LaVoy Finicum (BUNDY) was NOT shot with his hands up! He charged at LEO's. (from others arrested)

originally posted by: burntheships
a reply to: Gryphon66

Those questions, as you can see are written for answers from the FBI.

Thanks for your opinion though.

You're welcome.

You addressed me directly, you stated you were paying particular attention to those questions that I responded to (with fairly reasonable, logical, straightforward if not obvious, answers).

I have no doubt we will be inundated for months with investigations, endless internet postulations, etc. on the whole matter.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Have you considered the possibility, the guy was executed and the witnesses to the event were integral?

If the purpose is to foment rebellion, thus ensuring a reason for taking down militias and tightening on gun control laws, then it would probably have went down something like that.

Just thinking outside the box, it's hard to go after thousands of people, without a very good excuse; what better way then to kill one or two, pushing them over the edge?

originally posted by: GodEmperor
a reply to: Gryphon66

Have you considered the possibility, the guy was executed and the witnesses to the event were integral?

If the purpose is to foment rebellion, thus ensuring a reason for taking down militias and tightening on gun control laws, then it would probably have went down something like that.

I have thought about that too. It also sends a very strong threat... actually, promise... to anyone else who would dare cross the feds. "We can and will kill you too... and get away with it."

a reply to: Gryphon66

originally posted by: GodEmperor
a reply to: Gryphon66

Have you considered the possibility, the guy was executed and the witnesses to the event were integral?

If the purpose is to foment rebellion, thus ensuring a reason for taking down militias and tightening on gun control laws, then it would probably have went down something like that.

Just thinking outside the box, it's hard to go after thousands of people, without a very good excuse; what better way then to kill one or two, pushing them over the edge?

And who is fomenting rebellion?

And why?

Most of America saw this Occupation as ridiculous. Most of America will see this as the sad, unfortunate waste that it is.

Most of America will go to work tomorrow morning and wonder next week what happened to those guys out West.

originally posted by: Boadicea

I have thought about that too. It also sends a very strong threat... actually, promise... to anyone else who would dare cross the feds. "We can and will kill you too... and get away with it."

a reply to: Gryphon66

Do any of us, even the most liberal, State-loving, hippies, have any illusions that the government couldn't kill any of us anytime if that decision were actually made?

Or even more simply ... destroy our lives through any number of legal means (taxes, trumped up drug charges, etc)?

It just doesn't add up for me.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Do any of us, even the most liberal, State-loving, hippies, have any illusions that the government couldn't kill any of us anytime if that decision were actually made?

Or even more simply ... destroy our lives through any number of legal means (taxes, trumped up drug charges, etc)?

I wouldn't think so. But reality would seem to prove otherwise. Maybe the operative word is "could" as opposed to would, or even should. Obviously, they can; but most people think it won't happen to them (because they do nothing wrong and respect law enforcement), and others just think the long arm of the law should off anyone they don't like.

It just doesn't add up for me.

It doesn't add up at all.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Lately it seems that "provocation or confrontation is what is been used the most, after all with all the police vs citizens death, provocation, confrontation and intimation from the suspect to the police is what sticks the most.

I wonder what happen to the old suicide with note choice. Darn we have to make sure the media gets all the highlights.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Boadicea

I have thought about that too. It also sends a very strong threat... actually, promise... to anyone else who would dare cross the feds. "We can and will kill you too... and get away with it."

a reply to: Gryphon66

Do any of us, even the most liberal, State-loving, hippies, have any illusions that the government couldn't kill any of us anytime if that decision were actually made?

Or even more simply ... destroy our lives through any number of legal means (taxes, trumped up drug charges, etc)?

It just doesn't add up for me.

And half of the population thinks that things like that never, ever happen in America, hell I guess the new generation forgot about the 60s and 70s, people used to come out and say what they feel, and protest at will with not hindering of their rights, now most people just go on their daily lives oblivious of what is actually affecting their lives, because it has become a hazard just to protest in public.

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: Gryphon66

Lately it seems that "provocation or confrontation is what is been used the most, after all with all the police vs citizens death, provocation, confrontation and intimation from the suspect to the police is what sticks the most.

I wonder what happen to the old suicide with note choice. Darn we have to make sure the media gets all the highlights.

Right.

Sad, but right.

15 minutes of fame ... a man dies, a girl will probably never be the same, in the space of a news cycle 99% won't even remember their names.

For what?

a reply to: Gryphon66

I remember some document that stated the necessity of a catalyst to cause revolutionary change.

A violent insurrection, would be the ticket, to crack down on militias and guns.

Maybe look at the proposed solution first, the solution is gun control and mass surveillance.

I mean, you need a 9/11 before you can put forth a patriot act.

originally posted by: GodEmperor
a reply to: Gryphon66

I remember some document that stated the necessity of a catalyst to cause revolutionary change.

A violent insurrection, would be the ticket, to crack down on militias and guns.

Maybe look at the proposed solution first, the solution is gun control and mass surveillance.

I mean, you need a 9/11 before you can put forth a patriot act.

I don't disagree in general.

Shooting a guy that wanted to die after he evaded authorities on a public road in Oregon with the State Police and Media in tow ... is just not the way to light that match though.

Or, I'll admit, I don't see it. Not enough inertia.

a reply to: Gryphon66

You know thinking about what you just said, it makes me think, isn't this the way martyrs are born? at least within their group of those of the same way of thinking.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

How come there are no reports of any police being injured?

Did then fire on the police officers?

Did they hit one of their vehicles?

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: Gryphon66

You know thinking about what you just said, it makes me think, isn't this the way martyrs are born? at least within their group of those of the same way of thinking.

Martyrs are "born" this way, yes.

Martyrs also attract martyrs ... that's one of the thing that scares me for all of us.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Agree.

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: Krazysh0t

How come there are no reports of any police being injured?

Did then fire on the police officers?

Did they hit one of their vehicles?

Bet the people were not even armed when "apprehended".

a reply to: Gryphon66

You're probably right, not enough inertia.

Although, we've come a long way since the days of Bernays. It's easier to construe something rather cut and dry, and let's be honest, the average person is unlikely to go digging into finding the truth over a situation.

a reply to: onequestion

It is disconcerting even at the FBI presser basically
zero information given. They are not even officially
releasing the deceased victims name.

State-loving, hippies

That seems to be an oxymoron.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Do you know why it obviously wasn't an execution style killing? Because only THIS guy died. Why would the police only execute the one guy like this, but leave a bunch of eyewitnesses to create conflicting reports? Also, why weren't either of the Bundy's executed? One managed to sustain a gunshot wound. Why wasn't it fatal? Clearly, the police had the upper hand to such an extent they could straight up shoot someone in the back of the head, so why didn't the Bundy's get murdered too?

Seriously, it only takes a modicum of intellect to see that executing someone like is being suggested is a rather unfeasible action.

Intellect but this is ATS where you can deny whatever you like as long as your incorrect viewpoint is defended.

As an outsider I have absolutely no idea about the legalities or constitutional issues. What I do know , as you have very clearly stated, is that any execution killing would not leave all the other witnesses alive. That's just dumb. Very very dumb and totally illogical. I mean you don't even have to put a bullet in their head just drive the goddam van with the handcuffed detainees in the back over a bridge...."by accident". Jesus H!