited that one.
jhe90 wrote: The tribes where not entirely innocent in the events, there was bad on both sides. The various germs, virus and such the Natives had zero resistance to. What was a few weeks rest for a white, could kill them.
Admitaly, small pox blankets never help
They knew Native Americans had no resistance so exploited that one.
History is never 100% cut and dried.
Exactly. The tribes were slaughtering each other and taking over land when ever they had the chance before the Whites came. The Whites exploited this, as Templar said, along with using other advantages.
This is not me excusing the many disgraceful things that happened to the tribes here, but I am just pointing out that we shouldn't be thinking bad stuff didn't happen here before our ancestors arrived.
Did you? I haven't seen any updates on this in like a week, or however long since Captain Doughboy went on that rant and then the dance-and-apology the next day.
Final Oregon Refuge Occupiers Plan To Surrender After FBI Moves In During a phone call Wednesday night, the four remaining holdouts at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge discussed surrendering.
Late Wednesday night, Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy was also arrested in Portland.
Originally posted on Feb. 10, 2016, at 8:27 p.m.
Updated on Feb. 11, 2016, at 1:22 a.m.
FBI agents surrounded the four remaining occupiers at the federal wildlife refuge in Oregon Wednesday, prompting a tense standoff as a Nevada lawmaker raced to the scene to act as a negotiator.
Audio of the standoff was streamed on the YouTube channel of a supporter of the occupiers, who was on the phone with the holdouts as FBI agents reportedly moved to within 50 yards of their positions.
On the livestream, Nevada assemblywoman Michele Fiore — who has expressed support for the occupiers — could be heard telling the four holdouts that she was en route to the refuge from Portland and would arrive around 1 a.m. Both Fiore and one of the militants also discussed meeting with the FBI Thursday morning, and “turning themselves in” around 8 a.m.
Fiore also prayed with the occupiers, urged them to stay calm, and said she would negotiate with law enforcement.
In an unexpected development, Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy — who is the father of Oregon militia leader Ammon Bundy — also was arrested Wednesday night at the Portland airport. The arrest came hours after the Bundy family posted a message to its Facebook page saying Cliven was headed to Burns, Oregon.
Authorities did not immediately say why Bundy was arrested, but Oregonian journalist Les Zaitz reported that it was over conspiracy charges stemming from his own 2014 standoff with federal officials in Nevada.
Four people remain at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, where the FBI has reportedly surrounded them with vehicles. DefendYourBase / Via youtube.com
The four remaining occupiers at the Oregon refuge include David Fry, Sean Anderson, Sandy Anderson, and Jeff Banta. They have refused to leave the refuge despite calls from leader of the occupation Ammon Bundy.
The FBI confirmed in a statement its agents had surrounded the four remaining occupiers.
“We reached a point where it became necessary to take action in a way that best ensured the safety of those on the refuge, the law enforcement officers who are on scene, and the people of Harney County who live and work in this area,” Special Agent in Cahrge of the FBI in Oregon Greg Bretzing said in the statement.
One of the occupiers allegedly rode an ATV outside the barricades set up by the FBI surrounding the refuge, but drove away before agents were able to approach them.
Agents placed barricades ahead and behind the area where the four people are camping, according to the FBI.
“Negotiations between the occupiers and the FBI continue,” the FBI said. “No shots have been fired.”
In the live audio stream Wednesday evening, the occupiers could be heard shouting to the agents that had surrounded them, saying at one point that they were armed but wouldn’t fire first.
“You guys killed LaVoy,” Fry could be heard yelling, referring to the deadly shooting of occupier Robert LaVoy Finicum. “You let Obama bring terrorists into this country. You continue to let Hillary run for president.”
At another point, it seemed Fry was on the phone with an FBI negotiator, but the four continued to say they would not surrender.
“They don’t want a peaceful resolution. They want to kill us,” a woman who identified herself as Sandy Anderson said. “I’m not going to jail for standing up for my rights.”
Fiore continued talking to the occupiers after she arrived in Portland and began the five hour drive to the refuge, telling them she would walk them out of the refuge.
“I’m here, and I will not leave you in a prison cell,” she told them.
However, the four occupiers have not aired any intention of walking out. When an agent asked them to walk out without their weapons, they said they would not.
“Not without our weapons,” Sandy Anderson said. “We’re not leaving without our weapons.”
Cliven Bundy, the Nevada rancher who also sparked another standoff with FBI agents in Nevada in 2014, posted in a message in Facebook he was headed to Burns as well.
The occupation has been ongoing since Jan. 2, when Cliven Bundy’s son, Ammon Bundy, and several other people headed to the rural community to protest the arrest of two local ranchers.
Some of the protesters then headed to the refuge, where they demanded federal lands be turned over to local ranchers.
On Jan. 26, authorities arrested the leaders of the occupation, and killed Robert LaVoy Finicum after he sped away as authorities tried to pull over his truck.
FBI officials said Finicum was reaching for his left side, where he had a 9 mm handgun, when he was shot by an Oregon State Police officer.
Sixteen people involved in the occupation have so far been indicted by a grand jury on federal charges.
[…] “You let Obama bring terrorists into this country. You continue to let Hillary run for president.”
Damn you fedcoats, you let Hillary run for president! How terrifyingly un-American of you. I thought that this country was the Land of the Free, not the Land of Hillary Clinton Running for President. What are you, socialists? ROFL USA.
Seriously, I cannot believe how many of you are seriously campaigning for the right of those people to own and carry guns. Beats me.
[…] “You let Obama bring terrorists into this country. You continue to let Hillary run for president.”
Damn you fedcoats, you let Hillary run for president! How terrifyingly un-American of you. I thought that this country was the Land of the Free, not the Land of Hillary Clinton Running for President. What are you, socialists?
ROFL USA.
Seriously, I cannot believe how many of you are seriously campaigning for the right of those people to own and carry guns. Beats me.
We're a country founded on the rule of old white men. No girls allowed!
Just read on the internet that Bundy patriarch Cliven Bundy got himself arrested at an Oregon airport as he was on his way up to the standoff site. Which begs the question... why? They were already looking to surrender. What was he going to do? Make racist comments about how blacks were better under segregation so that the four remaining holdouts felt even more embarrassed to be there? I mean, if he was on his way to visit his sons in Federal lockup, I could understand it... but going to the standoff as it was winding down just seems like a desperate attempt to be relevant again.
I believe the USA has a statute of limitations so that if you evade the long arm of the law for seven years, you are let off most crimes and misdemeanours, though not big ones like murder and treason.
Was it wrong for the police to have arrested Cliveden Bundy for alleged crimes committed 18 months ago that he is still wanted for?
In an unexpected development, Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy — who is the father of Oregon militia leader Ammon Bundy — also was arrested Wednesday night at the Portland airport. The arrest came hours after the Bundy family posted a message to its Facebook page saying Cliven was headed to Burns, Oregon.
Authorities did not immediately say why Bundy was arrested, but Oregonian journalist Les Zaitz reported that it was over conspiracy charges stemming from his own 2014 standoff with federal officials in Nevada.
Good. Throw the book at him. Glad they got him without a shoot out.
Kilkrazy wrote: I believe the USA has a statute of limitations so that if you evade the long arm of the law for seven years, you are let off most crimes and misdemeanours, though not big ones like murder and treason.
Was it wrong for the police to have arrested Cliveden Bundy for alleged crimes committed 18 months ago that he is still wanted for?
The statute of limitations varies depending on what crime was committed (rape being longer than theft, etc). And no, it's perfectly fine to wait to arrest someone until doing so isn't a danger to law enforcement or anyone else. Leaving his ranch was definitely a mistake on his part.
Kilkrazy wrote: I believe the USA has a statute of limitations so that if you evade the long arm of the law for seven years, you are let off most crimes and misdemeanours, though not big ones like murder and treason.
Statute of limitations doesn't work like that.
The statute of limitations refers to the amount of time that can pass before criminal proceedings can be initiated; ie charges filed against you. Once those charges are filed, they don't go away unless the court decides to dismiss them.
Was it wrong for the police to have arrested Cliven Bundy for alleged crimes committed 18 months ago that he is still wanted for?
The TLDR version? Nope!
The more explain-y version is that as long as charges have been filed within a reasonable amount of time for the crime he is accused of committing, then the arrest is good.
I wonder if they realized that letting Bundy get away with it for this long encouraged the kind of behavior that resulted in the siege, so they arrested him now.
d-usa wrote: I wonder if they realized that letting Bundy get away with it for this long encouraged the kind of behavior that resulted in the siege, so they arrested him now.
More likely than not, they've been waiting for him to leave his ranch to get him.
He should have taken some advice from Roman Polanski and laid low.
d-usa wrote: Listened to some of the "negotiations" from last night. They sound like a bunch of spoiled kids. "If we get arrested we will go to jail!"
Rule #1 of standing up to authority: never do it unless you are willing to suffer the consequences of failure.
Seems like they have little to no grasp of how the whole civil disobedience thing worked, like they did with the Civil Rights movement back in the 60s. ...Oh, wait.
d-usa wrote: Listened to some of the "negotiations" from last night. They sound like a bunch of spoiled kids. "If we get arrested we will go to jail!"
Rule #1 of standing up to authority: never do it unless you are willing to suffer the consequences of failure.
Seems like they have little to no grasp of how the whole civil disobedience thing worked, like they did with the Civil Rights movement back in the 60s. ...Oh, wait.
Getting arrested was the whole point of the civil disobedience thing. That was the reason they decided to break these laws, because their arrests would serve as symbols of the unjust laws. They trained extensively to be able to remain passive as they were yelled at, spit on, and arrested.
If you are not willing to be arrested and face the charges, then you don't know how civil disobedience works.
Fry's meltdown would be comedy gold if there wasnt the potential for someone getting shot. Dude just cannot accept the situation he's in nor willing to accept the consequences of his actions...and is acting more than a wee bit loony.
d-usa wrote: Listened to some of the "negotiations" from last night. They sound like a bunch of spoiled kids. "If we get arrested we will go to jail!"
Rule #1 of standing up to authority: never do it unless you are willing to suffer the consequences of failure.
Seems like they have little to no grasp of how the whole civil disobedience thing worked, like they did with the Civil Rights movement back in the 60s. ...Oh, wait.
Getting arrested was the whole point of the civil disobedience thing. That was the reason they decided to break these laws, because their arrests would serve as symbols of the unjust laws. They trained extensively to be able to remain passive as they were yelled at, spit on, and arrested.
If you are not willing to be arrested and face the charges, then you don't know how civil disobedience works.
I'm not sure if my wording was vague, but I think we are very much on the same page with this.
I hope this last guy will just come to whatever senses he may have and just let this all end. I think avoiding needless casualties is everyone's priority, except for Fry himself; and honestly, drawing this out and pouting about the situation he got himself into looks really bad and isn't going to be pushing his agenda any further.
d-usa wrote: Listened to some of the "negotiations" from last night. They sound like a bunch of spoiled kids. "If we get arrested we will go to jail!"
Rule #1 of standing up to authority: never do it unless you are willing to suffer the consequences of failure.
Seems like they have little to no grasp of how the whole civil disobedience thing worked, like they did with the Civil Rights movement back in the 60s. ...Oh, wait.
Getting arrested was the whole point of the civil disobedience thing. That was the reason they decided to break these laws, because their arrests would serve as symbols of the unjust laws. They trained extensively to be able to remain passive as they were yelled at, spit on, and arrested.
If you are not willing to be arrested and face the charges, then you don't know how civil disobedience works.
I'm not sure if my wording was vague, but I think we are very much on the same page with this.
I hope this last guy will just come to whatever senses he may have and just let this all end. I think avoiding needless casualties is everyone's priority, except for Fry himself; and honestly, drawing this out and pouting about the situation he got himself into looks really bad and isn't going to be pushing his agenda any further.
10:27 a.m.: Fry says he doesn't care about the movement anymore. That he's doing this for himself.
9:55 a.m.: Fry says he is declaring a one-man war on the U.S. government, saying he wants "liberty or death."
8:40 a.m.: Nevada Assemblywoman Michele Fiore, a high-profile supporter of the Bundy family, said she and Christian evangelist Franklin Graham are traveling to the refuge. Fiore's trip to Oregon is in apparent response to a call from Ammon Bundy, who asked elected officials from across the West to come to the aid of the occupiers.
On her website, Fiore lists job creation, reducing business regulation and taxation and defending Second Amendment rights as among her priorities. She often displays her support for gun rights on social media. Last November, she promoted a 2016 calendar on Twitter that shows her with a firearm for every month of the year.
Finally, Fry said he wanted a cigarette and cookie and started walking out.
Ah, the classic "We have cookies" line. Oldest trick in the OPPRESSIVE, OVERREACHING FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S book.
I honestly wonder how many people involved were simply bandwagon-ing. Fry clearly did not feel motivated to continue his group's little "movement" as soon as he was the only one left.
d-usa wrote: Glad this got taken care of before spring, we would have had to switch to fedpolos.
Yes, after all these cowboys came together in tight quarters, a fire crackling nearby, the smell of lube and Ayn Rand in the air, and said they'd pound away at their grievances long and hard until they reached a spectacular climax, it would seem that they've blown their wad.
Yes, after all these cowboys came together in tight quarters, a fire crackling nearby, the smell of lube and Ayn Rand in the air, and said they'd pound away at their grievances long and hard until they reached a spectacular climax, it would seem that they've blown their wad.
Great read if you want a lesson on how to hang yourself.
Why does the phrase, "melodramatic morons" come to my mind when I think about this lot when I read theFBI paperwork and think about these occupiers and their statements of , "daddy gave an oath", and other such gems, along with that dance video?
Great read if you want a lesson on how to hang yourself.
Why does the phrase, "melodramatic morons" come to my mind when I think about this lot when I read theFBI paperwork and think about these occupiers and their statements of , "daddy gave an oath", and other such gems, along with that dance video?
It's like the exact opposite of all the "don't talk to the police" videos you would expect from these guys.
Instead we get the idiot version of "villain antagonist monologuing about his crimes to the protagonist" trope
The weird part is how these guys were so sure they were standing up stalwart in the face of tyranny and... whatever, that the people would rise up and join them. I presume that they're going to take that to mean that most Americans will side the government because only a few select can be patriots/sheepdogs/whatever stupid catchphrase, rather than they didn't garner popular support because they're a bunch of morons. They're still sure they're the good guys in this narrative!
I guess it's fun to play pretend and all, but at the end of the day, Lavoy Finicum is dead for reasons best described as "idiotic" and the rest of them are going to be getting poorly done needle& ink Molon Labe tattoos in prison.
ROCHESTER, NH - The Federal Bureau of Investigation has taken custody of Jerry DeLemus, a New Hampshire Tea Party activist who previously made trips to Nevada to take part in the Bundy Ranch stand-off and the federal forestry building seizure in Oregon two months ago, according to reports.
DeLemus faces nine federal charges including conspiracy to commit an offense against the United States, threatening a federal law enforcement officer, obstruction of justice, attempting to impede or injure a federal law enforcement officer and several firearms charges, when he was in Nevada to support the Bundy family at the ranch.
According to the indictment, DeLemus was a “mid-level leader and organizer of the conspiracy who, among other things: recruited, organized, trained and provided logistical support to gunmen and other Followers and organized and led armed patrols and security checkpoints.”
According to Jack Kimball, the former chairman of the New Hampshire GOP, state Rep. Susan DeLemus, R-Rochester, Jerry’s wife, called him and said they had taken custody of him today (March 3, 2016).
“She said that the FBI just rolled up with lots of vehicles and Agents who were in tactical gear,” Kimball wrote on Facebook earlier this morning. ”They forced their way into Jerry DeLemus and Sue’s condo with weapons drawn and arrested Jerry and took him away.”
Kimball said he believed the custody was connected to the Bundy Ranch incident and asked “all NH patriots to come together ASAP” to ”protest this tyranny in the most visible way possible.”
Kimball said he would update his friends on Facebook after receiving more information.
“A good and Patriotic Marine is now being prosecuted for standing up for Liberty,” he noted.
A media relations officer at the FBI Boston office referred all questions about the charges to the Department of Justice. The U.S. DOJ has not returned an email request to Patch.
Additional folks arrested today include this fine gentleman:
Fourteen Additional Defendants Charged For Felony Crimes Related To 2014 Standoff In Nevada
LAS VEGAS, Nev. – The federal grand jury in Nevada has charged 14 more defendants in connection with the armed assault against federal law enforcement officers that occurred in the Bunkerville, Nev. area on April 12, 2014, over the removal of Cliven Bundy’s cows from public lands, announced U.S. Attorney Daniel G. Bogden for the District of Nevada and Special Agent in Charge Laura Bucheit for the FBI in Nevada.
“This investigation began the day after the assault against federal law enforcement officers and continues to this day,” said U.S. Attorney Bogden. “We will continue to work to identify the assaulters and their role in the assault and the aftermath, in order to ensure that justice is served.”
A superseding criminal indictment was returned by the grand jury on Wednesday, March 2, and now charges a total of 19 defendants. The 14 new defendants are Melvin D. Bundy, 41, of Round Mountain, Nev., David H. Bundy, 39, of Delta, Utah, Brian D. Cavalier, 44, of Bunkerville, Nev., Blaine Cooper, 36, of Humboldt, Ariz., Gerald A. DeLemus, 61, of Rochester, N.H., Eric J. Parker, 32, of Hailey, Idaho, O. Scott Drexler, 44, of Challis, Idaho, Richard R. Lovelien, 52, of Westville, Okla., Steven A. Stewart, 36, of Hailey, Idaho, Todd C. Engel, 48, of Boundary County, Idaho, Gregory P. Burleson, 52, of Phoenix, Ariz., Joseph D. O’Shaughnessy, 43, of Cottonwood, Ariz., and Micah L. McGuire, 31, and Jason D. Woods, 30, both of Chandler, Ariz.
Twelve defendants were arrested earlier today. Two defendants, Brian D. Cavalier and Blaine Cooper, were already in federal custody in the District of Oregon.
“These indictments and subsequent arrests send an irrefutable message to the American people that our determination remains steadfast to protect them and pursue individuals who participate in violent acts of this nature,” said Special Agent in Charge Bucheit.
The newly-added defendants are charged with one count of conspiracy to commit an offense against the United States and conspiracy to impede or injure a federal officer, and at least one count of using and carrying a firearm in relation to a crime of violence, assault on a federal officer, threatening a federal law enforcement officer, obstruction of the due administration of justice, interference with interstate commerce by extortion, and interstate travel in aid of extortion. The indictment also alleges five counts of criminal forfeiture which upon conviction would require forfeiture of property derived from the proceeds of the crimes totaling at least $3 million, as well as the firearms and ammunition possessed and used on April 12, 2014.
Charges against the original five defendants, Cliven D. Bundy, 69, of Bunkerville, Nev., Ryan C. Bundy, 43, of Mesquite, Nev., Ammon E. Bundy, 40, of Emmet, Idaho, Ryan W. Payne, 32, of Anaconda, Mont., and Peter T. Santilli, Jr., 50, of Cincinnati, Ohio, remain the same.
The superseding indictment states that the charges result from a massive armed assault against federal law enforcement officers that occurred in and around Bunkerville, Nev., on April 12, 2014. The defendants are alleged to have planned, organized, and led the assault in order to extort the officers into abandoning approximately 400 head of cattle that were in their lawful care and custody. In addition to conspiring among themselves to plan and execute these crimes, the defendants recruited, organized, and led hundreds of other followers in using armed force against law enforcement officers in order to thwart the seizure and removal of Cliven Bundy’s cattle from federal public lands. Bundy had trespassed on the public lands for over 20 years, refusing to obtain the legally-required permits or pay the required fees to keep and graze his cattle on the land.
The superseding indictment charges that Cliven Bundy was the leader, organizer, and chief beneficiary of the conspiracy, and possessed ultimate authority over the conspiratorial operations and received the economic benefits of the extortion. The remaining defendants are charged as leaders and organizers who conspired with Bundy to achieve his criminal objectives.
The maximum penalties for the charges are stated below.
Conspiracy to Commit an Offense Against the United States – 5 years, $250,000 fine
Conspiracy to Impede and Injure a Federal Law Enforcement Officer – 6 years, $250,000 fine
Assault on a Federal Law Enforcement Officer – 20 years, $250,000 fine
Threatening a Federal Law Enforcement Officer – 10 years, $250,000 fine
Use and Carry of a Firearm in Relation to a Crime of Violence – 5 years minimum and consecutive
Obstruction of the Due Administration of Justice - 10 years, $250,000 fine
Interference with Interstate Commerce by Extortion - 20 years, $250,000 fine
Interstate Travel in Aid of Extortion – 20 years, $250,000 fine
The case is being investigated by the FBI and the Bureau of Land Management. It is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Steven W. Myhre and Nicholas D. Dickinson and Special Assistant U.S. Attorneys Nadia J. Ahmed and Erin M. Creegan.
The public is reminded that an indictment contains only charges and is not evidence of guilt. The defendants are presumed innocent and entitled to a fair trial at which the government has the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Kind of laughing to myself, remembering an argument that "well, you don't know that he was pointing his rifle at any cops from any of the pictures we've seen".
I find it kind of distasteful when the number of reporters dwarfs the number of police, and where reporters are seemingly able to cross police lines to literally stand in a big group around a person pointing a gun at a large group of their colleagues and police...
Makes sense to me. The gun guys let them in so they can take pictures to show the world how they're standing up to The Man. The cops let them go so they can take pictures of the gun guys pointing guns at the cops that they can later use to identify the gun guys and show as evidence that they were in fact pointing guns at cops.
The Oregon State Police had a press conference today breaking down the encounter with Lavoy Finicum, who the Branch Dildonians claimed was shot while trying to surrender with his hands in the air.
spoiler: that wasn't true
From the video and previous articles, it sounds like he was 3% patriot, 97% crazy person pulling a suicide by cop.
I guess when your foster kid gravy train ends, and you have to consider getting a job, a man gets mighty desperate.
New charges include possession of firearms inside a federal facility, using a firearm while threatening violence, theft, and damaging an archeological site.
Bundy keeps on being Bundy, of course:
Ammon Bundy's attorneys told the judge that he wanted to be advised of his rights. U.S. District Court Judge Anna Brown denied the request, noting that they were read at three prior court appearances.
"I know I have no rights, so thank you," Bundy said.
d-usa wrote: Looks like additional charges were filed today to add to the initial "interfering with a federal employee" charge or whatever they called it.
New charges include possession of firearms inside a federal facility, using a firearm while threatening violence, theft, and damaging an archeological site.
Bundy keeps on being Bundy, of course:
Ammon Bundy's attorneys told the judge that he wanted to be advised of his rights. U.S. District Court Judge Anna Brown denied the request, noting that they were read at three prior court appearances.
"I know I have no rights, so thank you," Bundy said.
The archeological site charge seems questionable to me, but I don't know the specific details about where they dug their gak pit. I sure hope it's not referring to the artifacts they were screwing with in the basement, because if so, that's pretty weak.
Also, what's the harm in advising him of his rights again? What's the rush? He keeps asking, write them out and just give him a copy every time.
d-usa wrote: Looks like additional charges were filed today to add to the initial "interfering with a federal employee" charge or whatever they called it.
New charges include possession of firearms inside a federal facility, using a firearm while threatening violence, theft, and damaging an archeological site.
Bundy keeps on being Bundy, of course:
Ammon Bundy's attorneys told the judge that he wanted to be advised of his rights. U.S. District Court Judge Anna Brown denied the request, noting that they were read at three prior court appearances.
"I know I have no rights, so thank you," Bundy said.
The archeological site charge seems questionable to me, but I don't know the specific details about where they dug their gak pit. I sure hope it's not referring to the artifacts they were screwing with in the basement, because if so, that's pretty weak.
I haven't seen the actual paperwork (they should be public at some point I would think), but my guess is that it may be related to them driving the heavy equipment around to create barriers and barricades and tearing down stuff.
Another charge, depredation of government property, was leveled against Sean Anderson and another sympathizer, whose name has been redacted from court documents. It alleges the pair damaged an archeological site considered sacred to the Burns Paiute Tribe through the use of excavation and heavy equipment.
The FBI has said it was working with the tribe to identify damage to its artifacts and sacred burial grounds during the 41-day occupation.
Apparently the Lavoy takedown was a bit more complicated than it was made to appear. He was shot and the vehicle was fired on indiscriminately not to mention random flash bang grenades thrown. He also was unarmed as he had left his gun at the refuge center when traveling. The gun was also repeatedly pictured on his right hip, not in a chest holster even if he was carrying it. Whats being said right now was he threw his arm up to his chest because he was shot already in that location. Sounds like he was shot as soon as he left the vehicle. Might have taken a second for him to register the hit.
Sorry Its a FB video posting, I cant find the same video elsewhere. Note the shot out windows. Note also I would not be surprised if this was in fact suicide by cop but I think the police over reacted.
He also did not try and run the guy over. He tried to avoid hitting the roadblock and the moron cop very obviously ran in front of him.
Col. Dash wrote: Apparently the Lavoy takedown was a bit more complicated than it was made to appear. He was shot and the vehicle was fired on indiscriminately not to mention random flash bang grenades thrown. He also was unarmed as he had left his gun at the refuge center when traveling. The gun was also repeatedly pictured on his right hip, not in a chest holster even if he was carrying it. Whats being said right now was he threw his arm up to his chest because he was shot already in that location. Sounds like he was shot as soon as he left the vehicle. Might have taken a second for him to register the hit.
Sorry Its a FB video posting, I cant find the same video elsewhere. Note the shot out windows. Note also I would not be surprised if this was in fact suicide by cop but I think the police over reacted.
He also did not try and run the guy over. He tried to avoid hitting the roadblock and the moron cop very obviously ran in front of him.
- He had a gun in the pocket he was reaching for.
- He was shot in the back, not his chest.
- It doesn't matter if he intended to run the guy over, his unlawful actions created the potential of running the guy over even if the cop is a "moron" for attempting to get out way of the vehicle.
- The shooting has been declared justified, no matter what random conspiracy theory videos on facebook may claim.
- The FBI agents are under investigation for their part in the shooting and their failure to disclose their actions.
Did you watch the video? It was live, uncut action of the entire incident not a conspiracy video.
Now granted, as with so many police shootings, if the people would have simply done what the police said and not escalated it by arguing the entire incident would likely have gone peacefully and no one would have been shot.
He was trying to avoid hitting vehicles in the road. He is dead so they cant charge him with attempted murder but they would have even though there was obviously no attempt.
Who says he had a gun in his pocket? The guys at the facility took a picture of his gun which he left at the facility. And again, he habitually wore it on a holster on his hip, why would he suddenly wear it somewhere he wasn't used to carrying it that he wasn't as practiced at drawing it?
it sounds like he was shot as he exited the vehicle and then again from the guy behind him. Who taught these cops to stand on opposite sides of the guy they are shooting at? That's just asking for a blue on blue incident.
Nothing explains yet why they continued to fire blindly into an occupied vehicle without asking them to get out or the victims offering any resistance or showing any weapons.
it sounds like he was shot as he exited the vehicle and then again from the guy behind him.
And then took 10-12 steps with his hands in the air? bs.
I have seen the full, unedited video. It sounds like you haven't.
He had a gun on him, he went for it.
"Nothing explains yet why they continued to fire blindly into an occupied vehicle without asking them to get out or the victims offering any resistance or showing any weapons."
I have seen no report that says the police shot up the car and tossed in flash-bangs other than from his lying widow. the video shows no such bs.
This popped up in my news feed today on Yahoo, thought it was interesting.
LAS VEGAS (AP) — A Nevada judge has refused to let a nationally known conservative lawyer join Cliven Bundy's defense team because of ongoing disciplinary proceedings against him in Washington, D.C.
The Las Vegas Review-Journal reports (http://bit.ly/1Vk90wP ) that U.S. District Judge Gloria Navarro wrote in a three-page order that she didn't think Larry Klayman has been candid about the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings.
Klayman disclosed in court documents that no disciplinary action had been taken and the proceedings would likely soon be resolved in his favor, which Navarro said was "misleading and incomplete."
Navarro ruled that Klayman can reapply to represent Bundy if he submits documents related to those proceedings and others against him in Florida.
On Friday, Klayman said there has been no final resolution in his disciplinary proceedings, as he said in his court filings.
"We're going to obey the judge's order," he said. "Whatever information she'd like is not a problem."
Klayman is the founder of Washington-based public interest groups Judicial Watch and Freedom Watch and is known for his aggressive pursuit of litigation. His work is mostly in support of a wide range of conservative and libertarian issues.
Bundy is facing criminal charges stemming from the April 2014 armed standoff with law enforcement near his ranch in Bunkerville. He is currently represented by Las Vegas attorney Joel Hansen, who is active in the ultraconservative Independent American Party of Nevada.
Hansen filed court documents asking Navarro to let Klayman help with Bundy's defense, saying Bundy "wants and needs" Klaymen to avoid harming his constitutional rights.
Klayman's current disciplinary proceedings stem from three separate alleged conflicts of interest in litigation involving Judicial Watch. Klayman agreed to a public censure in the disciplinary case in June 2014.
I'm not clear what bearing the disciplinary hearings and their outcomes have on his ability to represent the Bundys - unless he's being disbarred, or suspended?
Ouze wrote: I'm not clear what bearing the disciplinary hearings and their outcomes have on his ability to represent the Bundys - unless he's being disbarred, or suspended?
Yeah, but so what? I mean, he should be censured or whatever is appropriate in that unrelated matter, but if he's currently legally qualified to practice law - if it's not been disbarred or suspended - why are the Bundy's being deprived of the right to the attorney of their choice? I'm not getting it - the grounds to disqualify him.
Ouze wrote: Yeah, but so what? I mean, he should be censured or whatever is appropriate in that unrelated matter, but if he's currently legally qualified to practice law - if it's not been disbarred or suspended - why are the Bundy's being deprived of the right to the attorney of their choice? I'm not getting it - the grounds to disqualify him.
The fact that he's lied about the proceedings is the whole reason why the judge is disallowing him from representing Bundy.
If it was one instance of this being a problem, it might get overlooked. A cursory look at his history though says that is not the case.
Ammon Bundy plans to challenge the constitutionality of the criminal charges against him — an argument that legal experts found laughably deficient.
The 40-year-old truck mechanic is among 27 militants indicted on federal charges in connection with the armed takeover of Malhuer National Wildlife Refuge in January.
His attorneys filed court documents Friday challenging federal jurisdiction because, they argued, the U.S. government cannot prove it owns the land and therefore cannot pay its employees to work there, reported Patch.com.
Bundy and the other militants are charged with, among other crimes, interfering with the work of government scientists and others who manage the Oregon nature preserve.
Attorney Mike Arnold told the website that Bundy and the other armed men who took over the wildlife refuge were simply “patriots” exercising their First Amendment rights.
Bundy and his attorneys are asking for a hearing so they can argue that the the Enclave Clause of the Constitution prohibits the U.S. government from owning or managing public lands.
That’s the same claim made by Koch brothers-backed Republican lawmakers to argue that states or individuals, rather than the federal government, should take over control of public lands.
However, experts say case law contradicts that claim.
“The unmistakable legal reality is that a series of solid, indisputable U.S. Supreme Court cases establishes that the federal government is constitutionally empowered to own land, control that land through federal statutes and regulations as it sees fit, and dispose of that land if it chooses to ‘without limitation,'” said Susan Smith, a law professor at Willamette University.
She was asked in January, after the occupation began, by the Association of Oregon Counties to research and write about the militants’ constitutional interpretations.
Other legal experts agree that Bundy and his attorneys will have a difficult time proving their arguments.
“We look forward to Ammon Bundy’s attempt to re-litigate 200 years of jurisprudence regarding the property clause, and United States v. Oregon, the 1935 Supreme Court case that specifically established the American people’s ownership of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge,” said Jennifer Rokala, executive director of the nonpartisan Center for Western Priorities.
What a compelling argument.
Stage 2 presumably is closing their eyes and insisting that if they cannot see them then they do not exist.
Apparently WW2 was illegal because the USA doesn't own Europe, North Africa and the Pacific Ocean and thus couldn't legally pay the armed forces to work there.
Kilkrazy wrote: Apparently WW2 was illegal because the USA doesn't own Europe, North Africa and the Pacific Ocean and thus couldn't legally pay the armed forces to work there.
gak... I hope this doesn't mean I owe the government back pay for my 6 years overseas...
If you got paid in so-called "US dollars" which is an imaginary fiat currency invented by the federal government to disenfranchise free citizens, then you are SOL.
Kilkrazy wrote: Apparently WW2 was illegal because the USA doesn't own Europe, North Africa and the Pacific Ocean and thus couldn't legally pay the armed forces to work there.
gak... I hope this doesn't mean I owe the government back pay for my 6 years overseas...
The tyrannical US Government will just re-enlist you to pay back that money you stole!
Kilkrazy wrote: Apparently WW2 was illegal because the USA doesn't own Europe, North Africa and the Pacific Ocean and thus couldn't legally pay the armed forces to work there.
gak... I hope this doesn't mean I owe the government back pay for my 6 years overseas...
The tyrannical US Government will just re-enlist you to pay back that money you stole!
I can see the government doing that, reenlinst you, make you pay back your salary at the 1970 rate, while paying you a salary at todays rate
:
.
