The Citizens For Constitutional Freedom (OR standoff) Never Made Any Actual Verbal Threats

Surely this thread title cannot be correct, you're thinking. That's what I thought last night, when I started asking the people I was arguing with in various threads on the subject if they could produce evidence of all of the threats that these folks had supposedly made. There is certainly no shortage of headlines proclaiming this unsubstantiated rumor as fact. There must be something to it, then, I thought. I'll do some research to clarify the issue within my mind. Lo and behold, I've found no direct quotes to any of the occupiers making any actual threats.

Here is my challenge to you then, ATS. Can you show me any direct quotes that were made by the occupiers containing threats of any kind. I can show you plenty of instances where the leadership of this occupation has passed up opportunities given to them by the press to issue such threatening challenges. Finicum's supposed threats have been thoroughly debunked in this thread:
Finicum did not have a death wish. Mainstream media distorted the facts.
If you try to make the case that Finicum was making threats then, I will state that that has already been debunked and refer you to that thread.

Threats made by David Fry during the final wind down of the occupation I think can also be dismissed as not really representative of the group's intentions: those four were under an extreme amount of duress with MRAP's in the front yard and the FBI yelling on the bullhorn, so I don't really think you can take anything said there seriously as representing the group. I don't know that he made any as I haven't yet been able to review the material, I'm just saying that it's a stretch to take anything spouted off in those final hours as representative of the group. If that is brought in as evidence then, I will dismiss it accordingly. I think his streams after the leadership had been arrested are also dismissable as not really representative of the group's intentions. Some have said he was a plant, or at the very least mentally unstable. Perhaps...the focus of this thread is not to argue about these claims, though. Threats made by the occupiers, early on in the occupation, that they would "kill or be killed", etc. Should be pretty easy for you, right?

Threats made by occupiers in live streams during the occupation (before leaders were arrested) can be accepted as weak evidence. Though they were not speaking as leaders, their words and actions were representative of the group, in that the images and audio that they presented to the world did serve as the face of the rank and file of the occupation.

Actual strong evidence, in my opinion, would be the leadership making such statements, as that was certainly what was written in headlines early on during the occupation.

To get us started, I will note references to threats that I was able to find. Be sure to review the articles before accepting them as evidence and moving on with your lives, as most of the headlines are very deceptive:
Ranchers at Center of Oregon Standoff Threatened to Wrap Official’s Son in Barbed Wire and Drown Him

Cameron told Raw Story the Hammonds’ threats against his own family were so bad, they had to relocate outside of Burns, Oregon. Whenever Fish and Wildlife had a meeting with the Hammonds, Cameron said the policy was to usually have a law enforcement officer present and never to meet with the Hammonds alone.

“My wife would take these phone calls — it was terribly vulgar language. They said they were going to wrap my son in barbed wire and throw him down a well. They said they knew exactly which rooms my kids slept in, in Burns. There were death threats to my wife and two other staff members and their wives. My family went to Bend rather than be in the community because it was so volatile at the time. The families of my biologist and my deputy manager family had to relocate as well for a short time.”

“At the refuge headquarters, one of the Hammonds said they would tear my head off and # down the hole. One of the Hammonds told my Deputy Manager, Dan Walsworth, they were going to ‘put a chain around his neck and drag him behind a pickup.’”

These were threats allegedly made by the Hammonds twenty years ago, during an incident where federal employees were fencing off the Hammonds water supply, illegally some might argue. Tempers ran high, and threats were allegedly made. Charges against the Hammonds over this incident were eventually dropped. I think it's interesting to note that the headline of this article does not make it clear that these threats were allegedly made by the ranchers that were being sent to prison, and not the occupiers.

These are the only quoted threats I've been able to find. There are reports of threats leading up to the standoff, that caused some federal offices to be closed for some time, but nothing specific quoted or listed. There is also no evidence that these statements were made by the actual occupiers, and not some unbalanced individual.
Threats Forced Feds To Close Offices In Oregon Before Standoff Even Began
This next headline is a good example of the allegations of threats that had been allegedly made:
Oregon militants keeping women and children around at standoff despite threats to kill or be killed
No threats are directly quoted within the article, nor videos linked whrein threats are directly made.

Here is the Citizens for Constitutional Freedom's original press conference, given January 4th, 2016, where the occupiers state their purpose and intentions. Notice I did not say "made demands", because they didn't make demands. Threatening language is conspicuously absent from this press conference.

www.youtube.com...
When asked at 25:50 "If the authorities try to remove you forcibly, how far are you willing to take this in defense of your cause?" Ammon Bundy replies: "We do not believe that they will do that." When asked "What if they do?" he ignores the question.

I'm running out of room, so I'll close my opening post by saying that I understand the implied threat that some members are arguing these people conveyed with their actions. Arguing that is not the purpose of this thread. I'm interested in the actual threats that were made, if any. I'm guessing there were some. I probably just couldn't find them in my brief research. If so, then let this thread serve as a place for those to be compiled. Well, come on then. Bring it! I'm not afraid to be wrong here. Let's see how much threatening language was actually used by these folks.

that stopped them from being killed by gunmen we hire collectively, right?

a reply to: TheBadCabbie

The glaring memory I have is of Fincum going ballistic about the government spying on us with power grid cameras...that did it. I was done. I mean, he was absolutely BALLISTIC about "FBI" cameras that turned out to be just monitoring the power grids. I mean, the IQ on display in that YT video was enough for me.

For the record, it's a damn travesty (as I've said before) that any "anti government" person from here on out has to answer the "so you're like the Oregon folk?" question. And the cherry on top is the "I just wanted my MJ & UFO truth" guy from yesterday....

how about the fact that it was *televised*?

a reply to: DuckforcoveR

This next video appears to be a CBS this morning report that was posted to youtube on January 4th, 2016. Probably recorded that morning, then.
CBS Anchors Subtly Threaten To Kill Ammon Bundy During Live Interview!

At 0:30 the first interviewer asks Ammon: "Why are you armed?"
Ammon Replies: "We are serious about being here. We're serious about defending our rights, and we are serious about getting some things straightened out."

The second interviewer then immediately asks him: "Do you anticipate that this could lead to violence?"
Ammon replies: "Only if the government wants to take it there."

Third interviewer then immediately says: "I saw an interview with one of your members who was heading there today who says that he is willing to die for this cause. Do you feel the same?"
Ammon replies: "I feel that, absolutely, but probably not in the way that most people will take it. I am a family man, I have six children, I have a business, I actually own a truck shop with about twent five employees, I have no desire to go out and to lose my life. Iwant to live free, I want to be able to prosper, and I know that I need the land and resources to do that."

At 2:08 the first interviewer asks Ammon: "Who is the enemy here?"
Ammon replies: "Well I don't really want to say there's any enemy. The federal government really is acting in the way that they were set up to act. The states have failed to protect the counties, and the county has failed to protect the people; and so, now you have a situation where the people have to stand on their own to protect and defend their own rights. Really our system, our federalist system has failed, and we need the states to stand up and say 'hey you're not gonna do this here', and we need the counties to stand up and say 'you're not gonna do this here', so that the people can go about and peacefully live, and benefit from the land and resources and prosper, and regain their wealth across the country.

Immediately after this, at 2:50, the same interviewer asks Ammon: "Would you define this as an armed militia that's who's prepared to stay indefinitely?"
Ammon replies: "Absolutely not! This is concerned American citizens that are willing to stand for their rights."

"Only if the government wants to take it there" seems to be the most threatening language contained in this interview. Not exactly the same as 'Kill or be killed', in my opinion.

a reply to: DuckforcoveR

Could you find that video and post it, please? Or better yet, post it in the Finicum thread that I have linked in the OP? Thanks for your input, anyhow.

a reply to: TheBadCabbie

Displaying antiestablishmentarianism tendencies can possibly get you on the terrorist watch list thanks in large part to the Patriot Act.

You can blame the US government taking advantage of 9/11 for that.

and you can blame government aligned main stream media for endorsing this philosophy through their relentless propaganda.

a reply to: Sublimecraft

I've been running my mouth for years, so to quote Darth Vader: "It is too late for me, my son."

Seriously though, I have always been and shall remain a staunch defender of our constitutional rights. I also like to call out lies when I see them, to promote clarity on the issues that we face in this world. If that were going to get me labeled, I'm pretty sure I crossed that bridge a long time ago.

To use the ATS search is to see the light at edge of the black hole. I can't find it. But the thread exists, it was rather heated with people pointing out the exact make and model (and purpose) of those cameras. I'll keep searching but if anybody has any further direction, please...

ETA:

Hidden Camera

a reply to: TheBadCabbie

Only in America
If you stand up for your rights and believe in the Constitution, the very document that gave us our " rights " the document that police and military take an oath to defend by the way.
You are now the new enemy now tell me that's not crazy.

originally posted by: JHumm
Only in America
If you stand up for your rights and believe in the Constitution, the very document that gave us our " rights " the document that police and military take an oath to defend by the way.
You are now the new enemy now tell me that's not crazy.

It's contemptible.

a reply to: Sublimecraft

Displaying antiestablishmentarian tendencies is one thing. In recent years, millions of people took to the streets in protest and civil disobedience as part of OWS. They do it now under the banner of BLM. Hell, even the Tea Party is a good example of a group that got out and got their message heard (and btw, succeeded in getting people elected).

None of them staged armed occupations of anything.

Nobody can deny that the purpose of being armed was anything but an implicit threat that any attempt to remove them would result in bloodshed. Are authorities supposed to make exceptions for assholes with guns who want to play insurgent just because they're wearing cowboy hats and seem like real salt of the Earth types?

I am no longer shocked, but still disappointed that people are still being suckered by these Sovereign Citizen fringe LDS loons. However I am interested in the phenomenon of otherwise intelligent people being wilfully blind to what is actually going on as long as it feeds their bias.

a reply to: DuckforcoveR

I would like to see this video as well of Mr. Finnicum going ballistic as you put it, and as far as the IQ level in said video your talking about, do you mean in the one where Finnicum goes ballistic or the one that the op posted above your post where Finnicum is being reasonable, practical, intelligent and humble, you mean that one?

i dont see anyone, ESPECIALLY Finnicum going ballistic., quite the opposite actually. Funny that eh!

without proof, your just spreading lies.

a reply to: greencmp

Really?

The First Amendment (which btw, didn't provide nearly the protections it does NOW when it was authored by these singular givers of rights) does not in anyway protect an individual's right to express himself through armed occupation.

What's contemptible in my opinion are all the enablers and what really gets me is how f'ing phony it all is. All this big talk about how dire the situation is and fighting for liberty and blah blah blah.

These poor idiots guzzled the kool-aid. Like the penguins who jump in first, they went all-in with the expectation that all the big talkers were serious. What happened? The last four of them ended up streamed on the Internet, pissing their pants and crying for help — crying for backup that wasn't coming because despite all the militant twaddle from would be radicals, things obviously aren't so bad that "thousands of people" — in a country of hundreds of millions — were willing to risk ANYTHING to join their supposedly noble cause.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: greencmp

Really?

The First Amendment (which btw, didn't provide nearly the protections it does NOW when it was authored by these singular givers of rights) does not in anyway protect an individual's right to express himself through armed occupation.

What's contemptible in my opinion are all the enablers and what really gets me is how f'ing phony it all is. All this big talk about how dire the situation is and fighting for liberty and blah blah blah.

These poor idiots guzzled the kool-aid. Like the penguins who jump in first, they went all-in with the expectation that all the big talkers were serious. What happened? The last four of them ended up streamed on the Internet, pissing their pants and crying for help — crying for backup that wasn't coming because despite all the militant twaddle from would be radicals, things obviously aren't so bad that "thousands of people" — in a country of hundreds of millions — were willing to risk ANYTHING to join their supposedly noble cause.

Which post are you responding to?

originally posted by: JHumm
Only in America
If you stand up for your rights and believe in the Constitution, the very document that gave us our " rights " the document that police and military take an oath to defend by the way.
You are now the new enemy now tell me that's not crazy.

It's contemptible.

Or are you just looking for an argument?

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: greencmp

Really?

The First Amendment (which btw, didn't provide nearly the protections it does NOW when it was authored by these singular givers of rights) does not in anyway protect an individual's right to express himself through armed occupation.

What's contemptible in my opinion are all the enablers and what really gets me is how f'ing phony it all is. All this big talk about how dire the situation is and fighting for liberty and blah blah blah.

These poor idiots guzzled the kool-aid. Like the penguins who jump in first, they went all-in with the expectation that all the big talkers were serious. What happened? The last four of them ended up streamed on the Internet, pissing their pants and crying for help — crying for backup that wasn't coming because despite all the militant twaddle from would be radicals, things obviously aren't so bad that "thousands of people" — in a country of hundreds of millions — were willing to risk ANYTHING to join their supposedly noble cause.

Barfing aside, I get the impression that you are a fan of double jeopardy and the use of anti-terror legislation against US citizens by a government that should not even possess the land in question.

Have you looked into any of this at all?

a reply to: theantediluvian

You know what I find contemptible? You crapping on my thread with a bunch of lengthy posts arguing for a point that was conceded in the OP! If I tell you the sky is blue, will you then say to me 'no it's not it's blue!!!' and then present to me a lengthy research paper proving the thing that I already stated as a given to start with?!?
Do you have any documentation of actual threats made by these people? Or did you just stop by to crap on my thread?

a reply to: TheBadCabbie

The Citizens For Constitutional Freedom (OR standoff) Never Made Any Threats

You're right, they didn't. They only asserted their right to defend and protect themselves from others who would do them harm. As pointed out many times, they never threatened to use their firearms aggressively -- only defensively. They did not point their weapons at anyone, and they sure didn't shoot anyone, much less ambush and kill anyone on a blind curve. No matter how inconvenient and/or impractical their occupation of the refuge was, they did not put one life in danger, and as long as they were peaceful, the authorities -- law enforcement and otherwise -- should have been responding in kind.

But, obviously, we have plenty of bloodthirsty folks in the populace who wanted blood and got it. Some people like watching jackbooted thugs abuse their fellow citizens, including cold blooded murder. Yup. I'm saying it.

We are now supposed to believe that anyone with a firearm is a danger to others. I live in an open carry state. I see folks with firearms all the time and it's no big deal. I stood at the McDonald's counter a week ago talking with another lady and a man with a sidearm in full view. Neither of us were scared or intimidated by this man nor his gun. As a girl, I was taught to shoot and clean and otherwise properly handle a gun. Of course, I was also taught that you ONLY use a gun as an absolute last resort and only to protect life -- whether yours or another's. It wasn't a way to force others to your will. But that's what has changed, and it's been on full display throughout the Oregon standoff. Now folks expect and want it to be the first resort when someone refuses the will of others. Even to the point of cheering and applauding the ambush and cold blooded murder of a man who had not threatened anyone, much less hurt anyone. This wasn't suicide-by-cop, this was murder-by-cop.

No wonder the same people are so afraid of guns in the hands of their fellow citizens. It says far more about them than anyone else.

It's posted above. There was a big discussion here about it, the thread is linked in my comment. I'm not spreading any lies, the only debate is what defines ballistic. But after watching that video I don't have a better way of wording it.



a reply to: alphacenturi