Michael Brown Case

[Raw Shark]

Please, don't tell me you've forgotten about the Cliven Bundy standoff already? You know, where a hundred gun nuts set up sniper positions on the freeway overpass ready and waiting to ambush and murder Federal agents for daring to collect back taxes? That may not have resulted in bloodshed but I certainly would not call that peaceful.

Bundy Ranch confrontation: "Gummint" backed down; encouraged the dicks. Also, every "peaceful" protest ever where those assholes openly wore weapons, which is an implicit threat of violence at a planned confrontation whether they have the right to do it or not.

How is that comparable to a situaton where we have looting, buildings burned down,

By individual assholes who should be punished for those actions, not the mass of peaceful protestors, you strawmanning idiot.

people actually beaten and shot? You know, ACTUAL violence. The original complaint was "So you equate wishing harm on peaceful protestors with wishing harm on violent lunatics?" If you want to bitch about equating events with vast gulfs regarding their details then you shouldn't be doing so in this case.

The only people actually being beaten and shot in this conflict so far are being beaten and shot by the cops, you strawmanning idiot.

And no, open carry is not threatening.

Yes, it is. Displaying a weapon is an implicit threat of violence, and everybody doing so knows it. If you are doing so at a political confrontation, you are threatening violence over that confrontation, perhaps disingenuously like you're doing right now, and you fucking know it, you dishonest, strawmanning idiot.

Though I would say that one douche from the ranch fiasco (I am sure one of you have that gif on standby) was. But then every arguement concerning the protesters on the whole in Fergusun not being threatening or violent applies there too.

Demonstrate a Ferguson protestor opposed to the Brown shooting openly-carrying a gun, you strawmanning idiot.

I know you wish there was some instance in recent memory of right wing gun nuts roaming the street burning and looting but that just isn't the case.

Demonstrate where I said that, you strawmanning idiot.

[Civil War Man]

Brown's body has been autopsied, but as far as I know his clothes have not been submitted for examination, which is normally part of the procedure. This is curious and I'm wondering just why.

According to the NY Times article about the released report Dr. Baden (the medical examiner who performed the autopsy at the request of Brown's family) was not given access to the clothes or apparently any information about the police's examination of them. While that may not have been under Baden's purview, it's basically another reason why many people are skeptical of the PD's official story. If there was powder residue on Brown's clothing, it would show that there was a shot fired at him from close range, which would at least not disprove the possibility of a struggle like what the police claim. Even if, for the sake of argument, it all happened exactly the way the police described, the fact that they have released incriminating information about Brown that was not a factor in the shooting, but have been pretty tight-lipped about the circumstances of the shooting itself, just makes it seem like they are hiding something and hoping that poisoning the well against Brown will let them more easily cover up what actually happened.

The only reason I mentioned the possibility of the gun going off during a struggle in the car is because the police story mentions one shot coming from inside the car, but the lack of powder residue on Brown's body would mean that none of his wounds to his head or the exposed parts of his arm came at that close of a range. It might also be that there was a struggle, Brown punched Wilson and ran, and the gun did not come out until after that.

[Patroklos]

By individual assholes who should be punished for those actions, not the mass of peaceful protestors, you strawmanning idiot.

How is this not entirely transferable to the ranch incident?

The only people actually being beaten and shot in this conflict so far are being beaten and shot by the cops, you strawmanning idiot.

Whatever I am it’s not a liar like you, though perhaps you are simply ignorant?

Two people suffered from gunshot wounds on Monday night. Both are currently in the hospital and neither their names, nor status have been released at this time. Johnson states they were shot by people in the crowd of protesters. Two guns and a molotov cocktail were confiscated from protesters, leading Captain Johnson to once again stress the need for a peaceful protest when he addressed reporters overnight.

http://www.thewire.com/national/2014/08 ... ed/378746/
For someone making such hay in this thread you sure are uninformed about the topic…

Yes, it is. Displaying a weapon is an implicit threat of violence, and everybody doing so knows it. If you are doing so at a political confrontation, you are threatening violence over that confrontation, perhaps disingenuously like you're doing right now, and you fucking know it, you dishonest, strawmanning idiot.

So how many of those people were prosecuted for making threats again? YOU feeling threatened is not the same thing as someone threatening you.

Or are you doing the “whatever I want to be true is true because reasons” thing now without being held accountable to demonstrable metrics of proof?

Demonstrate a Ferguson protestor opposed to the Brown shooting openly-carrying a gun, you strawmanning idiot.

I didn't say anything about open carry, YOU DID. I am sorry your off the cuff stupidity is biting you in the ass now but flailing around isn't going to help your case.

You said "violent lunitics," so if you were not talking about the ranch protesters in this context who we know as an objective fact were not violent (and who you have since identified by name) who were you talking about?

You comment does not make sense. You claimed that there was some issue between equating the peaceful Ferguson protesters with the equally peaceful ranch protesters which is ridiculous. Even more so given your reasoning to claim such because again its an indisputable reality that the ranch protesters were more peaceful than the current Ferguson protesters because regardless of how small the percentage of Ferguson participants are engaging in violence it is not zero.

Lonestar was right on the money and you are proof of that in spades.

Demonstrate where I said that, you strawmanning idiot.

Sure:

So you equate wishing harm on peaceful protestors with wishing harm on violent lunatics?

Unless you are about to show us some violent lunatics other than the nonexistent ones from the ranch you pulled out of your ass that correspond the description of "gunnuts", you intentionally lied and invented this group specifically so you could show how it’s not the same thing to "wish harm" on this figment of your imagination as the Ferguson crowds.

So again, show us this group of "violent lunitic" "gunnuts."

[Borgholio]

How is that comparable to a situaton where we have looting, buildings burned down, people actually beaten and shot?

That's not a peaceful protest. Comparing the mob who is burning and looting to a group of paramilitary terrorists is quite appropriate. If the crowds in Ferguson were simply marching without any violence or confrontation, then there would be no comparison.

Unless you are about to show us some violent lunatics other than the nonexistent ones from the ranch you pulled out of your ass that correspond the description of "gunnuts", you intentionally lied and invented this group specifically so you could show how it’s not the same thing to "wish harm" on this figment of your imagination as the Ferguson crowds.

So again, show us this group of "violent lunitic" "gunnuts."

Holy shit, are you serious?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_stan ... April_2014

Pay special attention to the part where the militia were deliberately using women and children as human shields. If you don't call those violent lunatics then there's something wrong with you.

Want more? Google "Bundy Ranch Standoff". Enjoy the reads.

[Patroklos]

That's not a peaceful protest. Comparing the mob who is burning and looting to a group of paramilitary terrorists is quite appropriate. If the crowds in Ferguson were simply marching without any violence or confrontation, then there would be no comparison.

We can regret all day long about how the looters are rioters are tainting the protest all day, but you can't with a straight face say they are not a part of this protest. Small perhaps, but a part nonetheless.

Can you can tell me right now, with 100% certaintly, that every person who has engaged in violence had no political grievence in concert with the peaceful protesters and has not engaged in both the peaceful and violent parts of the events? Is there a registration table where you pick "protestor" or "rioter" and someone enforces not checking both blocks? I can tell you 100% certaintly that none of the militia members (AND OTHERS, you guys like to be selective with one group but not the other) who were present engaged in anything but peaceful protest. You can still think they are assholes all you want, but its a simple fact you have to accept that they were not violent.

There should be and is nuance in the not declaring the Ferguson protests 100% violent, but nobody on the peaceful side of things can declare what the protests are or are not. They are exactly what they turn out to be.

Holy shit, are you serious?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_stan ... April_2014

Pay special attention to the part where the militia were deliberately using women and children as human shields. If you don't call those violent lunatics then there's something wrong with you.

Want more? Google "Bundy Ranch Standoff". Enjoy the reads.

Which is different than the women and children being brought to the Ferguson protest how? Doing so in direct violation of curfews and lawful police orders just like the ranch situation? When there is a history and good expectation for violence to break out?

Again you are just proving Lonestar's point. In both cases you have people protesting and ignoring lawful police orders. You disagree with one so they are evil "violent lunitic" "terrorist" "gunnuts" who deserved the hammer of government to fall on them.

I actually agree that the situations are not 100% equatable but not because of the reason Raw Shark said regarding the ranch being violent lunitics. They are not 100% equatable because Ferguson is not 100% peaceful protesters. Its all quibbling anyway, Lonestar's point stands despite the variation.

[Borgholio]

There should be and is nuance in the not declaring the Ferguson protests 100% violent, but nobody on the peaceful side of things can declare what the protests are or are not. They are exactly what they turn out to be.

I don't think anybody here said the protests are 100% peaceful, because they certainly are not. However it's important to look at the big picture. First, a good deal of the violence has been instigated by the Police and their heavy-handed tactics. Second, those individuals who commit violence are a small minority compared to those who march, hold vigils, chant, and hold sit-ins. Compared to starting a second Civil War...Ferguson is most definitely peaceful.

Which is different than the women and children being brought to the Ferguson protest how?

The Bundy milita were LITERALLY using women and children as shields. They DELIBERATELY planned to hide behind and among them to make it harder for the Feds to get a clear shot. That puts them on precisely the same level of shitbag as Islamic terrorists. While women and children are undoubtedly in Ferguson, I don't see them being used as an anti-police barrier.

In both cases you have people protesting and ignoring lawful police orders.

Again, look at the big picture. One group is protesting the unwarranted slaying of an unarmed black boy, the latest in a string of oppressive and illegal actions taken by the local police. The "lawful" police orders are coming from police who are not acting lawfully themselves. Thus the protests gain a level of legitimacy and justification.

The other group are a bunch of thieves (literally), tax avoiders, people who break the law for no reason other than they hate the government as an institution, and people who have openly declared that they wish to lynch a lawfully elected president and overthrow the government. When asked to obey the law, they use women and children as shields and circle the wagons, claiming oppression.

I think calling one side violent lunatics compared to the other is actually quite appropriate.

[Patroklos]

I don't think anybody here said the protests are 100% peaceful, because they certainly are not. However it's important to look at the big picture. First, a good deal of the violence has been instigated by the Police and their heavy-handed tactics. Second, those individuals who commit violence are a small minority compared to those who march, hold vigils, chant, and hold sit-ins. Compared to starting a second Civil War...Ferguson is most definitely peaceful.

Unfortunetly (figuratively, of cours fortunetly!) there actaully wasn't any Second Civil War to compare Ferguson to, or any other violence from that incident for that matter. No matter how much you want that to not be true (regarding the comparison, I don't think you want death and destruction) it simply isn't. Compared to the ranch situation Ferguson is exactly what it is; a violent placetown marred by riots and looting along with peaceful protests compared to a ranch with no rioting or looting or violence in any form.

The Bundy milita were LITERALLY using women and children as shields. They DELIBERATELY planned to hide behind and among them to make it harder for the Feds to get a clear shot. That puts them on precisely the same level of shitbag as Islamic terrorists. While women and children are undoubtedly in Ferguson, I don't see them being used as an anti-police barrier.

No they were not and your source says nothing of the sort. The protesters, including the women who were voluntarily there to protest themselves, decided the visuals of the police hitting women would be more shocking to media audiences. Which is entirely true and is a old tactic. Thats not them being used as human shields, thats people volunteering to exploit the prejudices of the American public and to do so as eqauls. Do you have any evidence they were forcing women to do this? That they were not their of their own free will? Do you hold women to be some lesser sort of potester that can't hack the front row of a protest line? I don't think you do, so think about that for a second. Also note the front line while going out to confront the authorities, not hunkered down.

There is also zero mention of kids, I skimmed the article so please point it out to me or retract it.

Again, look at the big picture. One group is protesting the unwarranted slaying of an unarmed black boy, the latest in a string of oppressive and illegal actions taken by the local police. The "lawful" police orders are coming from police who are not acting lawfully themselves. Thus the protests gain a level of legitimacy and justification.

You say "look at the big picture" but then frame the entire event from a single perspective. No, they get no level of legitimacy or justification because that only works if people see things from that perspective. In fact they LOSE it to many.

The other group are a bunch of thieves (literally), tax avoiders, people who break the law for no reason other than they hate the government as an institution, and people who have openly declared that they wish to lynch a lawfully elected president and overthrow the government. When asked to obey the law, they use women and children as shields and circle the wagons, claiming oppression.

Again, you frame it from a single perspective. Also factually inaccurate as you brought up the kids again.

Both of these exercises again only prove Lonestar's right.

I think calling one side violent lunatics compared to the other is actually quite appropriate.

As long as you insist on being factually incorrect you are doing nothing but showing the limit of your "side" as it is regarding this topic. You have insisted, repeatedly, on using the word "violent" without any proof of violence ever taking place. This is willful ignorance.

[Borgholio]

No, the protesters, including the women who were voluntarily there to protest themselves, decided the visuals of the police hitting women would be more shocking to media audiences.

Link please?

Do you have any evidence they were forcing women to do this? That they were not their of their own free will?

“We were actually strategizing to put all the women up at the front. If they are going to start shooting, it’s going to be women that are going to be televised all across the world getting shot by these rogue federal officers.” - Former Arizona Sheriff Richard Mack

Regarding children:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jjmacnab/20 ... ff-part-2/

About halfway down:

"Reporter Michael Flynn: We saw some younger people down there that looked like they might have been children. Do you think that was wise to have those kids down there? Do you think it could have turned dangerous?

Bundy Sniper: That might have been the only thing that kept them from getting gassed. They threatened to shoot chemicals into that crowd.

Reporter: Do you think that it was good to have the kids down there then?

Bundy Sniper: Absolutely."

You say "look at the big picture" but then frame the entire event from a single perspective.

The other perspective is that of the officer himself, which has no evidence whatsoever backing up his original claim. Thus, unless more evidence comes out, there is only one perspective that makes sense.

Again, you frame it from a single perspective. Also factually inaccurate as you brought up the kids again.

Please enlighten us on the perspective of the ranchers and how it is justification for their actions. Regarding kids, see above.

You have insisted, repeatedly, on using the word "violent" without any proof of violence ever taking place.

So holding people at gunpoint isn't violence? Do you want to consider the Bundy Standoff to be a peaceful protest then?

[Grumman]

The Bundy milita were LITERALLY using women and children as shields. They DELIBERATELY planned to hide behind and among them to make it harder for the Feds to get a clear shot. That puts them on precisely the same level of shitbag as Islamic terrorists.

Even taking that as 100% true, that does not put them on the same level as Hamas and the like. According to you, they used women and children to make sure nobody shot anyone - to make sure the Feds didn't start a shootout and they proved by their actions that they didn't want to start shooting anyone themselves. Call it cowardly if you want, but that's a far cry from how Islamic terrorists operate, which is to use human shields for offensive operations and not merely defensive operations.

So holding people at gunpoint isn't violence?

They weren't holding anyone at gunpoint. Holding someone at gunpoint requires that you actually hold them - not just pointing your gun at someone who is free to walk away.

[Borgholio]

Call it cowardly if you want, but that's a far cry from how Islamic terrorists operate, which is to use human shields for offensive operations and not merely defensive operations.

Good point - I stand corrected. And yes, I will still call it cowardly.

[Patroklos]

Link please?

Wait, you think they were not there of their own free will?

So these people are just slaves dragged in chains by their dictatoral husbands then?

“We were actually strategizing to put all the women up at the front. If they are going to start shooting, it’s going to be women that are going to be televised all across the world getting shot by these rogue federal officers.” - Former Arizona Sheriff Richard Mack

That has no relevance to the question asked, put up or shut up.

Regarding children:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jjmacnab/20 ... ff-part-2/

About halfway down:

"Reporter Michael Flynn: We saw some younger people down there that looked like they might have been children. Do you think that was wise to have those kids down there? Do you think it could have turned dangerous?

Bundy Sniper: That might have been the only thing that kept them from getting gassed. They threatened to shoot chemicals into that crowd.

Reporter: Do you think that it was good to have the kids down there then?

Bundy Sniper: Absolutely."

Roger, so no you have no evidence they were used as human shields then. The police deciding not to shoot gas because children are there is not the same thing as the children being there because they would keep the police from using gas. You are lying through your teeth.

The other perspective is that of the officer himself, which has no evidence whatsoever backing up his original claim. Thus, unless more evidence comes out, there is only one perspective that makes sense.

There is as much evidence backing up his claim as that of the protesters. More, actually, now that we know he was not shot in the back and that the cop has skull fractures.

Please enlighten us on the perspective of the ranchers and how it is justification for their actions.

It had something to do with being there long enough for it to be ancesteral lands and the government having no authority to interfere anyway. Is that not a different perspective than the one you said? Why is it okay to take the protesters position into consideration in one instance but not the other?

As for their justification its exactly the same as the current protestors, they disagree with the law being enforced.

Regarding kids, see above.

Yes, we established you are a liar there.

So holding people at gunpoint isn't violence? Do you want to consider the Bundy Standoff to be a peaceful protest then?

1.) Please show evidence of anyone being held at gunpoint. I want you to remember the world "held" before you go looking for ways to quibble out of this one.

2.) It has nothing to do with what I want or don't want. It was a peaceful protest, period.

[Borgholio]

Wait, you think they were not there of their own free will?

So these people are just slaves dragged in chains by their dictatoral husbands then?

Oh I'm sure they were there of their own free will, but were they in on the plan to be used as human shields? Somehow I find that less likely.

That has no relevance to the question asked, put up or shut up.

That is quite relevant. You have one of the leaders of the ranch gunmen saying they were going to put the women up front. He did not say anything about the women volunteering to be put up front and you have not been able to demonstrate they they volunteered to be human shields. So as you say, put up or shut up.

You are lying through your teeth.

So when you have one of the snipers saying he thinks it's a good idea to have the children there because they served as effective human shields...that's a lie somehow? You're a fucking idiot.

There is as much evidence backing up his claim as that of the protesters. More, actually, now that we know he was not shot in the back and that he has skll fractures.

What evidence do we have? Gunpowder residue on the victim's body? Nope. Not shot at close range like the PD says. Injuries to the officer indicating a struggle? No x-ray or official statement from the hospital to confirm it. Brown robbing a convenience store prior to the attack? Nobody has positively identified him in the video. So really they have no evidence at all.

It had something to do with being there long enough for it to be ancesteral lands and the government having no authority to interfere anyway. Is that not a different perspective than the one you said? Why is it okay to take the protesters position into consideration in one instance but not the other?

Incorrect. The land has belonged to the Federal Government since the area was purchased from Mexico. Prior to that it had belonged to the Natives. At no point did Bundy's ancestors have any legally recognized claim to the land his cattle were grazing on. He was required to pay fees for the use of the land which other ranchers paid without much complaint. He refused, thus starting the confrontation. That makes him a squatter and a thief. If someone protests against a law that has been obeyed without contest for a century just because they don't feel like obeying the law, then their protests do not deserve consideration. Now if the law was unjust, THEN they might be worth listening to. But the law in question is a grazing fee that only Bundy really takes issue with.

Yes, we established you are a liar there.

Because taking a statement from someone who was actually there and confirms my accusation is somehow a lie. Yeah, fuck you asshole.

1.) Please show evidence of anyone being held at gunpoint. I want you to remember the world "held" before you go looking for ways to quibble out of this one.

http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/newsr ... jpg?n414z8

So having snipers on the bridge with people in the crosshairs isn't holding them at gunpoint?

2.) It has nothing to do with what I want or don't want. It was a peaceful protest, period.

Your definition of peaceful is definitely strange. I'd consider a sit-in or a march to be peaceful. I would not consider an armed standoff to be peaceful.

[Patroklos]

Oh I'm sure they were there of their own free will, but were they in on the plan to be used as human shields? Somehow I find that less likely.

Shields are there to NOT be shot, the intent here was to make sure if the police did shoot they would get the worst optics possible. This is ALL that is stated. You will note the comment you have continuously tortured to shoehorn into your imagination said nothing about intimidating or otherwise keeping the police from shooting in the first place.

That is quite relevant. You have one of the leaders of the ranch gunmen saying they were going to put the women up front. He did not say anything about the women volunteering to be put up front and you have not been able to demonstrate they they volunteered to be human shields. So as you say, put up or shut up.

When did he say they were going to do it? He simply said he was strategizing, as in it’s an option under discussion (and a good one).

But I like how this one comment about how crappy it would be for the cops to be seen shooting women on TV has morphed in your mind not only in to them being used as human shields but now into them being lined up, presumably with balls and chains and maybe naked in your minds eye, and hauled off involuntarily to their certain deaths to be cowered behind.

So when you have one of the snipers saying he thinks it's a good idea to have the children there because they served as effective human shields...that's a lie somehow? You're a fucking idiot.

First of all who are these mythical "Bundy Snipers" you keep talking about? Do you have any reports of any sniper fire going on?

Second, at no point does any of the protesters say they used their kids as human shields or that it’s a good idea to do so. The "bundy sniper" agrees that the presence of kids impacted the tactics the police used as a matter of objective fact. When asked if that ended up being good for them he answered honestly that it was as a matter of objective fact.

None of this, in any way, means that the children were there to be used as human shields unless you are a brain dead ideologe like yourself and that reporter desperately trying the shoehorn events into little preconceived notions that help to keep your head from exploding. I am sure the police have modified their actions in Ferguson many times due to the presence of all sorts of classes of people, to include children, and no this is not them being used as human shields either.

If we were to use your logic anyone with a "baby on board" sticker is using their children as human shields to prevent bad drivers from wrecking with them. What bastards!

What evidence do we have? Gunpowder residue on the victim's body? Nope. Not shot at close range like the PD says. Injuries to the officer indicating a struggle? No x-ray or official statement from the hospital to confirm it. Brown robbing a convenience store prior to the attack? Nobody has positively identified him in the video. So really they have no evidence at all.

Why does there have to be gun powder residue on the victim's body? The PD never said he was shot at close range, at least not during the initial statement that the protesters rose up in response to. Brown robbing a convenience store has zero impact on the protestor's POV, their story predates that as well.

The evidence the protestors had that started all of this amounted to this: a white cop shot a black person. Period. From that came completely disproven statements like "he did nothing to provoke the cop" (we now know he at least punched him in the face) and that he was shot in the back (we now know this is false, which completely destroys Johnson and many others as witnesses).

I would also like to point out to you that Crump, the family's lawyer, continues to say Brown was shot in the back even though it has been conclusively proven this is not the case. It seems that he has the same aversion to accepting facts that you do.

Incorrect. The land has belonged to the Federal Government since the area was purchased from Mexico. Prior to that it had belonged to the Natives. At no point did Bundy's ancestors have any legally recognized claim to the land his cattle were grazing on. He was required to pay fees for the use of the land which other ranchers paid without much complaint. He refused, thus starting the confrontation.

That’s great, you didn't ask me whether Bundy was right or not but rather what he was protesting about. So again you are incorrect, they did have another side to the story that you negleted to mention for no good reason, instead defaulting to one that suited your purposes.

He was in fact not protesting about the things you said, he was protesting about the things HE said. The same goes for the Ferguson protesters regardless of how racist, counter factual, anti-science (see autopsy denial) and self-serving it is. You are welcome to say the same thing about the police btw, but there are TWO sides to this story even if one is wrong. The other side doesn't know they are wrong in a lot of these types of circumstances.

That makes him a squatter and a thief. If someone protests against a law that has been obeyed without contest for a century just because they don't feel like obeying the law, then their protests do not deserve consideration. Now if the law was unjust, THEN they might be worth listening to. But the law in question is a grazing fee that only Bundy really takes issue with.

All great, and every Ferguson protester not respecting a legal curfew, legal orders for crowd control or legal orders to disperse in the fact of violence on the behalf of a small part of their number is engaging in unlawfulness every bit as much as Bundy.

And what’s this bit about if the law is unjust then they are worth listening to? Only if you agree with them of course. Are you somehow the arbiter of what laws people can protest and how? Why do you and no one else have this amazing power? Well that is simple, all we have to do is find one person who thinks the Ferguson protests against the legal system is BS and we can all go home!

Because taking a statement from someone who was actually there and confirms my accusation is somehow a lie. Yeah, fuck you asshole.

No, taking a statement that says one thing and pretending it says something else is dishonesty. You are a liar.

So having snipers on the bridge with people in the crosshairs isn't holding them at gunpoint?

Jesus, even with a heads up you walk face first into it. No. As a matter of fact it is not "holding" someone at gunpoint. Hell, it’s not even gunpoint! Also, please link us to this "sniping" you are so enamored with.

Your definition of peaceful is definitely strange. I'd consider a sit-in or a march to be peaceful. I would not consider an armed standoff to be peaceful.

So is no instance that involves police peaceful? Before you go off on another kneejerk reaction remember nothing regarding the firearms at that ranch were illegal (except maybe that one douche who, predictable, you brought up. I apply the Ferguson "its only a few outsiders" theorem in counter).

[Borgholio]

keeping the police from shooting in the first place.

That's the whole point of a human shield, to keep people from shooting at you! The militia used them because they knew they'd be taken out quickly otherwise if a firefight started.

When did he say they were going to do it? He simply said he was strategizing, as in it’s an option under discussion

He was saying "We were going to use human shields.". How does this absolve him of anything?

(and a good one).

Coward.

being lined up, presumably with balls and chains and maybe naked in your minds eye, and hauled off involuntarily to their certain deaths to be cowered behind.

No YOU said that, I said nothing of the sort. Once again, I demand you come up with some proof that the women had volunteered to be part of the human shield plan. If you can't, then concede this point.

First of all who are these mythical "Bundy Snipers" you keep talking about?

http://www.thedailysheeple.com/wp-conte ... nipers.png

http://www.bradblog.com/Images/BundyRan ... erpass.jpg

Do you have any reports of any sniper fire going on?

What a stupid question. A sniper is not categorized as a sniper only if he shoots something.

Second, at no point does any of the protesters say they used their kids as human shields or that it’s a good idea to do so. The "bundy sniper" agrees that the presence of kids impacted the tactics the police used as a matter of objective fact. When asked if that ended up being good for them he answered honestly that it was as a matter of objective fact.

Yes, it is objective fact that having children in a crowd of armed protesters prevented the feds from using gas to disperse the crowd. It is also an objective fact that the protester was glad they were there and had no qualms about putting them in harm's way if it helped protect them from an attack. Human Shields.

I am sure the police have modified their actions in Ferguson many times due to the presence of all sorts of classes of people, to include children, and no this is not them being used as human shields either.

The police in Ferguson are fucking idiots and haven't modified their actions in any meaningful way. With that said, I never said they were using human shields in Ferguson and I have not seen any evidence to indicate otherwise.

If we were to use your logic anyone with a "baby on board" sticker is using their children as human shields to prevent bad drivers from wrecking with them. What bastards!

That's a warning to ask people to drive more carefully, not a statement intended to protect the driver from harm at the expense of the child. Keep grasping buddy.

The PD never said he was shot at close range, at least not during the initial statement that the protesters rose up in response to.

Bullshit. They were saying it was a close range altercation since the morning after Brown was shot. They only added the story of the cigar theft after the fact to try and look like they had a justification. The lack of gunpowder residue means it was not close range as the PD is trying to say.

From that came completely disproven statements like "he did nothing to provoke the cop" (we now know he at least punched him in the face) and that he was shot in the back (we now know this is false, which completely destroys Johnson and many others as witnesses).

Wrong. The cop started the whole thing by confronting Michael Brown. Prior to that they were just jaywalking. Big fucking deal. There are no witnesses that have stated Brown jumped the cop and tried to take his gun. All they know is there was a struggle, which ended with a gunshot in the car (supposedly) followed by several shots as Brown fled. One grazed his arm, causing him to turn around, then he got hit with the other 6 shots and died. The witnesses are all consistent regarding the core facts. These facts are backed up by the autopsy.

I would also like to point out to you that Crump, the family's lawyer, continues to say Brown was shot in the back

Link?

He was in fact not protesting about the things you said, he was protesting about the things HE said.

Oh this is gonna be good. What exactly did he say were the reasons he was protesting? Please, I want to hear this. Make it a good story now please.

The same goes for the Ferguson protesters regardless of how racist, counter factual, anti-science (see autopsy denial) and self-serving it is.

How is it any of those things when there is a documented history of racial profiling and oppression in the area, capped by a killing of an unarmed black boy under dubious (at best) circumstances?

All great, and every Ferguson protester not respecting a legal curfew, legal orders for crowd control or legal orders to disperse in the fact of violence on the behalf of a small part of their number is engaging in unlawfulness every bit as much as Bundy.

No they are not. The Bundys are breaking the law because they are selfish bastards. The Ferguson protesters are breaking the law because they won't get justice if they just play nice and say, "Yes Massa..." like they always used to. One group are simply assholes, one are discriminated against and oppressed. Both breaking the law, sure...but for vastly different reasons that are worth noting.

And what’s this bit about if the law is unjust then they are worth listening to?

That's the whole fucking point of the legal system. It's supposed to be comprised of laws that are fair and reasonable. Punishments should fit the crimes. If the punishment is too harsh, that is unjust and it is morally and culturally acceptable to protest that law and demand change. If you are simply an oddball who chooses not to obey a reasonable law because you hold an outdated and flawed worldview, you have no moral high ground to protest when the feds come knocking at your door.

No, taking a statement that says one thing and pretending it says something else is dishonesty. You are a liar.

It says what it says, you're just too fucking stupid to grasp what it means. He admits it was dangerous, he admits the kids served a useful purpose, and he admits that he has no qualms about putting them in harms way since they kept the Feds from using gas. What, do you want him to flat out use the words "Human Shields" before you will believe it?

Jesus, even with a heads up you walk face first into it. No. As a matter of fact it is not "holding" someone at gunpoint. Hell, it’s not even gunpoint! Also, please link us to this "sniping" you are so enamored with.

Holy shit you're stupid. Holding someone at gunpoint doesn't mean they have to be face to face. It means they are in the crosshairs of a weapon. It can be 5 feet away it can be 50 feet away. If you are pointing a gun at someone with the intent to coerce them into doing something, you are holding them at gunpoint. I have already posted pictures of snipers earlier in this post.

So is no instance that involves police peaceful? Before you go off on another kneejerk reaction remember nothing regarding the firearms at that ranch were illegal (except maybe that one douche who, predictable, you brought up. I apply the Ferguson "its only a few outsiders" theorem in counter).

You can of course have a peaceful protest involving police. You don't need to have guns or rioting. The Ferguson PD just fucked up over and over and escalated the situation. The militia in Nevada brought their own guns because they were deliberately looking for a fight. That does not have the makings of a peaceful protest.

[Patroklos]

That's the whole point of a human shield, to keep people from shooting at you! The militia used them because they knew they'd be taken out quickly otherwise if a firefight started.

No, AS STATED BY THE PERSON YOU QUOTED, they were being used so that IF the feds started shooting it look as bad on TV as possible. At no point did anyone quoted mention shield, being outgunned, or trying to avoid being shot at. You have invented that entire narrative out of thin air.

Shields are not used so that when everyone gets shot they can make things look bad, they are used TO NOT GET SHOT.

He was saying "We were going to use human shields.". How does this absolve him of anything?

Did he now? You do understand what these "" things are for right? Let me help you out with what he did say liar which you know because you already posted it yourself:

"strategizing to put all the women up at the front. If they are going to start shooting, it's going to be women that are going to be televised all across the world getting shot by these rogue federal officers"

So now you are so insecure in you BS you can't even satisfy yourself with just wantonly lying about what was said, you are just going to make up the quotes wholesale. Awesome.

Coward.

Holy shit, a liar and a misogynist to boot! Let me guess, women into the life boats first too? Are those poor tiny weak and small brained women too frail to be with the big boys at the picket line?

No YOU said that, I said nothing of the sort. Once again, I demand you come up with some proof that the women had volunteered to be part of the human shield plan. If you can't, then concede this point.

I didn't say they did lair, I said the WOULD BE. You know, because they are there of their own free will and we have zero evidence of them being forced to do anything they don't want to do? Its your misogynist ass who seems to think women are just props to be ordered to wherever the men want them.

But you know what, they didn't need anyone to order them to the front because they seem to be just fine thinking for themselves and getting there all by their lonesome:







But how can this be? These women look like they are actively, FREELY even, participating in a protest of their own accord. Right up front while cops are bearing down on them? I mean, looking at those images (including the last one you have been jacking off to) you might think these women have ideas and thoughts and stuff. And that maybe they care enough about them to show up right in the front and profess what they believe. This should be impossible though because Borgholio says they were going to be ORDERED there? Why would they be there if they were not ordered?! Don't they know that having women at a protest they might get killed at would make the protesters COWARDS?! THEY RUINED EVERYTHING!!!

http://www.thedailysheeple.com/wp-conte ... nipers.png

http://www.bradblog.com/Images/BundyRan ... erpass.jpg

You read something called "the daily sheeple," thats precious.

What a stupid question. A sniper is not categorized as a sniper only if he shoots something.

Yeah, that's exactly what they it means. Or maybe has shot someone in a very specific fashion in the past. I'll even throw you a bone and say it can include people specifically trained to do that and have it as a job. Random guys holding weapons who have never fired a gun in anger in their loves at a peaceful protest? Nope.

You seem to be fond of wikipedia so here you go:

A sniper is a highly trained marksman [maybe applies?] who operates alone, in a pair, or with a sniper team [nope, unless grandma there is his "sniper team"] to maintain close visual contact with the enemy and engage targets from concealed positions[so not in broad daylight out in the open on an uncovered bridge surrounded by other protesters and news vehichles to include live news van video feeds I am guessing] or distances exceeding the detection capabilities of enemy personnel [BLM were sporting some serious high powered riffles, so nope again]. These sniper teams operate independently, with little combat asset support from their parent units.[this probably includes hundreds of fellow protesters and their giant tailgate camp nearby Snipers typically have highly selective and specialized training and use high-precision/special application rifles and optics, and often have sophisticated communication assets to feed valuable combat information back to their units. [maybe? Nothing too crazy on that bridge dude

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sniper

So what makes these guys a "sniper" vice every person with a gun anywhere at any time? Is it his cool spec ops shades? SCARY!!!!

Yes, it is objective fact that having children in a crowd of armed protesters prevented the feds from using gas to disperse the crowd. It is also an objective fact that the protester was glad they were there and had no qualms about putting them in harm's way if it helped protect them from an attack. Human Shields.

Since you are such a frothing at the mouth lying shit heel, I am just going to catelogue your ever growing list of lies, quibbles, and speculations masquerading as facts.

1.)It is also an objective fact that the protester was glad they were there and had no qualms about putting them in harm's way if it helped protect them from an attack

2.) The police in Ferguson are fucking idiots and haven't modified their actions in any meaningful way.

3.)They were saying it was a close range altercation since the morning after Brown was shot. They only added the story of the cigar theft after the fact to try and look like they had a justification. The lack of gunpowder residue means it was not close range as the PD is trying to say. [its like despite having started the thread you have the memory of a goldfish and can't remember pages of it being confirmed over and over again that the police said he was shot 35 feet away from the care, NOT any particular distances from the police officer]

4.) Wrong. The cop started the whole thing by confronting Michael Brown. Prior to that they were just jaywalking [you disprove yourself, is jaywalking not something a police officer should tell people not to do?]

5.) There are no witnesses that have stated Brown jumped the cop and tried to take his gun.

6.) One grazed his arm, causing him to turn around, then he got hit with the other 6 shots and died.

7.) The witnesses are all consistent regarding the core facts.

8.) These facts are backed up by the autopsy.

Link?

Sure:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhHhlu-IqVw

Fast forward to 8 minutes.

[/quote]Oh this is gonna be good. What exactly did he say were the reasons he was protesting? Please, I want to hear this. Make it a good story now please.[/quote]

I already answered this question, keep up.

How is it any of those things when there is a documented history of racial profiling and oppression in the area, capped by a killing of an unarmed black boy under dubious (at best) circumstances?

What statistics in particular are you referring to. I am not asking for your opinion or what people said, I want the statistics themselves. Them may exist, I am pretty sure you are just taking this on faith.

No they are not. The Bundys are breaking the law because they are selfish bastards. The Ferguson protesters are breaking the law because they won't get justice if they just play nice and say, "Yes Massa..." like they always used to. One group are simply assholes, one are discriminated against and oppressed. Both breaking the law, sure...but for vastly different reasons that are worth noting.

Its amazing that your are oblivious to just how self defeating your comments are. Its cool you and the Ferguson protesters think they are justified. The Bundy protesters and lots of others just as relevant as you in every way thought the same thing about their situation.

That's the whole fucking point of the legal system. It's supposed to be comprised of laws that are fair and reasonable. Punishments should fit the crimes. If the punishment is too harsh, that is unjust and it is morally and culturally acceptable to protest that law and demand change. If you are simply an oddball who chooses not to obey a reasonable law because you hold an outdated and flawed worldview, you have no moral high ground to protest when the feds come knocking at your door.

There is really no point in addressing this as you responded to one line of a paragraph, presumably because responding to the whole thing would make your head explode. The same response as above applies to this. You and the protesters in Ferguson have no more right to protest while breaking the law than Bundy did or anyone else. BOTH of you think you are right.

It says what it says, you're just too fucking stupid to grasp what it means. He admits it was dangerous, he admits the kids served a useful purpose, and he admits that he has no qualms about putting them in harms way since they kept the Feds from using gas. What, do you want him to flat out use the words "Human Shields" before you will believe it?

Yes, it says what it says and it doesn't resemble your mishmash of random thoughts, misquotations and willfull ignorance that substitutes for a plain reading of the language.

Either the kids at Ferguson are human shields as well or the kids at both are not, you can not have your cake and eat it too.

Holy shit you're stupid. Holding someone at gunpoint doesn't mean they have to be face to face. It means they are in the crosshairs of a weapon. It can be 5 feet away it can be 50 feet away. If you are pointing a gun at someone with the intent to coerce them into doing something, you are holding them at gunpoint. I have already posted pictures of snipers earlier in this post.

No, it means you have physical control of the person and you are at point blank range. That's why both "hold" and "gun point" are in the phrase. Its not because they are pointing the gun at you, they literally have the point of the gun near you physical body. Likewise I can't hold you at knife point from 100 yards away.

You can of course have a peaceful protest involving police. You don't need to have guns or rioting. The Ferguson PD just fucked up over and over and escalated the situation. The militia in Nevada brought their own guns because they were deliberately looking for a fight. That does not have the makings of a peaceful protest.

Sorry, you said guns being present qualifies as violence, legal or no. You lose.

[Borgholio]

Shields are not used so that when everyone gets shot they can make things look bad, they are used TO NOT GET SHOT.

Please, tell me you aren't this fucking stupid. Do you have any idea how many other ways they could get the Feds to look bad besides saying, "Oh we'll be fine, they'll just shoot our wives first." Putting women in the line of fire to take bullets before you do makes them into human shields no matter what fucking excuse you make up to justify it.

So now you are so insecure in you BS you can't even satisfy yourself with just wantonly lying about what was said, you are just going to make up the quotes wholesale. Awesome.

Oh so you can't successfully argue the main point so you start whining about the proper use of quotations? Just give up already, you've already demonstrated you have nothing so you are finding little points to score wherever you can. Fuck you, you mental midget. Start arguing the main point or get the fuck out.

You know, because they are there of their own free will and we have zero evidence of them being forced to do anything they don't want to do?

Thanks for the pics that prove my point, dumbass. I don't see a single shred of evidence that shows the women would willingly form a human shield around the men. I don't see a single woman saying they would gladly throw themselves in the line of fire to look bad on TV. What I see are a bunch of hicks standing around holding posters while the men take up firing positions. Whose idea was it to put the women in front again? Oh yeah...ONE OF THE MEN.

So what makes these guys a "sniper" vice every person with a gun anywhere at any time? Is it his cool spec ops shades? SCARY!!!!

Are you really doing this? Are you really so desperate to score points that you're arguing the fucking definition of a sniper instead of your original bullshit claim that the Bundy Standoff is the same as the protests in Ferguson? You know, you remind me of another little dipshit in another thread who kept changing the subject, shifting the goalposts, and arguing every little thing that anyone said because he was a moron who couldn't stand being proven wrong. You're probably his big brother or something. Just give up already.

Fast forward to 8 minutes.

Nice try, asshole. Fast forward to 19:00 and watch to 20:30. The medical examiner states that the wound on the forearm COULD have been a shot from behind. He is careful to state that he doesn't know for sure but any half-decent lawyer would seize on that possibility and run with it, which is EXACTLY what the lawyer did! Witnesses say he was shot in the back, the medical examiner says it is definitely possible, and the lawyer will spin that statement to his favor. So the only lies here come from you because you were too fucking lazy to go through the entire video that you posted to try and shoot me down.

I want the statistics themselves.

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/a ... on/378606/

5 minutes on Google you lazy motherfucker. The numbers show a much higher rate of citations, searches and arrests for blacks vs whites than one would expect given the population makeup of the area. Why don't you spend a few minutes looking at the chart in the middle of the article and try to come up with some way to pull an argument out of your ass like you usually do.

There is really no point in addressing this as you responded to one line of a paragraph, presumably because responding to the whole thing would make your head explode. The same response as above applies to this. You and the protesters in Ferguson have no more right to protest while breaking the law than Bundy did or anyone else. BOTH of you think you are right.

That's the one line in the whole paragraph that actually was worth replying to. The rest was mindless drivel. You can't wrap your thick skull around the point that breaking the law can be justified given the right circumstances, and being oppressed is a far sight better excuse than just refusing to pay taxes.

Either the kids at Ferguson are human shields as well or the kids at both are not, you can not have your cake and eat it too.

Show me quotes of people admitting the children are protecting them from tear gas, or show me pictures of children being used that way. If you can't, then shut the fuck up.

No, it means you have physical control of the person and you are at point blank range.

No it doesn't, you illiterate snot. It means "Under the threat of a gun"

gunpoint (ˈɡʌnˌpɔɪnt)
n
1. (Firearms, Gunnery, Ordnance & Artillery) the muzzle of a gun
2. at gunpoint being under or using the threat of being shot

Sorry, you said guns being present qualifies as violence, legal or no. You lose.

I didn't see any of the Ferguson protestors carrying guns or threatening to use them. Sorry shithead, my point remains valid.

[Raw Shark]

By individual assholes who should be punished for those actions, not the mass of peaceful protestors, you strawmanning idiot.

How is this not entirely transferable to the ranch incident?

The Ranch incident had crowds of people standing around talking Civil War 2.0 and attempting to extort the Feds into not enforcing a law with the threat of violence. Just because no shots were fired doesn't mean it was peaceful by a long shot.

The only people actually being beaten and shot in this conflict so far are being beaten and shot by the cops, you strawmanning idiot.

Whatever I am it’s not a liar like you, though perhaps you are simply ignorant?

Two people suffered from gunshot wounds on Monday night. Both are currently in the hospital and neither their names, nor status have been released at this time. Johnson states they were shot by people in the crowd of protesters. Two guns and a molotov cocktail were confiscated from protesters, leading Captain Johnson to once again stress the need for a peaceful protest when he addressed reporters overnight.

http://www.thewire.com/national/2014/08 ... ed/378746/
For someone making such hay in this thread you sure are uninformed about the topic…

We have no evidence that that wasn't over a personal dispute or looting, but fine, conceded that somebody got shot by non-cops. I hope whomever did it gets their comeuppance as well.

Yes, it is. Displaying a weapon is an implicit threat of violence, and everybody doing so knows it. If you are doing so at a political confrontation, you are threatening violence over that confrontation, perhaps disingenuously like you're doing right now, and you fucking know it, you dishonest, strawmanning idiot.

So how many of those people were prosecuted for making threats again? YOU feeling threatened is not the same thing as someone threatening you.

Or are you doing the “whatever I want to be true is true because reasons” thing now without being held accountable to demonstrable metrics of proof?

So if you're having a heated dialogue with somebody who is displaying a weapon, you feel as free as you normally would to speak your mind? No, it is at best an attempt to intimidate, and to subvert democracy, which I think is a pretty un-American thing to do.

Demonstrate a Ferguson protestor opposed to the Brown shooting openly-carrying a gun, you strawmanning idiot.

I didn't say anything about open carry, YOU DID. I am sorry your off the cuff stupidity is biting you in the ass now but flailing around isn't going to help your case.

You said "violent lunitics,"

Please demonstrate where I spelled it incorrectly or stop taking cheap shots, jackoff.

so if you were not talking about the ranch protesters in this context who we know as an objective fact were not violent (and who you have since identified by name) who were you talking about?

You comment does not make sense. You claimed that there was some issue between equating the peaceful Ferguson protesters with the equally peaceful ranch protesters which is ridiculous. Even more so given your reasoning to claim such because again its an indisputable reality that the ranch protesters were more peaceful than the current Ferguson protesters because regardless of how small the percentage of Ferguson participants are engaging in violence it is not zero.

Lonestar was right on the money and you are proof of that in spades.

Demonstrate where I said that, you strawmanning idiot.

Sure:

So you equate wishing harm on peaceful protestors with wishing harm on violent lunatics?

Unless you are about to show us some violent lunatics other than the nonexistent ones from the ranch you pulled out of your ass that correspond the description of "gunnuts", you intentionally lied and invented this group specifically so you could show how it’s not the same thing to "wish harm" on this figment of your imagination as the Ferguson crowds.

So again, show us this group of "violent lunitic" "gunnuts."

The Bundy Ranch incident was brought up in answer to your question about non-peaceful armed protestors, because they were both armed and in my opinion not acting peacefully as I explained above. I did not mean to imply that the Bundy Ranch crowd were violent lunatics, just aggressive dicks. The violent lunatics we've all been discussing are theoretical whackjobs that I made up entirely in the (tasteless, I admit) joke about somebody taking a pot shot at the National Guard that Lonestar objected to. They don't exist, and I never said they do, so you can stop hyperventilating.

[Grumman]

No, it means you have physical control of the person and you are at point blank range.

No it doesn't, you illiterate snot. It means "Under the threat of a gun"

gunpoint (ˈɡʌnˌpɔɪnt)
n
1. (Firearms, Gunnery, Ordnance & Artillery) the muzzle of a gun
2. at gunpoint being under or using the threat of being shot

Wow, you really are this stupid. Saying someone is "held at gunpoint" requires both that they are at gunpoint and that they are held. If you are free to leave whenever you want, you are not being held.

[Borgholio]

No, it means you have physical control of the person and you are at point blank range.

No it doesn't, you illiterate snot. It means "Under the threat of a gun"

gunpoint (ˈɡʌnˌpɔɪnt)
n
1. (Firearms, Gunnery, Ordnance & Artillery) the muzzle of a gun
2. at gunpoint being under or using the threat of being shot

Wow, you really are this stupid. Saying someone is "held at gunpoint" requires both that they are at gunpoint and that they are held. If you are free to leave whenever you want, you are not being held.

I'm at a loss for words. I can't believe you're this much of a moron. Free to leave means I don't have a gun pointed at you threatening to shoot you if you try to run away. I can have my hand on you with the gun at your temple, I can have you on your knees on the other side of a bank lobby, or I can have you in the crosshairs of my rifle as I take aim at you from a freeway overpass. If I use the threat of gunfire to force you to act as I say, then I am holding you at gunpoint.

hold1 (hoʊld)

v. held, hold•ing,
n. v.t.
1. to have or keep in the hand; grasp: to hold someone's hand.
2. to set aside; reserve or retain: to hold a reservation.
3. to bear, sustain, or support with or as if with the hands or arms.
4. to keep in a specified state: The preacher held them spellbound.
5. to detain: The police held her for questioning.
6. to conduct; carry on: to hold a meeting.
7. to hinder; restrain: Fear held me from acting.
8. to have the ownership or use of; possess or occupy: to hold a position of authority.
9. to contain or be capable of containing: This bottle holds a quart.
10. to make accountable: We will hold you to your word.
11. to keep in the mind; believe: held certain beliefs.
12. to regard; consider: to hold a person responsible.
13. to keep forcibly: Enemy forces held the hill.
14. to point; aim: He held a gun on the prisoner.

Emphasis on point 14. Are we done here, or do you need any more remedial English lessons?

[Grumman]

Free to leave means I don't have a gun pointed at you threatening to shoot you if you try to run away.

Yes, that is correct. The reason you're a fucking idiot is because the Bundy militia weren't doing this. When the Feds backed down, they did not start shooting, did they? They let them walk away.

[Borgholio]

Yes, that is correct. The reason you're a fucking idiot is because the Bundy militia weren't doing this. When the Feds backed down, they did not start shooting, did they? They let them walk away.

So they weren't being held at gunpoint at any time because the militia eventually decided to let them walk away at the end? Really? Way to pull that out of your ass. So I guess people aren't held hostage at a bank if the bank robbers eventually let them go in the end. Dumbass.

[Grumman]

Yes, that is correct. The reason you're a fucking idiot is because the Bundy militia weren't doing this. When the Feds backed down, they did not start shooting, did they? They let them walk away.

So they weren't being held at gunpoint at any time because the militia eventually decided to let them walk away at the end? Really? Way to pull that out of your ass. So I guess people aren't held hostage at a bank if the bank robbers eventually let them go in the end. Dumbass.

At any time, were the militia stopping the Feds from leaving?

[Borgholio]

Yes, in fact. The militia used the threat of gun violence to keep the Feds from leaving with the cattle and deliberately controlled where the Feds were allowed to go. They also went one step further and planted armed gunmen on Highway 15 and shut the whole fucking thing down for several hours, preventing people from traveling along the highway.

When you point a gun at someone to control their movement, that is by definition, holding them at gunpoint. If the militia simply had the rifles slung over their shoulders and just wanted to make their presence felt, then they would not be holding anybody at gunpoint. When they pointed the guns and dictated where the Feds and may or may not go, that's when it becomes holding at gunpoint.

[cadbrowser]

Jesus Christ, how fucking stupid do you have to be to not get what "held at gunpoint" means? Grumman, just fucking stop already...conceed so we can move on and knock off this semantics/derailing bullshit.

[Haruko]

"Land of the free"

My favorite shot is the one I saw on Last Week Today with John Oliver which showed police dressed in military camo and pointing military assault rifles at a civilian. As Mr. Oliver pointed out, soldiers understand the seriousness of pointing your gun directly at someone, but these police officers due it routinely without provocation.