The theory that Dems want to ban guns

[Pete at Home]

" Your "If I want to see blood" implied that I do, and told me where to go to see it to satisfy my urge. "

When you say that I, or anyone else that contradicts you, is completely underserving of any sort of factual or reasonable explanation, it gives the impression that you're being a bully.

But when the parties have guns and a history of violence, the alternative to talking is violence.   So yes, I implied that you had implied that you wanted to see violence.  And you did.

[Pete at Home]

Are you saying that anyone who idolized and adores Obama is a demon?

You are so full of *censored*.

It's just kind of funny that I poke fun of Obama's worshippers, and you assume I am talking about _you_. It's not like you've up front admitted to worshipping Obama like I am about having been a lawyer and Christian/LDS, the stuff you won't quit attacking me for. How was I supposed to know that was your religion?.

You're reminding me of Ted Cruz, who [insert another one of Al's anti Lawyer slurs... Apparently he's out of antichristian and antiLDS ones.)]

Ted Cruz?   Has Al Wessex chosen a new Grand-Republican-villain blow up doll? You go through the. like Trump goes through wives. 

Well you are no Bernie Sanders. That's for sure. 

You realize Obama and the Clinton's are lawyers, right?  Or rather, Bill used to be, prior to what you in your grandiose ignorance refer to as "lawyerly" behavior. 

Lincoln Wept.

[D.W.]

But when the parties have guns and a history of violence, the alternative to talking is violence. 

It's your logic Pete that leads to half of these conflicts.  By this standard I would say that *I* wanted violence.  By any normal standard of conversation if someone asked me if I wanted violence to take place I would look at them as if they were mad and answer, "Of course not!  I want this to end peacefully."

Now is storming the place, overwhelming/surprising them, facing them down with such an advantage that any rational person would feel they must surrender... peaceful?  No, not so much.  But that's how we use language.

We don't equate peaceful resolution to, "We can do nothing but talk, our hands our tied."
We don't equate violence as, "any attempt of armed apprehension of suspects."

Just because you have chosen to (at least for the sake of this discussion) doesn't make others arguing counter to you "wrong".  Not that we don't get things wrong for other reasons, but failing to share your line of reasoning or using your approved lexicon seems to be the root of way too many disagreements.  I don't think there is a single poster here where I need to put as much effort into dragging meaning out of their statements.

Not that you are the only one who likes playing the semantic games here.  At least yours arguments have some meat on the bone after I scrape off the char and discover what there is to chew on. 

[AI Wessex]

But when the parties have guns and a history of violence, the alternative to talking is violence.   So yes, I implied that you had implied that you wanted to see violence.  And you did.

You just don't get it.  Let me repeat this back to you.  You implied that I implied that I "wanted to see violence".  You said, "And [ I ] did", because as I pointed out several times, forcing them out through a direct confrontation, knowing that they were armed and declared they would fight to the death, might be a last resort?  That translates in your mind to "wanted to see violence". 

Let me give you a piece of advice that is hardly necessary.  When you are wrong, even if multiple people point that out to you over a long period of time, never, never, never, never, never, never, never back down, because it's a sign of weakness.

[Pete at Home]

I've often admitted when I am wrong, Al.  You have not.  And your idea of "criticizing" Obama is to say that he's too patient with people that won't bow down and worship him.  

[Pete at Home]

But when the parties have guns and a history of violence, the alternative to talking is violence. 

It's your logic Pete that leads to half of these conflicts.  By this standard I would say that *I* wanted violence.  By any normal standard of conversation if someone asked me if I wanted violence to take place I would look at them as if they were mad and answer, "Of course not!  I want this to end peacefully."

Now is storming the place, overwhelming/surprising them, facing them down with such an advantage that any rational person would feel they must surrender... peaceful?  No, not so much.  But that's how we use language.

We don't equate peaceful resolution to, "We can do nothing but talk, our hands our tied."
We don't equate violence as, "any attempt of armed apprehension of suspects."

Just because you have chosen to (at least for the sake of this discussion) doesn't make others arguing counter to you "wrong".  Not that we don't get things wrong for other reasons, but failing to share your line of reasoning or using your approved lexicon seems to be the root of way too many disagreements.  I don't think there is a single poster here where I need to put as much effort into dragging meaning out of their statements.

You're right.  In many contexts, there are alternatives other than talking or violence.  What I said applied only to this specific context of providing available video evidence to those who think that the cops shot that old guy when he had his hands up.

[AI Wessex]

I've often admitted when I am wrong, Al.  You have not.

Of course I have. 

And your idea of "criticizing" Obama is to say that he's too patient with people that won't bow down and worship him.

Right, sure it is. 

Get me right even once and you'll win a prize.  Not a big one, mind you, but still it's a win...

[D.W.]

Pete, this entire issue I have interpreted your position as openly skeptical and hostile towards the government.  I know you are keen on bringing up past incidents where that hostility is deserved but most of us don't consider it to be the norm, they are noteworthy due to their status as aberrations.  Anyone who fails to adopt the same stance as you seems to qualify as a blood thirsty monster cheer leading for an action movie siege of these peaceful protesters who if left alone are no threat to anyone.

To myself (and almost certainly AI per his statements) your looking for them to release additional footage is inflammatory.  On it's face it sounds reasonable and the way you frame it is meant to be reasonable.  The way you wove it in with differing perspectives and the phrase "death dealing arrogance" are all meant to suggest that the only reasonable option is to release more footage. 

AI's point that if the previous video did not convince people nothing will, is perfectly valid. If more footage was released the next thing you would hear is that the delay is just long enough that they had time to doctor it.

If you want to mock us for having faith in our government to occasionally do it's job without trying to assassinate freedom-fighters making a stand for the benefit of all of America... Just do it plainly. 

[Pete at Home]

All I did was reiterate what LR and Al were saying:

AI Wessex,

witnesses can't see every angle, things can look entirely innocuous from one angle, yet seem sinister from another angle.

Quite true.  My wife was standing outside talking to the neighbors one day when they heard a loud crash at the end of the block.  They all turned and saw that there had been an accident and one of the vehicles drove off without stopping to see if anyone in the other car was hurt.  The police came and took all of their statements.  One said the car that left was white, another said blue and the third said it was a pickup truck.  The difference between their witness memories and the woman who was in the car that Finicum was driving.  She saw the whole thing and is accusing the officer of shooting him while his hands were raised.  When shown the overhead video with him lowering his arms and reaching for his pocket she insisted that the video was playing tricks and her memory is accurate.  Witness testimony matters in this case, as she's been sharing her story with fellow believers ever since.

This will probably be resolved with a dash can or body can.

You'd be an ass to find that remark "inflammatory."

If there isn't a dash or body cam, I didn't say that I would change my view against the state.  I'm just saying that if Al's concerned about this woman sharing her story and inspiring violence, that another camera angle, ideally a dash or body cam, could nail down what happened.

Like I've said, this guy was bragging that they'd never take him alive.  I don't think that it's "inflammatory" to suggest that a second camera angle might convince some folks who are still on the fence.

It also seems unreasonable for you to call me anti-government when I'm the only one here who has actively supported how the government is handling this situation since day one.  You were the one that initially accused the government of using 'double standards.'

Yes I've seen government do bad things and abuse authority, in other cases, but I've entirely supported them here.

If you want to mock us for having faith in our government to occasionally do it's job without trying to assassinate freedom-fighters making a stand for the benefit of all of America... Just do it plainly. 

That completely misstates my position.  Neither you nor Al showed faith here.  You called double standard, and Al wanted tear gas, at least. 

[D.W.]

I'm just saying that if Al's concerned about this woman sharing her story and inspiring violence, that another camera angle, ideally a dash or body cam, could nail down what happened.

And I’m just saying this is bull poop.  There is no mystery here.  People believe what they want to believe even when it is contradicted by material evidence.

Like I've said, this guy was bragging that they'd never take him alive.  I don't think that it's "inflammatory" to suggest that a second camera angle might convince some folks who are still on the fence.

ANY action but mockery is inflammatory.  You are giving people permission to rave like lunatics and suggesting that we be fair and balanced giving their concerns a serious look.  This guy announced his intention to commit suicide by cop.  The guy committed suicide by cop.  Some are trying to turn said cop(s) into the bad guys here and we shouldn’t put up with it.  The End

It also seems unreasonable for you to call me anti-government when I'm the only one here who has actively supported how the government is handling this situation since day one.

True.  I do not mean to call you anti-government.  Your non confrontational stance on a little victimless anarchy strikes me as an overreaction based upon a deep mistrust of authority.  “Anti-government” is too blunt a title for that.  That you would humor people and suggest that we should “clear things up” with some more camera footage just reinforces that assessment.

[Pete at Home]

ANY action but mockery is inflammatory.

If that's true for you and Al, perhaps you are too easily inflamed.

You are giving people permission to rave like lunatics

No, the first amendment gives people permission to rave like lunatics.

and suggesting that we be fair and balanced

Have you caught Al's FOX bug?

giving their concerns a serious look.

It's not a concern, DW.  She's an eyewitness.  And LR and even Al had just conceded that it's possible to "see" something that didn't happen from one angle.  Therefore she doesn't have to be a lunatic to think she saw what she thinks she saw.  If I were an attorney for the government, I'd be looking for a second camera angle, just to nail things down.  Not saying they don't have a solid case without it.  Yes there are some people that will never be convinced.  But there are others that would be convinced by just a bit more evidence. That's useful in a jury system.

[D.W.]

I’m too easily disappointed in humanity.  I’m not inflamed to action luckily so it’s only a danger to my optimism.

No, the first amendment gives people permission to rave like lunatics.

I like your ability to say something that is so obviously true or a fact, yet ignore the point or achieve the opposite conclusion.  So am I to take that as you agreeing with me that they ARE raving like lunatics?  Or is this a dodge by framing my statement as decidedly anti-first amendment?   

I have no idea on the FOX bug.  I don’t watch enough of it to say.

Being present does not change the fact I see her as someone trying to push an agenda and a message.  She may be so “blinded” by her bias that the government was in the wrong that she genuinely believes what she is saying.  I still classify it as “raving like a lunatic”.  But you are correct.  It’s not a concern.

[Pete at Home]

I’m too easily disappointed in humanity.  I’m not inflamed to action luckily so it’s only a danger to my optimism.

No, the first amendment gives people permission to rave like lunatics.

I like your ability to say something that is so obviously true or a fact, yet ignore the point or achieve the opposite conclusion.  So am I to take that as you agreeing with me that they ARE raving like lunatics?  Or is this a dodge by framing my statement as decidedly anti-first amendment?   

I have no idea on the FOX bug.  I don’t watch enough of it to say.

Being present does not change the fact I see her as someone trying to push an agenda and a message.  She may be so “blinded” by her bias that the government was in the wrong that she genuinely believes what she is saying.  I still classify it as “raving like a lunatic”.  But you are correct.  It’s not a concern.

I am willing to accept for sake of argument that she's raving like a lunatic, but my point is that even if she was, it shouldn't make my suggestion of another camera angle "inflammatory."  She may be lying, she may be insane, and she may simply mistaken.  I don't think that she is *right*.  But I don't have sufficient information to say definitively whether a second camera angle would persuade her.  I'm quite sure that it would persuade some people. 

I raised the first amendment because it's a moral foundation that we share.  When I disagree with someone, and we haven't yet fallen into dismissing and insulting each other, I reach for common ground.  With Al, that's usually a Shakespeare reference, because that seems to be the only value we share in common.

I recognize that I say a lot of things that are inflammatory, and say some ordinary things in an inflammatory way.  But in this particular case, I think I said something rather reasonable in a very reasonable way, and Al got riled.  It happens.  No one's always reasonable, everyone's sometimes wrong, and most of us, at one time or another, have raved like lunatics about something.

[D.W.]

It just seemed an obvious deflection.

Now my earlier call to black out their ability to post to social media.  That could be seen as an assault on 1st amendment rights.  I'd like to think I'd make an OK dictator.  I wouldn't however run for president. 

[Pete at Home]

"It just seemed an obvious deflection."

I'll place that right with the remark that anything other than mockery is inflammatory.  Not your best moment.

It wasn't a deflection.  I was saying that I had insufficient evidence to say whether she was a lunatic, and that nothing I said affirmed or allowed her position.  It just is.

"Now my earlier call to black out their ability to post to social media.  That could be seen as an assault on 1st amendment rights."

Yes, if I wanted to hijack this discussion to demonize you as being anti first amendment, that's where I would attack.  But that's not my intent, and you are arguing against Al's straw man of the evil oppressive lawyer who gets on Ornery to demonize democrats.

[D.W.]

I'll place that right with the remark that anything other than mockery is inflammatory.  Not your best moment.

That, unfortunately, is more revealing than anything else.  Not a deflection or even a phrase that doesn't convey what I was trying to convey. 

I view this group as troublemakers who latched onto a cause as opposed to people with a cause who resorted to being troublemakers.  Cutting them ANY slack at all for what I consider reprehensible behavior that endangers others (and I consider the law enforcement officers "others"), is wrong.  I believe they should not be taken seriously. 

The only serious thing to say to them is, "Shut up, you are ruining this for those of us who actually believe in the cause you pay lip service to."

[Fenring]

Here's a funny question for you, DW: What is the material difference to you between whether someone is looking for trouble and finds a real problem to make trouble about, as compared to someone minding his own business and is thrust into being a troublemaker because he has no other choice? In both cases the cause is the same and they are making trouble. The motive behind each case can affect the likelihood that they'd settle reasonably, perhaps, but maybe not every cause should be settled without much fuss? It would seem to depend on the specifics, no?

I think there's something to be said for troublemakers; they have a tendency to troll in just the right way such that they find cracks in the system that should be found. They can be a nuisance but they can also be agents for change. That being said there's 'troublemakers' and then there's people who want to die in a blaze of glory, so there's that. This group may have been a mixed bag, which probably goes with the territory.

[Seriati]

AI's point that if the previous video did not convince people nothing will, is perfectly valid.

Is it though?  I watch enough professional sports in HD where they show 3, 4 even 5 angles of play in slow-mo and what's "clearly true" from the first few angles is "clearly false" in the last.  And then you get a referee making a determination that doesn't match the video evidence, go to share your outrage with a buddy and discover he's a heretic too!  Interpretation of evidence, even video evidence is not always are clear as we would like.

My own suspicion of government (given their history) is that they won't release anything they think makes them look guilty, so when they release some, but not all, I assume there is a reason.  Maybe not fair, but where they've been caught even once planting evidence or lying about what happened (and they have) it places a big burden on them in the future.

[Pete at Home]

Agreed in principle. At what point in this operation were law officers in danger?

Most BLM protests put more people including officers in danger.

[D.W.]

Fenring, Not sure I could write up a check list or point to one defining issue.  In this case it was the context.
They were not locals.  The people they came to stand up for asked them to leave.  They shifted goalposts.  They made threats and encouraged others to violence.  They MAY believe in the land rights issue strongly but they gave the impression of people looking for an excuse to get in a pissing match with the government.  A dangerous one in this case.

There is something to be said for troublemakers.  There’s being a pain in the ass to those who are in the wrong and then there is making demands and proclaiming that bloodshed is the only alternative to complying to them.

A material difference?  One armed man is going about his day to day activities and is assaulted by a would be mugger whom he ends up shooting.  Another man is carrying a gun, goes to the most dangerous areas he can find and instigates arguments so that he can bait people into giving him legal cover to shoot them.

I viewed this entire standoff as fitting into the latter rather than the former. 

[D.W.]

Agreed in principle. At what point in this operation were law officers in danger?

Most bUM protests put more people including officers in danger.

So if I come home and someone has broken into my house and threatens to shoot anyone who attempts to remove him, I and the local police should just let it slide because he's not likely to hurt anyone if we just leave him be?   

What is considered an acceptable amount of time to let the incident sort itself out?  After he eats all my food?  The third time he orders pizza?

[Pete at Home]

Your comparison of an abandoned government post to the home in the middle of the city, makes me embarrassed for you. Try harder.

What is reasonable depends on circumstances.  To my knowledge no one presented evidence of material harm by continuing the standoff. You yourself agreed withe on that. Do I need to quote you to yourself?

[D.W.]

AI's point that if the previous video did not convince people nothing will, is perfectly valid.

Is it though?  I watch enough professional sports in HD where they show 3, 4 even 5 angles of play in slow-mo and what's "clearly true" from the first few angles is "clearly false" in the last.  And then you get a referee making a determination that doesn't match the video evidence, go to share your outrage with a buddy and discover he's a heretic too!  Interpretation of evidence, even video evidence is not always are clear as we would like.

My own suspicion of government (given their history) is that they won't release anything they think makes them look guilty, so when they release some, but not all, I assume there is a reason.  Maybe not fair, but where they've been caught even once planting evidence or lying about what happened (and they have) it places a big burden on them in the future.

This is a good point but we are not trying to determine with certainty if he would have shot at a cop given another few seconds.  We are (they will be?) trying to determine if it was a "clean shoot".  A person who had made previous statements about not being taken alive who was part of a group who had threatened violence.  The bar is a lot lower than, "yes, his toe was in bounds".

I'll concede that it may be possible under further review that people given the time and distance to analyze careful could conclude the officers were not in danger.  Which is different than saying they were not justified in the use of lethal force.

[D.W.]

Your comparison of an abandoned government post to the home in the middle of the city, makes me embarrassed for you. Try harder.

So laws can be broken as long as they don't inconvenience city folk?  Is that it?

Can we be embarrassed for each other? 

[Seriati]

I'll concede that it may be possible under further review that people given the time and distance to analyze careful could conclude the officers were not in danger.  Which is different than saying they were not justified in the use of lethal force.

I was actually thinking the other direction, that releasing more videos could cause people who currently doubt the police to decide that the shooting was justified.  AI was questioning whether they could be convinced, my muddled point was that sometimes 4 HD feeds are not enough and then lucky number 5 settles the issue and I'm convinced.  It's really tough to say what an individual sees in a single feed, particularly when they each bring a different context (do a short and a tall guy have a different view of whether that foot that's just out of frame could have touched in bounds?).

Originally posted by Pete at Home:

To my knowledge no one presented evidence of material harm by continuing the standoff. You yourself agreed with on that. Do I need to quote you to yourself?

Based on your article from a while back, I'm not even sure it was legitimately a "stand off".  With they way they could come and go, it was kind of like the difference between an old school filibuster and a modern one.  So long as someone stayed in the building, it was still "on," even if everyone else left.

[Pete at Home]

Your comparison of an abandoned government post to the home in the middle of the city, makes me embarrassed for you. Try harder.

So laws can be broken as long as they don't inconvenience city folk?  Is that it?

No.  Why are you being obtuse about this?  Whether an unlawful situation needs to be remedied with immediate potentially lethal force, depends on facts.  Depends on who is in danger.  Depends on the rights being infringed by the protest.  You understood this a few days ago. 

"inconvenience city folk"

Please don't play stupid and twist my words.  An armed takeover of someone's house in the city would have created more of a threat to any human life than taking over an abandoned government building with no human neighbors.

Saying that a situation doesn't require an immediate use of lethal force does not mean that we just let things go.  What I said before was, turn off the power, and arrest them when they leave.  That doesn't mean just let the whole thing go.

[Pete at Home]

I'll concede that it may be possible under further review that people given the time and distance to analyze careful could conclude the officers were not in danger.  Which is different than saying they were not justified in the use of lethal force.

Which describes the median case on the list protested by Black Lives Matter.  Person killed did not endanger police iminently but protocol said lethal force was justified.

At least 25% of the BLM cases I reviewed actually did have iminent threat to a police officer, e.g. the suspect was grappling for the cop's gun.

[AI Wessex]

My own suspicion of government (given their history) is that they won't release anything they think makes them look guilty, so when they release some, but not all, I assume there is a reason.  Maybe not fair, but where they've been caught even once planting evidence or lying about what happened (and they have) it places a big burden on them in the future.

It's fair to be skeptical, but not necessarily fair to be suspicious.  Your comment falls into the latter category where you are drawing an inference, like so many before you here on Ornery, that because you don't see evidence that leans your way, it must exist and be hidden, and that can only be due to nefarious and dishonest reasons.  Hence, the government is lying because we see no evidence that supports your point of view.  QED.

To my knowledge no one presented evidence of material harm by continuing the standoff.

Another bizarre statement, from a lawyer no less.  They trespassed on federal property, misappropriated vehicles, trashed the building, denied people the use of the facility, violated the privacy of people about whom data was stored on the GOVERNMENT computers, and sucked up a huge amount of local police, state officials and federal resources.  Somehow, that doesn't count against them.  And let's not forget that it was an ARMED takeover.

AI was questioning whether they could be convinced, my muddled point was that sometimes 4 HD feeds are not enough and then lucky number 5 settles the issue and I'm convinced.

What if 5 didn't do it and there wasn't a 6th?  Still unclear what really happened, I guess.

Why are you being obtuse about this?
...
Please don't play stupid and twist my words.

Way to go, let's "speak your mind, never argue".  That should be, "let's call each other stupid if they don't agree with me".

[Pete at Home]

"To my knowledge no one presented evidence of material harm by continuing the standoff.


[Al makes his compulsive cheap shot at me being a lawyer].  They trespassed on federal property, misappropriated vehicles, trashed the building, denied people the use of the facility, violated the privacy of people about whom data was stored on the GOVERNMENT computers.  Somehow, that doesn't count against them.  And let's not forget that it was an ARMED takeover."

Think harder about the word "CONTINUING." , all the damage you describe was done at the onset.  Data could be preserved by cutting the power.  Who was using the facility between December and Febuary anyway?  You have yet to show what damage occurred by not going in immediately per your Alamo wet dream.

If you don't like how it was handled, take it up with Obama.  That's where the buck stops.  He's a lawyer too, you know.  And he happens to be the ultimate lawyer responsible in this situation. 

If you're angry with your little tin god, don't take it out on me, old man.

[AI Wessex]

Think harder about the word "CONTINUING." , all the damage you describe was done at the onset.  Data could be preserved by cutting the power.  Who was using the facility between December and Febuary anyway?  You have yet to show what damage occurred by not going in immediately per your Alamo wet dream.

Every one of those "material harms" CONTINUES as long as they remain(ed) in control of the facility.  But I don't understand why you think crimes they already committed shouldn't be counted against them and justify their removal.  It's the government's responsibility to cut the power to stop them from continuing to steal data from the computers? That makes it the government's fault that they did CONTINUE to do it, by that reckoning.

If you're angry with your little tin god, don't take it out on me, old man.

You can never argue without demonizing, can you?  Is Obama my "tin god" because I disagree with your way of solving this problem and Obama is President?  In my world that's a sign of a losing argument by someone who refuses to back down when they're caught manipulating the truth to bully others who disagree with them.

[Pete at Home]

You're pissed at Obama for how he handled this and you don't have the guts to admit you actually disagree with him, so you are using me as a scapegoat.  And I am tired. Get off my leg. 

[D.W.]

Thanks Obama!

Obtuse:
annoyingly insensitive or slow to understand.

  I AM guilty of one of these...

The stupid comment almost hurt my feelings,  but then I remembered I wasn't in grade school.   Thanks for defending my honor though AI. 

[AI Wessex]

You're pissed at Obama for how he handled this and you don't have the guts to admit you actually disagree with him, so you are using me as a scapegoat.  And I am tired. Get off my leg. 

You are so dense.  I told you once that Obama doesn't run around with a stopwatch and a whistle.  You have to learn how to talk to people without pretending to hold up both sides of the conversation.  You accused me of worshiping a tin god, remember?  Now you're accusing me of being pissed at the same tin god.  Make up you mind which imaginary person you think you're arguing with.  You don't seem to have a clue about me, however.

[Seriati]

It's fair to be skeptical, but not necessarily fair to be suspicious.  Your comment falls into the latter category where you are drawing an inference, like so many before you here on Ornery, that because you don't see evidence that leans your way, it must exist and be hidden, and that can only be due to nefarious and dishonest reasons.  Hence, the government is lying because we see no evidence that supports your point of view.  QED.

Maybe that's what you imagined I said, if it read that way them maybe I should have been clearer.

I don't believe, without actual evidence, that any government official acts other than appropriately.  I rationally believe that the majority do their duties with due regard to the way they should.  Even in a case like this, I would expect that officers that shot their fire arms did so because they believed there was a threat and not because of other conspiracy style reasons.

However, whether they believe evidence makes them look guilty is a different matter.  After the fact, governments, including ours, are notorious for not trusting people to understand the situation with the facts in front of them.  They bury and suppress and refuse to release evidence they believe makes them look guilty, whether it does so or not. So if they release one video and withhold others, there's a lot of logic to assuming they chose to release the one that makes them look best, and I can't see any logic in assuming they would do otherwise.

Governments are made of people, people do lie, but more significantly here, even if they mean well, they present their cases in ways that make them look better.  It's instinctive.  The bar is high in all cases but right now with the string of videos that we've seen the bar is even higher, and the only way to satisfy it is to keep everything above boards and fully disclosed.  Anything less may be appropriate from time to time, as there could evidentiary reasons or other reasons for secrecy, but should raise justifiable suspicion.

[D.W.]

Not to mention releasing footage of a death to the general public.  People were asking for the footage almost before they could have possibly notified the next of kin.


A death which may be leveraged as propaganda to incite other potentially dangerous incidents or make the existing one get more out of control...

[Pete at Home]

Al, One of the nifty things of not being in denial about my religion, is it I understand that I can both believe in God and be angry with him.

After your long-winded rages about those who take the name of Barry in Vain, and accusing those who offend you of being the AntiBama, I think there's a far better case for you worshipping Obama than say Hitler being a Christian. 

So here in this Oregon case where you seem as frustrated as Jonah railing at his God on the edge of a still un-destroyed Nineveh, of course you pretend that Obama is not where the federal buck stops. Instead you vent your frustration on me, an unemployed disabled ex lawyer in Georgia. 

Get help.

[Pete at Home]

Not to mention releasing footage of a death to the general public.  People were asking for the footage almost before they could have possibly notified the next of kin

"Almost" covers a lot of bullcrap, amigo.  Because AFAIK the next of kin were the first on the news asking for the video footage.

[D.W.]

Not to mention releasing footage of a death to the general public.  People were asking for the footage almost before they could have possibly notified the next of kin

"Almost" covers a lot of bullcrap, amigo.  Because AFAIK the next of kin were the first on the news asking for the video footage.

True my 2nd point about it being valuable as propaganda outweigh the more typical reasons of being sensitive to the family.

[Pete at Home]

As for distrust of feds, sure, I plead guilty.  I scrutinize, from bad experience.  I had a client go to a federal grand jury in Wisconsin, where the FBI and IRS tried to make her testify against her pimp.  When they found she had counsel, and didn't want to testify, they called and turned her over to local authorities for an overdue parking ticket.  She called me from the hospital where they had handcuffed her to the bed until she passed out from diabetic shock.

Not the only time that one of my clients was taken by feds and tortured.  Immigration refused to let me see my client at the jail for 30.  hours during which the tortured him to force him to sign papers surrendering all rights to fight the deportation. (He was married to an American and had three kids with her and had also cared for 2.kids from her previous marriage.). The feds dismissed my appeal saying that it wasn't "a humanitarian issue."

So yes I tend to scrutinize evidence.  Neither of my clients who were tortured was "white" and both occurred during the Obama administration.  I don't think Obama changed anything for them.  I don't think those cases would have proceeded different under Bush jr.  I despise those who make their determination of the merits of a case by the skin color or religion or politics of the accused.  You who do this are the dregs of history. 
 
This case in Oregon was high profile.  Had the potential for triggering another OK city.  So yes, I assume Obama had it watched carefully by someone he trusted.  Good move of involving Oregon police so that it wouldn't be a federal bullet that killed, in case it came to that.  This has been managed by a very calm and clever person. 

[D.W.]

I don't think Obama changed anything for them.  I don't think those cases would have proceeded different under Bush jr.

Do you have a candidate in mind which would change things?  If not, maybe you understand why AI gets on your case for your constant barrage against Obama.  I tend to stay quiet because it's not worth arguing about. 

You accuse AI of authority worship towards Obama but it's you who ascribe to him near omniscient control of every aspect of government.

[Pete at Home]

I don't think Obama changed anything for them.  I don't think those cases would have proceeded different under Bush jr.

Do you have a candidate in mind which would change things?  If not, maybe you understand why AI gets on your case for your constant barrage against Obama.  I tend to stay quiet because it's not worth arguing about. 

You accuse AI of authority worship towards Obama but it's you who ascribe to him near omniscient control of every aspect of government.

No, I don't know of a candidate who I am confident would change things.  I think Sanders would try to.

I don't ascribe omniscience to Obama.  I don't think he exercised any control or had any knowledge of my clients, even though one of them worked for a pimp who had been on some national show called "American Pimp".

You don't need Obama to be omniscient for him to know as much as we do about this case in Oregon.  And since it's his responsibility, and had the potential of leading to civil war, it would be sheer incompetence for him not to exercise some oversight.

[D.W.]

You don't need Obama to be omniscient for him to know as much as we do about this case in Oregon.  And since it's his responsibility, and had the potential of leading to civil war, it would be sheer incompetence for him not to exercise some oversight.

I'm not sure if I can just bow out of this converstation.  I do have a bit of a compulsion lately to post here to the detriment of my productivity...

I will say however that the idea this could lead to a civil war, to me sounds like saying that the zika virus could lead to a zombie outbreak.  I'm glad Obama is taking both seriously and keeping his personal hands on the reigns of government.   

[Pete at Home]

I don't make a "constant barrage" against Obama. Haven't said anything but praise for him on this thread.

I do poke fun of Al's Obama worship in response to his cheap shots at me being a lawyer, a Mormon, or a Christian. If he will desist his personal shots, I will mine.

[Pete at Home]

You don't need Obama to be omniscient for him to know as much as we do about this case in Oregon.  And since it's his responsibility, and had the potential of leading to civil war, it would be sheer incompetence for him not to exercise some oversight.

I'm not sure if I can just bow out of this converstation.  I do have a bit of a compulsion lately to post here to the detriment of my productivity...

I will say however that the idea this could lead to a civil war, to me sounds like saying that the zika virus could lead to a zombie outbreak.  I'm glad Obama is taking both seriously and keeping his personal hands on the reigns of government.   

Then change the term "civil war" to something else appropriate.

For me the term civil war isn't limited to the big US civil war.  It includes the whiskey rebellion, the stupid Buchanan's blunder into Utah, and Oklahoma City.  Timothy McVeigh committed treason by making war on the USA.  you don't think this incident could have excited another OK City? 

Do you honestly believe Obama didn't at least put someone he trusted on this, to keep tabs? 

[AI Wessex]

So here in this Oregon case where you seem as frustrated as Jonah railing at his God on the edge of a still un-destroyed Nineveh, of course you pretend that Obama is not where the federal buck stops. Instead you vent your frustration on me, an unemployed disabled ex lawyer in Georgia.

Get help.

You think because you can make references to the bible that you are somehow ennobling your sometimes irrational rants.  There are people on street corners in every town in the country who could claim the same piety and resources.  It matters that when I point out that you twist my words and impute views and beliefs to me that are completely false that you tell me that I need help.  Heal thyself, brother.

I do poke fun of Al's Obama worship in response to his cheap shots at me being a lawyer, a Mormon, or a Christian. If he will desist his personal shots, I will mine.

I can't stop you from holding false beliefs about me, but it's clear that you will use any fig leaf of authority to hide behind rather than admit that you are wrong, which you are increasingly often these days.  Remember, I'm not the only one who points this out to you. Humility is supposed to be a strength of Mormon teachings.  You exhibit little of that here, but demonstrate hubris far more often.

[D.W.]

Pete, I use different terminology I guess.  I probably believe something similar to you, but the language you use I reserve for something else entirely.  So much so that it sounds ridiculous to me to see you write it.

Do I believe Obama told one of his advisers or aids or something like, "keep me in the loop on this"?  Yes.  Do I think he inserted someone into the chain of command?  Nope.

[Pete at Home]

.
Do I believe Obama told one of his advisers or aids or something like, "keep me in the loop on this"?  Yes.  Do I think he inserted someone into the chain of command?  Nope.

Still puts him ultimately in control.  If things had proceeded differently, say someone with Al's priorities had been in charge on the ground, directions would have issued from above, or actual personnel changes. 

[D.W.]

I'd love to argue with you on this as it sounds beyond ridiculous.  But, ridiculous things are some times true.  Not worth the effort.  Keep blaming (or crediting) the King.  Your prerogative. 

[Pete at Home]

Put it this way: it's a different result than I would have expected under Clinton.  And that's a very good thing.  Since Bush Jr didn't ever have to deal with anything like this that I recall, it makes sense to give credit to the authority in charge.  Even if ultimately all he did was put the right people in charge and then stay out of the way.  It's leadership. 

 I try to give credit where credit is due.  My praise, like my criticism, tends to be precise and to the point. 

[AI Wessex]

To Pete and anyone else who gets warm and fuzzy about people putting their "faith" before their earthly needs.  Here's the kind of crazy that puts people at Malheur:

When one woman -- presumed to be Fiore -- asked David and Sandy about their families, a man responded, "God has put us on this path. Our families are already taken care of; they weren't in our lives much before all this because God made sure we didn't have that to weigh us down so that we could do this," one man said.

You don't need a magnifying glass to read between the lines, here.  He screwed up (or otherwise lost) his family, so his psychologically driven way to rationalize is to say that God had a higher purpose for him and removed his family so they would not distract him from that purpose.  He dedicates himself to some obscure but high-minded goal in the wilderness of Oregon, but pleads with the FBI not to arrest him if he surrenders.  He said, after all, people who have done worse things than him don't get arrested all the time.  Praise be!

That is echoed in Kim Davis' actions in Kentucky, where a woman who is a serial failure at marriage believes that God has given her a higher purpose to somehow "protect" marriage.  Her phony martyrdom is to deny legal marriage licenses to people she decides aren't worthy of the privilege.  Meanwhile, she refuses to resign her soft $80,000+ position as a mere functionary in the bureaucracy because God wants her to make a stand.  Take me to the Pope, please, so he can bask in the glow of my humility and service to God.

Some people see this kind of crazy when they look at Muslims, maybe all Muslims look alike to them.  They can see that in others and not see it in people "like themselves" because, well, those people are not "like themselves".  Christian self-delusion is just as crazy as any other kind, leading to terrorism but thankfully at a far lesser scale (at the moment).