User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 5/9/2014 5:29:53 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I remember when that pic came out - Janet Reno said pointing the gun at the child was ok because the agent's finger was not on the trigger. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Pointing a weapon at someone is a federally investigated crime now? http://i59.tinypic.com/2rr9abl.jpg Exactly the picture I was thinking of 
Couldn't decide between that one or this one: http://i62.tinypic.com/jql644.jpg Us and them. Just further proof of it. http://www.eonline.com/eol_images/Entire_Site/20131111/rs_560x415-131211095433-1024.elian-gonzalez-child-cuba.jpg I remember when that pic came out - Janet Reno said pointing the gun at the child was ok because the agent's finger was not on the trigger. Saiga guy on the bridge should be good then since his finger is off the trigger too. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2014 5:30:49 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Pointing a weapon at someone is a federally investigated crime now? http://i59.tinypic.com/2rr9abl.jpg Only when one uses women and children as shields. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2014 5:31:39 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This may present an issue, as to whose rifles were pointed first (which Bundy supporters claimed happened very early and before other people were even armed). Since this area is covered by 9th Circuit case law, the court has ruled and been very restrictive on when officers can point firearms. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I'm sure none of the BLM had rifles pointed at any of the Bundy supporters....especially not the ones with sniper rifles. This may present an issue, as to whose rifles were pointed first (which Bundy supporters claimed happened very early and before other people were even armed). Since this area is covered by 9th Circuit case law, the court has ruled and been very restrictive on when officers can point firearms. When charged with protecting a desert tortoise I believe the 9th Circuit will rule for deadly force. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2014 5:37:30 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Couldn't decide between that one or this one: http://i62.tinypic.com/jql644.jpg Us and them. Just further proof of it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Pointing a weapon at someone is a federally investigated crime now? http://i59.tinypic.com/2rr9abl.jpg Exactly the picture I was thinking of
Couldn't decide between that one or this one: http://i62.tinypic.com/jql644.jpg Us and them. Just further proof of it. That picture just pisses me off. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2014 5:39:25 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Of all the things for the FBI to put effort into... Hell, I am surprised they have the manpower to spare, what with all the tea party investigations going on... |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2014 5:40:03 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They know his name, he did interviews, some folks here found and friended him on facebook. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Pictures of said pointed weapons or it never happened. Guy on the bridge proned out pointing his AK at the agents in the gully better be finding a lawyer. how do we know he wasn't a mole? They know his name, he did interviews, some folks here found and friended him on facebook. Oh that's brilliant.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2014 5:42:19 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Was he actually pointing it at somebody? Or is it like that old yarn about militia members meetings? Out of the ten militia members at some meeting, 2 are ATF agents, 2 are FBI, 2 are DHS, 2 are confidential informants turned because they got caught with both a dime bag and a gun at the same time. The last two...one is a true beliver. The other is just there for the free beer.
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Pictures of said pointed weapons or it never happened. Here's one. http://tellmenow.com/files/2014/04/2014.04.13-mrconservative-534a98dde0480-500x346.jpg Was he actually pointing it at somebody? Or is it like that old yarn about militia members meetings? Out of the ten militia members at some meeting, 2 are ATF agents, 2 are FBI, 2 are DHS, 2 are confidential informants turned because they got caught with both a dime bag and a gun at the same time. The last two...one is a true beliver. The other is just there for the free beer.
you forgot two important points: 1. The true believer is actually an undercover investigative reporter. 2. None of the feds or informants are aware of the others' status. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2014 5:42:26 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Oh that's brilliant. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Pictures of said pointed weapons or it never happened. Guy on the bridge proned out pointing his AK at the agents in the gully better be finding a lawyer. how do we know he wasn't a mole? They know his name, he did interviews, some folks here found and friended him on facebook. Oh that's brilliant. He's a well insulated mole?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2014 5:45:32 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This? This is nothing....but it will LEAD to something. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: LAS VEGAS -- A dramatic development in the saga surrounding rancher Cliven Bundy, the FBI has entered the case. The 8 News NOW I-Team has learned that FBI agents have started an investigation into the events surrounding a potentially deadly showdown one month ago. It is one thing for Bundy and his supporters to square off against an assortment of Bureau of Land Management employees. It is quite another when the FBI enters the picture, and that is exactly what has happened. The I-Team has confirmed that FBI agents have launched a formal investigation into alleged death threats, intimidation and possible weapons violations that culminated with a dangerous showdown on April 12, and the first people to be interviewed by FBI agents are Metro Police, starting with Clark County Sheriff Doug Gillispie. Last week, the I-Team talked with Metro officers who intervened to protect the lives of federal employees from the 400 or so Bundy supporters and armed militia members. Officers told the I-Team they feared for their lives that day because of the assembled firepower, and because many in the crowd had pointed weapons at officers, taunted them, told them they should be ready to die. FBI agents also spoke to an entire squad of Metro officers, who were on the scene to act as a buffer between the crowd and the BLM. Bundy supporters have insisted in emails and calls to 8 News NOW that no one in the crowd pointed weapons at BLM or Metro, but officers told the I-Team that is exactly what they saw, that many with guns set up behind women and children. It is illegal to point loaded weapons at federal agents, http://www.8newsnow.com/story/25469579/breaking-news-fbi-investigating-bundy-supporters-in-blm-dispute I knew this was coming. I bolded the shit that got my attention in this... Shit just got real So maybe the 1st person to do time for a 922r violation? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2014 5:45:44 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
i cant really tell what he is pointing at though, could be a prarie dog Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Pictures of said pointed weapons or it never happened. Here's one. http://tellmenow.com/files/2014/04/2014.04.13-mrconservative-534a98dde0480-500x346.jpg i cant really tell what he is pointing at though, could be a prarie dog Is that an actual, functioning firearm? I dunno. I bet he was just trying to look intimidating, or be supportive of Mr. Bundy. I suspect that it was just an airsoft rifle, or at worse, an actual firearm with the firing pin removed. This gentleman is not guilty of anything more than disturbing the peace.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2014 5:50:01 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
In for drone footage. You know they have it. I guarantee you since this entire thing started they've been poring over the pictures attaching names to faces for their files. Although with facial recognition software, it's not like that would be difficult. In olden days, it'd be a group of guys with magnifying glasses and a stack of photohraphs. Now they just have HAL 9000 do all of the heavy lifting. Do whatever it takes to defuse the situation. Then quietly go after as many people as possible for whatever violation you can possibly cite them with on an individual, lone basis. At least, that's how I'd do it if I were the head of a repressive regime. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2014 5:50:58 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not much. Select twelve people, show them those pics, easy conviction. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Pictures of said pointed weapons or it never happened. Guy on the bridge proned out pointing his AK at the agents in the gully better be finding a lawyer. I wonder how much of an impact the choice of venue will have when selecting for a jury. Probably not as much as any of us would think. Not much. Select twelve people, show them those pics, easy conviction. Use of force is legally justified when a person reasonably believes it is necessary to defend oneself or someone else against imminent harm. The question might be: Did the feds "point" first? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2014 5:54:50 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That picture just pisses me off. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Pointing a weapon at someone is a federally investigated crime now? http://i59.tinypic.com/2rr9abl.jpg Exactly the picture I was thinking of
Couldn't decide between that one or this one: http://www.examiner.com/article/court-upholds-police-pointing-gun-at-lawful-carrier http://i62.tinypic.com/jql644.jpg Us and them. Just further proof of it. That picture just pisses me off. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2014 5:55:29 AM EDT
[#15]
"If you're not cop, you're little people." - Bryant, Blade Runner |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2014 5:55:31 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Pointing a weapon at someone is a federally investigated crime now? http://i59.tinypic.com/2rr9abl.jpg Exactly the picture I was thinking of
Couldn't decide between that one or this one: http://www.examiner.com/article/court-upholds-police-pointing-gun-at-lawful-carrier http://i62.tinypic.com/jql644.jpg Us and them. Just further proof of it. That picture just pisses me off. http://www.examiner.com/article/court-upholds-police-pointing-gun-at-lawful-carrier |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2014 5:55:43 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This may present an issue, as to whose rifles were pointed first (which Bundy supporters claimed happened very early and before other people were even armed). Since this area is covered by 9th Circuit case law, the court has ruled and been very restrictive on when officers can point firearms. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I'm sure none of the BLM had rifles pointed at any of the Bundy supporters....especially not the ones with sniper rifles. This may present an issue, as to whose rifles were pointed first (which Bundy supporters claimed happened very early and before other people were even armed). Since this area is covered by 9th Circuit case law, the court has ruled and been very restrictive on when officers can point firearms. Yep. Who pointed first. Use damn bino's. Either side. Rude doesn't even begin to cover glassing someone with firearm optics.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2014 5:57:25 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Use of force is legally justified when a person reasonably believes it is necessary to defend oneself or someone else against imminent harm. The question might be: Did the feds "point" first? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Pictures of said pointed weapons or it never happened. Guy on the bridge proned out pointing his AK at the agents in the gully better be finding a lawyer. I wonder how much of an impact the choice of venue will have when selecting for a jury. Probably not as much as any of us would think. Not much. Select twelve people, show them those pics, easy conviction. Use of force is legally justified when a person reasonably believes it is necessary to defend oneself or someone else against imminent harm. The question might be: Did the feds "point" first? Possibly. 3 of the 5 were smart enough to use binoculars. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2014 5:57:31 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Only when one uses women and children as shields. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Pointing a weapon at someone is a federally investigated crime now? http://i59.tinypic.com/2rr9abl.jpg Only when one uses women and children as shields. in Atlanta, and the little girl shot in the head in Detroit, and God knows what else, women and kids won't stop the hammer from dropping.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2014 5:57:51 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Use of force is legally justified when a person reasonably believes it is necessary to defend oneself or someone else against imminent harm. The question might be: Did the feds "point" first? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Not much. Select twelve people, show them those pics, easy conviction. Use of force is legally justified when a person reasonably believes it is necessary to defend oneself or someone else against imminent harm. The question might be: Did the feds "point" first? If they decide to go after somebody and it is him I have zero doubts he will be convicted. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2014 6:01:55 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Guy on the bridge proned out pointing his AK at the agents in the gully better be finding a lawyer. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Pictures of said pointed weapons or it never happened. Guy on the bridge proned out pointing his AK at the agents in the gully better be finding a lawyer. It was mentioned that this guy was planted. Has that been sorted out? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2014 6:03:11 AM EDT
[#22]
So the FBI waited for weeks to make it to Benghazi when a fucking Ambassador was murdered and the crime scene had been burnt and looted. Do I have that right? Some people show up armed to protect against the over reaching fed gov or another Waco and all of the sudden they are Johnny on the spot?
Keep pushing assholes. Most people wanted nothing to do with Bundy and look at the overwhelming support that showed. The political hacks in charge are not smart enough to see that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2014 6:03:34 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If they decide to go after somebody and it is him I have zero doubts he will be convicted. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Not much. Select twelve people, show them those pics, easy conviction. Use of force is legally justified when a person reasonably believes it is necessary to defend oneself or someone else against imminent harm. The question might be: Did the feds "point" first? If they decide to go after somebody and it is him I have zero doubts he will be convicted. Let's say he says "there were many LEO's with their firearms aimed at unarmed people and I was afraid innocent people would get shot"...................as a juror what would you say? RDak would say "not guilty". |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2014 6:04:22 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If they decide to go after somebody and it is him I have zero doubts he will be convicted. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Not much. Select twelve people, show them those pics, easy conviction. Use of force is legally justified when a person reasonably believes it is necessary to defend oneself or someone else against imminent harm. The question might be: Did the feds "point" first? If they decide to go after somebody and it is him I have zero doubts he will be convicted. I will chip in to get him Zimmermans lawyer. Fuck everyone that has anything to do with bringing charges against those people. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2014 6:08:42 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Let's say he says "there were many LEO's with their firearms aimed at unarmed people and I was afraid innocent people would get shot"...................as a juror what would you say? RDak would say "not guilty". Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Not much. Select twelve people, show them those pics, easy conviction. Use of force is legally justified when a person reasonably believes it is necessary to defend oneself or someone else against imminent harm. The question might be: Did the feds "point" first? If they decide to go after somebody and it is him I have zero doubts he will be convicted. Let's say he says "there were many LEO's with their firearms aimed at unarmed people and I was afraid innocent people would get shot"...................as a juror what would you say? RDak would say "not guilty". Me too. But somehow I suspect that neither of us would make it through voir dire. I absolutely believe that AUSA's absolutely have extensive background checks done on prospective jurors, they would know anyone that ever posted on a site that even halfway supported Bundy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2014 6:10:22 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It was mentioned that this guy was planted. Has that been sorted out? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Pictures of said pointed weapons or it never happened. Guy on the bridge proned out pointing his AK at the agents in the gully better be finding a lawyer. It was mentioned that this guy was planted. Has that been sorted out? Some members here are friends with him on facebook. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2014 6:11:23 AM EDT
[#27]
But only good LEOs that respect our rights post on this forum, so I'm sure I won't see any of them getting chubbies over people being put in jail over this.
Oh wait............... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2014 6:12:13 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
But only good LEOs that respect our rights post on this forum, so I'm sure I won't see any of them getting chubbies over people being put in jail over this. Oh wait............... One that has the letters FED and DC in his username is fapping furiously. Guaranteed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2014 6:12:43 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Let's say he says "there were many LEO's with their firearms aimed at unarmed people and I was afraid innocent people would get shot"...................as a juror what would you say? RDak would say "not guilty". Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
If they decide to go after somebody and it is him I have zero doubts he will be convicted. Let's say he says "there were many LEO's with their firearms aimed at unarmed people and I was afraid innocent people would get shot"...................as a juror what would you say? RDak would say "not guilty". Which agent was he pointing his gun at and identify the person he was protecting? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2014 6:14:00 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Which agent was he pointing his gun at and identify the person he was protecting? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If they decide to go after somebody and it is him I have zero doubts he will be convicted. Let's say he says "there were many LEO's with their firearms aimed at unarmed people and I was afraid innocent people would get shot"...................as a juror what would you say? RDak would say "not guilty". Which agent was he pointing his gun at and identify the person he was protecting? Hypothetical............I am pretty sure that is what he might say................let's assume numerous witnesses for the defense support his statement as to aiming. Now what do you do as a juror? Beyond a reasonable doubt? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2014 6:15:51 AM EDT
[#31]
Using women and children as human shields. I'm calling bs.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2014 6:18:58 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Show the pictures to a jury of twleve and he will be convicted. He needs to be finding a good lawyer. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Pictures of said pointed weapons or it never happened. Guy on the bridge proned out pointing his AK at the agents in the gully better be finding a lawyer. How can the .gov possibly know WHAT he was aiming at - if he was aiming at anything? Pointing his rifle in the general direction? Sure. Aiming at? I'm not positive about that one. Show the pictures to a jury of twleve and he will be convicted. He needs to be finding a good lawyer. I'm sure he'll need a good lawyer. But I completely disagree with your jury comment. There's no way that happens. The Feds have to prove that he aimed directly at a Fed. Unless they have a photo taken from his sight window which shows that he was unquestionably aiming at a Fed, (which they don't) this isn't going anywhere. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2014 6:19:18 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Can they prove he is pointing at a cop? He could be pointing at a Bundy supporter or at a cow. They better have clean records. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Pictures of said pointed weapons or it never happened. Here's one. http://tellmenow.com/files/2014/04/2014.04.13-mrconservative-534a98dde0480-500x346.jpg Can they prove he is pointing at a cop? He could be pointing at a Bundy supporter or at a cow. They better have clean records. Or was he a fed plant? Only guy that was photographed and looked way staged |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2014 6:19:47 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Using women and children as human shields. I'm calling bs. Former Arizona sheriff Richard Mack says he and other organizers at Cliven Bundy’s ranch in Nevada were contemplating using women and children as human shields in case “rogue federal officers” opened fire. Appearing on Fox News’ “The Real Story” on Monday, former Sheriff Richard Mack said he and other protesters “were actually strategizing to put all the women up at the front. If they are going to start shooting, it’s going to be women that are going to be televised all across the world getting shot by these rogue federal officers.” -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/apr/15/former-sheriff-willing-let-wife-daughter-die-front/#ixzz31EChshJe Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter I got to meet him the other day. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2014 6:19:53 AM EDT
[#35]
Now we need to see who gave the orders to go after the guys on the overpass and why. They are trying to scare people into not acting and organizing against them.
Cover your faces from now on. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2014 6:20:34 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Hypothetical............I am pretty sure that is what he might say................let's assume numerous witnesses for the defense support his statement as to aiming. Now what do you do as a juror? Beyond a reasonable doubt? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Which agent was he pointing his gun at and identify the person he was protecting? Hypothetical............I am pretty sure that is what he might say................let's assume numerous witnesses for the defense support his statement as to aiming. Now what do you do as a juror? Beyond a reasonable doubt? Yeah I think he gets convicted. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2014 6:21:06 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Hypothetical............I am pretty sure that is what he might say................let's assume numerous witnesses for the defense support his statement as to aiming. Now what do you do as a juror? Beyond a reasonable doubt? As a juror I'd want to know if there were people pointing guns his way. If there were, he walks. Don't give a damn what bureaucracy they worked for; city, federal, whatever. Don't care what the law says in that particular situation. This whole thing faded away without bloodshed, and as a leader that would have been my first goal. If I accomplished that and everybody walked, I'd be happy with that. Obama obviously has other priorities. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2014 6:21:56 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm sure he'll need a good lawyer. But I completely disagree with your jury comment. There's no way that happens. The Feds have to prove that he aimed directly at a Fed. Unless they have a photo taken from his sight window which shows that he was unquestionably aiming at a Fed, (which they don't) this isn't going anywhere. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Show the pictures to a jury of twleve and he will be convicted. He needs to be finding a good lawyer. I'm sure he'll need a good lawyer. But I completely disagree with your jury comment. There's no way that happens. The Feds have to prove that he aimed directly at a Fed. Unless they have a photo taken from his sight window which shows that he was unquestionably aiming at a Fed, (which they don't) this isn't going anywhere. I would not want to bet my freedom on that strategy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2014 6:25:39 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Guy in prone is an idiot. You don't aim, point or direct your weapon at a crowd. You don't point a gun at anyone unless there's a deadly force issue....grazing cattle bs is an issue for court, not the street. Please do not call the police when your neighbor does the same. They own the courts. Look at your own state for proof. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2014 6:25:50 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote History Use of force is legally justified when a person reasonably believes it is necessary to defend oneself or someone else against imminent harm. The question might be: Did the feds "point" first? Their duties are currently "lawful" and protected, aiming at them is not. Like it or not, you submit to the police. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2014 6:26:18 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
............. Yeah I think he gets convicted. I don't know about that, I just don't know. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2014 6:27:47 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
............. I would not want to bet my freedom on that strategy. Yeah, you are probably right on that one IMHO. I mean, he was aiming at something. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2014 6:28:00 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I would not want to be my freedom on that strategy. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Show the pictures to a jury of twleve and he will be convicted. He needs to be finding a good lawyer. I'm sure he'll need a good lawyer. But I completely disagree with your jury comment. There's no way that happens. The Feds have to prove that he aimed directly at a Fed. Unless they have a photo taken from his sight window which shows that he was unquestionably aiming at a Fed, (which they don't) this isn't going anywhere. I would not want to be my freedom on that strategy. It's not a strategy. If you're going to try someone for aiming a gun at a Fed. I'm pretty sure that you have to prove that they actually aimed at a Fed? NOT pointing the muzzle in the general direction from a long distance away. There is no proof he aimed at a Fed. So yeah... that would be my strategy. What else would it be? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2014 6:29:02 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
............. It's not a strategy. If you're going to try someone for aiming a gun at a Fed. I'm pretty sure that you have to prove that they actually aimed at a Fed? NOT pointing the muzzle in the general direction from a long distance away. There is no proof he aimed at a Fed. So yeah... that would be my strategy. What else would it be? Defending unarmed people from getting shot? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2014 6:33:53 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Defending unarmed people from getting shot? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
............. It's not a strategy. If you're going to try someone for aiming a gun at a Fed. I'm pretty sure that you have to prove that they actually aimed at a Fed? NOT pointing the muzzle in the general direction from a long distance away. There is no proof he aimed at a Fed. So yeah... that would be my strategy. What else would it be? Defending unarmed people from getting shot? Good intentions gone bad? When you aim a weapon to prevent, hinder, or endanger LE conducting lawful duties, you get arrested. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2014 6:34:31 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So yeah... that would be my strategy. What else would it be? Have one of the jury try to hit a man-sized target at 300m with an AK? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2014 6:34:58 AM EDT
[#47]
I would care a little more if every agent of the government that pointed a gun at someone that day was arrested as well. Otherwise it's just a hypocritical witch hunt because somebody found out the hard way they are not the only people in the world capable of pointing rifles at people. No different than the cop that arrests an OCer because he doesn't like not having a monopoly on force.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2014 6:35:11 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's not a strategy. If you're going to try someone for aiming a gun at a Fed. I'm pretty sure that you have to prove that they actually aimed at a Fed? NOT pointing the muzzle in the general direction from a long distance away. There is no proof he aimed at a Fed. So yeah... that would be my strategy. What else would it be? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Show the pictures to a jury of twleve and he will be convicted. He needs to be finding a good lawyer. I'm sure he'll need a good lawyer. But I completely disagree with your jury comment. There's no way that happens. The Feds have to prove that he aimed directly at a Fed. Unless they have a photo taken from his sight window which shows that he was unquestionably aiming at a Fed, (which they don't) this isn't going anywhere. I would not want to be my freedom on that strategy. It's not a strategy. If you're going to try someone for aiming a gun at a Fed. I'm pretty sure that you have to prove that they actually aimed at a Fed? NOT pointing the muzzle in the general direction from a long distance away. There is no proof he aimed at a Fed. So yeah... that would be my strategy. What else would it be? Yeah that's great when you actually think with a level head. Unfortunately the dominant amount of Americans now-days are sheeple. They would absolutely hang someone up for no better reason than only the LEO should have weapons they are there to protect us and he is a "vigilante". Now I know you will say reasonable doubt well let's be honest with ourselves these same people wouldn't ask themselves that they would let their ultra-liberal emotions guide them not the law nor actual thought process. LEO says he's bad so he's bad. Welcome to america LOL ETA: not to mention its LEO's word vs civilians and I would put your chances at about 2% of beating that battle lol |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2014 6:35:51 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
............ Good intentions gone bad? When you aim a weapon to prevent, hinder, or endanger LE conducting lawful duties, you get arrested. Understood. I wonder when that line is crossed by the situation and LEO's behavior though? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2014 6:36:10 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Oh that's brilliant. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Pictures of said pointed weapons or it never happened. Guy on the bridge proned out pointing his AK at the agents in the gully better be finding a lawyer. how do we know he wasn't a mole? They know his name, he did interviews, some folks here found and friended him on facebook. Oh that's brilliant. A perfect oppurtinuity to be "Rusty Shakelford" to the press and the guy dicks his own Opsec up. 
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
