Quote:
Originally Posted by berryberry
1. I suspect it is because the FBI wanted to make an example of someone and send a message to the American public
2. Oh please - this guy has been making crazy comments like this for years. He had zero ability to act on him. All he did was make cranky comments online.
3. Show me his ability to go set up somewhere and use a sniper rifle with any accuracy Show me his ability to evade FBI surveillance when he can barely walk. You are just being absurd. Utterly absurd
4. There was ZERO reason for the FBI to roll up pre-dawn with a massive numbers of SWAT type members to take this guy out. When someone is breaking down your door while you are sleeping and it is dark out, what is your first thought? And there is no evidence he pointed a gun
5. They had been watching him for months. They knew his routine. they knew he barely could get around and they could confront him at any time on the street without incident. Why would you have a SWAT team roll up to allegedly "serve a search warrant" when people are still sleeping, when it is still dark out? They were there to take him out, plain and simple. Anyone with any common sense knows that
|
1. Law enforcement does tend to make an example of people who threaten the President. Facts.
2. Delusional partisan nonsense. Seems to be a theme. Trump says it. Must be true. The guy was just speaking out against those who he felt did Trump and America wrong hmm? Sounds to me like you are idolizing this man as some kind of honorable patriot for what he did.
3. So in absence of someone showing you he was capable of operating the weapons he posted pictures of himself with he must be innocent and incapable of harming others despite repeated public declarations of his desire to murder people? Definitely sounds like you are glorifing his actions.
4. Was he still sleeping? There is evidence he pointed a gun it just has not been shown on video. Eye witness testimony is in fact evidence. Again I find it interesting hearing Conservatives lobby for police taking the soft approach with potentially dangerous individuals. Let a right wing Biden hater get on the wrong side of law enforcement suddenly we need to de-fund the FBI and tone it way down?
5. Really not relevant to be honest police can serve the warrant when and where they choose and since it involves searching the home makes perfect sense to start there.
We know he made threats on publicly viewable social media.
He invited the FBI back and given the text of this Facebook
post he made it was not to discuss new carpet patterns:
"“TO MY FRIENDS IN THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF IDIOTS: I KNOW YOU’RE READING THIS AND YOU HAVE NO IDEA HOW CLOSE YOUR AGENTS CAME TO ‘BANG.’”
So they did in fact make a peaceful effort but he insisted they return with a warrant, which they did.
I can't dismiss the threats just because they are against people that I don't like. I won't entertain the notion that he was incapable of operating his weapons. I would not advocate that protocols used when dealing with potentially dangerous people simply because they are old and grumpy.
So the remaining question is whether he pointed a weapon when instructed to surrender and comply with the warrants. If he did case closed. Shooting justified. If he did not then we look at the available evidence and go from there.
Trying to glorify the deceased at this point and trying to validate his actions as common and harmless is an endorsement I would not make regardless of my feelings about Biden and the others targeted.
