Hundreds of Armed Right-Wing Militia Members Take Over Federal Building

@layman,

If you are under reasonable fear of being killed or greatly harm you do indeed have a right to used deadly force and someone going for their gun in such situations would indeed produce reasonable fear.

1 Reply

@layman,

Quote:

He was convinced the feds were out to kill them.

How he might "interpret" the look on their face, or anything else, is irrelevant.

Quote:

There was no reason whatsoever to sneak up behind him with a rifle pointed at his head.

If he jumps out of the truck and runs about 15 yards then stops, goes for his gun and is shot dead, how did anyone sneak up behind him? There was no sneaking by the police.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

If you are under reasonable fear of being killed or greatly harm you do indeed have a right to used deadly force and someone going for their gun in such situations would indeed produce reasonable fear.

The key word there is "reasonable." And that includes the "going for their gun" part.

Some have made a big display of the fact that he REALLY did have a gun in his pocket. Would it make the slightest bit of difference here if he didn't? Would that somehow make the killing "less justifiable?" Of course not. He "could" have had a gun, even if he didn't. No one saw a gun. He didn't pull one. He didn't have a "gun in his belt" that he reached for, as some have claimed. People have the legal right to carry a gun in any event. Is being "suspected" of having a gun sufficient grounds for shooting a guy dead?

2 Replies

@layman,

LOL it is very unwise to carry a gun when you are in rebellion against the government and had seize government property at gun point and had made such public statements to that effect unless you are planning on getting into shots out with the government in any case.

0 Replies

@layman,

layman wrote:

There was an incident, not long ago, where some unarmed guy was shot 25-30 times by cops. He was a foreigner who didn't speak English well and was trying to pull out his green card to show them. Just his "tough luck" that a buncha trigger-happy pigs opened fire, wholesale, on his ass, eh? Who would ever expect them to actually "see" a weapon before they started blasting?

A simple question like this, asked about a real incident, immediately gets a bunch of "thumbs down," eh? Says a lot about how your hard-core commie thinks, don't it?

0 Replies

If you threaten to shoot an officer and then make a move like he did, you are getting shot. Period. I don't believe a court in the world would say the cops acted unreasonably.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

Quote:

If you threaten to shoot an officer..

And when did he do that, Ed? I saw a tape he made from the day before. He did just the opposite there, saying they had no intention of harming anybody. Is that what he told them in the two seconds it took between the time he left his truck and the time he had a buncha caps in his ass?

1 Reply

Many people seem to think that if it's a cop killing people under circumstances that would put any normal citizen behind bars, then he has "license" to do it. That's a major reason why excessive force by cops is so rampant. They know they can allows rely on a jury to condone any abuse they commit.

I was just reading that out of 12,000 complaints about excessive force last year, only 50 resulted in any suspension or other corrective action. The cops are ALWAYS right. They know they can kill at will. Commies love that, as long as it's not another commie being smoked, anyway.

2 Replies

@layman,

Anyone cop or not have the right of self defense and the right to used deadly force.

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

Quote:
If you threaten to shoot an officer..

And when did he do that, Ed? I saw a tape he made from the day before. He did just the opposite there, saying they had no intention of harming anybody. Is that what he told them in the two seconds it took between the time he left his truck and the time he had a buncha caps in his ass?

Your rambling rhetoric has gone from silly to just plane ignorance. My fault for not utilizing the ignore feature, well until now. Poof be gone! Cool

0 Replies

@layman,

Quote layman:

Quote:

There was no reason whatsoever to sneak up behind him with a rifle pointed at his head. That would provoke a defensive response from anybody.

With his eyes looking forward toward the first cop, how does he even know the other cop is behind him? And the second cop did not get particularly close to him anyway-the way you describe it you would think the barrel of the gun was just behind Finicum's ear. Very dishonest on your part. That second cop wasn't any more than 20 feet or so from Finicum. Moreover, there are cops all around that scene-Finicum was surrendering, remember? There were cops behind the cars, cops in front of him, cops on the road behind him, cops all over. What difference does it make if a cop is moving in the background which Finicum can't see anyway?

Quote layman:

Quote:

Did he pull a gun? Was he an imminent threat to harm anyone?

No and yes. He didn't get a chance to physically put his fingers on the gun in his pocket due to the fact his abandonment of the traditional hands-up surrender position to a position where his hands were inches from his pocket brought on the gunfire from the arresting cop, as you would expect.

You are under the delusion that a dangerous criminal, once apprehended and assuming the hands-up surrender position is in no justifiable danger if he abandons that position for one where he has dropped his arms and put his hands inches from his pocket, unless he withdraws a gun from that pocket. Only then can the cop fire. You are wrong-laughably wrong. And by the way, it doesn't matter that his hands were over his head when he hit the ground-his hands were not over his head just before he got shot. The camera reveals it, and even you admitted it.

1 Reply

@layman,

Quote:

I was just reading that out of 12,000 complaints about excessive force last year, only 50 resulted in any suspension or other corrective action

My criminals complains are not found valid in a large number of cases. My what a damn surprise.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

Quote:

Anyone cop or not have the right of self defense and the right to used deadly force.

Exactly, like I had the right to make that 6-year old eat curb while stomping on his head with my combat boots, eh? The little sonofabitch threatened me.

Guess what? Citizens like Lavoy also have the "theoretical" right to kill, or otherwise resist, a cop who appears to be about to kill them. Not that any jury would ever acquit him, but still...

0 Replies

@Blickers,

Quote:

With his eyes looking forward toward the first cop, how does he even know the other cop is behind him? And the second cop did not get particularly close to him anyway-the way you describe it you would think the barrel of the gun was just behind Finicum's ear. Very dishonest on your part. That second cop wasn't any more than 20 feet or so from Finicum. Moreover, there are cops all around that scene-Finicum was surrendering, remember? There were cops behind the cars, cops in front of him, cops on the road behind him, cops all over. What difference does it make if a cop is moving in the background which Finicum can't see anyway?

Heh, ever hear of ears? Finny was turning to see what the threat from behind him was when he was killed.

Quote:

You are under the delusion that a dangerous criminal,...

I didn't read a word past that. Just keep up your commie rhetoric and maintain your commie-ass narrative, eh? I don't expect any less.

1 Reply

The feds did the same thing with that Weaver guy at Ruby Ridge. They falsely informed their agents that he was a wanted bank robber, had fired on police officials, etc., and then sent them in with shoot on sight orders. Weaver was just a frightened loner who didn't trust the government. He was charged with a minor crime but wouldn't turn himself in because he had been told by government employees that he would lose his home and custody of his kids if and when he did.

Among many other "unusual" things that happened at Ruby Ridge was that a guy who shot and killed a federal agent was acquitted at trial and later received a large settlement from the feds. Very rare.

1 Reply

@layman,

Selling a saw off shotgun is a minor offense?

An what the hell does weaver had in common with a man leading an arm group to take over federal lands at gun points?

2 Replies

@BillRM,

Quote:

Selling a saw off shotgun is a minor offense?

Yeah, it is, assuming he even did it. He claimed the federal agent sawed off the barrel himself after he sold him a shotgun. He was probably acquitted too, I don't remember now. They did pay him and his family over $3 million to settle his $200 million lawsuit.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

Quote:

An what the hell does weaver had in common with a man leading an arm group to take over federal lands at gun points?

That's for proving my point about demonizing rhetoric, eh, Bill? Nobody in this case ever "took over federal lands at gun point." That, by the way, is what they have in common, as would have been obvious to any unbiased person.

1 Reply

It don't make a **** what happened at Ruby Ridge. That was long ago, and this is now. These people are self- billed as ready to do war with the law. How do we even know they were aware of which guy this was? And didn't he say he preferred to die to going to jail? It was sufficient that he reached for where his gun was, regardless.

0 Replies

@layman,

Quote:

Nobody in this case ever "took over federal lands at gun point."

OH they did not seized federal buildings while arm to the teeth and place arm men on look out towers?

That is indeed taking over federal lands and buildings by force and threat of deadly force.

0 Replies

Hundreds of Armed Right-Wing Militia Members Take Over Federal Building

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know