The Kooks are Back

Blue

Well-known member
Mar 26, 2004
10,043
856
AZ
Beyond the threat assessments, other evidence that defendants obtained "piecemeal'' during the trial included information about an FBI surveillance camera on a hill overlooking the Bundy home with a live-feed image viewed in a command center and snipers positioned outside the Bundy ranch.

Jesus.....don't piss off Mother Government
 

SGaynor

Well-known member
Dec 6, 2006
7,148
162
52
Bristol, TN
Sorry. Explain again how threatening, pointing rifles at the Feds is OK?

Or refusing to pay grazing fees? Or not abiding by court orders? Or taking over federal buildings at the point of a gun (or just in general)?
 

SGaynor

Well-known member
Dec 6, 2006
7,148
162
52
Bristol, TN
I remember a time when conservatives used to get pissed about criminals getting off on technicalities.

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/kh62SjGdI0s" frameborder="0" gesture="media" allow="encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 

Blue

Well-known member
Mar 26, 2004
10,043
856
AZ
Sorry. Explain again how threatening, pointing rifles at the Feds is OK?

Why does this seem to piss you off so much? They (feds) are just people, and they are seemingly asshole people in this case. You sound like someone personally insulted your mother.
 

SGaynor

Well-known member
Dec 6, 2006
7,148
162
52
Bristol, TN
Why does this seem to piss you off so much? They (feds) are just people, and they are seemingly asshole people in this case. You sound like someone personally insulted your mother.

why? Because it's called the rule of law; the alternative is chaos. If everyone can decide what laws they want to abide by (ie, pay the grazing fees), and then refuse to abide by the courts when found guilty of not abiding by the law, and then think they can take up arms without consequence to prevent any punishment from violating said laws, what do you think would happen?

Don't want to pay your taxes? Then threaten the cops when they evict you from your house/business? No problem?

Pull out guns and threaten the police when they respond to domestic violence calls? That's ok?

I'm also pointing out the hypocrisy of so-called conservatives who think they bashing the big bad feds is justification for the Bundy's behavior over the decades. It's not. They are lawless, want the law a certain way that benefits them, and don't want to suffer any consequences when they break the law

If anyone else pulled this bullshit of pointing guns at LEOs, "conservatives" would be screaming about "law and order."

There are LEOs on this board. I wonder if they think everyone should be able to point guns at them.
 
Jan 3, 2005
11,745
71
On Kennith's private island
why? Because it's called the rule of law; the alternative is chaos. If everyone can decide what laws they want to abide by (ie, pay the grazing fees), and then refuse to abide by the courts when found guilty of not abiding by the law, and then think they can take up arms without consequence to prevent any punishment from violating said laws, what do you think would happen?

Don't want to pay your taxes? Then threaten the cops when they evict you from your house/business? No problem?

Pull out guns and threaten the police when they respond to domestic violence calls? That's ok?

I'm also pointing out the hypocrisy of so-called conservatives who think they bashing the big bad feds is justification for the Bundy's behavior over the decades. It's not. They are lawless, want the law a certain way that benefits them, and don't want to suffer any consequences when they break the law

If anyone else pulled this bullshit of pointing guns at LEOs, "conservatives" would be screaming about "law and order."

There are LEOs on this board. I wonder if they think everyone should be able to point guns at them.

Prosecutors - "The men conspired with Bundy family members and wielded weapons to threaten the lives of federal agents enforcing lawful court orders to remove Bundy cattle from public land after he failed to pay grazing fees."

Chief U.S. District Judge Gloria Navarro - "Not guilty"
 

SGaynor

Well-known member
Dec 6, 2006
7,148
162
52
Bristol, TN
Prosecutors - "The men conspired with Bundy family members and wielded weapons to threaten the lives of federal agents enforcing lawful court orders to remove Bundy cattle from public land after he failed to pay grazing fees."

Chief U.S. District Judge Gloria Navarro - "Not guilty"

Wrong...The judge didn't say "not guilty," she declared a mistrial because the prosecution didn't follow the discovery rules, ie, a technicality.

It's still to be decided if she feels that the govt's actions were so egregious, or that the Bundy's couldn't get a fair trial, that the charges should be dismissed with prejudice. That's a penalty on the govt. But a far cry from not guilty, or as you are viewing it - innocent of the charges.
 
Last edited:

Blue

Well-known member
Mar 26, 2004
10,043
856
AZ
why? Because it's called the rule of law; the alternative is chaos. If everyone can decide what laws they want to abide by (ie, pay the grazing fees), and then refuse to abide by the courts when found guilty of not abiding by the law, and then think they can take up arms without consequence to prevent any punishment from violating said laws, what do you think would happen?

Don't want to pay your taxes? Then threaten the cops when they evict you from your house/business? No problem?

Pull out guns and threaten the police when they respond to domestic violence calls? That's ok?

I'm also pointing out the hypocrisy of so-called conservatives who think they bashing the big bad feds is justification for the Bundy's behavior over the decades. It's not. They are lawless, want the law a certain way that benefits them, and don't want to suffer any consequences when they break the law

If anyone else pulled this bullshit of pointing guns at LEOs, "conservatives" would be screaming about "law and order."

There are LEOs on this board. I wonder if they think everyone should be able to point guns at them.

The Oregonian said:
Beyond the threat assessments, other evidence that defendants obtained "piecemeal'' during the trial included information about an FBI surveillance camera on a hill overlooking the Bundy home with a live-feed image viewed in a command center and snipers positioned outside the Bundy ranch.

Sounds to me like turnabout is fair play.
 
Jan 3, 2005
11,745
71
On Kennith's private island
Wrong...The judge didn't say "not guilty," she declared a mistrial because the prosecution didn't follow the discovery rules, ie, a technicality.

It's still to be decided if she feels that the govt's actions were so egregious, or that the Bundy's couldn't get a fair trial, that the charges should be dismissed with prejudice. That's a penalty on the govt. But a far cry from not guilty, or as you are viewing it - innocent of the charges.

Wrong case, Dipshit.
 

SGaynor

Well-known member
Dec 6, 2006
7,148
162
52
Bristol, TN
Wrong case, Dipshit.

Learn to communicate. I don't read minds, so since we've been talking about the latest trial of the Bundys' themselves, I'm correct. If you are talking about some other case, you might want to specify that; you've conflated multiple cases/issues before. Try to focus.

But I already know that it's this case. You'll just never admit that you don't have a clue and that your position is that anyone should be able to point guns at LEOs for whatever reason they want.

I'm sure you have LEO friends. Ask them if they think that's a good idea.
 

SCSL

Well-known member
Apr 27, 2005
4,144
152
With some of you, it’s a miracle we ever succeeded from the damn limeys.
 

SGaynor

Well-known member
Dec 6, 2006
7,148
162
52
Bristol, TN
"No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man's permission when we require him to obey it. Obedience to the law is demanded as a right; not asked as a favor. "
 

1920SF

Well-known member
Jan 6, 2007
2,705
1
NoVA
With some of you, it?s a miracle we ever succeeded from the damn limeys.

We are fortunate to be protected by the vanguard of Snack Team VI represented by the Bundy's; bravely defending all our liberty.
 
Jan 3, 2005
11,745
71
On Kennith's private island
I don't read minds, so since we've been talking about the latest trial of the Bundys' themselves, I'm correct. If you are talking about some other case, you might want to specify that; you've conflated multiple cases/issues before. Try to focus.

Hey Dipshit, what case are you talking about? You said this:

why? Because it's called the rule of law; the alternative is chaos. If everyone can decide what laws they want to abide by (ie, pay the grazing fees), and then refuse to abide by the courts when found guilty of not abiding by the law, and then think they can take up arms without consequence to prevent any punishment from violating said laws, what do you think would happen?

I quoted the case referring to the Bundy's taking up arms.

Prosecutors said the men conspired with Bundy family members and wielded weapons to threaten the lives of federal agents enforcing lawful court orders to remove Bundy cattle from public land after he failed to pay grazing fees.
http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2017/08/4_remaining_defendants_acquitt.html

Chief U.S. District Judge Gloria Navarro - Not guilty.
 

SGaynor

Well-known member
Dec 6, 2006
7,148
162
52
Bristol, TN
Hey Dipshit, what case are you talking about? You said this:



I quoted the case referring to the Bundy's taking up arms.


http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2017/08/4_remaining_defendants_acquitt.html

Chief U.S. District Judge Gloria Navarro - Not guilty.


Hey dipshit - that link talks about four OTHER defendants, not the Bundys themselves. And the judge didn't decide they weren't guilty, the jury did (aka, jury nulification). And, only 2 of the 4 were acquitted, the other two were a hung jury on some of the counts. I believe they are being retried.

And, you seem to forget the guys who was found guilty and is doing 68 years.

Like I said, you keep confounding cases. Get your facts straight.

This case, the Bundys, is about them taking up arms against the feds. Period. It is not about whether or not they paid the grazing fees, or if the should even have to pay the fees - that was decided long ago. They lost. At the 9th Circuit appeals level. It never went to the Supreme Court, so that's over.

They refused to comply with the order to remove their cattle, so a federal judge ordered it to be done. That's when they (Bundys) decided that taking up arms against the LEOs ordered to remove the cattle was OK.

Again, read the indictment - it's only about pointing guns and threatening the LEOs. Nothing about grazing.

Honestly, I can't tell if you are just trolling or this dense.
 
Jan 3, 2005
11,745
71
On Kennith's private island
Lol. So now an acquittal is not a not guilty verdict? You’re a special kind of stupid, Dipshit.

The Bundy’s were acquitted in round one.

Followers were acquitted in round two.

Mistrial in round three.

“Loopholes”, right? Yawn. There is no case. The Bundy’s did what reasonable people would have done when treated the way they’ve been treated.
 

SGaynor

Well-known member
Dec 6, 2006
7,148
162
52
Bristol, TN
Lol. So now an acquittal is not a not guilty verdict? You?re a special kind of stupid, Dipshit.

The Bundy?s were acquitted in round one.

Are you talking about the civil case regarding him being required to pay grazing fees? They lost.

That should be Round 1.

But, I assume you are talking about the Oregon trial? Note to dipshit: Oregon is NOT Nevada.

And some of those in Oregon were convicted. In fact, one is going to the special camp for boys early because he disregarded the Oregon judge's order to have no contact with the Bundys.

But, that's par for the course for Bundy and his followers - they don't have to abide by Federal judge's orders/rulings, right?

Followers were acquitted in round two.
Some were accquited, some were convicted. You might want to ask the guy who got 68 years for his participation in the Nevada standoff if he was acquitted.

Mistrial in round three.

?Loopholes?, right? Yawn. There is no case.
Mistrial does not equal innocent.

Here for your learning, from Merriam-Webster:

mistrial
: a trial that has no legal effect by reason of some error or serious prejudicial misconduct in the proceedings

The Bundy?s did what reasonable people would have done when treated the way they?ve been treated.

So you DO think it's ok to threaten and point weapons at the police.

Are you a BLM (Black Lives Matter) supporter? Ya know, because they started by doing just that in Ferguson, MO.
635487112190338516-GTY-457105552.jpg


Or is it just "justified" only when angry, delusional, white men do it in the name of FREEDOM!