|
|
Post by misterdark on Jan 30, 2016 15:13:51 GMT
Word is surfacing that the guy who was shot had left his pistol at the compound. Oh, and he was right handed. Just sayin'.
|
|
|
|
Post by Browning35 on Jan 30, 2016 16:20:00 GMT
Word is surfacing that the guy who was shot had left his pistol at the compound. Oh, and he was right handed. Just sayin'. Yeah, the video raises a bunch of different questions. Almost screws things up as much if they hadn't released it. When he drops his hands he could also be getting shot in the torso. I dunno, hard to say. Here's a zoomed in version. No body cams? |
|
|
|
Post by dannusmaximus on Jan 30, 2016 16:31:50 GMT
Word is surfacing that the guy who was shot had left his pistol at the compound. Oh, and he was right handed. Just sayin'. I would be flabbergasted if this dude wasn't armed. This is the same group that was packing when they went to a negotiation meeting in the local Sherrif's office: "At one point during a recent six hour meeting with chief protester Ammon Bundy and his guards in the sheriff’s personal office, Ward never asked that they remove the guns they carried, a fact that did not sit well with Steve Grasty, the county's top official and judge." -- USA Today ArticleI can't imagine they would leave their gats at home if they were going to a meeting at a community building. Right, wrong, or indifferent, if there is one thing we learn consistently from police body cams it's that they (the police) usually start shouting "Show me your hands!" and "Stop reaching into your pockets/waistband/fannypack...!" the second they come out of their cars. I flat out don't believe they weren't giving similar commands to Mr. Finnicum. He kept alternating between hands up and reaching into his coat/waistband. That's a recipe for a bullet from amped up agents who are assuming the worst, and perhaps rightfully so since this group made no secret of their willingness to go to guns if they decided they were being threatened. It may have been a bad shoot. But they usually aren't, at least when strictly viewed through settled case law concerning deadly force use by LEO's. |
|
|
|
Post by Gingerbread Man on Feb 4, 2016 15:51:38 GMT
At worst this was trespassing. Bunch of asshats over reacting.
The fee to use the land is nominal at best and it's used to repair damage done by grazing animals and wild fires. Should the Fed Gov own the land? I don't think so but there are other ways to change the law and the extent of what land the Fed Gov can own. Taking over a public refuge is just dumb.
|
|
|
|
Post by kutter0311 on Jun 18, 2016 3:15:59 GMT
That sheriff has a solid history of playing well with asshats like the Bundy group. Well respected by all that have had to work with/under him, a PITA to those who think they are his boss.
It's good to see a sheriff with leadership ability rather than political savvy.
|
|
|
|
Post by dannusmaximus on Oct 28, 2016 19:57:47 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by LowKey on Oct 28, 2016 20:17:46 GMT
It was a case of civil disobedience with guns added into the mix, and it seems that the side of disobedience was more in the right than the side of the powers that be. Not saying that either side was entirely in the right, but that the protesters may have had the moral high ground.....until the spin doctors throw in the boogy-man of "firearms". |
|
|
|
Post by dannusmaximus on Oct 28, 2016 23:39:02 GMT
It was a case of civil disobedience with guns added into the mix, and it seems that the side of disobedience was more in the right than the side of the powers that be. Not saying that either side was entirely in the right, but that the protesters may have had the moral high ground.....until the spin doctors throw in the boogy-man of "firearms". Sounds like that is absolutely what the jurors decided after hearing Bundy's testimony. And you know what? While I'm not at all saying I agree with this group or what they were 'protesting', if we the people now and again err on the side of the rabble rousers, that's not necessarily a bad thing. |
|
