None of them had firearms you mean. The claim that they weren't armed is a transparent lie. There is a lot of video showing them carrying and using weapons of various sorts.
Well, they were also so outrageous and out of control that there are pictures of them standing behind the velvet ropes as they moved through the building.
I've not seen any photos of them being armed either.
You shouldn't let the politics of the situation cloud the obvious. If they didn't have guns, it would not have played out the way it did. That doesn't mean that what they did was good, or that how the government handled it was right. It just means that the availability of guns was a critical determinative factor. That also doesn't mean they were the sole factor, either. It can also be true that the government treated them with kid gloves. But it's pretty clear that they would not have done that if they weren't armed.
When you say unarmed men, surely you don't intend to omit the fact that they ambushed him and were chasing him and attempting to grievously assault him while he was trying to get away?
This omission game goes both ways. You're leaving pertinent information out to support your narrative also.
Even "collateralmurder.com" says the men are carrying "something that might be a weapon" and "what appears to be a weapon" and that site is hardly unbiased.
This may be true, but if the person has no history of violence, isn't wanted for a violent offence, has no registered firearms, and is not known to have any radical anti-government / Michigan Militia-type views, then there is probably no reason for such an armed assault.
| in these cases they're probably just as worried
| about the destruction of evidence
So a group of men armed with assault rifles is necessary to prevent destruction of evidence, because a couple of agents armed with handguns would have encouraged resistance?
We can discuss what kind of armed he was, but the fact that he was armed is not controversial, and that it the one and only point I am making.
I'm also making it in good faith, because it's entirely possible that all of the bad reporting on it would lead someone to believe that he was unarmed. That's the only reason for any of these replies.
That's just an indication of how much TAW is milking this story for all of its shock effect before the facts are fully established.
Besides, in the original article, she said the guns were holstered when they were talking to her husband and from the tone, they were cordial and shook his hand before they left. Hardly a "raid".
> They had guns, nooses, there were chat logs, etc. This is not conjecture.
Stop trying to wiggle out of this. You said armed with guns. Don't try and move this over suddenly to "Clubs" because your bs has been called.
reply