tr8er Posted January 31, 2016 Report Share Posted January 31, 2016 Was he a tax payer? Wasn't the USA based on the freedom from that level of taxation? 4 Link to comment
datzenmike Posted January 31, 2016 Report Share Posted January 31, 2016 Easy-they thought there was a gun in the vehicle. This is all that matters. I pray that you, Bill, are not innocently pulled over by police chasing someone like you that they think is armed. 1 Link to comment
TENDRIL Posted January 31, 2016 Report Share Posted January 31, 2016 Neither did Lavoy Finicum. sure he did, in fact you "john" have more rights to own that land than the BLM/govt. 2 Link to comment
Mattndew76 Posted January 31, 2016 Report Share Posted January 31, 2016 Wasn't the USA based on the freedom from that level of taxation? To an extent yes. Reading the history of how things changed creates a little bit of helplessness inside. Lol 1 Link to comment
paradime Posted January 31, 2016 Report Share Posted January 31, 2016 Each of us views this event through our own unique prism. Your fooling yourself if you think you're being objective here. Go back and count the subjective descriptors being used to prejudge the players in this event. 2 Link to comment
john510 Posted January 31, 2016 Report Share Posted January 31, 2016 sure he did, in fact you "john" have more rights to own that land than the BLM/govt. You dont privately own BLM land,you lease it ! Its been that way for a very long time. 1 Link to comment
Mattndew76 Posted January 31, 2016 Report Share Posted January 31, 2016 You dont privately own BLM land,you lease it ! Its been that way for a very long time. Not really. 1946 BLM established and land use fees started in 1973. 3 Link to comment
TENDRIL Posted January 31, 2016 Report Share Posted January 31, 2016 You dont privately own BLM land,you lease it ! Its been that way for a very long time. lol 2 Link to comment
TENDRIL Posted January 31, 2016 Report Share Posted January 31, 2016 http://www.newswithviews.com/guest_opinion/guest249.htm Article I, section 8, clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution gives the feds control of 10 square miles of Washington DC. It further states that land within the boundaries of a state may only be acquired if they first have the consent of the state legislature. The federal government is limited in it’s acquisition of land to four purposes, military forts, arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful buildings. Nowhere in the constitution does it grant the federal government the power to “own” millions of acres. The so called "public lands" that they currently control must be returned to the states. 7 Link to comment
paradime Posted January 31, 2016 Report Share Posted January 31, 2016 So why were these law put into place? Was it because the land was getting fucked up by a few people, or was the government taking it under the auspice of protecting it, but in reality they just want to control everything? 4 Link to comment
TENDRIL Posted January 31, 2016 Report Share Posted January 31, 2016 the more land you control the more food you control the more people you control 5 Link to comment
john510 Posted January 31, 2016 Report Share Posted January 31, 2016 http://www.newswithviews.com/guest_opinion/guest249.htm Article I, section 8, clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution gives the feds control of 10 square miles of Washington DC. It further states that land within the boundaries of a state may only be acquired if they first have the consent of the state legislature. The federal government is limited in it’s acquisition of land to four purposes, military forts, arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful buildings. Nowhere in the constitution does it grant the federal government the power to “own” millions of acres. The so called "public lands" that they currently control must be returned to the states. guess all i have for this is, lol ? try again 1 Link to comment
KoHeartsGPA Posted January 31, 2016 Report Share Posted January 31, 2016 I said it before and I'll say it again...play stupid games, win stupid prizes. No matter how right you may be....don't fucking run from the law.... Simple. 7 Link to comment
datzenmike Posted February 1, 2016 Report Share Posted February 1, 2016 I think there are laws and penalties for running from the police. I'll check but I don't think it's death. Under stress we do strange things like panic. At some time we may fear for our lives and flight over fight. It's very difficult to keep the adrenalin down during a chase and for the police there's a tendency towards mob mentality... us against 'them'. Someone begins shooting and that's the signal that it's ok to empty your gun. The police could have taken cover and waited, he wasn't going anywhere. The longer you prolong the encounter, the more time to let things calm down and let rationality return. Then....... if the suspect should decide to be combative and pull a weapon, lethal force applied. I expect police to be professional and if needed stand in harm's way. Lethality should be the last resort not the first. 5 Link to comment
q-tip Posted February 1, 2016 Report Share Posted February 1, 2016 Possibility they were to be made an example of see what happens when you do this? 2 Link to comment
HRH Posted February 1, 2016 Report Share Posted February 1, 2016 I agree with you Mike, but the whole first 8 minutes of the video was just that. They waited patiently. Finicum is no different that many of the ranchers I know. If you tell them "no" in any capacity, they get downright mean and pig-headed. I'm not going to speculate he said "You'll never take me to jail!" before he sped off at 8:14, but the group had been told to stand down multiple times and no one got shot. Bundy had the good sense to give himself up, guess what, he's not shot. And I might remind you what if this was a group of middle-eastern people making the same statement about government with the same arguments taking over that refuge? You think they would have the same amount of restraint? 3 Link to comment
KoHeartsGPA Posted February 1, 2016 Report Share Posted February 1, 2016 So why were these law put into place? Was it because the land was getting fucked up by a few people, or was the government taking it under the auspice of protecting it, but in reality they just want to control everything? My brother and I own gold claims that are purchased through the BLM, every year they come up with new mining rules designed to limit mining despite federal regulations that state otherwise.....so basically they have become so powerful that people are slowly starting to wave their claims and at the same time the BLM is not issueing new claims....min other words....they are keeping them for who knows what. 2 Link to comment
paradime Posted February 1, 2016 Report Share Posted February 1, 2016 I lean toward the occupiers cause here, but Lavoy Finicum warned FBI he'd take death over jail. He also told news reporters he was prepared to die for this cause. Personally, I think that is honorable, but I also think the idea of intentionally sacrificing yourself to become a martyr is less than honorable. The video of his shooting shows his hands were in his drawers, not over his head. This gives the impression, maybe he got what he was looking for, but look at how this event is seem and how it's being reported. News organization focus their reports on "Eye witnesses said his hands were in the air and hundreds of shots were fired". "Bundy told his wife that Finicum was lying on the ground with his hands up when he was shot three times". "Nevada state assembly woman Michele Fiore tweeted that Finicum was "murdered with his hands up". This diminishes the credibility of the cause, and paints the picture of the occupiers as being dishonest and manipulative. This shit is way too fucking thick with spin, and it makes it hard to pull any truth out of it. I have to say , I'm conflicted. Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/world/oregon-occupier-lavoy-finicum-said-hed-rather-die-than-go-to-jail--and-that-is-how-it-ended-20160127-gmfj13.html#ixzz3ywtCRDNh https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/01/27/lavoy-finicum-ore-occupier-who-said-hed-rather-die-than-go-to-jail-did-just-that/ http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/oregon-occupier-lavoy-finicum-warns-fbi-he-d-take-death-n491056 http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/lavoy-finicum-oregon-standoff-1.3422733 http://www.smh.com.au/world/oregon-occupier-lavoy-finicum-said-hed-rather-die-than-go-to-jail--and-that-is-how-it-ended-20160127-gmfj13.html 3 Link to comment
TENDRIL Posted February 2, 2016 Report Share Posted February 2, 2016 It looked as if he initially had his hands up, than was shot, and natural instinct kicked in and he went to compress the wound, and the guy behind him shot thinking he was reaching, they could have tazed his old ass but they wanted a show 2 Link to comment
TENDRIL Posted February 2, 2016 Report Share Posted February 2, 2016 While what we see happens quickly at the time it was probably happening 100x faster for all involved They are special trained federal agents .... If I can shoot a Snapple cap at 15 yards with a 9mm they could have hit a no leathal body part 2 Link to comment
thisismatt Posted February 2, 2016 Report Share Posted February 2, 2016 The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first 42 presidents - #43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back -- $30,000 for every man, woman and child. That's irresponsible. It's unpatriotic. -Obama, July 3, 2008 Obama is expected to leave office with a total national debt of nearly $20 trillion... 5 Link to comment
Recommended Posts