Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Ok, we're getting in some interesting reports. According to some, the man in question was unarmed and not resisting when shot.

The official word is that it was all their fault for occupying the refuge, and things don't always go to plan, and that it's unclear who fired first.

Which sounds like officers opened fire first. No word on any weapons recovered at the scene at all.

If true, I wonder if there will be a #whitelivesmatter?

Opening fire first is not always wrong, it really will depend on 'why' they opened fire first (assuming they did).

I wonder if we'll ever get an accurate account of the event.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Ok, we're getting in some interesting reports. According to some, the man in question was unarmed and not resisting when shot.

The official word is that it was all their fault for occupying the refuge, and things don't always go to plan, and that it's unclear who fired first.

Which sounds like officers opened fire first. No word on any weapons recovered at the scene at all.

If true, I wonder if there will be a #whitelivesmatter?

Sources?

 CptJake wrote:

I wonder if we'll ever get an accurate account of the event.

Doubtful unless someone's dash cam leaks.

Agreed on shooting first, but this does not quite sound like that sort of situation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

Sources?

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/27/us/oregon-wildlife-refuge-siege-arrests/index.html

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/01/27/1-killed-1-injured-during-arrest-ammon-bundy-leader-oregon-standoff.html

I think that there are some stupid cops out there, but I'm more likely to believe that Obama is a lizardman than I am to believe that cops who know that all news/militias/freemen/whatever are watching their every move would just shoot a guy laying flat on the ground for no reason at all.

 CptJake wrote:
Opening fire first is not always wrong, it really will depend on 'why' they opened fire first (assuming they did).

They may have had an itchy trigger finger, that honestly wouldn't surprise me. Especially considering that they know for a fact that during the last standoff the same kind of folks had federal officers in their sights with rifles ready for a reason to pull the trigger, multiple accounts of these particular folks declaring that they will use their weapons if the police tried to take them, and the dead guy declaring that he was ready to go out guns blazing and dying for this cause. Even if they were unarmed (which the cops wouldn't know) it doesn't take a lot of wrong kinds of sudden movements from the "we are going to kill federal officers and go down dying as martyrs" folks to get a violent response.

I wonder if we'll ever get an accurate account of the event.

I would really be surprised if there weren't recordings. I would even be inclined to think it's more than body cams and that the FBI probably had folks assigned to the sole role of recording it with real cameras to back them up in court.

 d-usa wrote:

I would really be surprised if there weren't recordings. I would even be inclined to think it's more than body cams and that the FBI probably had folks assigned to the sole role of recording it with real cameras to back them up in court.

It'll look pretty bad if there weren't.

Honestly, it won't make a difference.

The Federal Government will have altered the recordings, planted agents inside the compound who hypnotized the dead guy, or drugged them all, made sure that they would resist so that they could shoot them, and that all weapons found were planted, and more long lines of government lies and deception to illegally rule over us all.

It won't matter what the camera shows to these guys. This will continue.

 Asherian Command wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:
still got 10 or so held up armed to the teeth, with food, ammo and now paranoia overloaded as all leaders taken away and one dead.

its got more dangerous.

Well all they have to do as the police is literally hunker down and siege the place, starving them of resources, turning off water, and power, cutting all areas around it off, and basically making the militia starve. By the time they surrendered they would of been weakened by it. Its brutal yes, but considering what these idiots have done......

True, a full siege cutting them off. Only thing weakened and wounded can be more dangerous. Feds would have to tread a careful line, but keeping a perimeter at 500+ metres can be done, keep officers out harms way if they go totally stupid.

 d-usa wrote:
It won't matter what the camera shows to these guys. This will continue.

And if it shows them blow away a kneeling unarmed old man on the pavement?

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

I wonder if we'll ever get an accurate account of the event.

Doubtful unless someone's dash cam leaks.

Agreed on shooting first, but this does not quite sound like that sort of situation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

Sources?

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/27/us/oregon-wildlife-refuge-siege-arrests/index.html

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/01/27/1-killed-1-injured-during-arrest-ammon-bundy-leader-oregon-standoff.html

The only people who said they had their hands in their air were the terrorists themselves, relayed by Cliven and the dead dudes foster child. But they both are paragons of truth so they would never lie to make a situations advantageous to themselves

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
It won't matter what the camera shows to these guys. This will continue.

And if it shows them blow away a kneeling unarmed old man on the pavement?

Then I guess Obama is Hitler?

 BaronIveagh wrote:

And if it shows them blow away a kneeling unarmed old man on the pavement?

Eyewitness testimony from an occupier.

 Ouze wrote:
He's drunkenly threatening cops so his children don't have to.

He's about the caliber of the militia guys that told me that gak, right to a "t". The solemn look on the face of the one that gave me that statement made me think he expected me to bow to the nobility of the words.

I had a suspicion that Obama wasn't Hitler...

 d-usa wrote:
I had a suspicion that Obama wasn't Hitler...

No, but he's still just another assclown of a politician.

 dogma wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

And if it shows them blow away a kneeling unarmed old man on the pavement?

Eyewitness testimony from an occupier.

Thanks for that. I knew I'd read that he was charging somewhere, but couldn't find a link from my laptop.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I had a suspicion that Obama wasn't Hitler...

No, but he's still just another assclown of a politician.

Of note: he's the assclown that signed the bill into law that made it legal to carry in national parks.

https://news.vice.com/article/come-get-some-miltia-prepares-for-battle-as-feds-surround-oregon-wildlife-refuge

During a livestream from the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge on Wednesday morning, an armed occupier dressed in fatigues is seen holding a rifle. He spoke directly into the camera, seemingly addressing authorities in the aftermath of the arrests and the shooting that occurred on a highway close to the refuge on Tuesday night.

"You want some militiamen? Come get some," the man said, standing in front of what appeared to be a piece of heavy-duty excavating equipment. "It's what you been training for, preparing for.

"Media's been waiting for a bloodbath this whole time we've been here," he added. "Now there's going to be one."

The arrests on Tuesday angered anti-government protesters across the country, said Mike Vanderboegh, a gun-rights activist active in self-proclaimed militia circles.

"It's all I can do to keep people from going and shooting feds right now," he told Reuters.

So we now have them instead of dancing around the subject saying they will kill people and probably go and try and kill more people.

 d-usa wrote:

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I had a suspicion that Obama wasn't Hitler...

No, but he's still just another assclown of a politician.

Of note: he's the assclown that signed the bill into law that made it legal to carry in national parks.

I don't know man. I heard Obama wants to take away all the guns and that doesn't sound like something you do when you want to take away all the guns.

Clearly he wants everyone to take their guns to national parks, where his Islamic Lizardmen allies can leap out from behind the bushes and steal them...

Redcoats man, can't trust them, can't violently overthrow their reign. What is a militia to do...

 dogma wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

And if it shows them blow away a kneeling unarmed old man on the pavement?

Eyewitness testimony from an occupier.

“He’s like, just shoot me then, just shoot me — and they did, they shot him dead,” Sharp said. “They shot him right there, he was just walking — I saw it. I swear to God, he was just walking with his hands in the air.” supposed witness Victoria Sharp.

"“He was not on his knees, none of that,” McConnell said. “He was none of that nonsense. You know, that was a miscommunication on somebody else’s part. But he went after them. He charged them. " supposed witness McConnell.

Again, getting two different stories already.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

And if it shows them blow away a kneeling unarmed old man on the pavement?

Eyewitness testimony from an occupier.

“He’s like, just shoot me then, just shoot me — and they did, they shot him dead,” Sharp said. “They shot him right there, he was just walking — I saw it. I swear to God, he was just walking with his hands in the air.”

Conveniently ignores all of the other testimony but instead takes a 18 year old kids instead

Which is notably different from the other account...

 Ustrello wrote:

Conveniently ignores all of the other testimony but instead takes a 18 year old kids instead

We got two people telling two different stories and both are supposed witnesses. Sharp was in the car with him, McConnell was not.

"Mark McConnell in his video, saying that McConnell and Bundy were in a vehicle traveling north up US 395 with a second bodyguard, Brian “Booda” Cavalier, when they were stopped by law enforcement officers serving an arrest warrant.

A second vehicle — which contained Ryan Bundy, Ryan Payne, Shawna Cox, Finicum and Victoria Sharp — went around their stopped comrades’ vehicle but ran into a blockade about a mile away."


So a guy who was stopped by cops a mile away was insisting he charged the cops, but the woman who was in the car with the guy is saying that is not what happened.

and you guys are seriously believing the guy who was a mile away from what happened by his own admission?

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

Conveniently ignores all of the other testimony but instead takes a 18 year old kids instead

We got two people telling two different stories and both are supposed witnesses.

We've got two people stating one story and one person saying another.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

He (McConnell) said Cox told him that Finicum crashed into the snowbank, jumped out of the manual transmission diesel pickup with the rear wheels still spinning and charged toward law enforcement officers.

The bodyguard said Cox and Payne each told him that Finicum charged toward officers before he was shot, and he explicitly denied that the rancher had surrendered or complied with law enforcement.

So once again two people in the same car vs a 18 year old kid

 Ustrello wrote:

We've got two people stating one story and one person saying another.

No, we have a guy who was not there at all saying he heard someone say that...

We have a guy who was a mile from the action saying that he thinks that....

and we have a woman who was right there in the car with him....

Who had the better view?

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

We've got two people stating one story and one person saying another.

No, we have a guy who was not there at all saying he heard someone say that...

We have a guy who was a mile from the action saying that he thinks that....

and we have a woman who was right there in the car with him....

Who had the better view?

The two people in the car saying he charged them and a 18 year old kid who is lying

 Ustrello wrote:

The two people in the car saying he charged them and a 18 year old kid who is lying

No, we don't, because they haven't said anything to anyone, they're in jail. We have a second hand report that someone heard from them that...

You may have heard of the term 'hearsay'?

So, atm, we have one witness. Is she the last word in testimony? Probably not. But an actual witness trumps two guys on face book saying their buddies told them that....

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

The two people in the car saying he charged them and a 18 year old kid who is lying

No, we don't, because they haven't said anything to anyone, they're in jail. We have a second hand report that someone heard from them that...

You may have heard of the term 'hearsay'?

So, atm, we have one witness.

Baron I get it you dislike the federal government, but seriously you are just kidding yourself right now. We literally have 4 witnesses, 2 are giving one story, one isn't talking and one is giving a radically different story than everyone else. I am pretty sure we can see the outlier here.

Also it is fairly ironic you are calling the majority testimony hearsay when the kids is literally hearsay also