azelkhntr
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2020
- Messages
- 456
Here ya go Scott. Not hard to find; popped right up. L. Finicum was such a fierce threat they had to pop him 3X's, all in the back.
The Bundys are baa-aaack...
- Thread starter LuketheDog
- Start date
- Status
Here ya go Scott. Not hard to find; popped right up. L. Finicum was such a fierce threat they had to pop him 3X's, all in the back.
Wildabeest
Well-known member
The police video of the entire thing can easily be found online and includes helicopter footage. I won't post a link here due to the graphic nature. Folks can watch it if they want and make their own judgments about whether this was justified. My opinion is that it was. Reasons being:
1. He was fleeing and alluding an initial traffic stop where he was very aggressive with officers and repeatedly instructed them to shoot him
2. He then intentionally attempted to blow through a roadblock at 70mph (reported speed) and appears to hit an officer in the process
3. He exited his vehicle and initially raised his hands, but ignored orders to get on the ground and continued to move towards officers erratically
4. He then clearly reaches into his coat around his waste area multiple times as if he's trying to get something
5. He was well known to be armed
6. There were officers all around him, so although he was shot in the back, we was turning back an forth and facing towards another officer while he was reaching into his coat at the time he was shot by the other officer
Using "he was shot in the back" to claim this was unjustified and conveniently leaving out all the other facts is disingenuous at best. Since the whole video is online, the facts of the situation are indisputable. The fact that he does all of this with his family in the care - including children, none of which appear to be wearing seat belts - as he attempts to crash through a roadblock at 70mph just goes to further demonstrate his wanton disregard for the life and safety of others.
MTLabrador
Well-known member
Maybe he shouldn’t have been reaching for the pistol in his pocket?
D
Deleted member 20812
Guest
Makes no difference if they shot him in the front or the back. Anyone with a sliver of intelligence could watch the video and see why the holes were in his back.
azelkhntr
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2020
- Messages
- 456
That's exactly right. You nailed it!
Last edited:
Hunting Wife
Well-known member
So the criminal (who was in videos all over the internet depicting his role in the crimes committed and asking to be shot by police) was being oppressed by the man and didn’t deserve what he got. Even though his behavior was endangering law-abiding citizens and trampling on their rights and destroying their property, he was an upstanding guy and a hero.
Yep, can’t tell where the left fringe ends and the right fringe begins...
Yep, can’t tell where the left fringe ends and the right fringe begins...
noharleyyet
Well-known member
44hunter45
Well-known member
Bigfoot works for Randy. BF works for BF. I've seen the video. It must be true. The fact that they have the same initials indicates there is something nefarious going on.
Dougfirtree
Well-known member
(Well, I was being sarcastic...)
azelkhntr
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2020
- Messages
- 456
You should read the US Constitution sometime. It was written and ratified because it protects the Inalienable Rights of the Individual from the corrupt vagaries of Government and the majority. Your comment then was commie socialist drivel. Your welcome.
azelkhntr
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2020
- Messages
- 456
Oh there were law abiding citizens in the immediate vicinity? I don’t think so. It was an ambush pure and simple. By the way who fired first and only actually?
FI460
Well-known member
The Constitution was written a little early to include Red Scare.
To the topic, Bundyism is antithetical to public land hunting. We're able to enjoy public land hunting the way we know it because the sage brush rebels got their teeth handed to them in the past.
Irrelevant
Well-known member
It also spells out that what you think it says means jack shit.
If you want to trade barbs on the Constitution, I'll stand toe to toe all day long. Your use of the terms I've bolded above is the normal surrender flag when it comes to ability to have reasonable discourse and debate about such topic.
Your privileges on this website are at the discretion of my 5th Amendment rights as the owner of this private property. I suggest you go and re-read the rules you agreed to when signing up to participate on this privately owned forum. As of right now, those privileges are on a very thin wire.
D
Deleted member 20812
Guest
It doesn't matter who fired first and/or only. If you believe it was an ambush, your prerogative. However, the investigation determined the officers involved followed all federal case law relevant to use of lethal force.
Your continued arguments are disingenuous. On one hand you want Randy to drop OnX over a violation by one of OnX's stockholders, yet you continue to defend someone who helped in the forcible take of a federal work facility, made overt threats towards law enforcement, attempted to run a roadblock, and then reached for his pockets where he had a handgun.
406dn
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2019
- Messages
- 2,039
All I can say is the wire you use has tremendous ductility. It most certainly must be made of gold. Lesser metals would have snapped.
Dougfirtree
Well-known member
I've read it. I don't mind limiting my freedoms a little bit to preserve the well being of others. To think that the individual always come first is to ignore the ways in which we're all connected. You'll understand some day when someone starts pissing in the water just upstream of you. I think I'm done with this one.
Last edited:
I like the fact Randy usually only steps in when he has to. Makes this a great site in my mind. Lots of threads here are brought back around and sorted out by members themselves. Some folks just can't get it though, even with warnings from the top. mtmuley
D
Deleted member 20812
Guest
I also find it rather amazing someone who professes to have such intimate knowledge of the U.S. Constitution, yet continue to state falsehoods as it pertains to criminal law and procedure.
- Status
Similar threads
