Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by freedomforall 8 years ago
    Next, the AG takes "responsibility". the shooters get promotions, and those in the car go to jail.

    I am quite surprised that this video has been released, however.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ Susanne 8 years ago
      This may rub people the wrong way, but... tough.

      Releasing the video justified the shooting - not the ravings of a lunatic, but with officers pointing guns at him, telling him to get on the ground, and keep his hands in sight...

      He stuffs his right hand under his jacket, which is what happens immediately before someone (whether he was going to or not) wraps his fingers around the grip of a firearm in a shoulder holster, pulls it out, presents it, and pulls the trigger...

      If Johnny Law has guns pointed at me, the last thing I am going to do is (1) not do what the cop wanted, (2) instead do something the cops told me specifically NOT to do, and (3) Do something that looks like you're reaching for a concealed weapon In a shoulder holster, whether or not you actually have a shoulder holstered weapon.

      The videos show these 3 things going on... In real life - they call this specific set of actions "Suicide by Cop". Obviously the cat was mentally imbalanced... which I am sure will come into the equation as well.

      You have a potentially armed person with a known animosity towards you making insane and bizarre comments, then not just ignoring you but doing an action that is specifically linked to pulling out a firearm.

      That's like saying that that nice german shepherd with a foamy mouth and snarling at you with rabies doesn't mean bad, so you should go up and cuddle it and pet it, because inside it's all a nice doggy...

      The guy was obviously mentally unstable, per his own video from the truck... the cops showed incredible restraint until they were threatened. Once they did they responded, not only as they were trained to do, but what anyone in a similar situation - cop or not - would do - perceive a threat and neutralize it.

      Me? I would have shot the guy dead. Sorry, but that's a RATIONAL response to the highly irrational actions. of a potentially dangerous, potentially armed, demonstratedly psychotically deranged person.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ Radio_Randy 8 years ago
        Let's just say that the shooting "was" justified. If that's the case..."why" did the agents hide the fact that they started shooting much earlier than what was previously reported?

        No, damn it, there IS something wrong here and it needs to be addressed...not simply swept under the rug because the locals are glad it's over.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ 8 years ago
        You're welcome to your opinion. I live only a short ways away and local radio has been following this story very closely as well as having witnesses testify about what happened. Here's some alternate thoughts:

        1) It wasn't a traffic stop at all - it was an ambush. Police don't have guns at the ready for a traffic stop and don't set up a roadblock with armed FBI agents in tactical gear five miles down the road. That was a pretense. You'll notice that the Oregon State Troopers never cited anyone in the group for a traffic violation.
        2) Did you notice how it was done in an area with no cell service?
        3) The vehicle was shot BEFORE they drove off and with no provocation. That is an entitlement to fear for one's life and no one has a responsibility to obey law enforcement when law enforcement initiates a threat on life like that.
        4) This isn't suicide by cop. Finicum told them over and over that he had an appointment with the Sheriff in the next County - which they did (to address that county's residents assembled in a school auditorium).
        5) Finicum was unarmed. He reached down because he'd just been shot. Those who knew Finicum question that the gun that the Feds supposedly found in his pocket belonged to Finicum because they didn't recognize it, even though he commonly carried in his shoulder holster.
        6) Finicum had personally talked to many of the FBI agents who had visited the compound prior to this event and had made videos indicating that while everything had started out fine, the FBI agents had begun being more and more hostile with no apparent reason.

        " the cops showed incredible restraint"

        Showing restraint would have been waiting until a weapon had been shown to the officers before drawing their own - if this was a simple traffic stop.
        Showing restraint would have been escorting the group to the waiting Sheriff in the next County and having their talk there.
        Showing restraint would have been NOT having the FBI involved - let alone for a traffic stop.
        Showing restraint would have been approaching Finicum after he got out of the vehicle and arresting him. At most use a dog to take him down.
        Showing restraint would have been to NOT SHOOT HIM.

        Who showed tremendous restraint? The protesters. No firearms were ever drawn or pointed at law enforcement agents by protesters during this entire event.

        PS - Finicum wasn't the only one shot, either. Ryan Bundy was also shot - just not fatally.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ Susanne 8 years ago
          Hey, I won't get into a pissing match with you... Even if you do get your news from KOBN or KBNH (I like KCNO better, sorry) the evidence points elsewhere. (And if you're really from these parts, you know what the cell coverage is like... and know damned near no one up here has decent - or any - cell coverage.)

          I wasn't there, I can only go by what I saw and what I heard. But I will tell you that, while I am no fan of the DHS, the FBI, or the police state of fear we have become, I still think a bunch of out-of-staters coming in, pissing in someone else's back yard as a publicity move and stirring up crap for them was about as wrong as the feds coming in and stomping on it, in the middle of cowboy country that was doing nothing but minding their own business.

          However, these out-of-staters did just that - come in from every state -but- Oregon to commit a crime (whether they think so or not, it was illegal)... which makes it an interstate crime... which (sadly) puts it well within the jurisdiction of the FBI.

          Bottom line - these out-of-state outsiders went to Burns and deliberately kicked a f***ing hornets nest, hoping to stir up the hornets for a big ol' publicity event. They succeeded in their publicity event, they got the hornets pissed and flying, ready to sting, and they got stung - bad.

          And because they kicked the hornets nest trying for a reaction, we are supposed to say "Aw, poor babys, those nasty hornets shouldn't have stung you"... I call BS.

          Anyway... that's -this- local's take on the events just northeast of me.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by DrZarkov99 8 years ago
            Did you really listen carefully to the gunshots? There were shots fired before Finicum even got out of the truck, and the first shots that hit him came before he reached for his chest, so the crap about reaching for a gun is a fiction. The continuing barrage of shots fired at the vehicle when no one is showing any sign of aggression is the result of an out of control law enforcement crew, amped up on testosterone and adrenalin.

            I don't agree with the action Bundy and others involved took, but the overreaction by the FBI and state police is inexcusable. This is what we get when we allow improperly trained law enforcement to take on the trappings of a military force. You may applaud the results, but you may want to rethink this when more incidents happen for even less offenses.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ 8 years ago
            The intent was not to get into a "pissing match". You presented your opinion. I presented an alternative. If you choose not to consider it, that's up to you.

            They were protesters. Of course they went in to draw attention to themselves. That being said, they have a legitimate concern - that of Federal authority over land being asserted and overriding private property rights. The history both of the bundy Ranch in Nevada and the Hammond Ranch in Oregon both showed egregious abuse of that power by BLM and other federal agencies in the area. The Hammonds went back to jail on Federal terrorism charges - even after they had agreed to do time for the original infraction more than two years ago. They had no one to advocate for them but outside groups because most of the other ranchers had been driven off by the BLM over the past 40 years. I can give you a link to the history of the area if you would like. It was very telling.

            That being said, I find nothing done in the protest justifying the taking of a man's life. You can call him crazy if you want, but the facts are law enforcement opened fire despite no weapon ever being drawn - and that was minutes before the confrontation that killed him. They set up a roadblock with armed officers waiting at both places in strategic positions with weapons loaded and safeties off. They initiated the confrontation - not the protesters. It was a planned event.

            "However, these out-of-staters did just that - come in from every state -but- Oregon to commit a crime (whether they think so or not, it was illegal)... which makes it an interstate crime... which (sadly) puts it well within the jurisdiction of the FBI."

            No trials have been concluded and no guilty verdicts issued, so no crimes have been committed. The Sheriff, however, has ultimate local jurisdiction. The Refuge is public property - an entirely legal place to protest and completely deserted at the time. The best they have been charged with are trumped-up accusations originating from the Nevada standoff several years ago and "interfering with a federal officer" - even though none were present at the refuge.

            This whole things stinks to high heaven, but if you'd rather hold your nose, that's up to you.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ allosaur 8 years ago
        Whatever happened to "live to fight another day?"
        Whether its cops, crooks or both, if several gunmen have the drop on me, I'm not gonna go for the pocket pistol I carry.
        Now should I be diagnosed as terminally ill, that's a whole different deal. I may prefer a suicide by cop martyrdom for a just cause.
        Another "aw, hell, just go for it" scenario would be Muslim terrorists, who'd like to make a video of cutting my head off.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ 8 years ago
          Those who knew Finicum say that they do not recognize the weapon that officers claim they found on the body. There is also the suspicion that Finicum was shot in the lower side - where the instinctive reaction is to reach for it. What is also suspicious is that for some reason none of the officers' body cameras were on, nor was the drone's audio functioning.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ allosaur 8 years ago
            My mind is still open to what really happened.
            Suddenly again I wonder what really happened to a certain recently deceased Supreme Court Justice in a bedroom owned by an Obama supporter.
            Pillow Talk is a Doris Day movie. Cough! Cough!
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Zenphamy 8 years ago
    The Bundy sons and Finicum were foolish. They had been warned and cautioned by numerous others that their tactics and their choice of place were poorly thought out and strategically impossible. They were also strongly advised to move themselves to a location under the purview of a declared 'Constitutional' Sheriff to carry on their protests, with direct warnings that the Fed's were showing indications of increased aggressiveness and to expect 'action' from them in the immediate future. To then leave the site as if it was a normal business affair was careless to a level approaching hubris.

    With all of that being said, the 'operation' set up by the FBI SWAT group and OSP SWAT was intended to be violent, either in response to actions by the Bundy's or instigated by the 'ambush' group. I will note that I consider the actions of Finicum after becoming stopped in the snow and after receiving fire on approach and immediately after the stop, courageous. I think that he was fully aware that he was most probably the primary target of the incoming fire and with others in the truck including a young woman, that he immediately exited the truck, with no indication that the attackers would cease fire, to draw further fire to himself away from the truck.

    I think that his 'antics' in the snow were intended to keep attention on himself. I think he was hit in the back be a sniper, not in the video, and his reaching to his left side at least twice without drawing a weapon, was in response to that hit. Although there are claims from the gov't that he was struck three times during the fatal shots, I think he was only struck twice in that final volley. I don't think Finicum was on that road wanting to die. I know from his prior statements that he abhorred the idea of being put in a cell, and from his actions drawing the attention and fire from the SWAT men, that he was ready to die at their hands, thinking it would serve as some type of motivator to others.

    Calling it 'suicide by cop' just falls into the mind set wished for by the gov't actors. And it further denigrates a very brave act, even if entered into for a foolishly hoped for result by a fairly naive man. I agree it was murder, but from everything we've seen in the last several years from our gov't and these type of 'protest' inter-actions with citizens, there will be no accountability and we can only expect this type of result for those that the gov't deems as 'enemies of the State'. These activities are not those that will be termed or compared to the shootings at Lexington and Concord.

    By the way, from what I've read, the 'investigation' is not about the death of Finicum, but rather is about the shooting and actions against the truck's occupants after his downing.

    I sincerely hope that the lessons from that entire affair are taken to heart by everybody. This gov't of 'The Land of the Free' will kill you at the slightest provocation, and tyrannize any that don't follow or protest only in the 'accepted manner' at the designated 'free speech' area with PC words. And more to the point, those that direct and carry out those killings and actions, believe themselves to be in the right and fully justified, and they are drawn from your neighbors, friends, and families. These are not just philosophical discussions, these are the realities of our lives.

    It doesn't matter who you follow in the 'Great Candidate Show' or which one you vote for. Existence is, A=A, you are here and now, and this is your life. Reality is a cold, hard Bitch and she will not be ignored for long.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by CircuitGuy 8 years ago
      "he immediately exited the truck, with no indication that the attackers would cease fire, to draw further fire to himself away from the truck."
      It didn't work. I'd think they would focus on him. I'd think if he got shot that would stop the adrenaline, and everyone would focus on getting an ambulance, not shooting at suspects who were hiding and posing no threat.
      "those that direct and carry out those killings and actions, believe themselves to be in the right and fully justified, and they are drawn from your neighbors, friends, and families."
      Where do they find these people? Given the way he was acting, I might have shot him in that situation. But I would be upset with guilt, wondering if I could have avoided it. I would put myself at risk from the other suspects to get him medical attention. They could not order me to shoot into a car with non-threatening suspects. If I were even present there doing some un-related support job, I would resign in protest. Shooting at people who are not a threat is just completely beyond the pale for me. I can't imagine my neighbors participating in anything like this.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Zenphamy 8 years ago
        Aaah, but for the most part it did work. If you'll notice for the time until Finicum was down, attention and fire was on him. A few rounds were fired at the truck after, but someone called them off and they only used 'flash bangs', gas rounds, and rubber (?) rounds at the side windows after. I think Ryan was struck when the side window was shot out just prior to Finicum exiting the drivers door.

        For the second part, you can rest assured that you wouldn't have made the SWAT team. What's the FBI SWAT named? Hostage Rescue! I didn't see any hostages anywhere. 'Those people' aren't from Mars. They grow up all around you and I along with criminals, and that is the truly scary part.

        Do you really find it so surprising that you never hear about SWAT officers or others that just can't live with what they've become or done? Mankind's history is replete with such men (and women). Power and the feeling of power and the association with power is one of the most driving emotions of a large portion of mankind.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by CircuitGuy 8 years ago
          " A few rounds were fired at the truck after"
          It's unfortunate we say "a rounds were fired" at people posing no threat, as if the normal thing were firing many rounds for no reason. As you say, that's the world we live in.
          "Do you really find it so surprising that you never hear about SWAT officers or others that just can't live with what they've become or done"
          Yes. Violent crimes is down over the past few decades. Acceptance of violence in all its forms is down. Domestic violence, spanking children, even harsh conditions for farm animals are getting less acceptable. I don't understand why we accept violence in law enforcement, esp when crime is down.

          If someone every breaks in my place and I shoot him, I will get no feel of power from it. How lame it would be to kill someone with a gun and think of it as some kind of achievement.

          "Hostage Rescue! I didn't see any hostages anywhere. "
          I saw that and didn't understand. I don't know if they just happened to work for that department or if that's their way of soft-pedaling use of military tactics to arrest people accused of minor crimes.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Grendol 8 years ago
    The videos I have seen show an armed man refusing orders to surrender. The known armed man who made statements in the past about using deadly force to resist the government. He then feinted or reached for his waist band twice. The audio I heard was of him telling them to either let him go free or ' to put the bullets to him' He was a fool. He killed himself with his choices. I may agree on some points that the governments this group complained about were self serving, but their method was illogical, improper, and ineffective. I would have suspicion of the government agent's conduct if they shot everyone in the van, but this case is clear. This is not the same as the sniper of Ruby Ridge shooting a woman holding a baby.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Herb7734 8 years ago
      Was he holding a weapon? If so, was it in shooting position?
      If not, he wasn't a direct threat. if the officers were properly trained there was no need for deadly force. The officers were either improperly trained or they had some unspoken reason to kill the guy.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Grendol 8 years ago
        Wrong, a fleeing felon in the act of resisting arrest is at the condition of being subject to the officer's judgment. That is the proper training. Fleeing felons can be killed simply for the act of fleeing. That is law in many states written as such, but in practice in all states when you take into account that officers are directed to take risky and possibly deadly actions to stop the felon other than shooting. A pits maneuver can kill, a tazer can kill, hand to hand contact can kill.

        To claim that a speeding vehicle driven off road through the standing area where officers are is not a direct threat is willfully ignoring reality, the fleeing felon learned the hard way you cannot ignore the consequences of ignoring reality.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by Herb7734 8 years ago
          Did you see the same video that I did?
          I saw at least 2 officers, both front and back. I did not see an aggressive move by Finicum. The cops who I have gone on patrol with would have had one keep him still with a gun pointed at him while the one behind him, instead of shooting him, cuffed him. Or at the very least explained what they were going to do in order to see if there would be an aggressive move. It looked to me that the cops had made up their minds to execute this guy, and then followed through.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 8 years ago
      What is missing from the overhead (for some unknown reason) is the audio that exposes Finicum getting shot. When his hands drop, it is because he's just registered that fact. Witnesses testify that Finicum left his gun because he was going to be the spokesman at a meeting in the next county with the Sheriff there and the citizens who were waiting in an school auditorium. Those who saw the gun supposedly found on Finicum's body have said they did not recognize it.

      What is also pointed out is that their vehicle had already been shot at during the previous stop, which is why they decided to leave. They rightly feared for their lives.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Grendol 8 years ago
        His conduct was sufficient reason to permit law enforcement to shoot. Yes there was a road block. Yes roadblocks are legitimate. He tried and failed to run the roadblock. Then after exiting the vehicle he behaved in a way that implicates a threat. In order to not get yourself dead you should 1) not tell them to kill you, 2) you should not disobey their orders to put yourself in a low threat position, 3) you should not make any movement that looks like you are increasing your threat level. By this point he was already considered an armed and dangerous felon, his refusal to comply on the first order is usually reason enough for them to shoot. They don't need to wait for further escalation by the criminal, law enforcement are entitled to escalate the use of force. That is and has been reality for decades.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ 8 years ago
          "His conduct was sufficient reason to permit law enforcement to shoot."

          Employment of lethal force is only justified when an officer fears for his safety or the safety of others and must be justified by an imminent and substantial threat of bodily harm. Where was such a threat the first time the vehicles were stopped and the SUV with Lavoy Finicum was hit? THAT is the match in the tinder. And in the case where he actually did get shot, I will be interested to see if a jury agrees that Finicum represented a real danger to law enforcement: an old man in foot-deep snow with his hands up. Verbally challenging law enforcement to let him go or shoot him isn't a threat of harm. There must be a physical act involved. And unfortunately, because all we have is an overhead drone shot - curiously without audio - we have no idea of knowing whether Finicum reached for a pocket gun (see comments above about said gun) or reacted to being shot in the side. The lack of body cameras on any of the law enforcement personnel - either State or Federal - is suspicious to me in an age where they are not only prevalent, but mandated in many cases - especially when they are generally used to justify the actions of law enforcement personnel.

          "By this point he was already considered an armed and dangerous felon"

          One becomes a felon only after conviction. What is interesting is that he had met with and talked to the FBI several times when they had come to the refuge to scope things out and there had been no problems whatsoever.

          "his refusal to comply on the first order is usually reason enough for them to shoot."

          Again, in the absence of an imminent and substantial threat of bodily harm, there is no justification for lethal force even if the suspect is refusing to cooperate with verbal orders. That's what tasers and trained canines are for, and barring that, simply tackling the suspect. If simply running away from the police were justification for lethal force, we'd have a thousand police-fueled homicides on our hands every day. It just isn't justification and never has been.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by Grendol 8 years ago
            Your argument “Employment of lethal force is only justified when an officer fears for his safety or the safety of others and must be justified by an imminent and substantial threat of bodily harm. “ does not flow with the law. I refer you to the Oregon State Law on this. ORS Volume 4 chapter 161 sections 235 (1) &(2) and Section 239 (1)(a) (c) (e) where I believe I point out the specific applicable reasons they were justified under the law to use deadly force.
            235 (1) Preventing his escape. {Finicum gave an ultimatum that he be allowed to escape}
            235 (2) Defense of themselves for others (including fellow officers) who from their vantage point arrive at the judgment there is a threat. {Officers can shoot if they believe there is a threat, officers are permitted to make their own judgement call without input from others based upon their information, no conference meeting required}
            239 (1)(a) preventing his escape if the crime committed was a felony {The crime of armed occupation of federal property was committed and he wanted to escape}
            239 (1)(a) preventing his escape if he attempted to commit a felony involving the use or threatened imminent use of physical force against a person {preventing his escape from the arrest for the crime of the armed standoff where the imminent physical force was threatened. Note that no conviction is required for this determination of the felony. This is aside from his driving}
            239 (1)(c) Defending a fellow officer from the threatened imminent use of deadly physical force. {His dangerous driving was a threat. He did not comply or surrender and reached toward his waist twice.}
            239 (1)(e) The officers life or personal safety is endangered in the particular circumstances. {His dangerous driving was a threat. He did not comply or surrender and reached toward his waist twice.}

            Here is the Law as posted in Oregon https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bil...
            161.235 Use of physical force in making an arrest or in preventing an escape. Except as provided in ORS 161.239, a peace officer is justified in using physical force upon another person only when and to the extent that the peace officer reasonably believes it necessary:
            (1) To make an arrest or to prevent the escape from custody of an arrested person unless the peace officer knows that the arrest is unlawful; or
            (2) For self-defense or to defend a third person from what the peace officer reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of physical force while making or attempting to make an arrest or while preventing or attempting to prevent an escape. [1971 c.743 §27]

            161.239 Use of deadly physical force in making an arrest or in preventing an escape. (1) Notwithstanding the provisions of ORS 161.235, a peace officer may use deadly physical force only when the peace officer reasonably believes that:
            (a) The crime committed by the person was a felony or an attempt to commit a felony involving the use or threatened imminent use of physical force against a person; or
            (b) The crime committed by the person was kidnapping, arson, escape in the first degree, burglary in the first degree or any attempt to commit such a crime; or
            (c) Regardless of the particular offense which is the subject of the arrest or attempted escape, the use of deadly physical force is necessary to defend the peace officer or another person from the use or threatened imminent use of deadly physical force; or
            (d) The crime committed by the person was a felony or an attempt to commit a felony and under the totality of the circumstances existing at the time and place, the use of such force is necessary; or
            (e) The officer’s life or personal safety is endangered in the particular circumstances involved.
            (2) Nothing in subsection (1) of this section constitutes justification for reckless or criminally negligent conduct by a peace officer amounting to an offense against or with respect to innocent persons whom the peace officer is not seeking to arrest or retain in custody. [1971 c.743 §28]
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ 8 years ago
              And I would point you to this specific section of the very same code:

              161.215 Limitations on use of physical force in defense of a person. Notwithstanding ORS 161.209, a person is not justified in using physical force upon another person if:
              (1) With intent to cause physical injury or death to another person, the person provokes the use of unlawful physical force by that person; or
              (2) The person is the initial aggressor, except that the use of physical force upon another person under such circumstances is justifiable if the person withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to the other person the intent to do so, but the latter nevertheless continues or threatens to continue the use of unlawful physical force; or

              If I'm the defense lawyer, all I have to do is point out the fact that the entire confrontation was initiated and escalated by law enforcement in specific violation of 161.215 (2) and the case is over. Those initial two shots turned law enforcement into the "initial aggressor" and as such voided ANY AND ALL protections afforded under this code.

              I would further point out that in 161.239, there is a significant different between the employment of force and the employment of lethal force.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by Grendol 8 years ago
                Ahh, context is everything. I showed you the rules on law enforcement using force. you show the rule on a 'person' using force which means us non law enforcement people. Cops can kill where a 'person' cannot.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by freedomforall 8 years ago
                  Sure am glad to live in a free country where I am a criminal if I defend myself and the police (who are trained to shoot to kill before seeing a weapon and are very likely less intelligent and less able to make rational decisions) can legally kill me in the same conditions.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by $ 8 years ago
                  Feel free to be the defense attorney (on behalf of the police officers) then and explain away those initial two shots.

                  Here are a few more questions I would ask regarding 161.239:

                  1) Please explain under 161.239 (c) where there was a threatened imminent use of physical force that would justify you replying with lethal force.
                  2) Please explain under 161.239 (d) why you felt a use of deadly force was necessary.
                  3) Please explain how 161.239 (2) is inapplicable given those first two shots which struck the vehicle.

                  Yes, context IS everything. Lacking those two initial shots, one can make a case for officers acting within the bounds of their jurisdiction and judgement. Those two initial shots which struck Finicum's SUV however are a game-changer because they completely nullify officers' claims to immunity.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by DeanStriker 8 years ago
    I keep telling y'all, that when real "thinking" humans allow themselves to be governed (always by Force), Waco and Finicum and many other such are to be expected as "the norm".

    Self-defending of our each and every homestead is the only Gulch possible for however long we continue to be Ruled... by whom? Other humans!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 8 years ago
    The video doesn't show if LaVoy reached for a gun. But it shows after he was shot they didn't go and disarm him. If they thought he was trying to shoot them, why didn't they disarm him? Why didn't they try to get him medical attention? There were many shots at the car, even though no one did anything threatening. It seems like everything they did just escalated the situation instead of diffusing it. If they had said, "We have someone shot. We need you to secure the area before medics can come in. Please come out with your hands up," they probably would have complied.

    The police had the suspects surrounded. The police could have simply waited while everyone's adrenaline subsided. Even if the other suspects had been intent on fighting the police, with time they would get thirsty and want to use the bathroom, and this would work in the police's favor. Time was on the police's side.

    It is disgraceful on many levels.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jdg 8 years ago
    Just as in the Eric Garner case, if this badge thug walks, then the next potential victim has no alternative except to shoot first (and do the advance prep needed to make that possible).
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by DavidRawe 8 years ago
    Why hasnt anyone said anything about the agent that appears to be hit by the Finicum vehicle? That in itself is assult with a deadly weapon (vehicle). If someone tried to run me down i have a right to defend myself!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 8 years ago
      Did you notice where they placed the barricade? It was around a corner - there was only a split second for Finicum's SUV to decide on a course.

      I must also remind you that they were fleeing in fear of their lives. Their vehicle had already been hit twice by gunfire initiated by law enforcement. Does the right to defend one's self only extend to law enforcement?

      The last thing I would add is that they were not "aiming" for that individual. When you set up a roadblock, the intent is to physically stop the target vehicle while protecting the individuals at the roadblock. That agent was just stupid and ignored the rules of good sense - or he was intentionally trying to create a false argument. When you set up a roadblock, you have to prepare for someone to try to go around. This guy endangered himself by not staying behind protection.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by starznbarz 8 years ago
    I live in the swamp on a dead end dirt road on a property that is hard fenced and gated. If I have an issue with the law and I choose to comply instead of hunker and bunker - as the Hammonds did, If I asked any "help" that showed up to please leave and stay out of it -as the Hammonds did, if some of that help took over the park a couple miles away and were openly carrying weapons - as they were. If the LEO`s set up a roadblock on public right of way to stop a vehicle carrying armed "help" and the vehicle runs it, then a man known to carry in a shoulder rig gets out and reaches while being covered....why is anyone surprised they lit him up? As to the theory he was reaching because he was shot - I would need to see evidence of that, if true, it was murder, if not I would say he died of stupidity. As to the "ambush" theory, if it truly was designed as an ambush, none of us would ever know there was drone footage.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 8 years ago
      The Bundy's actions were in part understandable and in part not wanted. I believe there is a legitimate complaint against the Federal abuse of authority in these land cases and the protests - as ill-conceived as they may have been - were to attempt to expose this to the public and garner investigation and change. That being said, law enforcement did not stop a convoy "carrying help" - they stopped a convoy which had been specifically invited by the Sheriff of a neighboring county to address that county's citizens at a town hall-style meeting. Law enforcement had to invent a traffic violation to pull them over in the first place. (You can check, but no misdemeanor traffic violations were alleged against any member of the convoy.)

      The second item of sincere questionability is the presence of armed Federal officers at a roadblock for supposed "traffic violations". And not only armed, but with safeties off and fingers on triggers.

      The third is the fact that the vehicle carrying Finicum was fired upon during the first stop - minutes before he was ultimately killed. And there was not only no mention of that in the original police reports, but would represent a significant escalation in the situation caused by law enforcement.

      As to the drone footage, what I find interesting is that there should also be accompanying audio. The claim is that there were technical difficulties and no audio was working. This also leads me to question the absence of body cameras on the law enforcement personnel. Those cameras more than once have been used to justify an officer's actions. That neither the Oregon State Troopers nor the FBI were wearing them speaks volumes in my mind.

      There is also the fact that there isn't a single alleged incidence of a firearm being pulled or pointed at any law enforcement officer by any of the dozens of people in the convoy, but Ryan Bundy also ended up getting shot.

      Now I am normally a proponent of law enforcement, but there are far too many things about this case that don't sit right with me to simply blow it off as some lunatic committing suicide by cop. You are welcome to your own opinion on the matter, of course.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by CircuitGuy 8 years ago
        "Now I am normally a proponent of law enforcement"
        I am a proponent of the rule of law. If it works, then we don't judge people by membership in law enforcement, racial groups, etc. We just judge whether their actions are consistent with the law.

        If the law says it's okay to shoot at people who pose no threat, like the people in the car, there's something seriously wrong with out laws. IANAL, but I suspect it was illegal.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by starznbarz 8 years ago
        I have a great respect for the profession of law enforcement and an instinctive distrust of government in general - especially the last decade or so. When you are known to carry weapons publicly while occupying government property, you should not be surprised that when you leave sanctuary, you are now a legitimate candidate for being detained, running a roadblock doesnt help. My comments are based on two things, when a man with a gun on you says dont move, you cannot outdraw him and you don`t win by dying.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ 8 years ago
          You obviously hold to the narrative that he was going for a weapon. I do not. Others who saw the weapon the agents claim they took from Finicum's pocket say that it was not familiar to them, and they were around Finicum for days while he open-carried in a shoulder-holster.

          The other item which casts doubt on that claim was the Finicum was to be the spokesman at a town hall meeting in the next county to which their group had been invited by the Sheriff of that county to speak. Though some of the members of the party were armed, some claimed the because Finicum knew his role and they were not expecting any trouble that he left his weapon at the refuge before departing.

          I would also point out again that they did not flee the first roadblock until they were fired upon by law enforcement without provocation.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo