150 Terrorists invade Oregon

[Avery]

OK, you are much more in line with JEJ and myself actually on this. I recently commented about all the 180s I saw on this specific case as compared to some of the high profile cases where a black man was killed. I have actually seen it both ways. Those that defend the black men, no matter the specifics, have been justifying this guys death. Some happily. And those that condemn all the black men killed in said cases, no matter what, have been saying it's murder and execution in this one.

Sad to see.

Either way, he's needlessly dead. The Bundy's didn't want any violence to occur as it hurts their positioning to the general public of being taken seriously and not as a fringe/militia group (doesn't help that those still at the refuge are just anti-government extremists vs. those who are actually looking to change a law). The feds didn't want anyone killed as it speaks to Ruby Ridge/Waco and other situations where violence occurred and tactics were panned. Shooting someone was the last thing they wanted to do, but the state police had no choice once hands go back inside pockets.

In the end, nothing will change. Those charged will serve their time and pay their fines. The government will continue to be mistrusted.

Rinse and repeat, time marches on.

 

[Red]

I have watched the FBI aerial video, as well as the witness statement of the female occupant of Finicum's truck. He did indeed have his arms up. And he was not charging. The female's account seems accurate as far as it goes. But it does not go far enough. Because he does seem to be reaching toward his jacket when he was shot. And the FBI spokesman stated where Finicum was reaching was exactly where he was carrying a revolver. That is the wrong movement to be making at that moment in time. I don't expect the cops to be exercising restraint at that very moment. I don't think their orders are "wait until he fires a weapon at you".

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-oregon-militia-fbi-idUSKCN0V71T7

All that said, I can see differing interpretations emerging from that very grainy video.

 

[Red]

Here's 500% zoom and slow motion.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YiuIN...QQrhWmBhIAx5rOrLWA3-myrwh0P4f0OSz6oqBkguBNdJQ

Watched this quite a few times, and here's what I think I saw. At the 300% zoom setting, and slow motion, at about the 32 second mark, he begins to move his right arm toward the left side of his jacket. At the 38 second mark, his arm seems to be at the left side of his body and his body seems to buckle forward momentarily. I think he may have been shot at that point by the cop on the right side. Can't see his right arm when he turns toward the officer to the left, but it looks like it must be reached over toward his left pocket there as well, and he's shot again.

 

[♪alt13]

Here's 500% zoom and slow motion.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YiuIN...QQrhWmBhIAx5rOrLWA3-myrwh0P4f0OSz6oqBkguBNdJQ

Looks to me that this dude was ready to go down in a hail of bullets. He looks like he is reaching for a gun. Even if he wasn't it appears that way and the cops had good reason to believe he might. This dude was probably a decent guy and the cops probably are too. It is what it is.

 

[fishonjazz]

Law enforcement will shoot every time someone is told to keep their hands up and they instead put their hands in their pocket/jacket - ask any cop and they'll tell you that.

Combined with his statements at the refuge as well as a book he wrote detailing an exchange in which the protagonist shoots and kills agents in a shootout, yeah, deadly force would have been authorized. If a black person would have ran from cops in Chicago, ran their car off the road and did this same thing, nobody would be talking about his being murdered or assassinated or any such nonsense. And you know it's true.

I disagree.
If that dude who got shot would have been black then there would be way more media and uproar about it. Riots in the streets would be happening, black folks would be looting their own communities, protests would be going on, etc etc

 

[gandalfe]

Those charged will serve their time and pay their fines.

Unlike, say, their leader's father, who owes over $1,000,000 in fines?

 

[Stoked]

Not sure how it is where everyone else is but I'd say as high as 80-85% of the people I hear talking about this are pissed. It is a very hot topic here. People going out and buying guns, ammo, body armor, camo, boots... The feeling is very strong that this was a planned murder of Finnicum by the Feds. People are extremely pissed.

This isn't isn't over. This episode might be over but it'll come back. Just wait and see.

 

[Stoked]

In fact the PPN (an alliance of north western militias) has called for as many people as possible to assemble in Burns, OR.

 

[Miggs]

I disagree.
If that dude who got shot would have been black then there would be way more media and uproar about it. Riots in the streets would be happening, black folks would be looting their own communities, protests would be going on, etc etc

And jimmyeatjazz would say the police acted unjust.

 

[Avery]

Not sure how it is where everyone else is but I'd say as high as 80-85% of the people I hear talking about this are pissed. It is a very hot topic here. People going out and buying guns, ammo, body armor, camo, boots... The feeling is very strong that this was a planned murder of Finnicum by the Feds. People are extremely pissed.

This isn't isn't over. This episode might be over but it'll come back. Just wait and see.

To me, this shows precisely at how divided people can be based on ideals and beliefs. It's why these folks are up in arms about this yet watched the Tamir Rice video and thought it was justified. It's hard to overcome racism and stereotypes in our country as they'll always exist to some degree.

Personally, I think the shooting was justified based on his defiance to follow orders as well as repeated motions towards his coat. I don't think Lavoy had any intention of shooting anyone as that would have destroyed their cause, but I do think he was making those motions in order to get shot. I think in his eyes, dying was the best way to further the movement.

As for me, I've always taken the stance that law enforcement has a tough job and has to make split second decisions that can change lives. Just as with the Rice shooting, when you see someone reach into their waistband/coat after directly ignoring orders to put their hands up, that's probable cause to use lethal force. It doesn't matter if it's a replica gun, a cell phone or nothing at all, it's the movement that's the problem.

It's the exact reason why most police shootings end up as not being prosecuted and is the exact reason why this particular shooting will follow suit.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

If a get into a confrontation with a cop and he orders you to put your hands up do not reach toward your pocket or you will get shot, regardless of the color of your skin. End of story.

 

[Red]

Not sure how it is where everyone else is but I'd say as high as 80-85% of the people I hear talking about this are pissed. It is a very hot topic here. People going out and buying guns, ammo, body armor, camo, boots... The feeling is very strong that this was a planned murder of Finnicum by the Feds. People are extremely pissed.

This isn't isn't over. This episode might be over but it'll come back. Just wait and see.

That's a shame. I imagine, sooner or later, something even worse will happen, and it's a shame. It just seems like the anti-federal movement has supporters that are actually sick with paranoid delusions. Like at least one of the guys remaining, who urged people to kill police and armed forces that get in their way. The level of rage and paranoia he displayed is not normal. I'm sure there are reasonable gripes and sane people in the movement, but with the militia groups in particular, I just think they are living in an alternate reality.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...ca4cd6-c6fb-11e5-8965-0607e0e265ce_story.html

"“It was an assassination,” said Monte Siegner, 79, a Harney County resident at the protest who was holding a sign that said, “Ambushed and assassinated.”

“He had his hands up,” Siegner said. “He didn’t have a gun in his hands, and he wasn’t threatening no one.”

People see what they want to see. So, am I guilty of just that if I say I saw a man reaching for where he might have a weapon, knowing already that he likely had a weapon?

"“They were ambushed in that canyon,” Soper said. “There’s no doubt about it. It was planned, it was premeditated. The FBI has lied to us from the get go, and we’re tired of it. They said they wanted a peaceful resolution, there was never an attempt to negotiate, and now a man’s dead.”

He said protests would continue daily “until some sense of reason is reestablished here.”

People believe what they want to believe. So, if Finicum does not flee the scene and runs a roadblock, but instead remains in his vehicle at the original stop point, what, an agent walks up and blows him away? I seriously doubt it. He brought on his own death. The question of whether law enforcement shoots too quickly is another question altogether. Sit in the car, and he's still alive today.

 

[Stoked]

In fact here is a potential 3rd? 4th? 8th? act... Burns, OR was just one more fight in a ongoing war/fued/rebellion/whatever you want to call it.

https://www.ktre.com/story/30916489/blm-land-grab-2016

It is already starting to make the rounds of people opposed to the BLM. I have seen and heard people talking about TX now. People that were in the standoff in NV. I am not in said circles but I know several people that are.

In this case it looks like local LEOs and some local and national legislators are on the side of the ranchers opposed to the BLM. I wonder when/if one of the ranchers puts out the call of milita members.

It is only a matter of time before a group of milita members and federal agents end up in a firefight. They narrowly avoided one in NV and now a militiaman is dead in OR. Inch by inch toward that cliff.

 

[babe]

In fact here is a potential 3rd? 4th? 8th? act... Burns, OR was just one more fight in a ongoing war/fued/rebellion/whatever you want to call it.

https://www.ktre.com/story/30916489/blm-land-grab-2016

It is already starting to make the rounds of people opposed to the BLM. I have seen and heard people talking about TX now. People that were in the standoff in NV. I am not in said circles but I know several people that are.

In this case it looks like local LEOs and some local and national legislators are on the side of the ranchers opposed to the BLM. I wonder when/if one of the ranchers puts out the call of milita members.

It is only a matter of time before a group of milita members and federal agents end up in a firefight. They narrowly avoided one in NV and now a militiaman is dead in OR. Inch by inch toward that cliff.

I hate to see people talking like this. I know a lot of ranchers, and none like this. I'd think about it a little if I ran into anyone who seemed to want to pump this issue, from the ranchers' side or from the government side.

There is no need for any violence. We have courts, and we have politicians interested in changing some things towards the concerns the ranchers have. People who go off like this Bundy bunch are imo nutjobs, just as much as extremists of any other color who want to pump blood into their politics.

The man who was shot, so far as I could see in the video, had no weapon. Wasn't he already wanted on other charges with an arrest warrant, or did I miss something? I don't think he fits the profile of decent concerned American, and maybe was a verbal blowhard, and I'd question if he was under some kind of influence aside from being a concerned rancher or American citizen. Why was he the only one to get out of the stopped vehicle, anyway? Everyone else was doing what they were supposed to do when stopped by the police. I think he was also the driver who pulled away and forced the roadblock. I bet we will just not know any of the answers to these kinds of questions because nobody in the media is looking at it with those kinds of questions.

 

[Stoked]

I hate to see people talking like this. I know a lot of ranchers, and none like this. I'd think about it a little if I ran into anyone who seemed to want to pump this issue, from the ranchers' side or from the government side.

There is no need for any violence. We have courts, and we have politicians interested in changing some things towards the concerns the ranchers have. People who go off like this Bundy bunch are imo nutjobs, just as much as extremists of any other color who want to pump blood into their politics.

The man who was shot, so far as I could see in the video, had no weapon. Wasn't he already wanted on other charges with an arrest warrant, or did I miss something? I don't think he fits the profile of decent concerned American, and maybe was a verbal blowhard, and I'd question if he was under some kind of influence aside from being a concerned rancher or American citizen. Why was he the only one to get out of the stopped vehicle, anyway? Everyone else was doing what they were supposed to do when stopped by the police. I think he was also the driver who pulled away and forced the roadblock. I bet we will just not know any of the answers to these kinds of questions because nobody in the media is looking at it with those kinds of questions.

I'm not embracing the violence or even calling for it. It'll end badly if it happens. I'm just giving some thoughts on the issue based on what I'm hearing day to day.

 

[BabyPeterzz]

I've come around a little bit on this issue. While the protesters may not be the sharpest tools in the shed, they are starting a very important conversation about public lands, states rights, and federal rights. Not everyone is a legal/civic genius. These issues are complex and getting the federal government to move is like pushing a boulder uphill. Unfortunately someone died, that didn't have to happen and I fault the protesters for their lack of foresight and consistent escalation through threats of violence and illegal acts. When you juxtapose the approach of BLM, and the entire Civil Rights Movement for that matter, we're seeing the difference between violent and non-violent protest. Personally, I like the non-violent route, but I digress.....

Like I mentioned earlier in this thread, one issue I'm looking forward to addressing is individual/states rights to public lands which belong to the entire country. While I'm a states rights fan, I think this issue is not so clear. I believe public lands belong to everyone and should be protected for everyone. Not just those who stand to gain financially, whether that be ranchers or energy interests. I hope this opens the conversation about the importance of federal protections and address required changes to meet current challenges.

 

[babe]

I've come around a little bit on this issue. While the protesters may not be the sharpest tools in the shed, they are starting a very important conversation about public lands, states rights, and federal rights. Not everyone is a legal/civic genius. These issues are complex and getting the federal government to move is like pushing a boulder uphill. Unfortunately someone died, that didn't have to happen and I fault the protesters for their lack of foresight and consistent escalation through threats of violence and illegal acts. When you juxtapose the approach of BLM, and the entire Civil Rights Movement for that matter, we're seeing the difference between violent and non-violent protest. Personally, I like the non-violent route, but I digress.....

Like I mentioned earlier in this thread, one issue I'm looking forward to addressing is individual/states rights to public lands which belong to the entire country. While I'm a states rights fan, I think this issue is not so clear. I believe public lands belong to everyone and should be protected for everyone. Not just those who stand to gain financially, whether that be ranchers or energy interests. I hope this opens the conversation about the importance of federal protections and address required changes to meet current challenges.

For starters, I like the freedom to walk out there somewhere and be my own person. I think that "Managers" will continue to restrict that access. A grazing right does not impair that "freedom" much. The cows spread out, eat stuff, and dump the seeds in a pile of fertilizer. If you just don't overgraze, the land becomes more abundant in the stuff the cows eat. Pretty sure it works the same for birds, rabbits, deer, etc. If the cows don't use it, you get a succession of more rabbits, more coyotes, more deer and antelope and more courgars. And, oh, did I mention mice and snakes.

I used to think we overgrazed the land, and I think I was right then, but nowadays not so much.

grazing, mining, lumber and other uses can be applied for, and permits or outright property interests given, with covenants restricting abuses and ensuring maximum access for visitors like hikers or tourists. I think local folks might do more to encourage tourism than even the National Park Service, and less to restrict access, while actually achieving more conservation of all the values present. Locals care more, and will likely prove more responsible, imo.

Private ownership also does not totally or necessarily mean loss of access if there are covenants in the title and subject to zoning authorities and conservation authorities.

 

[BabyPeterzz]

For starters, I like the freedom to walk out there somewhere and be my own person. I think that "Managers" will continue to restrict that access. A grazing right does not impair that "freedom" much. The cows spread out, eat stuff, and dump the seeds in a pile of fertilizer. If you just don't overgraze, the land becomes more abundant in the stuff the cows eat. Pretty sure it works the same for birds, rabbits, deer, etc. If the cows don't use it, you get a succession of more rabbits, more coyotes, more deer and antelope and more courgars. And, oh, did I mention mice and snakes.

I used to think we overgrazed the land, and I think I was right then, but nowadays not so much.

grazing, mining, lumber and other uses can be applied for, and permits or outright property interests given, with covenants restricting abuses and ensuring maximum access for visitors like hikers or tourists. I think local folks might do more to encourage tourism than even the National Park Service, and less to restrict access, while actually achieving more conservation of all the values present. Locals care more, and will likely prove more responsible, imo.

We're seeing this play out in Utah as we type, and our state legislature is looking to sell the farm for short term energy extraction (fracking). Our local state reps have no interest in preserving Utah's most precious resource, i.e. our wilderness. I'm so happy the feds are overseeing these places and protecting them all of us that care.

Private ownership also does not totally or necessarily mean loss of access if there are covenants in the title and subject to zoning authorities and conservation authorities.[/QUOTE]

Totally agree. But I'm of the opinion that wilderness land conservation is a long game, and the free market unchecked will ultimately revert back to focusing on short term gain. Again, we need to take a closer look at policy and adjust it to fit current and future needs. More private access, with specific use in mind, is one of those things.

 

[babe]

We're seeing this play out in Utah as we type, and our state legislature is looking to sell the farm for short term energy extraction (fracking). Our local state reps have no interest in preserving Utah's most precious resource, i.e. our wilderness. I'm so happy the feds are overseeing these places and protecting them all of us that care.

Private ownership also does not totally or necessarily mean loss of access if there are covenants in the title and subject to zoning authorities and conservation authorities.

Totally agree. But I'm of the opinion that wilderness land conservation is a long game, and the free market unchecked will ultimately revert back to focusing on short term gain. Again, we need to take a closer look at policy and adjust it to fit current and future needs. More private access, with specific use in mind, is one of those things.[/QUOTE]

I totally agree.

It's easy to tar and feather selective offenders while letting the real big players go free. We don't do anything to Harry Reid while we run John Swallow out on a rail for a deal that involved payola to Reid.

But I think wilderness and "monument" designations are presently being used to benefit cartel interests by shutting down competition selectively. In some future "emergency" the Kaiparowits coal will be developed by the Rockefeller cartel interests, and we'll all be cheering because it means some more oil and gas and electricity and heat, and a lot of local jobs. Nobody in Congress will even whimper about passing the emergency authority.

Same thing with oil and minerals.

The Rockefeller genius consists of two cardinal principles of Monopoly: "Restrict Supply", and "Use Theirs First". Genius really, absolute genius. When the Mideast and the rest of the world runs out of fossil fuels, we'll still be No. 1.

Too bad about another hundred years of dependence for us little folks. . . .

 

[Red]

I've come around a little bit on this issue. While the protesters may not be the sharpest tools in the shed, they are starting a very important conversation about public lands, states rights, and federal rights. Not everyone is a legal/civic genius. These issues are complex and getting the federal government to move is like pushing a boulder uphill. Unfortunately someone died, that didn't have to happen and I fault the protesters for their lack of foresight and consistent escalation through threats of violence and illegal acts. When you juxtapose the approach of BLM, and the entire Civil Rights Movement for that matter, we're seeing the difference between violent and non-violent protest. Personally, I like the non-violent route, but I digress.....

Like I mentioned earlier in this thread, one issue I'm looking forward to addressing is individual/states rights to public lands which belong to the entire country. While I'm a states rights fan, I think this issue is not so clear. I believe public lands belong to everyone and should be protected for everyone. Not just those who stand to gain financially, whether that be ranchers or energy interests. I hope this opens the conversation about the importance of federal protections and address required changes to meet current challenges.

I too believe public lands are best managed by the federal government, and not the states. The public lands belong to all of us. The occupiers, as far as my point of view is concerned, do not have the right to take those public lands away from all of us. Once in state hands, far easier to exploit by loggers, miners, ranchers. I fully admit, living as I do in the Boston-Washington megalopolis corridor, that it's easy for me to say "leave our Western wilderness lands alone". But I really see this effort to remove federal lands from federal control as an effort to privatize our public lands. Again, I live in the urbanized East, but I still feel those lands are not for the locals out there to just take and use as they wish. To me, that would be the worse possible outcome. They will no longer be a national treasure if that happens. Personal self interest will see to it that these public lands will be exploited for personal self interest.