Do government agencies need to be armed?

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

If the BLM agents thought there was going to be trouble with Bundy, they had plenty of time to arrange for professional law enforcement agents to accompany them. Maybe old ladies wouldn't have gotten tazzed.

They did arrange for professional law enforcement agents to accompany them including local sheriff and police from Las Vegas. Or are you now arguing that police aren't professional when it suits your purpose?

Quote:

Now, however, there are allegations that Bundy supporters went too far, with many reportedly pointing their weapons at Metro officers who got between them and BLM agents. It is illegal to point a loaded weapon at federal officials, and some Metro officials have told the FBI that Bundy’s supporters launched death threats against them.

1 Reply

@Baldimo,

The story used the term from a neighbor describing it as like swat. So clearly you didn't read the story.

0 Replies

@parados,

Then they didn't need to be armed, did they?

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Even with all the armed agents they still had to back down. It will be interesting to see how the FBI investigation turns out as they collect photos of all those pointing guns at Federal agents.

1 Reply

@parados,

Quote:

those pointing guns at Federal agents.

Pointing is impolite, not illegal. Do you think Obama will have them shot, or audited?

1 Reply

@coldjoint,

Pointing a gun at someone is an assault. This is especially egregious when the assasulted are federal agents. I would like to see those criminals serve serious time in prison.

1 Reply

@Advocate,

It may or may not be, but it would help your position if you could cite even one state statute that supports your claim.

2 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

I don't know, are they advocating for federal agents to be armed against those who are armed?

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Actually, it could be argued that they interfered with the agents and prevented them from doing their duty which was to round up the cattle and sell them which the courts have given them power to do.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/372

They attempted to intimidate federal officers from carrying out their duty and got them to leave the place where they were carrying out that duty.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/245
b. (1) (C) also applies
They attempted to intimidate because they were employed by the Federal government.

Certainly this section applies as well.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/111

It would be pretty hard to argue that pointing a gun at someone is not an attempt to intimidate them. It certainly isn't an act of gun safety.

2 Replies

@parados,

Quote:

They attempted to intimidate federal officers from carrying out their duty and got them to leave the place where they were carrying out that duty.

Federal officers attempted to intimidate them first. When you show up armed that is the impression you leave. It was a complete overreach by big government. And those people say that law sucks. The exact same thing Obama and Holder do.

A lawless government spawns lawless citizens.

0 Replies

@revelette2,

They did argue that the answer to school shootings was to arm school employees. You seem to agree with them.

1 Reply

@parados,

But it wouldn't be tough either to argue that pointing a gun at someone pointing a gun at you was not an act of intimidation.

Look, I'm not arguing that the protestors should have shown up armed or that they didn't go too far, but the first ones on the scene were not armed and they were tazzed, but gun toting agents of the federal government.

Don't progressives believe that government agents are smarter and more rational than the average Joe? Put both in a heated situation and which ones should be expected to try and keep things under control?

Again, you are a situational moralist. If it fits your politics, you're all for it and if it doesn't you're leading the charge against it. You have virtually no credibility.

2 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Not really, I was replying to someone else who was talking about the department of education being armed, it is really only a (I forget the official name) a section of the department that deals with people committing fraud with federal funds for education. I was speaking of the agents, not school employees. I think schools should have armed guards who are trained by professionals just like the agents I was speaking of. It is sad to think it comes to that in schools, but reality is what it is.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

Look, I'm not arguing that the protestors should have shown up armed or that they didn't go too far, but the first ones on the scene were not armed and they were tazzed, but gun toting agents of the federal government.

People that were tasered were interfering with law enforcement. They were blocking law enforcement vehicles. They could have been charged with a crime.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

But it wouldn't be tough either to argue that pointing a gun at someone pointing a gun at you was not an act of intimidation.

Sorry, but the courts have ruled repeatedly that police officers can point guns at people if they refuse to obey orders or if the officer is threatened in any way. Civilians don't have the right to point guns back or to force police to leave a scene.

0 Replies

@parados,

Quote:

People that were tasered were interfering with law enforcement.

People that were tasered where outside the ridiculous free speech zone or stepped off the road onto federal land. What you are trying to say is the government is here to **** on people and you heartily approve. SHILL

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

It may or may not be, but it would help your position if you could cite even one state statute that supports your claim.

This is common knowledge. However, see https://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/criminal/charges/assault10.pdf which mentions such a statute.

0 Replies

@coldjoint,

The video that the group itself posted clearly shows them blocking vehicles so they can't move. That is not simply being outside the free speech zone or on federal land. That is interfering by blocking vehicles.

Don't let facts get in your way from being your usual **** for brains. At the 1 minute mark you will see them prevent the vehicle from leaving. They then refuse to move.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhJ6H9vlEDA

1 Reply

@parados,

Quote:

Don't let facts get in your way

The same way you do when the lawlessness of this administration is pointed out. Running for cover by using the laws they decide to enforce. Please, your bullshit is tiresome.

1 Reply

@coldjoint,

I have video of the tasered person blocking a vehicle. What video do you have to support your claim of lawlessness by the administration?

By the way, courts have ruled that all laws can't be enforced and the government is given discretion as to which ones they will enforce. They just can't enforce them in a fashion that is biased toward who they choose to charge with crimes.

Before you get stupid about Cliven Bundy being unfairly singled out by this administration, the courts have ruled against him for 20 years. It's hardly a bias to enforce those court rulings since it is enforcement of a court ruling not just a criminal code.

2 Replies

Do government agencies need to be armed?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know