• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Did Bundy's group in Oregon get what they deserve???

What do you think

  • Total voters
    54
bndy.jpg
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
.
Click to expand...

In any of your quest for glory.....you missed the point. The point being that I said and have always said that if an "Occupy Wall Street" person or any person for that matter engages in an armed confrontation with police and is killed as a result, I would most likely believe that they had it coming absent other circumstances. In an armed confrontation with protestors, police have every right to use deadly force and should be given the benefit of the doubt in THOSE situations. Try again Rev.
 
disneydude said:
In any of your quest for glory.....you missed the point. The point being that I said and have always said that if an "Occupy Wall Street" person or any person for that matter engages in an armed confrontation with police and is killed as a result, I would most likely believe that they had it coming absent other circumstances. In an armed confrontation with protestors, police have every right to use deadly force and should be given the benefit of the doubt in THOSE situations. Try again Rev.
Click to expand...



Don't believe you would side with the police if for example the kid that went for the cops gun got shot.


not for one second.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
Don't believe you would side with the police if for example the kid that went for the cops gun got shot.


not for one second.
Click to expand...


It depends. You are moving the goal posts now. If the kid had a weapon and reached for it or pointed it at the police and he was killed, absolutely I would side with the police. Police have every right to use deadly force when a clear threat to their own life is present.

If someone actually goes for the cops weapon and the evidence is clear that this actually occurred....and the perpetrator is shot and killed by the police, again....absolutely I would side with the police. In fact, I have told many a client that they are lucky that they aren't dead with some of the things that they have done.

If, however, the facts are not clear.....or it is clear that the cops are lying....then I think as a citizenry we have an obligation to question and investigate the police officer's conduct. I think TOO many times, we give the police a pass or at least give them the benefit of the doubt when we shouldn't...simply because people don't want to question the tactics of the police. That is probably where we differ.
 
notquiteright said:
Do you always pretend the poster isn't being correct and you just want to deflect? I missed where you scold the posters who used Ferguson and all in their knee jerk posts...

Your protestations would carry a bit of weight if you could ever be consistent... :peace
Click to expand...



Which posters? What in the hell are you babbling about?
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
So what did they do, hold a gun to the militant's head and force him to a make a video where he was advocating violence against government law enforcement?
Click to expand...



Dunno. All I know is crooks and liars are not a source I would want to hitch my wagon to.
 
plutonium said:
I am sure everyone has heard about Bundy being arrested and one of his followers killed by law enforcement...How do you feel about it.
Click to expand...

None of the above.

To answer the OP question, "Did Bundy's group in Oregon get what they deserve???"

Not yet, Justice has yet to be served for the crimes they've committed.

The Bundy's, and others like them who want to protest the Feds actions in the West need to learn to go thru proper channels, follow the rules and Laws of the US, and find better, more effective ways to protest...instead of intentionally breaking the Law to get attention for their cause.

NO one should've died, and Finicum brought it upon himself. His hands were up @ first, but then he drew his gun, and the LOEs gunned him dn, as anyone would expect them to do in this type of situation.
 
roughdraft274 said:
They didn't deserve death for that. But I'm assuming that since the guy has plainly said that he would never go to jail, and since the people in the vehicles that cooperated with the police were completely unharmed, he brought this on himself by acting stupidly. Hopefully there is footage to make sure that everything the cops did was 100% ok.
Click to expand...

There were several handguns found in the vehicles when they were stopped by the FBI.

Here's the footage from an FBI plane.

FBI Drone Captures Moment Of LaVoy Finicum's Death
 
notquiteright said:
Deflection, imagine that... :roll:

Did any OWS protester show up armed and claim violence would happen? Did any OWS protester take over a FEDERAL building while openly displaying firearms and talking about violence?

The dead man wasn't shot at the wildlife reserve, he was shot attempting to run a easily identified LEO roadblock, bailing out and refusing to comply. He was known to be armed, many pics and videos showed his firearms to include a pistol rig... if he was an inner city youth and refused to comply... well many would say he got what he deserved... :peace
Click to expand...

Deflection? I answered the question. You apparently didn't comprehend my answer, even though you copied it. No surprise.

You can be happy the man is dead. I'm not. Is that easy enough for you to understand now? He didn't kill anyone himself, and unless I see something that he was about to shoot an officer who had no choice but to defend his own life by killing the man, then he did not deserve death, contrary to all of your hysterics in this post. I don't consider running a road block to be serious enough to result in the death penalty.

We weren't talking about inner city youth, by the way. Nice...what would you call it....deflection? The OWS participants were protestors, same as these men were. You just went completely off topic in your deflection.
 
disneydude said:
It depends. You are moving the goal posts now. If the kid had a weapon and reached for it or pointed it at the police and he was killed, absolutely I would side with the police. Police have every right to use deadly force when a clear threat to their own life is present.

If someone actually goes for the cops weapon and the evidence is clear that this actually occurred....and the perpetrator is shot and killed by the police, again....absolutely I would side with the police. In fact, I have told many a client that they are lucky that they aren't dead with some of the things that they have done.

If, however, the facts are not clear.....or it is clear that the cops are lying....then I think as a citizenry we have an obligation to question and investigate the police officer's conduct. I think TOO many times, we give the police a pass or at least give them the benefit of the doubt when we shouldn't...simply because people don't want to question the tactics of the police. That is probably where we differ.
Click to expand...




So, Mike brown.


Whats your position, thug or victim?
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
So, Mike brown.


Whats your position, thug or victim?
Click to expand...

Honestly, I don't even remember who Mike Brown is. Is that the guy where the cop claimed he was reaching inside of his vehicle and grabbing for his weapon? If that is the case....that is one where I would not give the cop the benefit of the doubt because I don't think that it is clear that his life was in jeopardy. Any cop can shoot someone and make the claim that the perpetrator was grabbing for his weapon. If there are credible witnesses that confirm the cops story...then I would give that a great deal of consideration. But any time you have an unarmed dead citizen, I think citizen's owe it to our system to question the use of force.

Now if the guy approached the cop with a weapon, lunged at the cop with a weapon or was reaching in his pocket or something like that.....that is a different situation entirely.
 
disneydude said:
Honestly, I don't even remember who Mike Brown is. Is that the guy where the cop claimed he was reaching inside of his vehicle and grabbing for his weapon? If that is the case....that is one where I would not give the cop the benefit of the doubt because I don't think that it is clear that his life was in jeopardy. Any cop can shoot someone and make the claim that the perpetrator was grabbing for his weapon. If there are credible witnesses that confirm the cops story...then I would give that a great deal of consideration. But any time you have an unarmed dead citizen, I think citizen's owe it to our system to question the use of force.

Now if the guy approached the cop with a weapon, lunged at the cop with a weapon or was reaching in his pocket or something like that.....that is a different situation entirely.
Click to expand...



The d00d killed in feruguseon. /facepalm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Michael_Brown

Whats your position, thug or victim?
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
The d00d killed in feruguseon. /facepalm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Michael_Brown

Whats your position, thug or victim?
Click to expand...

Yeah....that's the case I was talking about in the post. Thug or Victim? Probably a little of both. This is one of those borderline cases that I'm talking about. If Mike Brown had a gun and approached the cop with his weapon drawn or was even making furtitive movements towards the weapon (i.e., reaching in his pockets etc)....then I think the cops should get the benefit of the doubt.

Here, we are talking about an unarmed civilian. Granted...he was no angel and probably a bit of a thug, based on reports of the theft that had occurred. However, we don't have the death penalty for petty theft in America.

If he was in fact reaching for the cops gun (as the cop claims), then the cop certainly was justified in shooting and killing him. But again....here....the evidence is not entirely clear and there is enough there to question the use of force/actions of the cop. As citizens, we shouldn't just accept the cops word in these types of situations where an unarmed civilian is killed.
 
plutonium said:
lets see now...everyone else pays taxes to use the roads and highways with a gas tax in every gallon of gas we buy but bundy should be able to use public land managed by our taxes for free correct? Bundy Quote: blacks are better off being slaves with a family then being on government welfare.... wow!!!! that says alot
Click to expand...
Oops; you have inadvertently omitted some content from Mr Bundy's statement which might possibly confuse the context_

Bundy said:
“I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro,” he said. Mr. Bundy recalled driving past a public-housing project in North Las Vegas, “and in front of that government house the door was usually open and the older people and the kids — and there is always at least a half a dozen people sitting on the porch — they didn’t have nothing to do. They didn’t have nothing for their kids to do. They didn’t have nothing for their young girls to do."

“And because they were basically on government subsidy, so now what do they do?” he asked. “They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn’t get no more freedom. They got less freedom.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/24/u...the-law-becoming-a-hero-in-the-west.html?_r=1

None the less; 67 year old Mr Bundy is definitely guilty of political incorrectness; a harmless fault common to most geezers_

And unless I'm mistaken, Barack Obama confirmed this in a statement concerning things his white grandmother had said_

Hatuey said:
A good old cowboy who went to another state to intimidate the government. If you don't feel like these are the last of these folks to do so, may I suggest you be next? Also, tell the forum when you're about to lash out like a good revolution that I can have time to record the entire matter and laugh about it when it comes to an end and you're either embarrassed like Bundy or dead like Lavoy. Hahaha, I'm just kidding about that last sentence. We all know an internet intellectual like you would never have the testicles (figuratively or literally) to do anything like what our young Bundy did.
Click to expand...
Kobie said:
On what planet is Bundy "law abiding"? What a crock.
Click to expand...
beefheart said:
Bundy is a leach, a welfare queen and an instigator of sedition. I just hope they throw his dad in jail too.

"fell victim" what absolute bilge.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I assume that most Civil Rights Protesters of the 60's were "law-abiding" citizens_

Yet; this video confirms that they were indeed "disrupting traffic and commerce"__a crime?

They obviously disobeyed multiple police orders to "disperse" and go home or church__a crime?

I see what appears to be incidences of some people "resisting arrest"__a crime?

And this protest is definitely a public display of "sedition" at play__a crime?

I assume that "intimidating government" is a common tactic of demonstrations__a crime?

Although in this case it was the local government for which they still managed to intimidate?

Maybe intimidation is necessary to secure public support so the protest might be successful__acceptable?

And I'm sure there's a fair number of out of state protesters which is not uncommon__do you disapprove?

Do any of you judge the protesters in the video below; to be guilty of any crime?

If so; are you still able to feel compassion for them??? or possibly even support???


Peter King said:
Bundy and his terrorist bunch of loons are violent offenders who used their weapons to occupy this building and made terrorist demands.
Click to expand...
Wiggen said:
No stranger that right wing gun lovers quickly denouncing the use of force by law enforcement officials.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
They never actually used their weapons but simply carrying them which in and of itself, is not illegal in many western states_

And exercising one's 2nd Amendment Right no more makes them "gun lovers" than exercising one's 1st Amendment Right makes people "word lovers"_
 
Empirica said:
I for one "feel bad for Bundy"______Why you ask?

Because Ammon Bundy was just an old cowboy trying to make a living that fell victim to an overly-intrusive and increasingly authoritarian government that's continuously testing the boundaries of its power!

He's not the only honest lawabiding citizen to be labeled a "criminal" during the transition of an ideo-political system_

In fact it's status quo for Capitalism to Socialism transition so Bundy definitely won't be the last in the coming days!
Click to expand...

Good old cowboy? He doesn't even own one cow. He owns a trucking service that he got a government secured loan to run.
 
wolfsgirl said:
Good old cowboy? He doesn't even own one cow. He owns a trucking service that he got a government secured loan to run.
Click to expand...
Were all the Ferguson protesters victims of police violence?! :wassat1:
 
Empirica said:
Were all the Ferguson protesters victims of police violence?! :wassat1:
Click to expand...

I don't know, why don't you ask them?

I was responding to your post about Ammon Bundy, the trucking business owner from Idaho, that decided to take over a wildlife refuge in Oregon.
 
wolfsgirl said:
I don't know, why don't you ask them?

I was responding to your post about Ammon Bundy, the trucking business owner from Idaho, that decided to take over a wildlife refuge in Oregon.
Click to expand...
Have you considered the possibility that your post is no less inconsequential to the issue than mine? :giggle1:
 
Empirica said:
Have you considered the possibility that your post is no less inconsequential to the issue than mine? :giggle1:
Click to expand...

I'm sorry if you feel that presenting facts is inconsequential.
 
Empirica said:
Oops; you have inadvertently omitted some content from Mr Bundy's statement which might possibly confuse the context_

Bundy said:
“I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro,” he said. Mr. Bundy recalled driving past a public-housing project in North Las Vegas, “and in front of that government house the door was usually open and the older people and the kids — and there is always at least a half a dozen people sitting on the porch — they didn’t have nothing to do. They didn’t have nothing for their kids to do. They didn’t have nothing for their young girls to do."

“And because they were basically on government subsidy, so now what do they do?” he asked. “They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn’t get no more freedom. They got less freedom.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/24/u...the-law-becoming-a-hero-in-the-west.html?_r=1

None the less; 67 year old Mr Bundy is definitely guilty of political incorrectness; a harmless fault common to most geezers_

And unless I'm mistaken, Barack Obama confirmed this in a statement concerning things his white grandmother had said_
Click to expand...

Ugh, all that post and I only read the first and last sentences hoping to find some coherence. You could save yourself the trouble and plainly state that you wouldn't do what Cowboy Bundy did because you understand how wrong and dead you'd end up. That you started with Bundy and ended up with Obama - who has zero relationship with a criminal cowboy and his armed amis thinking they were above the law -- I bet you stopped when you wrote that and thought it was pretty smart. :lol:
 
beefheart said:
deflect!
Click to expand...
True; but one must take into consideration that which I deflected_

wolfsgirl said:
I'm sorry if you feel that presenting facts is inconsequential.
Click to expand...
I have yet to figure out exactly what: Ammon Bundy not being a cowboy, not owning a cow, owning a trucking service and securing a government loan; has to do with him and his group getting what they deserve?!

Facts are consequential only when they pertain to the issue at hand and should you go off the reservation with your facts (which is fine) then don't be surprised when I go off with my response_

And the only reason I called Bundy a cowboy was because I seen him wearing a cowboy hat on tv, which has long been a fashion trend west of the Mississippi, regardless of a mans job__Whew! Everybody satisfied?

So if you're ever in a Dallas nightclub, don't be surprised if you hear one of the local cougars call some young Texas oil exec a cowboy simply for sporting a Stetson_(and maybe even matching boots) :eek:

I deserve some recognition for being so helpful, considerate and patient with those oblivious to the obvious! :nails
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom