Man killed in Utah FBI raid allegedly posted death threats against Biden

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Smoke

Smoke

Senior Member
#241
Oct 27, 2016
1,434
477
83
#241
ZNP said:
I'm not, you are twisting what I said.

1. I said I haven't seen the evidence, has anyone else?

and

2. If the gun is not entered into evidence there is no gun.

The first is a very valid question. The second is a fact. If you are claiming that a man aimed a gun at you and therefore you shot him, and that is the claim that is plastered all over the every account of this story, then the gun is evidence that the claim is true.

Never once have I said if I don't see it it doesn't exist. I have asked you and anyone else reading this thread to provide the evidence. You said you had the evidence and you didn't.
Click to expand...
Got it, so you haven't seen the evidence and don't know if he was truly armed or not. You haven't seen the gun and don't know if it's evidence or not.

So I guess we wait and see if this is ever released. Until then, would you agree it would be prudent to not make assumptions the man WASN'T armed unless some other evidence comes out which discredits the FBI agents' version of events?


Question: Do you think the past and relevant behavior, especially the social media post asking if the FBI is still surveilling him so he can meet them with a gun is of ANY importance? Does it give any credence that MAYBE he truly was armed or is it hogwash?
 
ZNP

ZNP

Well-known member
#242
Sep 14, 2020
31,835
5,617
113
#242
Smoke said:
I thought you asked for 3 sources where the media "plastered" that the man was armed. I did show you 3 sources of the media claiming the man was armed. You never said "Show 3 media sources of them plastering images of the gun the guy was supposedly armed with." Are you moving the goal post again?
Click to expand...
For the government to be making anonymous claims that they don't back up with physical evidence when if the claim was true they would have is not evidence that he was armed, it is evidence that they are lying.
 
ZNP

ZNP

Well-known member
#243
Sep 14, 2020
31,835
5,617
113
#243
Smoke said:
Got it, so you haven't seen the evidence and don't know if he was truly armed or not. You haven't seen the gun and don't know if it's evidence or not.

So I guess we wait and see if this is ever released. Until then, would you agree it would be prudent to not make assumptions the man WASN'T armed until then unless some other evidence comes out which discredits the agents' version of events?
Click to expand...
On August 11th it was reasonable to take a wait and see attitude. By August 14th that is no longer reasonable. They had plenty of time for the forensic team to come in during the day with plenty of light and look for shell casings, bullets, guns, etc.

It is reasonable two or three hours after an incident like this for the person assigned to speak to the press to want to let forensics do their job. But, it is not reasonable 72 hours later to continue taking a wait and see attitude. By the 14th we should have had an official go on the record and tell us if he had a gun or not, show us the gun if he had one, and tell us if he fired and shots. Within an hour they should have known if had shot a gun.

So starting this thread with those questions was reasonable. But it has been more than two weeks, so now it is reasonable to condemn the actions of the Feds as far as their transparency is concerned. The three shootings I have mentioned have all been covered on Steve Bannon's Warroom Pandemic. This is the highest rated newscast in the country. This is not something the feds should be ignoring. Especially when the Feds are being accused of using lawfare against political opponents, evidence has come out that three different FBI offices coordinated to classify parents that go to shool board meetings as domestic terrorists. They have indicted lawyers for providing legal counsel to Trump, and we now learn that the DOJ consulted with the Whitehouse before indicting Trump. The evidence is piling up that the FEDS are acting illegally.
 
Smoke

Smoke

Senior Member
#244
Oct 27, 2016
1,434
477
83
#244
ZNP said:
For the government to be making anonymous claims that they don't back up with physical evidence when if the claim was true they would have is not evidence that he was armed, it is evidence that they are lying.
Click to expand...
Right, but the issue is that the government isn't always transparent and may have the evidence locked up only they haven't released it... which isn't all that rare for them to not release it to the public by the way. I agree though, they should... but their lack of transparency doesn't make me ignore what we DO know about this man... things you wish the media didn't report on as it gives credence that the man actually did meet the agents with a gun.

My issue is that the guy could have justifiably met "intruders" with a gun and he was shot dead. Thus, the agents who killed him legally and justifiably killed the justified home owner with a gun. I think that is probably what happened. I don't believe the FBI agents murdered him and then planted a gun on him.
 
ZNP

ZNP

Well-known member
#245
Sep 14, 2020
31,835
5,617
113
#245
Smoke said:
Right, but the issue is that the government isn't always transparent and may have the evidence locked up only they haven't released it... which isn't all that rare for them to not release it to the public by the way. I agree though, they should... but their lack of transparency doesn't make me ignore what we DO know about this man... things you wish the media didn't report on as it gives credence that the man actually did meet the agents with a gun.

My issue is that the guy could have justifiably met "intruders" with a gun and he was shot dead. Thus, the agents who killed him legally and justifiably killed the justified home owner with a gun. I think that is probably what happened. I don't believe the FBI agents murdered him and then planted a gun on him.
Click to expand...
OK, suppose the Feds come to your door at a dawn raid, break down the door and shoot you dead. They tell us that you threatened to shoot the president on Facebook and you pointed a gun at them so they had no choice.

My response would be "OK, show me the post on Facebook and show me the gun". It took them two weeks to finally show the Facebook post, he said that Biden was coming to Utah so it was time for him to clean his gun. That is not a literal threat, and if you read the post you would easily realize it wasn't a serious threat. The guy can barely walk, he weighs 300 lbs, he isn't capable of hiding in the bushes. But they don't show us this for two weeks because they know people will be shocked that they sent a SWAT team to this guys house based on that. But even, so where is the gun? At the very least, shooting and killing a man in his house who isn't even going to be charged with a felony should be based on more than that stupid post.
 
ZNP

ZNP

Well-known member
#246
Sep 14, 2020
31,835
5,617
113
#246
Heads up -- It all depends on what the definition of here is.

Since this post where Smoke said that "many here" support a "get out of jail free card" (post #208) for the police Smoke has PM's me 7 times. I say this because now Smoke wants to know who read that post and thought that "many here" meant this thread or even this forum and I don't want to give names because you also will probably get this 7 pm treatment along with 17 subsequent posts where Smoke misquotes me, demands I do a FOIA request, and basically feels like a burr or a tick you pick up when you walk through the woods.

I am not going to intentionally give up any names, but if you want to tell Smoke, go ahead, you have been warned.

I suppose simply clicking agree on this post would be the least onerous way to respond.
 
Smoke

Smoke

Senior Member
#247
Oct 27, 2016
1,434
477
83
#247
ZNP said:
OK, suppose the Feds come to your door at a dawn raid, break down the door and shoot you dead. They tell us that you threatened to shoot the president on Facebook and you pointed a gun at them so they had no choice.

My response would be "OK, show me the post on Facebook and show me the gun". It took them two weeks to finally show the Facebook post, he said that Biden was coming to Utah so it was time for him to clean his gun. That is not a literal threat, and if you read the post you would easily realize it wasn't a serious threat. The guy can barely walk, he weighs 300 lbs, he isn't capable of hiding in the bushes. But they don't show us this for two weeks because they know people will be shocked that they sent a SWAT team to this guys house based on that. But even, so where is the gun? At the very least, shooting and killing a man in his house who isn't even going to be charged with a felony should be based on more than that stupid post.
Click to expand...
I understand your emotional appeal scenario... I am saying it appears this could have been executed (no pun intended) a better way. Having said that, the status quo says it's legal to do everything they did if the man was truly armed... even though the man also had the right to be armed if he thought invaders were coming in his house.

There is a lot I don't know though... Did the agents announce who they were? How long after they ordered him to put his hands up in the air did they shoot him? What type of handgun did he gave? Why wasn't there a press conference to unpack this to the public? Did they have body cams?

But since you're "obviously passionate" about it, if you really want to know the answer, do a FOIA request for the body cams (assuming it was active).
 
L

Locoponydirtman

Guest
#248
#248
Smoke said:
We actually agree on a lot.

However, I can't call this a murder (yet). Police are not only allowed to do what they do, they are trained to do what they do. We can agree bashing a door down in the early morning is bad policy, but it's what has been afforded to them. I am personally against no-knock warrants... it gets people killed... I think we agree on this. We should change that though. Because it's allowed legally, agents can rush a home with a warrant only to be met with a gun on the other end, and shoot the person. Under the legal definition, that wouldn't be murder.

We need to retrain government officials to avoid this. However, any time someone posts a video of a government official going overboard, they are vilified for being "anti-cop". We need to get away from that type of immature mentality. We should advocate for people going after BAD cops and/or BAD training/strategy. I think that's the point VPN misses and instead wants proof of at least 3 people who are for qualified immunity all the while refusing to offer any evidence that the man was indeed unarmed.
Click to expand...
We mostly agree. Here is where i think we differ. it being legally allowed and official policy does not change the morality of it. Morally its murder, legal or not. Many damnable things are legal.

I dont think all cops are bad, some certainly are, amd there is certainly bad policy and practice
 
Smoke

Smoke

Senior Member
#249
Oct 27, 2016
1,434
477
83
#249
ZNP said:
Heads up -- It all depends on what the definition of here is.

Since this post where Smoke said that "many here" support a "get out of jail free card" (post #208) for the police Smoke has PM's me 7 times. I say this because now Smoke wants to know who read that post and thought that "many here" meant this thread or even this forum and I don't want to give names because you also will probably get this 7 pm treatment along with 17 subsequent posts where Smoke misquotes me, demands I do a FOIA request, and basically feels like a burr or a tick you pick up when you walk through the woods.

I am not going to intentionally give up any names, but if you want to tell Smoke, go ahead, you have been warned.

I suppose simply clicking agree on this post would be the least onerous way to respond.
Click to expand...
403jdu.jpg
 
L

Locoponydirtman

Guest
#250
#250
This is where i have a serious problem.
Some nut job can use social media to threaten children at an elementary school and they will not kick down doors, gun a blazin, but some yahoo with no actual ability to carry it out makes threats against Joe Biden and its shoot first and ask questions later. While govco officials have real security and school children do not. The elitist status is sickening.
 
Smoke

Smoke

Senior Member
#251
Oct 27, 2016
1,434
477
83
#251
Locoponydirtman said:
We mostly agree. Here is where i think we differ. it being legally allowed and official policy does not change the morality of it. Morally its murder, legal or not. Many damnable things are legal.

I dont think all cops are bad, some certainly are, amd there is certainly bad policy and practice
Click to expand...
We actually agree. It was legal in Germany to do what the Nazi's did at the time, but it doesn't make it moral. That's why I'm against these no-knock type warrants. Legally, it's not murder to kill a homeowner who is armed thinking someone is intruding into his home... Morally, I believe it's wrong, unnecessary, and doesn't preserve life the way we are commanded to.
 
Smoke

Smoke

Senior Member
#252
Oct 27, 2016
1,434
477
83
#252
Locoponydirtman said:
This is where i have a serious problem.
Some nut job can use social media to threaten children at an elementary school and they will not kick down doors, gun a blazin, but some yahoo with no actual ability to carry it out makes threats against Joe Biden and its shoot first and ask questions later. While govco officials have real security and school children do not. The elitist status is sickening.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Or try to keep hidden the manifesto of a serial killer because the killer was trans. We need transparency and a platform to vent without being vilified for questioning and wanting answers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.