even the tiniest threat to the feds will be met with the fullest extent of the law, because that is what federal law is ultimately for. they don't care about you, they don't care about me, and they certainly don't care about their voters. we can all starve for all they care, and many of them secretly hope it.
even the tiniest threat to the feds will be met with the fullest extent of the law
Worth the constant reminder that the entire Ruby Ridge fiasco (and with it Waco and Oklahoma City) happened entirely because the Feds were "concerned" that he might be moving unlawful guns so they attempted a honeypot using plants that had to basically force him into moving their unlawful guns just to try and arrest a dude literally living in the middle of nowhere.
And their arrest attempts involved armed agents on literal dog kill teams and snipers shooting women holding infants. All for guns they themselves made illegal and suspected he might be interested in doing the same.
Hundreds upon hundreds of deaths, just so the Feds could flex their power over people who had committed no crimes.
literal dog kill teams and snipers shooting women holding infants.
There were no "dog kill teams". The US Marshalls and another agency deputy (I forget which, could have been ATF), were doing armed surveillance of the house and got caught when the family did an armed patrol of their property. Dog charged the agents, and the agents shot the dog, prompting the son of the family to shoot at the agents, prompting the agents to shoot him.
The sniper did shoot Jackie(?), however, he couldn't see her, and wasn't aiming for her. The sniper testified that he was actually given instructions by the FBI to shoot ALL persons on the property, armed or not. He decided that ROE was way too extreme, tried to get clarification that they were only to engage armed men specifically. The FBI never got back to him. He reported hearing gunfire and assumed it was family members shooting at the orbiting helicopter. He saw a line of people headed back into the house, one of them armed with a rifle, and fired at the man holding a gun who was opening a door into the garage. Jackie happened to be standing on the opposite side of the door while the man was trying to get in. The bullet passed through him, through the door, and through her.
None of this explains the behavior of the FBI and ATF, especially when the FBI is giving orders to shoot everyone, and the snipers themselves think that's crazy.
Appreciate the correction. I had confused the Waco team with the guy who just went and shot the dog while doing something else. So it wasn't a "dog kill team" specifically, it was just a trespasser who shot a dog protecting their property and then a kid upset you shot their dog. Not sarcasm, just explaining how I made the mistake in my mind.
Jackie happened to be standing on the opposite side of the door
You know, when you are an absurdly trained special agent for the top level government engaging with American citizens on American property for a honeypot gone wrong and you "Aren't sure about the ROE" I don't think you should fire at all, and the fact that you did anyway makes me question if everything else you said wasn't just you trying to cover your ass by making yourself sound blameless and trying to "do the right thing."
Like, even if everything he testified is 100% the truth, that doesn't make it any better. It just makes the government look worse and him look like an untrustable loose agent who just fires without knowing the full extent of the situation and gets random people killed. Which he already looked like, but now he looks less like a cold sociopath and more like an idiot which is almost worse.
it was just a trespasser who shot a dog protecting their property and then a kid upset you shot their dog. Not sarcasm, just explaining how I made the mistake in my mind.
Mostly, the kid also shot at the trespasser. The family were doing armed patrols of their property.
Like, even if everything he testified is 100% the truth, that doesn't make it any better. It just makes the government look worse and him look like an untrustable loose agent who just fires without knowing the full extent of the situation and gets random people killed.
I trust his statement because he threw the FBI under the bus. He wasn't given any briefing is part of the problem. They pulled him from some other thing he was doing, told him there were dead agents, huge risk, and they were flying him in along with basically every available weapon the FBI could get their hands on. He had no idea what lead up to the situation, was not briefed on any ATF investigation, thrown directly into what seemed to be a combat situation with contradictory orders. And again, he only shot what he believed to be an armed male. The orders he originally had would have allowed him to shoot the armed adult male, along with the unarmed males and females, and the children. Which is really alarming.
His description of the scene for the FBI is also startling. The FBI were acting like they were under attack, personally, by the Weavers, in some sort of offensive. It was total chaos. Panicked agents and command staff running around with guns and ammunition in every direction, multiple helicopters flying around, discussions about having the helicopters fire into the building for suppressive fire, they were staging up military tracked vehicles to launch a full on assault into the house, and of course, the insane ROE. From the sniper's testimony, it sounded like the FBI were acting like it was Khe Sahn, and the Weavers were the NVA. This paranoid fever dream is also what led him to think shooting the male was legal. He was under the impression that the Weavers were actively firing at helicopters and trying to shoot them down (there appears to be no evidence of this). The helicopter pilots report hearing gunshots but not actually seeing anyone shoot at them.
None of this makes the situation any better, and yeah, it actually makes the FBI look wildly worse. it makes them look like paranoid, delusional, madmen who shouldn't be around weapons. Which, again, is an amazing statement by their own sniper.
After they shot and killed his dog. That's an important point. They started the gunfight, one in which the guy who literally killed the kid and had the bullets linked to his actual gun said Randy killed his son to deny himself any responsibility.
he...shot
I don't disagree with all the 5641693846 mitigating excuses he gave, they are all valid.
My point is he shot despite all that confusion and contradiction. He still chose to ignore the obvious problem with this situation and open fire on an American citizen. He can blame everyone he wants, and be completely valid in throwing them under the bus with him as they clearly also deserve considerable blame.
But he still decided to take a shot, one without the full knowledge of what was behind his target, something we all literally learn Day 1 of operating a firearm, and in doing so killed an innocent woman holding an infant. He made that choice to fire and that puts him 100% responsible for what happened.
After they shot and killed his dog. That's an important point. They started the gunfight
Sure, but you can shoot dogs that charge at you. The issue is more about why were they there in the first place that led to the situation spiraling so wildly out of control.
But he still decided to take a shot, one without the full knowledge of what was behind his target, something we all literally learn Day 1 of operating a firearm, and in doing so killed an innocent woman holding an infant.
TBH, I don't ever think I've seen a cop ever be held liable for hitting a target he couldn't see and didn't know was there. That's the same thing with the Brionna Taylor shooting. Literally none of the cops knew she was there, nor could they see here, but their fusillade (in response to her boyfriend's gunfire) still killed her. In that situation, at least the cops could confirm they were actually being shot at.
I think I've seen some police departments have to pay compensation, but I don't think I've seen criminal charges. Closest case was when the NYPD fired at an armed, fleeing man, shot at him, and hit 4 people. I don't think the cops were held for any criminal negligence.
I have seen civilians held for criminal negligence for the same thing, though.
He made that choice to fire and that puts him 100% responsible for what happened.
He's responsible for taking the shot, but we can't deny the responsibility of the FBI acting as insane as they were.
There are no legitimate power structures or institutions under leftism. Expecting justice from a system in which leftists are permitted to participate is foolish.
Commie larpers play the numbers game, and if you march into Portland with numbers of your own you'll then see the police and prosecutors show their teeth.
I remember Rufio Panman (large dude who KO'ed a few black bloc on film) being interviewed about a proud boy march in Portland. He said that they feds and police basically allowed Antifa to roam free while his group was cordoned down a path that allowed them to be constantly assaulted without being able to defend themselves. They can't do anything unless they are enabled by law enforcement.
Ah, the naivety of youth... you don't win in a local court against the state-sponsored terrorists, same way you had no chance to win a court case against the gestapo in 1930s Germany.
What you need are soldiers with an axe to grind against communists. Survivors of their pogroms, all grown up and ready to exact bloody vengeance, perhaps..."bend" the laws of the Geneva Convention to their needs a little bit.
Bot the regressive left just really want to fuck around and find out what people will become when they decide it's time to purge the heretical left with death.
ngo sued 6 people. the faggots caught on video already defaulted. they didn't even show up and the judge already found them liable. these 2 remaining were not on video attacking him, but were part of the group.
ngo's attorney going after these 2 is weaksauce.
the jury did get dox threats though, which is a crime. judge didn't do shit other than increase security. but according to the article, the defense attorney herself was threatening them in open court. it's nuts.
According to Ngo's lawsuit, on May 7, 2019, John Hacker splashed an unknown liquid onto Ngo at a local gym, and then forcibly took Andy's phone. When Hacker refused to release the phone, gym employees allegedly interfered and returned the phone to Ngo. According to plaintiff Ngo, management later terminated Hacker's gym membership. Hacker testified that these allegations were true.
On May 28, 2021, Hacker allegedly took part in actions that led to Ngo being beaten by an Antifa mob. On that day, Ngo was monitoring Antifa attacks on the Portland Justice Center and the Portland police central precinct when Hacker allegedly approached him. The Antifa mob then yelled, "That's Andy! Get him! Get him!" Hacker testified that he approached Ngo and identified him to another journalist.
the facts not in dispute would be a motion for summary judgment, or at least a directed verdict. wouldn't even go to the jury. so either the facts as reported here are incorrect, or the judge is in on it too.
The National Lawyers Guild is an explicit Communist organization dedicated to the violent overthrow of the US government, and it's job is to explicitly protect Leftist terrorists.
Joseph McCarthy pointed this out. they never changed.
The jury being openly threatened would be worth noting if blue areas still had laws that would have been recognized by your grandparents.
Businesses need to move out. Interesting how the attacks in court houses there were ok but Jan 6 was sacred territory
even the tiniest threat to the feds will be met with the fullest extent of the law, because that is what federal law is ultimately for. they don't care about you, they don't care about me, and they certainly don't care about their voters. we can all starve for all they care, and many of them secretly hope it.
Worth the constant reminder that the entire Ruby Ridge fiasco (and with it Waco and Oklahoma City) happened entirely because the Feds were "concerned" that he might be moving unlawful guns so they attempted a honeypot using plants that had to basically force him into moving their unlawful guns just to try and arrest a dude literally living in the middle of nowhere.
And their arrest attempts involved armed agents on literal dog kill teams and snipers shooting women holding infants. All for guns they themselves made illegal and suspected he might be interested in doing the same.
Hundreds upon hundreds of deaths, just so the Feds could flex their power over people who had committed no crimes.
There were no "dog kill teams". The US Marshalls and another agency deputy (I forget which, could have been ATF), were doing armed surveillance of the house and got caught when the family did an armed patrol of their property. Dog charged the agents, and the agents shot the dog, prompting the son of the family to shoot at the agents, prompting the agents to shoot him.
The sniper did shoot Jackie(?), however, he couldn't see her, and wasn't aiming for her. The sniper testified that he was actually given instructions by the FBI to shoot ALL persons on the property, armed or not. He decided that ROE was way too extreme, tried to get clarification that they were only to engage armed men specifically. The FBI never got back to him. He reported hearing gunfire and assumed it was family members shooting at the orbiting helicopter. He saw a line of people headed back into the house, one of them armed with a rifle, and fired at the man holding a gun who was opening a door into the garage. Jackie happened to be standing on the opposite side of the door while the man was trying to get in. The bullet passed through him, through the door, and through her.
None of this explains the behavior of the FBI and ATF, especially when the FBI is giving orders to shoot everyone, and the snipers themselves think that's crazy.
Appreciate the correction. I had confused the Waco team with the guy who just went and shot the dog while doing something else. So it wasn't a "dog kill team" specifically, it was just a trespasser who shot a dog protecting their property and then a kid upset you shot their dog. Not sarcasm, just explaining how I made the mistake in my mind.
You know, when you are an absurdly trained special agent for the top level government engaging with American citizens on American property for a honeypot gone wrong and you "Aren't sure about the ROE" I don't think you should fire at all, and the fact that you did anyway makes me question if everything else you said wasn't just you trying to cover your ass by making yourself sound blameless and trying to "do the right thing."
Like, even if everything he testified is 100% the truth, that doesn't make it any better. It just makes the government look worse and him look like an untrustable loose agent who just fires without knowing the full extent of the situation and gets random people killed. Which he already looked like, but now he looks less like a cold sociopath and more like an idiot which is almost worse.
Mostly, the kid also shot at the trespasser. The family were doing armed patrols of their property.
I trust his statement because he threw the FBI under the bus. He wasn't given any briefing is part of the problem. They pulled him from some other thing he was doing, told him there were dead agents, huge risk, and they were flying him in along with basically every available weapon the FBI could get their hands on. He had no idea what lead up to the situation, was not briefed on any ATF investigation, thrown directly into what seemed to be a combat situation with contradictory orders. And again, he only shot what he believed to be an armed male. The orders he originally had would have allowed him to shoot the armed adult male, along with the unarmed males and females, and the children. Which is really alarming.
His description of the scene for the FBI is also startling. The FBI were acting like they were under attack, personally, by the Weavers, in some sort of offensive. It was total chaos. Panicked agents and command staff running around with guns and ammunition in every direction, multiple helicopters flying around, discussions about having the helicopters fire into the building for suppressive fire, they were staging up military tracked vehicles to launch a full on assault into the house, and of course, the insane ROE. From the sniper's testimony, it sounded like the FBI were acting like it was Khe Sahn, and the Weavers were the NVA. This paranoid fever dream is also what led him to think shooting the male was legal. He was under the impression that the Weavers were actively firing at helicopters and trying to shoot them down (there appears to be no evidence of this). The helicopter pilots report hearing gunshots but not actually seeing anyone shoot at them.
None of this makes the situation any better, and yeah, it actually makes the FBI look wildly worse. it makes them look like paranoid, delusional, madmen who shouldn't be around weapons. Which, again, is an amazing statement by their own sniper.
After they shot and killed his dog. That's an important point. They started the gunfight, one in which the guy who literally killed the kid and had the bullets linked to his actual gun said Randy killed his son to deny himself any responsibility.
I don't disagree with all the 5641693846 mitigating excuses he gave, they are all valid.
My point is he shot despite all that confusion and contradiction. He still chose to ignore the obvious problem with this situation and open fire on an American citizen. He can blame everyone he wants, and be completely valid in throwing them under the bus with him as they clearly also deserve considerable blame.
But he still decided to take a shot, one without the full knowledge of what was behind his target, something we all literally learn Day 1 of operating a firearm, and in doing so killed an innocent woman holding an infant. He made that choice to fire and that puts him 100% responsible for what happened.
Sure, but you can shoot dogs that charge at you. The issue is more about why were they there in the first place that led to the situation spiraling so wildly out of control.
TBH, I don't ever think I've seen a cop ever be held liable for hitting a target he couldn't see and didn't know was there. That's the same thing with the Brionna Taylor shooting. Literally none of the cops knew she was there, nor could they see here, but their fusillade (in response to her boyfriend's gunfire) still killed her. In that situation, at least the cops could confirm they were actually being shot at.
I think I've seen some police departments have to pay compensation, but I don't think I've seen criminal charges. Closest case was when the NYPD fired at an armed, fleeing man, shot at him, and hit 4 people. I don't think the cops were held for any criminal negligence.
I have seen civilians held for criminal negligence for the same thing, though.
He's responsible for taking the shot, but we can't deny the responsibility of the FBI acting as insane as they were.
Temple of Democracy(tm)
That's a miscarriage of justice almost as heinous and criminal as having timed autoplay on your website.
There are no legitimate power structures or institutions under leftism. Expecting justice from a system in which leftists are permitted to participate is foolish.
Hey he tried to handle it in court. Now.it gets handled in the street .
Commie larpers play the numbers game, and if you march into Portland with numbers of your own you'll then see the police and prosecutors show their teeth.
All true. Do what you want in public, but the whole thing is enemy territory you gotta recognize.
I remember Rufio Panman (large dude who KO'ed a few black bloc on film) being interviewed about a proud boy march in Portland. He said that they feds and police basically allowed Antifa to roam free while his group was cordoned down a path that allowed them to be constantly assaulted without being able to defend themselves. They can't do anything unless they are enabled by law enforcement.
Welcome to Oregon.
is there any way to appeal this? this is an obvious travesty of Justice
sounds like easy grounds for an appeal.
Is no one going to mention that guys’ face? What the hell is that?
That looks like he is wearing someone else's face.
Burn scars. No idea from what, didn’t see anything in the article about it.
Crack smoking accident.
Ah, the naivety of youth... you don't win in a local court against the state-sponsored terrorists, same way you had no chance to win a court case against the gestapo in 1930s Germany.
What you need are soldiers with an axe to grind against communists. Survivors of their pogroms, all grown up and ready to exact bloody vengeance, perhaps..."bend" the laws of the Geneva Convention to their needs a little bit.
Bot the regressive left just really want to fuck around and find out what people will become when they decide it's time to purge the heretical left with death.
Weaponization of the judicial system is complete. Things are going to get interesting from here.
Portland is a lost cause.
read the case info. it was a shit case.
ngo sued 6 people. the faggots caught on video already defaulted. they didn't even show up and the judge already found them liable. these 2 remaining were not on video attacking him, but were part of the group.
ngo's attorney going after these 2 is weaksauce.
the jury did get dox threats though, which is a crime. judge didn't do shit other than increase security. but according to the article, the defense attorney herself was threatening them in open court. it's nuts.
where does it say they admitted they assaulted him?
something else is going on here then.
prosecutor refused to prosecute.
the facts not in dispute would be a motion for summary judgment, or at least a directed verdict. wouldn't even go to the jury. so either the facts as reported here are incorrect, or the judge is in on it too.
National Lawyers Guild openly supports antifa.
The National Lawyers Guild is an explicit Communist organization dedicated to the violent overthrow of the US government, and it's job is to explicitly protect Leftist terrorists.
Joseph McCarthy pointed this out. they never changed.
They were providing legal defence for the Wethermen when they were conducting their bombing campaign, were they not?
What's happening in Portland is the toned-down PR-friendly version, at least until people stop reporting on it and they can go full CHAZ.
I mean, I hate lawyers already, but here's one more reason to add to the pile...