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

Utah man killed in FBI raid had confronted Provo police with AR-15 before, records show

Utah man had reportedly confronted police and two Google Fiber guys with a gun in 2018.

Provo man pointed gun at agents before fatal shooting, FBI says

So it appears the man pointed a gun at the agents before being fatally shot...


I think this is a testament to WAIT until we have more/all the facts before making statements which will end up making you look really foolish. That isn't to say the FBI lied and just straight up murdered the guy, but there is a narrative floating around that IF the guy pointed a gun at the agents first, it would have made the news. A common premature and toxic tactic people on the extreme left and right do though... cast judgment before hearing the facts.

If we recall the Breonna Taylor incident, it took a while before all the facts were made known publicly. In fact, those same news media never even corrected themselves and let people believe in the false narrative they initially reported on. We can't assume the media will report anything, much less, immediately after the incident is reported.

If there was a gun, it should have been taken into evidence. I see no reason why they would withhold that information seeing as he is dead and it would help justify shooting him.

2nd, these allegations are ugly, was he charged with a crime?

I don't know this man, he is a mormon, not a Christian, and I have no reason to be biased for him. But now that he is dead they trample his rights. If he was alive and charged and waiting for a trial his lawyer would make a public statement responding to this. We would hear his side of the story.

I have seen pictures of this man leaning heavily on a cane. How could a man who can't stand without leaning heavily on a cane point a rifle? I'm not saying it couldn't happen, how would I know, what I am saying is that if he had done that why wasn't he charged and convicted?

Can everyone see how one sided all this is, you must take the official narrative regardless of how implausible and if you ask reasonable questions you are insulted, slandered and attacked. That is how liars respond when being questioned.

Another reasonable question is why wouldn't the neighbors have mentioned this? Instead they said he was cantankerous but a very good man. No one describes him as being dangerous and threatening people with guns in the neighborhood.

It sounds reasonable to "wait till the information comes out". But is it? They are waiting for you to forget. I am not judging the situation, I am asking questions that any reasonable person would and any righteous police captain would have already answered.

The Bible says to not judge before the time, it doesn't say to not ask questions.

The Bible says to avoid the appearance of evil. It is incumbent on the authorities to make sure this doesn't have the appearance of evil and right now it does.

The reason that police chiefs give press conferences

It is perfectly reasonable that when a group of heavily armed people come into a neighborhood before dawn, shoot and kill a man in his home, drag his body out into the street, that the community would have some questions and would be concerned.

You have to answer those questions so that the community can be at peace that in fact this was reasonable and justified attack. If you don't answer those questions the people are going to come up with many theories and that is harmful to society.

I can understand the man who gives the press conference wanting to question everyone who was involved first and wanting to review the body camera footage first. The shooting took place a week ago on Wednesday in the early morning. I would think by noon they could have had all their interviews and review of body cam footage. I would think by the 5 O'clock news they could give their press conference. There is no good reason to tell us a week later to wait to get answers to these very basic and simple questions.

I think asking questions is prudent... but ignoring evidence, in particular, past and relevant history of this man accused of pointing guns at people is disingenuous. We can't just ask questions that would support our gut feeling or narrative. We ought to ask questions and follow the facts... even if they destroy our initial narrative.

As for being obese and old, I don't see that as supporting evidence that he was incapable of doing what has been accused by the FBI agents and the Google Fiber workers in 2018. I mean, I watch crime documentaries ALL the time and can't tell you how many times I've seen fat old men (fatter and older than this man) who were still physically capable of raping a child. I'm not accusing this man of being a rapist, I'm just saying that you incredibly under-estimate what a (fat and old) man can do. I would even argue it takes noticeably less physicality to aim a gun and pull the trigger than it would be to rape a child.

Could we agree on this point: The man's past relevant behavior of doing the same thing to the Google Fiber workers is more incriminating than the man being old, fat, and walks with a cane does in exonerating him of any guilt?

Fine, they have body cam footage, they should have the rifle as evidence, and there should be a police record of him pointing a gun and threatening utility workers. Let's see the evidence. I am not willing to hear accusations that should be backed up with evidence without showing us the evidence. If you have that body cam footage, or police report or news account of them taking the gun into evidence, by all means, post it.

so essentially you made this thread because you are angry, you want to 'immediately' replace our secular government, and you hoped to make other people also angry and also desire to 'immediately' replace our secular government?

Absolutely. I hope (and think) they will release the evidence to support the claims made by the FBI. Because of his past relevant history though, I am not as untrusting or skeptical of the FBI's claim of events.

So wait a sec though, do you agree or disagree with this statement: The man's past relevant behavior of doing the same thing to the Google Fiber workers is more incriminating than the man being old, fat, and walks with a cane does in exonerating him of any guilt?

Nope. I made this thread for the reason I stated, not the reasons you have stated.

Isaiah 65:2 All day long I have held out my hands to an obstinate people, who walk in ways not good, pursuing their own imaginations—

One thing I learned while teaching Forensics

Physical evidence is much better than eyewitness accounts. We have a saying "physical evidence doesn't lie".

For example, they tell you that the airplanes brought down the twin towers while "conspiracy theorists" claim it was thermite. Physical evidence could easily put an end to this debate. The steel would tell you one way or the other. However, those claiming that it was the planes used the military to guard the steel so it could not be examined and then sent it to China to be melted down.

Meanwhile those who claimed it was thermite presented physical evidence. The temperature of the fire which burned for the next month could be measured, it was clearly the temperature at which thermite burns and could not possibly be the result of jet fuel which would have burned up in fifteen minutes. They also presented little metal spheres that littered the street, drops from the burning steel which was also physical evidence that it was thermite.

I say this because we have a lot of claims being made which would be much more believable if you gave us the physical evidence.

1. He pointed a gun at the Feds (show us the body cam footage)

2. He had a gun (show us the gun that was recovered at the scene)

3. He pointed a gun at utility workers and threatened them (show us the police report where he was arrested, and transcripts from the trial).

4. He threatened to shoot president Biden on an internet post. (show us the post).

The fact that they make these claims without giving us the evidence that they would certainly have is a very big problem for me.

5 Ways to out a liar

https://www.heysigmund.com/sharpening-your-internal-lie-detector/

1. Ask questions with the presumption of guilt. In this country you are presumed innocent by the court, not by your interrogator. It has been shown to be 97% effective. Law enforcement does this all the time, so don't let them accuse you of being "treasonous" if you do the same to them. A man was gunned down in a predawn raid. Presume that it is cold blooded murder until they provide evidence it isn't.

2. Ask open ended questions then close ended.

A person who is telling the truth wants all the facts out there, they will want to answer close ended questions with more than a yes or no. Liars want to say as little as possible. They will attack you for even asking a question. Think about that, a 70 year old man, never convicted of a crime, is gunned down in his house and murdered and we can't ask any questions? That doesn't bother you?

3. Ask the story in reverse

We are not talking to the men involved in the raid so this may not seem relevant. However, if you are coaching someone to lie you need time to go over all the questions, get them to practice saying it in reverse, make sure all the accounts are the same and align with body cam footage, and you can always give yourself an out by saying "I can't remember". That is not plausible a day later, but a week later, a month later, so the reason to ask all these questions immediately is to prevent them from concocting and rehearsing a story. All criminal interrogators know this.

4. Ask unexpected questions

Again, we aren't allowed to ask any questions and are told to sit tight a week later. We are not given an opportunity to ask an unexpected question.

5. Videotape them when you ask the questions.

We all have micro expressions we can't control. Only the very best liars who have rehearsed and also take muscle relaxers and have been coached can insert reasonable doubt when examining microexpressions. If you notice they never brought out the people involved in the shooting to talk. This is not accidental. If I were a lawyer I would be very concerned about allowing someone who might be held on trial to come and speak to the press, even if they were innocent.

However, a police chief, someone who has interviewed everyone and seen the body camera footage, if he is not someone who might go to trial, he should be willing to come and talk freely, answer all questions, and put any concerns the public might have to rest. All these and many other questions should have been answered a week ago.

For example, consider the Press secretary for the President. Their job is to give daily press briefings because the people have a reasonable concern about things that are happening and things the president is doing. If you are honest and not lying you are happy to entertain all questions even if at times you will have to get back to the person with the answer (they asked an unexpected question) or the topic is classified and you can't answer it in public. We have all seen exhaustive and comprehensive press briefings and press briefings where the person is clearly afraid to answer because they know the official story is a lie.

We have excellent people who are trained in body language and micro expressions. No liar wants to get on video with their lie because you can examine it frame by frame.

So to me it is a big red flag when something like this happens and they don't give exhaustive and comprehensive press conferences immediately (within 24 hours). Someone trying to get the truth out would welcome the opportunity, only a liar trying to cover up a crime would avoid doing this.

Who are you asking this of?

I would need to see corroborating evidence that supports what the FBI is claiming before I'd give it any credence. The FBI has just been too dirty in the last few years...

It was a response to posthuman asking me what I was asking him.

WOW!!!
Awesome question!

give me the evidence this was a "hit squad" or an "execution" as you keep calling it.

Oh wait - you don't have to.

this is America and we try things in courts, not in public opinion.

right?