DescentBB

Spidey wrote:Assuming you were correct….doesn’t change the fact that you did exactly what you criticized somebody else for.

In the same post no less.

Perhaps. But I'm not trying to rile up a crazy base of militants bent on armed insurrection. But I was pretty close. It seems that Finicum took of from the cops in his truck when the whole group was stopped, then got it stuck in a snowbank while trying to get around yet another roadblock, then gets out and runs towards an armed FBI agent while putting his hand in his jacket pocket like he was trying for a gun. After the agent shot him, they found a loaded pistol in that pocket.

The FBI even released video footage of the whole incident.

The unedited 26 minute version.



The edited 8 minute version.



Edit: After finally getting to watch the whole video, the shooting starts at about the 6:20 minute point on the 8 minute video. It looks like Finicum gets out of his stuck truck and at first raises his hands. Then as the 2 cops approach him from the right and below, he suddenly starts turning around, puts his hands down and appears to put them into his pockets like he's reaching for something. At that point, one or both of the cops shoot him. Sad. He could have gone down on his knees, kept his hand up and surrendered peacefully, which it appears he didn't do. Live by the gun, die by the gun.

So I guess that means you were wrong about pointing a rifle at the cops…and see I was going to give you the benefit of the doubt.

And I would like to point out here, that the accusations of insurrection and terrorism are way off base, if you want proof…just look at what they are being charged with.

Has anyone confirmed he had a gun in his coat pockets?

woodchip wrote:Has anyone confirmed he had a gun in his coat pockets?

reported by law enforcement. Dunno if you consider that confirmation, but it was supposedly in the exact pocket he appeared to be reaching
for in the video. My nephew noted his body movement, as if he was turning his body to access something. Nephew was in the Army and notices
such things.

You'll have to link the confirmation. And the guy could of been accessing his handkerchief to blow his nose with.

I think if I had fifteen cops pointing guns at me, I would just let my nose run, and keep my hands up.

Crybaby sheriff.

heh.

You know what would have happened if the sheriff wasn't a 'crybaby'? It would have given this militia all the ammo they needed. It would have been their wildest dream come true because they would have been able to use it as propaganda and more would have come to their aid.

"see? SEE? the government REALLY hates ranchers!"

So, good on the sheriff for taking a hands-off approach.

Spidey wrote:I think if I had fifteen cops pointing guns at me, I would just let my nose run, and keep my hands up.

Seriously. There's no reasonable scenario in which a person who just tried to run a police roadblock and now has police pointing guns at them would do anything with their hands other than "on the head" or "balancing while preparing to lay face-down on the ground" and not expect to be shot. You don't reach for your hankie, you don't reach for a white flag, you put your hands in the least threatening position you can think of, or you get shot.

It's weird to me that people want to defend it. This is a guy who spent weeks occupying federal property, who was known to be armed, who had just run from the police... his hands should be nowhere near his pockets unless he wants shot.

Lothar wrote:... unless he wants shot.

There's no justification for putting his hands in his pockets. They were right to shoot whether or not he is/was found to have a gun in the pocket.

woodchip wrote:And the guy could of been accessing his handkerchief to blow his nose with.

Sure would have been a terribly foolish thing to get shot over...

here, by the way, is a short piece on Woody's 'crybaby sheriff'. [removed]
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/sherif ... li=BBnb7Kz

Sergeant Thorne wrote:

woodchip wrote:And the guy could of been accessing his handkerchief to blow his nose with.

Sure would have been a terribly foolish thing to get shot over...

Darwin award right there.

callmeslick wrote:here, by the way, is a short piece on Woody's 'crybaby sheriff'. [removed]
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/sherif ... li=BBnb7Kz

no one who served would even consider denigrating this man.

Spidey wrote:So I guess that means you were wrong about pointing a rifle at the cops…and see I was going to give you the benefit of the doubt.

And I would like to point out here, that the accusations of insurrection and terrorism are way off base, if you want proof…just look at what they are being charged with.

I only passed on what I heard reported. I didn't make it up. The early news about the shootout was pretty thin on facts until the final FBI video was released. As for Finicum's daughter saying her father was shot dead trying to surrender with his hands in the air was pretty inflammatory, especially since the video was released, was clearly not a true statement. It would be ample red meat for a group of anti-government militants just looking for justification to start a violent revolution.

So they aren't being charged with terrorism or insurrection. Big fat hairy deal. Heavily armed people taking over government property demanding things be done or else people will be shot is pretty close to being domestic terrorism frankly. In fact, the judge is so sure that Bundy will take over some other government property if released, that Bundy is not getting out on bail, yet. Plus, this whole mess is costing the State of Oregon and the Federal Government $60,000 dollars a day. These pricks have run up a bill of over a million and a half dollars that taxpayers will foot the bill for since this whole thing started. It's still climbing too since 4 of these idiots are still camped out in the refuge. Nice.

woodchip wrote:You'll have to link the confirmation. And the guy could of been accessing his handkerchief to blow his nose with.

What do you want, a picture of Finicum's dead body with his hand in his pocket holding a pistol? Kind of morbid isn't it woody? You'll have to go with the FBI's conformation that Finicum had a 9mm semiautomatic pistol in his jacket pocket. You should give the FBI a little credit too that they didn't start shooting at ALL the truck's occupants when it barreled into the snow trying to get past the roadblock. As it was, the truck almost slammed into one of the agents trying to dodge from being hit by the truck, which if you look closely, you can see in the video.

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/arc ... on/433899/

tunnelcat wrote:So they aren't being charged with terrorism or insurrection. Big fat hairy deal. Heavily armed people taking over government property demanding things be done or else people will be shot is pretty close to being domestic terrorism frankly.

Quote please.

Just because it is domestic terrorism doesn't mean the law they ultimately get charged and prosecuted under has to include "terrorism" in the title. Looking at what they were charged for, it seems the attorneys went through the book to look for the most appropriate charge to fit what these people actually did. Even if it is an old and seldom used law, it almost perfectly describes the crime without being as severe as a terrorism/treason/insurrection charge and it also apparently carries a lower burden of proof. Almost like the DA wants to get it over with quickly without generating even more fuss...

You asked Spidey.

http://m.ktvz.com/news/takeover-day-22- ... t/37604310

Those arrested during the traffic stop included brothers Ammon and Ryan Bundy, Brian Cavalier, Shawna Cox and Ryan Payne. The FBI said all face a federal felony charge of "conspiracy to impede officers of the United States from discharging their official duties through the use of force, intimidation or threats, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 372."

But then I ran into this site and found out the law they are being charged with violating has rarely been used and dates back to the Civil War. I was a law created when something illegal was done against the Federal Government that didn't quite fall under treason. Talk about digging into the past to charge these guys.

http://politicat.co/ammon-bundy-arreste ... l-war-law/

Yes tc, I already knew the charges, I wanted a quote from the protesters to the effect of what you claim.

These people were PROTESTING, not trying to start a war.

Spidey wrote:These people were PROTESTING, not trying to start a war.

I can see your point on this, but the difference here is they were armed with firearms instead of signs. So, it makes it a little more than just a protest.

Talk about digging into the past to charge these guys.

In this case TC, a precedent was set and past behaviour was considered. These were factors that had to be taken into account before charges were set.

Tunnelcat wrote:As it was, the truck almost slammed into one of the agents trying to dodge from being hit by the truck, which if you look closely, you can see in the video.

I re-watched that part a number of times. As strange as it seems, I'm pretty sure you see the agent dash toward the oncoming vehicle as it swings to the side from the almost cover of the FBI SUV. I don't know what would have been going through his mind, but it looked like an intentional 'block' to me. Maybe just trying to force them to veer further out into the snow? Would certainly take some balls if it were purposeful. It also looked like he was picking himself up after having been impacted at the end of it.

I think the use of the archaic charges were to avoid the more obvious charge of sedition, which could EASILY be prosecuted based upon their words and actions. That would have given more jail time.

I didn’t hear any talk about overthrowing the government, what I did hear was a lot of talk about joining their protest about some perceived wrong done by the government.

Yes, they broke the law by protesting while being armed, and were charged accordingly. Seems we don’t have any current laws for such a thing, so they had to dig up some old one. I think what they were charged with was quite appropriate, because they were armed to prevent the government from breaking up the protest, not to overthrow the government.

If you think the prosecution wants to go easy on them, that probably goes to the severity of the crimes committed, and the fact that nobody was terrorized and the government was never in any danger, and no people were hurt except somebody that seemed to want to die.

They took over an unoccupied building, that should by the first clue what was really going on there.

I really need to say here…I don’t support the actions of these idiots, but I also don’t support making something sound worse than it actually was.

I'm going to have to disagree, Spidey. Anyone not marching to the popular fife needs to be made an example of, demonized, and destroyed to preserve the self-image of the rest.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:As strange as it seems, I'm pretty sure you see the agent dash toward the oncoming vehicle as it swings to the side from the almost cover of the FBI SUV. I don't know what would have been going through his mind, but it looked like an intentional 'block' to me. Maybe just trying to force them to veer further out into the snow? Would certainly take some balls if it were purposeful. It also looked like he was picking himself up after having been impacted at the end of it.

I'm pretty sure it was a "damn, this guy is gonna run this road block and I probably shouldn't be standing behind the cars he's about to smash into, so I'm going to dive for this snow bank." And by the time the bandit veered into the snow, he was already committed.

Spidey wrote:I didn’t hear any talk about overthrowing the government, what I did hear was a lot of talk about joining their protest about some perceived wrong done by the government.

Yes, they broke the law by protesting while being armed, and were charged accordingly. Seems we don’t have any current laws for such a thing, so they had to dig up some old one. I think what they were charged with was quite appropriate, because they were armed to prevent the government from breaking up the protest, not to overthrow the government.

If you think the prosecution wants to go easy on them, that probably goes to the severity of the crimes committed, and the fact that nobody was terrorized and the government was never in any danger, and no people were hurt except somebody that seemed to want to die.

They took over an unoccupied building, that should by the first clue what was really going on there.

I really need to say here…I don’t support the actions of these idiots, but I also don’t support making something sound worse than it actually was.

Well, there was a rolling truck protest parade through the city of Burns yesterday with even more of these idiots coming in from outside the area. All these thugs are armed and daring the feds to shoot them if they try to force them out. The four who are still at the refuge are refusing to leave unless they get a promise of no arrests. The people of the city and the county are getting tired of this BS, yet still these militia guys won't just go home and save everyone the from all the disruption this "protest" is causing and the big costs we're all incurring.

This is not a protest Spidey, it's armed intimidation. Most of the student protests from the sixties, the protesters weren't armed with semiautomatic weapons and prepared to die. In fact, they wanted to not die in Vietnam. And what is this "cause" these morons are all willing to die for? The freedom to rip up the ground for minerals and to let their cows graze, trample and crap for free on public land that's set aside for everyone's use. And they called that Nazism in their little parade yesterday. They have no idea. Greedy, selfish bastards.

Vander wrote:

Sergeant Thorne wrote:As strange as it seems, I'm pretty sure you see the agent dash toward the oncoming vehicle as it swings to the side from the almost cover of the FBI SUV. I don't know what would have been going through his mind, but it looked like an intentional 'block' to me. Maybe just trying to force them to veer further out into the snow? Would certainly take some balls if it were purposeful. It also looked like he was picking himself up after having been impacted at the end of it.

I'm pretty sure it was a "damn, this guy is gonna run this road block and I probably shouldn't be standing behind the cars he's about to smash into, so I'm going to dive for this snow bank." And by the time the bandit veered into the snow, he was already committed.

You beat me to it Vander. That's what it appeared to me too, that the agent didn't want to get hit if the fleeing truck rammed one of the roadblock vehicles.

And you know something else? Those two officers surrounding Mr. Finicum were from our State Police, not from the FBI.

thank goodness it wasn't that 'horrible' sheriff that Woody despises.

What, the poor Harney County sheriff that shed a tear because of Finicum's death and that the City of Burns and Harney County has now has about half the population that has turned on the other? Woody should be happy that a sheriff actually cared about someone's life, even if that someone violated the law that resulted in his death and woody should be happy that a sheriff cares about the well being of his community.

nah, he just thinks the sheriff is a 'crybaby'. As you note, crying over the demise of the peaceful, civilized little community he returned from military service to help protect.

callmeslick wrote:As you note, crying over the demise of the peaceful, civilized little community he returned from military service to help protect.

That's the thing. No servicemember would ever dream of doing that. So that leaves two possibilities. He either lied about his service, or didn't serve in the first place.

the biggest thing that I took away from the page I linked to earlier is, there is definitely a possibility law enforcement was given information as to Finicum's movements and what he possibly had in his pocket.

well written summary of the whole Oregon occupation:
http://mtcowgirl.com/2016/01/30/guest-p ... be-tyrant/

Well written opinion.

Little short of facts, but nobody seems to give a ★■◆● about those anymore.

... She failed at "clowns", and then again at "Caucasian", and now let's talk down the AR-15s... It's convoluted and full of half-truths spouted from a popular but short-sighted soap box. I'm not impressed. It's not good to be overly opposed to the opinions and differences of others without a cause.

Other than the personal ideologue and tendency to assume, that opinion piece is pretty legit.

Ferno wrote:...that opinion piece is pretty legit.

I thought it was wonderful, poetic even. It captures some clear thinking about the subject.

Poetic? Hardly. I got turned off at the start when she exclaimed she wasn't there. Just another armchair pundit like any political pundit. Then she goes on to speculation with a, "maybe, but I doubt it" qualifier. Since she was not there how could she ever really know anything about the people involved. Her comment about AR-15s shows what a lame brain she is as the picture she posts is of a guy with a regular carbine, more than likely a Winchester lever action 30-30. I think the only reason some of you liked it is because she wrote what you wanted to hear.

He should have lost anybody with a brain, when he elevated a protest to a "revolution".

Spidey wrote:I didn’t hear any talk about overthrowing the government,

Ammon Bundy called for precisely that at the outset. It's a matter of public record.

Plus, Ammon Bundy doesn't even understand the definition of "well regulated militia" verses an armed group of lawless rebels. He and his group are not even regulated or sanctioned by the federal government as the Constitution dictates in the Second Amendment, like the National Guard. He hasn't got a leg to stand on, constitutionally speaking. The way he and his followers are going about it, what they're doing can be pretty much summed up as an armed revolt against our government and it's laws, which is just a continuation of the old Sagebrush Rebellion. Here's another couple of interesting histories:

http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/161861

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2 ... ican-west/