Are the Bundy crowd terrorist's or protesters

[Sakari]

I have said all along that IF it went down the way you describe then the shooting was justified. Ive also maintained that if the officers shot unprovoked during the initial stop then Lavoy's actions were justified. Lets see the dash and lapel cams.

For the rest of your post, its an appeal to emotion and I simply don't care. Being a cop is a tough ass job, I don't deny that. No matter how tough it is, an officers life is NOT worth more than that of a civilian. If they can't handle that its time to find a new career.

You know that this year was the lowest for officer deaths in a quarter century right? Remove the emotion from the discussion.

It did go that way, you can see him exit the car, put his hands up, ( while moving towards officers ) then reach, not once, but twice for his pocket.

And, that was not an appeal to emotion. It was a sorry attempt I guess for you to see their side, or even my side ( I carry ) if something like this happened.

And, you still did not answer......

[GlitterRose]

Who is opposed to cam footage? The problem is that we don't even know if they had them. I think only about half of Oregon State Police have dashcams at this point. You could be asking for something that doesn't exist. And I think it's only Portland police that have body cams.

Actually, I checked, and they don't even all have them in Portland. It takes a lot of money and then they need to develop procedures. It's not like everyone just magically has a dashcam and a lapel cam because people want them to. They're just starting to implement body cams this year.

This is an article from October...

The role that police body cameras will play in Portland remains to be seen, as the Portland Police Bureau is just now acquiring them and plans a full implementation of them next year. “It’s something that law enforcement agencies want, and the biggest hurdle is the cost,” Lufkin said.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiP7_yY7uDKAhXIKCYKHcU-CrMQFggsMAI&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.osbar.org%2Fpublications%2Fbulletin%2F15oct%2Ftechlaw.html&usg=AFQjCNHQXjq-02vvg8fmOmikmJupHGkciQ

Edited February 5, 2016 by ChaosRose

[Sakari]

Stopping the car was justified, but killing a man for protesting isn't cool.

He was killed in self defense, not for protesting.

Uhhh... the guy had a pistol, not a rotary chain gun. Even if the officers were armed with lethal arms, it only takes a second to drop it and pull a taser. And do you actually believe anyone hit with a half dozen bean bag rounds, or rubber bullets would just get back up and kill all the officers? Come on.... Bean bags would have done nicely to take these guys down. Apparently a judgement call was made at the top to use lethal force during the stop.

You should watch the videos above, and put yourself in their shoes. Are you really going to reach for a tazer when you know this man carries?....And said he is ready to use it?

Armageddon? In a out of the way corner of a seldom traveled part of the state? On what? A half dozen buildings and two dozen people?

They said that themselves.

[Farmer77]

It did go that way, you can see him exit the car, put his hands up, ( while moving towards officers ) then reach, not once, but twice for his pocket.

And, that was not an appeal to emotion. It was a sorry attempt I guess for you to see their side, or even my side ( I carry ) if something like this happened.

And, you still did not answer......

I see their side. I honestly do. I have said over and over again if the official narrative is true the officers did no wrong and Lavoy deserved what he got. I just don't think the video provided is conclusive.

If there were shots fired unprovoked then Lavoy had the right to try and find safety and or defend himself.

[Sakari]

I see their side. I honestly do. I have said over and over again if the official narrative is true the officers did no wrong and Lavoy deserved what he got. I just don't think the video provided is conclusive.

If there were shots fired unprovoked then Lavoy had the right to try and find safety and or defend himself.

Try this one last time......

You are the officer up by the tree line. The one he was coming towards after getting out of the car.........I already stated the scenario of what they have been told ( facts )..He carries all the time ( as I do ), and he has stated he is ready to die.........He is not listening to you, and coming towards you, reaching to his pocket where it is known he has a gun..........

What would you do?

[GlitterRose]

Try this one last time......

You are the officer up by the tree line. The one he was coming towards after getting out of the car.........I already stated the scenario of what they have been told ( facts )..He carries all the time ( as I do ), and he has stated he is ready to die.........He is not listening to you, and coming towards you, reaching to his pocket where it is known he has a gun..........

What would you do?

That's the thing. These are militia who are like religious fanatics with the 2nd Amendment. They ALWAYS carry. There's absolutely no reason to even suggest that they would NOT be carrying.

The guy's not listening and going for his pocket...of course you think you're in danger...because you are.

Edited February 5, 2016 by ChaosRose

[Farmer77]

Try this one last time......

You are the officer up by the tree line. The one he was coming towards after getting out of the car.........I already stated the scenario of what they have been told ( facts )..He carries all the time ( as I do ), and he has stated he is ready to die.........He is not listening to you, and coming towards you, reaching to his pocket where it is known he has a gun..........

What would you do?

I would have defended myself. Duh.

The officers who did the actual shooting could have acted 100% appropriately. They could have had no idea that the officers in the first stop shot at the vehicle, leaving them unaware the vehicle coming at them was just trying to get to safety.Totally possible.

The officer who came out from the vehicle and then retreated behind while the other two killed Lavoy also could have shot him in his side causing him to reach down. Totally possible.

That's the thing. These are militia who are like religious fanatics with the 2nd Amendment. They ALWAYS carry. There's absolutely no reason to even suggest that they would NOT be carrying.

Is carrying a gun illegal? Just because an officer feels threatened does not make it an actual threat.

[GlitterRose]

I would have defended myself. Duh.

The officers who did the actual shooting could have acted 100% appropriately. They could have had no idea that the officers in the first stop shot at the vehicle, leaving them unaware the vehicle coming at them was just trying to get to safety.Totally possible.

The officer who came out from the vehicle and then retreated behind while the other two killed Lavoy also could have shot him in his side causing him to reach down. Totally possible.

Is carrying a gun illegal? Just because an officer feels threatened does not make it an actual threat.

Apparently, an armed force taking a wildlife refuge is illegal. Leading officers on a dangerous high-speed chase is illegal. Almost running over a state trooper is illegal. Going for your gun instead of surrendering when you're being arrested is illegal.

It's entirely possible that he didn't intend on actually pulling out his gun. It seems like this was suicide by cop. That's not something that police are expected to discern with their powers of ESP. If someone known to carry goes for their pocket instead of surrendering, they're gonna get shot.

Edited February 5, 2016 by ChaosRose

[Farmer77]

Apparently, an armed force taking a wildlife refuge is illegal. Leading officers on a dangerous high-speed chase is illegal. Almost running over a state trooper is illegal. Going for your gun instead of surrendering when you're being arrested is illegal.

It's entirely possible that he didn't intend on actually pulling out his gun. It seems like this was suicide by cop. That's not something that police are expected to discern with their powers of ESP. If someone known to carry goes for their pocket instead of surrendering, they're gonna get shot.

Officer shooting at a vehicle unprovoked is also, illegal.

[+DieChecker]

Stopping the car was justified, but killing a man for protesting isn't cool.

He was killed in self defense, not for protesting.

AH, but ChaosRose said they deserved what they got for simply occupying the refuge, not because he was reaching for a gun.

Uhhh... the guy had a pistol, not a rotary chain gun. Even if the officers were armed with lethal arms, it only takes a second to drop it and pull a taser. And do you actually believe anyone hit with a half dozen bean bag rounds, or rubber bullets would just get back up and kill all the officers? Come on.... Bean bags would have done nicely to take these guys down. Apparently a judgement call was made at the top to use lethal force during the stop.

You should watch the videos above, and put yourself in their shoes. Are you really going to reach for a tazer when you know this man carries?....And said he is ready to use it?

Thus why I suggested that they use bean bag rounds and drop him when he left the car. It looked like there were probably 8 or 10 officers at the road block. 5 could have shot bean bags and the other 5 stand by with rifles/pistols.

Armageddon? In a out of the way corner of a seldom traveled part of the state? On what? A half dozen buildings and two dozen people?

They said that themselves.

Yeah, but that was After the car arrests... days after. I think there is 3 or 4 of them left out there? Just the super hardcore, "I want to die for some idiot reason" kind of guys left there now. Probably storming the place is what is going to have to happen now. All the (somewhat) reasonable people left a week ago.

http://www.latimes.c...0127-story.html

All three face the same charge faced by the eight taken into custody Tuesday: a federal felony count of conspiracy to impede federal officers from discharging their official duties through the use of force, intimidation or threats.

“The FBI and our partners continue to work around the clock to empty the refuge of the armed occupiers in the safest way possible,” the agency said.

Earlier in the day, at least some at the refuge were still expressing defiance.

“There are no laws in this United States now! This is a free-for-all Armageddon!” a heavyset man holding a rifle yelled into a camera transmitting from the refuge. He urged others to join those at the protest site, adding that if “they stop you from getting here, kill them!”

Edited February 5, 2016 by DieChecker

[GlitterRose]

Officer shooting at a vehicle unprovoked is also, illegal.

And there's no evidence that happened.

[GlitterRose]

AH, but ChaosRose said they deserved what they got for simply occupying the refuge, not because he was reaching for a gun.

Thus why I suggested that they use bean bag rounds and drop him when he left the car. It looked like there were probably 8 or 10 officers at the road block. 5 could have shot bean bags and the other 5 stand by with rifles/pistols.

Yeah, but that was After the car arrests... days after.

http://www.latimes.c...0127-story.html

Honestly, yeah. I think police had every right to storm the refuge and take them out. Armed people don't just get to take things that aren't theirs. That's not a protest. Do you want them in your house? They were in the houses of the park rangers.

And are you arguing that they bring tasers and bean bags to a gang war? A drug war?

These people were armed to the teeth, and they wanted conflict. The officers involved deserved to be on an even playing field.

Edited February 5, 2016 by ChaosRose

[+DieChecker]

Officer shooting at a vehicle unprovoked is also, illegal.

Did they ever say how the one Bundy brother got shot?

[+DieChecker]

Honestly, yeah. I think police had every right to storm the refuge and take them out. Armed people don't just get to take things that aren't theirs. That's not a protest. Do you want them in your house? They were in the houses of the park rangers.

And are you arguing that they bring tasers and bean bags to a gang war? A drug war?

These people were armed to the teeth, and they wanted conflict. The officers involved deserved to be on an even playing field.

There are no park ranger houses there. Can you show me on Google Maps which of the buildings is a ranger's house. Some idiot politician said they were rummaging houses. There are no houses there.

It was a protest.

Yes, I'd advise bringing tasers and bean bag rounds to a gang arrest or a drug arrest. They take people down almost as well as a lethal round. Watch a youtube video of someone taking a police taser round, or being hit by multiple beanbag rounds. It isn't like being tickled with daisies.

Can you show me where anyone except the one fellow even had a pistol in the car? Bundy routinely traveled around the county for weeks and it never seemed they went "heavily armed". No rifles were in evidence at any of the news meetings, or the public meetings, or the FBI meetings, that I know of. What is your exact definition of "Armed to the Teeth"?

[GlitterRose]

There are no park ranger houses there. Can you show me on Google Maps which of the buildings is a ranger's house. Some idiot politician said they were rummaging houses. There are no houses there.

It was a protest.

Yes, I'd advise bringing tasers and bean bag rounds to a gang arrest or a drug arrest. They take people down almost as well as a lethal round. Watch a youtube video of someone taking a police taser round, or being hit by multiple beanbag rounds. It isn't like being tickled with daisies.

Can you show me where anyone except the one fellow even had a pistol in the car? Bundy routinely traveled around the county for weeks and it never seemed they went "heavily armed". No rifles were in evidence at any of the news meetings, or the public meetings, or the FBI meetings, that I know of. What is your exact definition of "Armed to the Teeth"?

I linked an article earlier that stated there were rangers who had to abandon their homes because of Bundy et al, and that they were ransacked. I'll try to find it again.

I don't know about you, but I've seen videos of people there with big guns claiming that they wanted armageddon and a free for all and that there were no laws anymore. I actually posted one of the videos.

I also have found articles about the original situation, and how Bundy et al literally set up sniper positions and threatened to take out officials who were trying to remove their cattle from the land.

You can easily find these same articles and videos. But if you don't want to admit that these were big gun toting marauders, then you'll ignore it all.

[Farmer77]

And there's no evidence that happened.

There is a witness who says it did, it should be investigated. We as a nation have to stop just taking the word of the men we arm and send out into our society daily.

[+DieChecker]

I linked an article earlier that stated there were rangers who had to abandon their homes because of Bundy et al, and that they were ransacked. I'll try to find it again.

You did, but that was some Portland politician making stuff up. I've looked and that never happened, unless it failed to make the news anywhere else?

I don't know about you, but I've seen videos of people there with big guns claiming that they wanted armageddon and a free for all and that there were no laws anymore. I actually posted one of the videos.

Yes, this is true. I saw several of the protesters walking around outside at various times with rifles. Rifles really shouldn't be "armed to the teeth" though. Almost everyone that lives in the country owns a rifle. So by that definition, around a quarter of US citizens are Armed to the Teeth.

I also have found articles about the original situation, and how Bundy et al literally set up sniper positions and threatened to take out officials who were trying to remove their cattle from the land.

Yes, that is true also. In the past, 2014 I think, they had another standoff with police and the Feds and they actually were aiming rifles at the police at that time. And they should be arrested and charged for it. They shouldn't have been allowed to get away with that event in the first place.

You can easily find these same articles and videos. But if you don't want to admit that these were big gun toting marauders, then you'll ignore it all.

I'm just saying the guys in the car only had a pistol or two and the Feds would have known that and should have acted appropriately. Those officers probably were all wearing body armor, and except for a face shot, they were in not a lot of danger.

[GlitterRose]

There is a witness who says it did, it should be investigated. We as a nation have to stop just taking the word of the men we arm and send out into our society daily.

The girl has been shown to be lying about the situation. She tried to claim the guy was on his knees when he was shot, and we can clearly see from the video that's not the case. Why should anyone believe her about anything else now?

If there is more cam footage, which we don't know, of course it should be examined. But there probably isn't, as I've clearly shown that not everyone has even a dashcam, let alone a body cam yet.

[GlitterRose]

You did, but that was some Portland politician making stuff up. I've looked and that never happened, unless it failed to make the news anywhere else?

Yes, this is true. I saw several of the protesters walking around outside at various times with rifles. Rifles really shouldn't be "armed to the teeth" though. Almost everyone that lives in the country owns a rifle. So by that definition, around a quarter of US citizens are Armed to the Teeth.

Yes, that is true also. In the past, 2014 I think, they had another standoff with police and the Feds and they actually were aiming rifles at the police at that time. And they should be arrested and charged for it. They shouldn't have been allowed to get away with that event in the first place.

I'm just saying the guys in the car only had a pistol or two and the Feds would have known that and should have acted appropriately. Those officers probably were all wearing body armor, and except for a face shot, they were in not a lot of danger.

Where is the proof that the article is wrong? It was in the Oregonian, not some conspiracy site.

That wasn't the right article and I have to go to work. I'll look for it later. I know I posted it on this discussion somewhere.

I did find another article where they destroyed a fence on the refuge. Oregon people actually wanted the refuge. They care about their wildlife and their forests, and environmentalists have been begging for years for a refuge. They almost fell over dead in shock when they actually got what they were working for all those years. I remember reading the article about it. And then these people come from out of state with their big guns and get to just take it over and trash it. I don't think that's ok. I think it's a form of terrorism. It's supposed to be land open to the public. No one can take their kids there when these idiots are waving their guns around.

Edited February 5, 2016 by ChaosRose

[aztek]

She tried to claim the guy was on his knees when he was shot, and we can clearly see from the video that's not the case.

it was his daughter that was not there who said it, yet Victoria sharp was there and she said no such thing.

[Farmer77]

it was his daughter that was not there who said it, yet Victoria sharp was there and she said no such thing.

Bingo.

[Sakari]

I would have defended myself. Duh.

The officers who did the actual shooting could have acted 100% appropriately. They could have had no idea that the officers in the first stop shot at the vehicle, leaving them unaware the vehicle coming at them was just trying to get to safety.Totally possible.

The officer who came out from the vehicle and then retreated behind while the other two killed Lavoy also could have shot him in his side causing him to reach down. Totally possible.

Is carrying a gun illegal? Just because an officer feels threatened does not make it an actual threat.

1st bold : Thank you. So, under your own statements, it would be your fault he is dead, because he was ascared from being shot at from previous stop. It was ok for him to reach for his gun and try to shoot you. You would be guilty of murder, and go to Prison, in your World. He had every right to go for his gun and not listen to you, because he was shot at over 100 times a few miles back. ( didn't happen )

2nd Bold : Duh....No an officer does not feel threatened when a regular citizen is carrying. But when it is an armed Militia that just took over a Federal building, threatened to use it numerous times, and threatened he would die before being arrested, and running a road block, and running from a traffic stop......Yes, those are actual threats.

Edited February 5, 2016 by Sakari

[Sakari]

There are no park ranger houses there. Can you show me on Google Maps which of the buildings is a ranger's house. Some idiot politician said they were rummaging houses. There are no houses there.

It was a protest.

Yes, I'd advise bringing tasers and bean bag rounds to a gang arrest or a drug arrest. They take people down almost as well as a lethal round. Watch a youtube video of someone taking a police taser round, or being hit by multiple beanbag rounds. It isn't like being tickled with daisies.

Can you show me where anyone except the one fellow even had a pistol in the car? Bundy routinely traveled around the county for weeks and it never seemed they went "heavily armed". No rifles were in evidence at any of the news meetings, or the public meetings, or the FBI meetings, that I know of. What is your exact definition of "Armed to the Teeth"?

An armed protest. Could even be called hostile armed protest, from numerous things they said.....Actually, a armed theft.

Edited February 5, 2016 by Sakari

[Sakari]

AH, but ChaosRose said they deserved what they got for simply occupying the refuge, not because he was reaching for a gun.

Thus why I suggested that they use bean bag rounds and drop him when he left the car. It looked like there were probably 8 or 10 officers at the road block. 5 could have shot bean bags and the other 5 stand by with rifles/pistols.

Yeah, but that was After the car arrests... days after. I think there is 3 or 4 of them left out there? Just the super hardcore, "I want to die for some idiot reason" kind of guys left there now. Probably storming the place is what is going to have to happen now. All the (somewhat) reasonable people left a week ago.

http://www.latimes.c...0127-story.html

I agree to a point. If they had stormed the place right away, and people inside did get killed from a shootout, I would say they got what they deserved. You could even say what they asked for.......The dumb ass that got shot did deserve it.

The Police off to the side in the trees were most likely not staged there with bean bags.They were there for if things go way south, like it did. It is pretty obvious a bunch at the road block were, as they used non lethal things on the rest of the people in the car.

[Sakari]

Hey, they had a viewing. I wonder if these dumb asses now see the shooting stories are lies......Shot in the face my ass.

Hundreds of people packed a Mormon church in rural Utah for the viewing ceremony for the fallen spokesman of the Oregon armed standoff.