150 Armed Militia Members Take Over Federal Building

[Belsnickel]

(03-16-2016, 09:42 AM)bfine32 Wrote: But a reporter stating that in a private cell phone conversation that one of the occupiers told him he was ready to kill or be killed was enough for many to take seriously. Why trust one over the other?

Who said I trust one over the other? I saw statements made by Bundy directly about if there were shots being fired it would be the Feds to start it to be a threat. Since the SOP is for law enforcement to not fire unless facing an threat the only way for things to have kicked off would be for them to resist arrest for their crimes. That was as much a threat as the unconfirmed phone call.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-16-2016, 11:33 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Because no one else had a statement issuing a threat; that was hot, why do you think it got so much play?  As soon as that reporter said he was told that over the phone, every source ran with it in quotes. Perhaps the reporter did not lie; perhaps it was entirely true that what he was reported was what was said. Conersely, what if he miss quoted and the person on the other end simply said we are prepared to die for our cause or the reporter decided to embelish just a tad? You find it unlikely that a reporter would sensationalize a story; I do not.

Perhaps the reporter had no agenda (perhaps); but do you think those that took the unsubstantiated words from the reporter as a bona fide threat had an agenda?

Here's what I know beyond a doubt.  Only one person was killed in this entire situation.  Only one person out of dozens of armed criminals got shot.  Only one person jumped out of a car after fleeing law enforcement and almost crashing into a road block.  Only one person moved around erratically and reached down towards his belt line while law enforcement had weapons trained on him.  It just so happened that the only person to act in a manner that got him killed was also quoted by a media source as saying he would never be taken alive.  Coincidence?  Possibly but that's a hell of a coincidence.

[*bfine32*]

(03-16-2016, 11:57 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Here's what I know beyond a doubt.  Only one person was killed in this entire situation.  Only one person out of dozens of armed criminals got shot.  Only one person jumped out of a car after fleeing law enforcement and almost crashing into a road block.  Only one person moved around erratically and reached down towards his belt line while law enforcement had weapons trained on him.  It just so happened that the only person to act in a manner that got him killed was also quoted by a media source as saying he would never be taken alive.  Coincidence?  Possibly but that's a hell of a coincidence.

I also know there is a huge difference between saying "I am willing to die for my cause" and saying "I am prepared to kill or be killed".

As to the killing. I have said repeatedly that the person put themselves in the situation. I have also said if I were in charge of the roadblock the vehicle would not have made it as far as it did. Now it appears I may have to add to that; unless my intent was to lure them into a kill zone.

Without going back and rewatching or rereading I believe I mentioned something about the location of the roadbloack; as if they were trying to mask its location. Of course this is pure speculation and even less credible than an unsubstaniated cell phone call, but it kinda matchs the story of the FBI wanted them dead.

[Rotobeast]

(03-16-2016, 12:05 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I have also said if I were in charge of the roadblock the vehicle would not have made it as far as it did. Now it appears I may have to add to that; unless my intent was to lure them into a kill zone.

Without going back and rewatching or rereading I believe I mentioned something about the location of the roadbloack; as if they were trying to mask its location. Of course this is pure speculation and even less credible than an unsubstaniated cell phone call, but it kinda matchs the story of the FBI wanted them dead.

I am suspicious of the situation, but I believe the roadblock was positioned to avoid further evasion.

[Mike M (the other one)]

One thing I'm not sure if, if they were on the way to meet the Sheriff in the next county, why they didn't let them get there then arrest them while they were outside of the vehicles?
Seems to me it would've been the safer route.

[fredtoast]

(03-16-2016, 12:05 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I also know there is a huge difference between saying "I am willing to die for my cause" and saying "I am prepared to kill or be killed".

Actually when the person is armed you have to treat them as if there is no difference.

If this was some big conspiracy by the FBI then they would not have killed just one guy and left all of the others as witnesses.  They also knew that they were on camera when they killed him.

[fredtoast]

(03-16-2016, 12:53 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: One thing I'm not sure if, if they were on the way to meet the Sheriff in the next county, why they didn't let them get there then arrest them while they were outside of the vehicles?
Seems to me it would've been the safer route.

No.  You could not take the risk of a shoot out in a town where there would be other people around.  Also have to get them in a spot where they are pinned in without an escape route.

[*bfine32*]

(03-16-2016, 01:22 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Actually when the person is armed you have to treat them as if there is no difference.

Who was talking about how you treat them?

[fredtoast]

(03-16-2016, 01:45 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Who was talking about how you treat them?

Everyone here who is discussing him getting shot.

The guy was armed and said he was willing to die for his cause.  That means the same as he is willing to kill for his cause.  The comment he made changed the way the officers perceived the threat from him.  They may not have been as quick to shoot if he had not made those comments.

[*bfine32*]

(03-16-2016, 03:00 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Everyone here who is discussing him getting shot.

The guy was armed and said he was willing to die for his cause.  That means the same as he is willing to kill for his cause.  The comment he made changed the way the officers perceived the threat from him.  They may not have been as quick to shoot if he had not made those comments.

You may consider I am willing to die and I am willing to kill to be the same thing. Hell even Tennessee courts may have that opinion; however, I doubt it is a universal rule.

I have not seen anyone here blame anyone bother than the dude that got shot for getting shot. However, I would say that had very little to do with him saying he was willing to die.

Would you say he deserved to be killed if it is discovered the FBI set a "trap" with the intent of killing him?

[Rotobeast]

(03-16-2016, 03:00 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Everyone here who is discussing him getting shot.

The guy was armed and said he was willing to die for his cause.  That means the same as he is willing to kill for his cause.  The comment he made changed the way the officers perceived the threat from him.  They may not have been as quick to shoot if he had not made those comments.

I can understand the increased propensity to subdue, but if all was above board where are the body cam vids ?
You'd think that the sheriff's department videos would be out, at least.

[*bfine32*]

(03-16-2016, 03:17 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No, but thanks for showing how poorly you understand the issue.

Admittedly, unlike you, I don't know all the details yet.

You just cannot help yourself can you?

[fredtoast]

(03-16-2016, 03:05 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You may consider I am willing to die and I am willing to kill to be the same thing. Hell even Tennessee courts may have that opinion; however, I doubt it is a universal rule.

The problem is that you refuse to acknowledge what he actually said.

LaVoy said he would use his gun against any officer that pointed a gun at him.  He also said he would die before he would go to jail., and that he was willing to "defend freedom".

When an armed man admits he will not surrender without using his gun it is a clear threat to kill anyone who tries to arrest him.  There is no other possible explanation for what he said.  None.

[fredtoast]

(03-16-2016, 03:18 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Admittedly, unlike you, I don't know all the details yet.

You just cannot help yourself can you?

I don't know all of the details, but I at least understand the issue we are discussing.

To try and suggest that this was all just an elaborate "trap" set just to kill LaVoy is absurd.  He would have never made it out of the vehicle if that was their plan.

Plus the FBI has ZERO motive to kill a random sidekick of Bundy.

[fredtoast]

(03-16-2016, 03:15 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: I can understand the increased propensity to subdue, but if all was above board where are the body cam vids ?
You'd think that the sheriff's department videos would be out, at least.

Why released it when people refuse to believe what they see in the other video?

[Rotobeast]

(03-16-2016, 03:36 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Why released it when people refuse to believe what they see in the other video?

Well, some people believe.

But, why not release them and exonerate the gentlemen being accused of doing wrong ?

Maybe they are trying to stir-up people that were like-minded of LaVoy, to identify them and observe ?

[*bfine32*]

(03-16-2016, 03:36 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Why released it when people refuse to believe what they see in the other video?

Hell some people just believe what a reporter said was told to him in a cell phone conversation.

[fredtoast]

(03-16-2016, 03:56 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Hell some people just believe what a reporter said was told to him in a cell phone conversation.

And some people live so deep in an echo chamber that they do not even care what is true or not.


Link to video

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/oregon-occupier-lavoy-finicum-warns-fbi-he-d-take-death-n491056?utm_content=bufferbdbae&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

[fredtoast]

(03-16-2016, 03:41 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: But, why not release them and exonerate the gentlemen being accused of doing wrong ?

They already released a video that exonerated him just as much as any body cam would.

What more would a body cam show that you have not already seen?

[Mike M (the other one)]

(03-16-2016, 04:10 PM)fredtoast Wrote: They already released a video that exonerated him just as much as any body cam would.

What more would a body cam show that you have not already seen?

a close up as to why his right hand dipped down to his left hip with out pulling out a gun would be nice.

I think he might have tried to pull his gun, but only after he had been hit twice already and figured they weren't going to let him live.

And Not one single person from the group fired or raised arms against them, like they initially reported.