B-Man Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 (edited) Mark McConnell, a man claiming to be one of the protesters at the scene, posted a level-headed Facebook video where he claimed that the slain protester, “LaVoy” Finicum, tried to flee from the FBI in his truck and then charged the officers after he crashed. McConnell, however, didn’t see the shooting take place. A person claiming to be an eyewitness to the fatal shots, Victoria Sharps, has recorded her own account, claiming that Finicum’s hands were in the air and that none of the other protesters touched their guns and had their hands outside the windows. There is almost certainly FBI video — from multiple angles — of the shooting. It will be critically important to release that video sooner rather than later. If a false “hands-up, don’t shoot” narrative takes hold, it could lead to this incident joining Waco and Ruby Ridge as rallying cries for further militia action. If the shooting wasn’t justified, it’s equally important for the public to know — and for officers to be held accountable.Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner Edited January 28, 2016 by B-Man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 No, her point is that it's not only OK, but a moral good, for federal agents to act as judge, jury, and executioner when it comes to protesting conservatives. Actually the point is that when a person suspected of a crime is shot and killed, the rallying cry of the right wing is "If he didn't break the law it wouldn't have happened! If he did what the cop said it wouldn't have happened! It's his own fault." But yet, I don't see that same response here. So I'll say it: this guy was a criminal, engaged in criminal activities and if he got his ass shot off he had it coming. Cuts both ways boys. It would actually be nice if law enforcement agencies didn't have to shoot people at all, but certainly the same standard should be applied to ALL who "break the law". If you don't agree, well, that wouldn't surprise me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 Actually the point is that when a person suspected of a crime is shot and killed, the rallying cry of the right wing is "If he didn't break the law it wouldn't have happened! If he did what the cop said it wouldn't have happened! It's his own fault." But yet, I don't see that same response here. So I'll say it: this guy was a criminal, engaged in criminal activities and if he got his ass shot off he had it coming. Cuts both ways boys. It would actually be nice if law enforcement agencies didn't have to shoot people at all, but certainly the same standard should be applied to ALL who "break the law". If you don't agree, well, that wouldn't surprise me. Doubling down on the embarrassing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 Actually the point is that when a person suspected of a crime is shot and killed, the rallying cry of the right wing is "If he didn't break the law it wouldn't have happened! If he did what the cop said it wouldn't have happened! It's his own fault." But yet, I don't see that same response here. So I'll say it: this guy was a criminal, engaged in criminal activities and if he got his ass shot off he had it coming. Cuts both ways boys. It would actually be nice if law enforcement agencies didn't have to shoot people at all, but certainly the same standard should be applied to ALL who "break the law". If you don't agree, well, that wouldn't surprise me. ...Uh, what? All I did was post an audio recording of an alleged eye witness account, and I posted it without an editorial comment. There are plenty of people in this very thread who say these folks were breaking numerous laws with their protest, there's been very little (if any) actual support for the manner in which these people chose to protest. And if you actually paid attention to things I've posted in the past, you'd see that federal/police overreach is a hot button issue for me regardless of who the victim is. So instead of making a point, your post comes off as celebratory over the shooting death of the victim. Which is just kinda low. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 ...Uh, what? All I did was post an audio recording of an alleged eye witness account, and I posted it without an editorial comment. There are plenty of people in this very thread who say these folks were breaking numerous laws with their protest, there's been very little (if any) actual support for the manner in which these people chose to protest. And if you actually paid attention to things I've posted in the past, you'd see that federal/police overreach is a hot button issue for me regardless of who the victim is. So instead of making a point, your post comes off as celebratory over the shooting death of the victim. Which is just kinda low. I have a feeling she's a Trump supporter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 Actually the point is that when a person suspected of a crime is shot and killed, the rallying cry of the right wing is "If he didn't break the law it wouldn't have happened! If he did what the cop said it wouldn't have happened! It's his own fault." But yet, I don't see that same response here. So I'll say it: this guy was a criminal, engaged in criminal activities and if he got his ass shot off he had it coming. Cuts both ways boys. It would actually be nice if law enforcement agencies didn't have to shoot people at all, but certainly the same standard should be applied to ALL who "break the law". If you don't agree, well, that wouldn't surprise me. You don't? I guess you're not looking hard enough or it doesn't fit your agenda. http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/184214-right-wing-militants-seize-federal-building/?p=3857905 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 Actually the point is that when a person suspected of a crime is shot and killed, the rallying cry of the right wing is "If he didn't break the law it wouldn't have happened! If he did what the cop said it wouldn't have happened! It's his own fault." But yet, I don't see that same response here. So I'll say it: this guy was a criminal, engaged in criminal activities and if he got his ass shot off he had it coming. Cuts both ways boys. It would actually be nice if law enforcement agencies didn't have to shoot people at all, but certainly the same standard should be applied to ALL who "break the law". If you don't agree, well, that wouldn't surprise me. That has to be the most intentionally obtuse thing I've ever read here. First of all, not all crimes are equally violent in their commission, which greatly changes the appropriateness of law enforcement using lethal force. Someone violently resisting arrest, someone actively shooting at law enforcement or civilians, or someone currently in the act of committing a violent crime in most cases would justify the use of lethal force by responding officers. Someone peacefully resisting arrest, or committing a non-violent crime do not justify the use of lethal force. To wit: Michael Brown had just finished wrestling with a police officer for his weapon when he was fatally shot. That is not unreasonable. Laquan McDonald, however, was not menacing officers or civilians when he was fatally shot, and that shooting was unjustified; hence the shooting officer being tried for murder. In regards to the Oregon shooting, we don't yet know what happened, and I'm not willing to speculate. However if Mr. Finicum was not menacing officers with a weapon, was in in the act of committing a violent crime, and was instead compliant; then his shooting is completely abhorrent and unjustified. As I said earlier, your only purpose here was to pipe up and justify the shooting of a conservative protester, because you don't value their lives. You can't hide from that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/183809-new-orleans-to-remove-excremental-rebel-monuments/?p=3858928 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 That has to be the most intentionally obtuse thing I've ever read here. It's not even close. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 It's not even close. At a minimum it's the most intentionally obtuse thing I can remember reading here. Though to be fair, I really don't go out of my way to commit stupid to memory, so there certainly may be other more egregious instances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 At a minimum it's the most intentionally obtuse thing I can remember reading here. Though to be fair, I really don't go out of my way to commit stupid to memory, so there certainly may be other more egregious instances. No, you just weren't a member during her truly spectacular posting period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 No, you just weren't a member during her truly spectacular posting period. Fondly referred to as "the Bush years". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 Fondly referred to as "the Bush years". I knew it was his fault Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 I knew it was his fault What was his fault? Oh that right. Everything. Never mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 Where was the FBI during the Oregon standoff? Out of sight, but listening and watching... Additional Arrests in the Occupation of Malheur National Wildlife Refuge FBI-Oregon ^ Through attorney Ammon Bundy tells remaining occupiers to stand down KATU 2 ^ i do not get part of this account; I do not understand why the protesters would threaten to bring the fight to town. That narrative does not make sense to their MO. Their MO is protecting the freedom of the citizen, etc etc etc so much so far off of the ideas of being an offensive group to carry out such operations is just ... far fetched. Gderp tderp's tderp. Sderp lderp sderp wderp've sderp aderp zderp tderp oderp dderp cderp wderp oderp pderp oderp. Aderp aderp y'derp sderp, "dderp't bderp tderp lderp aderp yderp wderp't gderp sderp". Rderp? Cderp bderp wderp dderp't iderp. Cderp nderp-derp oderp PderpPderpPderp wderp aderp aderp double-sderp. . -a-derp brilliant Aderp tderp pderp iderp tderp wderp aderp pderp sderp oderp aderp cderp iderp sderp aderp kderp, tderp rderp cderp oderp tderp rderp wderp iderp "Iderp hderp dderp iderp bderp tderp lderp iderp wderp hderp hderp! Iderp hderp dderp wderp tderp cderp sderp iderp wderp hderp hderp! Iderp's hderp oderp derp." Bderp yderp, Iderp dderp't sderp tderp sderp rderp hderp. Sderp Iderp'll sderp derp: tderp gderp wderp aderp cderp, ederp iderp cderp aderp aderp iderp hderp gderp hderp aderp sderp oderp hderp hderp iderp cderp. Cderp bderp wderp bderp. Iderp wderp aderp bderp nderp iderp lderp ederp aderp dderp't hderp tderp sderp pderp aderp aderp, bderp cderp tderp sderp sderp sderp bderp aderp tderp ADERP wderp "bderp tderp lderp". Iderp yderp dderp't aderp, wderp, tderp wderp't sderp mderp. brilliant, yet again. try reading this aloud. it's as much fun as reading your gibberish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 i do not get part of this account; I do not understand why the protesters would threaten to bring the fight to town. That narrative does not make sense to their MO. Their MO is protecting the freedom of the citizen, etc etc etc so much so far off of the ideas of being an offensive group to carry out such operations is just ... far fetched. How about: because they're idiots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 (edited) these guys have far too well groomed beards to be militants. How about: because they're idiots. derp. no ****, but just the way it is coming out in the media makes every issue just look hilarious wrt to police brutality. i wonder if these guys are using periscope. Edited January 28, 2016 by Boyst62 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted January 29, 2016 Share Posted January 29, 2016 Good news It looks like the remaining militia members have agreed to surrender. There's no confirmation yet, but signs indicate the standoff is winding down. Chase Stevens ✔ @CSStevensphoto Photos from the scene where a massive convoy of 30+ law enforcement vehicles drove by @reviewjournal #OregonStandoff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted January 29, 2016 Share Posted January 29, 2016 FBI Video Shows Oregon State Trooper Shooting #Malheur Militiaman LaVoy Finicum https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjl1hefqqWI Edited Version of FBI Video of Joint FBI and OSP Operation 01/26/2016 CBS: LaVoy Finicum exited vehicle with his hands up, but is seen on video reaching for his waistband. http://koin.com/2016/01/28/fbi-removes-barricades-reopens-highways-around-refuge/ … #KOIN6News Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts