Any opinions on the subject? Personally I think he's wrong.
Printable View
Any opinions on the subject? Personally I think he's wrong.
He's a subsidized, whining asshole who imagines he's entitled to freeload on everybody else's dime and threaten violence should they object. I say we hire Joni Ernst to castrate the pig.
Did a somewhat cursory reading on this (maybe two articles ) because I haven't heard of him before this, but...well...Trish already said it all. I really don't see his argument.
No matter what anyone's beliefs are on land use...it seems to have gone through the courts and he lost....and he doesn't own the land.
again...he doesn't own the land.
So fuck him.
Basically a 10 minute filler for cable news TV so America can chase its own tail in 2 argumentative directions. At times it has looked like a proxy war between Sean Hannity and Harry Reid.
I care about Al, King Kong Bundy, and Bundy Drive more than Cliven Bundy. Cliven looks like an old guy who's willing to martyr himself after the doctor gave him 6 months to live. That's one herd I'd avoid joining.
I don't know jack shit about the specifics though. Just ego flinging poo disguised as opinion.
Shortened version of what actually happened:
*1887: Cliven Bundy's ancestors settle in what is now modern day Clark County, Nevada. His great grandfather lawfully purchases the rights to the land now know today as Bundy Ranch. This property would be lawfully passed on to the later descendants.
*1946: The United States implements the Bureau of Land Management
*1990: The endangered desert tortoise is declared protected. The BLM attempts to force ranchers in the region to give up land and abide by new rules so ensure the survival of the desert tortoise.
*1993: The Bundy family refuses to accept new BLM regulations and ceases paying the BLM for assistance services.
*1990's: The BLM attempts on multiple occasions to sue the Bundy's and force them to pay fines and fees for disregarding BLM policies. Bundy refuses to obey the court orders and the BLM, claiming his ranch is private property.
*2008: The BLM considers the selling and leasing of federal lands to corporations for oil shale fracking use. These tar sands areas include the Bundy Ranch region.
*2013: The endangered desert tortoise, which the BLM in the region provided services to help keep alive, became the victim of mass slaughtering by the BLM. The BLM suffered a blow to its budget and proceeded to euthanize desert tortoises.
*2014: The BLM decides to attempt to seize the Bundy Ranch, claiming "to collect debts owed by the Bundy's and to protect the desert tortoise".
*April: The BLM, including over 200 federal agents and rangers, accompanied by helicopters, snipers and construction vehicles, all armed with assault weapons surround the Bundy Ranch and shut down nearby roads. Cliven Bundy says he will not comply with unconstitutional federal aggression.
The aggressive and deadly show of force used by the BLM forced Bundy to refer to the incident as "a range war". Protesters responded following disturbing photos appearing on the internet of BLM snipers taking aim on Bundy family members and their home. Protesters began to show up. In response the BLM set up a "first amendment zone" for protesters to use and say within. The protesters disregarded that zone citing the 1st Amendment applies to the entire country and all its lands. BLM rangers were aggressive against protesters.
On April 10th the protesters and Bundy family alleged the BLM was seizing Bundy cattle, killing them and burying them in the desert. Protest groups attempted to block a BLM convoy from passing through to inspect construction vehicles, including a dump truck, possibly used to illegally slaughter animals. During the confrontation, BLM rangers battered a cancer patient and a pregnant woman and tasered one of Bundy's sons.
Immediately after this, the Oath Keepers patriot organization declared a call to arms of support for Cliven Bundy, claiming the events are mimicking those of Waco and Ruby Ridge.
On April 12th, armed militiamen from across the United States began to arrive in support of Cliven Bundy and the peaceful protesters. Over the next couple of days, tensions between protesters and the BLM rangers would increase. Eventually the Bundy's gave the BLM an ultimatum to return cattle they seized or the protesters and militiamen would enter the BLM compound and retrieve the cattle themselves. The BLM surrendered a half hour later and allowed cowboys on horseback to round up the seized cattle and guide them out and back to Bundy Ranch.
*Since: The Bundy family and assisting militiamen have began to view the damage left over by the BLM. The BLM destroyed water ways, roads, fencing, water towers and utilities. They have also located mass graves of shot cattle.
*April 19: The BLM begins harassing Texan ranchers on the Oklahoma border. Despite these rancher presenting deeds to their property, the BLM is threatening forceful eviction. The ride never ends.
tl;dr? I support Cliven Bundy, the protesters and the militiamen. I wish I still lived out in Vegas and could have been there to support those heroes. It's about damn time the People stood against the tyrants in power.
I'll just leave this picture here and add this...
Further context: The land is federal land, has been since 1848. By his own admission his “ancestral claim” only goes back to 1887. So when his ancestors started grazing their cattle on that land, it had already been federal land for 29 years.
I forgot to add this. If he doesn't acknowledge the US Government as even existing...
The Constitution authorizes the federal government, not the other way around. And despite what the Nevada State Constitution may say, our Founding Fathers surely would side with Bundy and would be horrified to see the condition this country is in.
Bundy's stand is not only about his cows. This is about the overreaching authority the United States federal government is giving itself at the expense of the people. And as long as the United States federal government disregards our Constitutional rights and human freedoms, the authority and the validity of the current standing federal system is easily debatable.
From the Declaration of Independence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. ... when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
*1848 The Federal Government acquired the Nevada Territory in the treaty that ended the Mexican-American War. The early settlers were homesteaders. In 1909 the homesteading act was expanded to encourage more people to settle there. Still the Federal Government owns about 80% of the state of Nevada.
*The BLM never euthanized endangered tortoises.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/04...false-f/198860
http://ecowatch.com/2014/04/15/blm-b...t-bundy-ranch/
*Bundy never owned the grazing land that is in dispute.
"Bundy's dispute with the government began about 1993 when the bureau changed grazing rules for the 600,000-acre Gold Butte area to protect an endangered desert tortoise, KLAS reported."___from http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/10/us/nev...ttle-showdown/
*This dispute is not a State's rights issue, since the land is on a National Park.
*He had his day in court and he had his appeals. His arguments were found wanting in all venues. As you can see, only the loopiest of the loopy see any merit to his incessant whine. Everyone else in the state pays to graze their cattle in the park. Why does Bundy deserve a special subsidy? Why does his cattle get to graze there for absolutely free for two decades? Because he's a pig? Because he brought in and organized some thugs with guns? It's certainly not because he has a legal right, nor a Constitutional right, nor is the state of Nevada claiming any State Rights on his behalf.
The federal constitution does indeed create the rights of the federal government to act. My understanding is that these are federal government lands he's been using. Federal courts have interpreted it as such. The job of federal courts is to interpret the federal constitution and federal laws. The supremacy clause says that federal law trumps state law where they conflict. He is really no different from any other crazed militia man who claims he doesn't recognize the sovereign within which he lives. That doesn't mean he's not subject to its laws.
Again, it's not you or some jackoff with guns whose interpretation of the constitution matters. If everyone were free to declare acts of government unconstitutional at their whim we wouldn't have much of a government. The federal courts have ruled on the issue and he's lost. And if it turns into a legitimate gunfight, he'll lose that too.
The fact that there aren't even legal grounds for Bundy's argument shows how far off the reservation conservatives are. Anyone who considers himself an honest and decent conservative should be incensed by what is done in their name. This would be as if the mainstream of the democratic party started advocated eco-terrorism or something that is a fringe left-wing phenomenon. Bunch of nutjobs.
You can't refer to a constitution of a government you don't even acknowledge.
Also, this.
There are parts of America which are beyond parody. Even Jonathan Swift would have shaken his head at this as too outlandish.
Eco-terrorism... like... sending in an army of Feds to surround a rancher and his family Waco style and threaten to murder him over turtles? And then firing squad his cattle and dumping their bodies into graves in the desert?Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
"Fringe left-wing phenomenon"
Like when Eric Holder gave thousands of weapons to Mexican drug Cartels in Operation Fast and Furious, resulting in increased border violence?
Or when Obama supplied Syrian Al Qaeda terrorist groups with weaponry to assist in overthrowing Assad?
Or was it when the U.S. wanted to give Ukraine and its rioting nationalist groups weaponry to use against Russia and pro-Russian Ukrainians?
All while the Democrats have desperately used dead children as a soap box for trying to pass weapons bans and increased regulation. Hypocrisy galore.
And a government cannot be acknowledged when it disregards the Constitution.Quote:
Originally Posted by Turlington
It's not murder if they are acting pursuant to a court order against him and he or his cohorts use violence. I don't accept your other analogies because they are an attempt to turn this into a collateral discussion about foreign policy. The executive's conduct of foreign policy is non-justiciable.Quote:
Originally Posted by kittyKaiti
The only issue at stake in this case is the rule of law. Bundy is subject to it whether he recognizes the sovereign or not. Eco-terrorism would be blowing up a corporation because it pollutes. Compare this to sending federal agents to arrest people or seize property because they violate federal regulations. Federal agents are hired to enforce those regulations and they were only doing their job.
I've heard other right-wing nuts suggest that people should not use guns in defense of property regulations. If he has repeatedly failed to respond to court orders, and to pay fines which have been levied against him, there is no other way to enforce those regulations.
Actually, the Constitution protects even those who don't understand what it says or recognize our government. The problem is that the Constitution doesn't offer him any support in this case. The federal government has a right under the property clause to make regulations on federal land. Bundy's argument about following Nevada law but not federal law clearly shows his misunderstanding of the nature of dual sovereignty. He has repeatedly said that he doesn't understand whether he is subject to Nevada law or federal law. The answer is both.Quote:
Originally Posted by Turlington
A long-awaited report on the U.S. government’s controversial gun-trafficking operation known as “Fast and Furious” released Wednesday found no evidence that Attorney General Eric Holder knew of the botched effort to trace the flow of guns to Mexico’s drug cartels prior to its public unraveling in January 2011.
The report by the Justice Department’s Inspector General Michael Horowitz said there is "no evidence that ... Holder was informed about Operation Fast and Furious, or learned about the tactics employed by ATF in the investigation" before Congress began pressing him for information about it in early 2011.
http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_n...-running-sting
The Obama administration, concluding that the troops of President Bashar al-Assad of Syria have used chemical weapons against rebel forces in his country’s civil war, has decided to begin supplying the rebels for the first time with small arms and ammunition, according to American officials. The officials held out the possibility that the assistance, coordinated by the Central Intelligence Agency, could include antitank weapons, but they said that for now supplying the antiaircraft weapons that rebel commanders have said they sorely need is not under consideration. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/14/wo...pagewanted=all
At least 132,000 civilians have died from 10 years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to a new study by Brown university. And that’s a conservative estimate.
No one can say with certainty how many civilians have died in these wars. But researchers at Brown’s Watson Institute for International Studies found that between 12,000 and 14,000 of them perished in Afghanistan — the most recent of which came from Tuesday’s audacious insurgent attack on Kabul’s most famous hotel. Another 120,000 died in Iraq. An estimated 35,000 more lost their lives in Pakistan, where the United States is fighting a shadow war against terror groups and militants. (Although the report says it can’t “disaggregate civilian from combatant death” there, which is kind of a big deal.)
http://www.wired.com/2011/06/afghani...s-report-says/
Right you are...Quote:
Originally Posted by robertlouis
http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instanc...x/35821411.jpg
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-mn2f_N1HXS...ep+shagger.jpg
Is the U.S. Government engaged in a “land grab” in Nevada? The question is quite definitely asked in the present tense. But in the past the Feds quite certainly grabbed the whole of Nevada and then some, from Mexico. Before that it was grabbed by Mexico from Native Americans.
*The U.S. obtained the territory to which present day Nevada belongs in 1848 when it signed the treaty that ended the Mexican-American war. Ever since the Federal government has been trying to entice people to live there. It still owns 80% of the state of Nevada. It owns and always has owned (since 1848 ) the land on which Cliven Bundy has been grazing his cattle for free. Back in the 19th century free grazing on Federal land was part of the enticement to lure homesteaders. It was an entitlement. Not every rancher in the U.S. gets to graze their cattle for free on Federal lands. But Cliven Bundy did.
*In 1989 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services find that the Desert Tortoise, a distinct species found nowhere else in the world, is an endangered species. By 1993 the Federal government instituted a conservation plan to protect the tortoise. The plan includes prohibition of grazing and restriction of off-road vehicles allowed on certain Federal lands, now to be designated as a National Park.
*There goes Cliven Bundy’s free ride. He is understandably upset. This can’t be happening to him. This can’t be about tortoises. It must be what?...A Federal “LAND GRAB.”
*Yeah, right. It’s a Federal “land grab” when the U.S. government takes land it already owns, stops making available to a private business and instead makes it available to all as a National Park.
*Cliven was kinda hoping he could treat that patch of ground as his own into perpetuity. Now he’s pissed because his own piss-poor grazing practices destroyed the natural habitat, endangered a rare species of land tortoise and alerted the Fish and Wildlife Services to the deteriorating condition of the land.
*So this was all over then back in 1993, right? No. Cliven Bundy never stopped grazing his cattle on that land even though it became a National Park! Never stopped! Even though the land doesn’t belong to him and never did, he uses it (illegally), profits from it and continues to degrade the desert ecosystem. In short, Cliven grabbed the land for his own use. He’s been using it illegally for over two decades! He owes us over a million dollars in fines. Our taxes are subsidizing Cliven’s business.
*So finally, after two decades of letting Cliven do whatever the hell he wants with our land, the Federal government gets a court order to impound and sell any cattle grazing within the borders of the Park (unless Cliven removes them within 45 days). This seems to me like a very reasonable course of action, given Cliven’s record. What, should we just write him another ticket that he’ll never pay?
*Of course, Cliven’s "extended" family and some like-minded people protest and obstruct the auction where the cattle are to be sold. Federal officers attempt to disperse the crowd. There are scuffles. A police dog is kicked and the kicker tasered. Some people get scratched and scraped.
*Like flies to rotting meat, Anti-U.S. government loonies with guns are attracted to Cliven’s ranch. Cliven’s land grab escalates into a ponderous storm cloud. It’s what the loonies want. Even if Cliven doesn’t really want a “range war,” gun nuts across the U.S. are salivating at the prospect of another WACO. They can’t say it enough. It’s as if chanting will make it happen again “WACO”, “WACO”, “WACO”.
*But its the last thing the BLM wants. They back off. They decide not to enforce the court order. Cliven Bundy’s land grab is a temporary success. The cry goes up through all of loonyland, "Hooray for loonies with guns."
Cliven Bundy a fraud? Who would have ever guessed that in a million years.
http://crooksandliars.com/2014/04/bu...tory-load-crap
via KLAS
His cattle, until recently, roamed freely on land managed by the federal Bureau of Land Management. Before the roundup that sparked protests, confrontations and gunmen taking a bridge, Bundy explained his "ancestral rights" to the I-Team.
"I've lived my lifetime here. My forefathers have been up and down the Virgin Valley here ever since 1877. All these rights that I claim, have been created through pre-emptive rights and beneficial use of the forage and the water and the access and range improvements," Bundy said.
Clark County property records show Cliven Bundy's parents moved from Bundyville, Arizona and bought the 160 acre ranch in 1948 from Raoul and Ruth Leavitt.
Water rights were transferred too, but only to the ranch, not the federally managed land surrounding it. Court records show Bundy family cattle didn't start grazing on that land until 1954.
The Bureau of Land Management was created 1946, the same year Cliven was born.
Saw this on Tumblr: "I see Republicans are out lauding a wealthy tax cheat as 'a real patriot' while out the other side of their mouth labeling the working poor who pay a forth of their income in taxes as 'takers' not deserving of a living wage or health coverage."
"Wealthy tax cheat."Quote:
Originally Posted by Turlington
The liberal butthurt tears are overflowing in this post. Such disinfo. Such lib tears.Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
The bold and underlined part is a blatant lie. Stop watching MSNBC.
I've read in the right wing blogosphere that Warren Buffett or at least one of dozens of subsidiaries of Berkshire Hathaway, a holding company, had a disputed tax bill. Has Warren Buffett ever violated an order by a federal court for him to pay income taxes? I'm asking because I don't know. I do know that he's pledged 99% of his considerable wealth to charity.
Contrast this with someone who has grazed cattle on federal land without a permit for two decades. Who claims he doesn't recognize the federal government. Who threatens violence against federal agents who are only doing their job. There is simply no comparison between this piece of trash, whose home state has been visited by militia men who have spent their entire lives sowing intolerance, and a decent person like Warren Buffett.
I suppose you've given up on the argument that Cliven Bundy's actions were legal or that the federal government doesn't have the ability to create regulations on federal land?
Gee, I didn't think the tone was at all tearful.Quote:
Originally Posted by kittyKaiti
Of course you know this is not a rebuttal.Quote:
The bold and underlined part is a blatant lie. Stop watching MSNBC.
There is no rebuttal...the only rebuttals you wind up getting is -Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
Cliven Bundy should do whatever he wants because -
we attacked Iraq
we armed people in Syria
people cheat on taxes
(we secretly bombed our own towers....I know, I know - no one said it ...but you know it's hanging in the air...lol)
Oh, and we know the goverment lies...I will concede that. However to think Cliven Bundy can't possibly be lying (he's wearing a white hat after all) is silly.
...Oh, and the militia are heroes...(never heard of heroes suggesting fighting behind a line of women before,..but whatever).
Clearly you're not Hamas.Quote:
never heard of heroes suggesting fighting behind a line of women before,..but whatever
Clearly..lol. (it's hard to make a green headband and vest bomb work with my weekend wear)...Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
...but I hear they may come to Nevada to help Bundy because the desert turtle is a filthy, belly crawling agent of Israel.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fred41
though I would suggest that , based on this live photo taken by Alex Jones,...the turtles look a lot like Hamas.
I DO love US political debates - so well thought through. You should congratulate yourselves on such an amazing group of total political loonies - who still think they are driving their covered-wagons across the plains and killing off the natives.
The best we can do in Britain is this guy.
This is another non-issue that conservative radio has inflated so it's incensed listeners will stay listening an extra 5 minutes and maybe hear that ad for the aluminum siding that they need. Harry Reid should drag this out through the entire summer, saying it's nothing, but it ain't over. Let Republican Senatorial candidates talk about Cliven Bundy and Joe the Plumber. Let Reporters scream questions on how they feel about Cliven Bundy for the six o'clock news.
Great guy this Bundy.
....RANCHER CLIVEN BUNDY, darling of FOX News, Limbaugh, Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, et al, exposes himself for what he really is: a pro-slavery madman! And he has the nerve to criticize government subsidies! Now watch his high-placed fans squirm. Choice quote from today's NY Times:
“They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn’t get no more freedom. They got less freedom.”
read the whole article with that quote and other choice stuff on this great hero....
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/24/us...e-west.html?hp
Cliven is the gift that keeps on given.Quote:
Originally Posted by Prospero
http://mediamatters.org/video/2014/0...ypocrit/198963
I didn't know Cliven Bundy had made pro-slavery comments! Just highlights what a nut he is. Shouldn't be a surprise when you see the madmen he's attracted.
Hannity and Jon Stewart are going back and forth. The video above came out Monday...Hannity responded Tuesday, and then Stewart responded again last night. I'll see if I can post the other two since it's an amusing back and forth.
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/jon-stewa...arbys-of-news/
Okay so basically Hannity responded that Stewart misunderstood his argument. That he didn't think what Bundy was doing was legal but that the federal government hadn't acted proportionally. So this was the response last night. I thought it was quite funny.
Edit: So now Rand Paul and Senator Heller have responded to the slavery comments reported in the above NY times article. They denounce them in the most strenuous way! Has Rand Paul commented on the racist comments Ron Paul put in his newsletter years ago?
What a fucking shocker that a man who tried to engage federal agents in a gunfight, who doesn't recognize the government as existing, and who attracted a bunch of militia nutjobs setting up shop as snipers on public highways has ended up being pro-slavery. Nobody could have seen that coming!
Bundy may be an old fart, with opinions commonly held by people his age from the 1950's, but this does not detract from the issue at hand.
The United States federal government uses outrageous excessive force to accomplish its goals, whoever the target of it may be. The Feds are historically known for using brutal violence and acts of terror to deal with situations that did not need such levels of force, if the situation at hand was even valid at all to begin with.
In the case of Cliven Bundy and his ranch, the issue is less about the seizure of his property and the land issue, as it is more about the level of force used by the federal agents on scene. This entire incident between Bundy and the BLM would have been a non-existent issue, and no fucks would have been given, had the federal government not used the force they chose. The moment the BLM positioned hilltop snipers, sighting on the Bundy family home, and 200 federal agents armed with M4 carbines, they made this no longer a bullshit issue over cows eating grass, and made it a Ruby Ridge 2.0 bloodbath in the making. The only reason militias and protesters responded at all to this was because the Bundy family released photos and videos of federal agents aiming sniper rifles at their house. We all saw it for what it was. The feds were at it again, using overdone excessive force when it could have conducted a simplistic dozen officer raid and arrest on his home.
While there may be multiple other questionable issues, like why the federal government claims authority over 80% of the lands in the western U.S., disregards state sovereignty clauses of the Bill of Rights, the questionable nature of desert tortoises being threatened by cows eating grass, among others, the issue was the feds were acting like this was a raid on the bin Laden compound and not that of a 70 something year old rancher and his children and grandchildren.
At this point, the Bundy Ranch issue is blown way out of proportion. And the mainstream media is only reporting on the Bundy Ranch issue now because of the juicy news that the evil terrorist grandpa is a racist and the government should take him down.
The conduct of the BLM and the federal agents and rangers on the scene was mishandled, excessive, poorly planned, and an embarrassment for the bureaucratic federal agency having to retreat because they fucked up a simple situation and attracted the attention of people who don't agree with authorities sending in an army to deal with non-issues. However, this Bundy Ranch situation ended over a week ago. It's over and done. I don't support the racist remarks or any form of discrimination. My interests in the situation revolved around the force the government sought to use against a ranching family over cows eating grass.
So, enjoy the media race card baiting bullshit. Liberal tears tsunami watch is in effect.
A long post that is mostly untrue. The issue was reported before Cliven Bundy let the world know he's a racist. He doesn't have 1950's views but 1850's views.
Second, the federal government's use of force was reasonable given the nature of the threats. He failed to respond to four court orders demanding payments for fees he was delinquent in honoring. The government had an injunction against his use of federal lands (which was an ongoing violation), and this gives them the right to use force to prevent him from continuing to graze his cattle illegally. When threatened with the prospect of having his cattle seized, Bundy called on militia men and threatened to take up arms. This is the natural consequence of taking up arms against the U.S government.
Finally, federal government land ownership is not contradicted by the bill of rights. You must be talking about the reserve power in the 10th amendment. There is nothing about the federal government's ownership of large tracts of land that threatens state sovereignty. Our Constitution was set up to make allowance for dual sovereignty, which is why we have enumerated federal powers, the supremacy clause, and the 10th amendment leaving those powers not vested in the federal government to the states and the people respectively. As I've already stated, the property clause assumes that the government owns land, and with the exception of the district of columbia and indian lands, where else would this land be but within states?
The issue was barely touched until long after militias started joining the cause. Until then it was all over alternative media and social media.Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
The use of force was NOT reasonable. The guy is a 70 something year old man. Snipers, hundreds of feds armed with combat rifles and helicopters were NOT necessary. Bundy called for help from protesters and patriots after he released photos of snipers aiming at him and his home, filled with his family and grandchildren. The guy was little to no threat at all. The use of force and intimidation by the BLM and rangers was beyond excessive. Because of that, and only that, did militia groups respond. It was like Waco and Ruby Ridge all over again. A family surrounded by hundreds of heavily armed federal agents.
Enough of your lies and disinfo. There was no justifiable threat to warrant that level of force.