Militia standoff going on right now in Oregon!

[Javier730]

Javier says not having a criminal record doesn't mean you can't be a criminal.

Here is what I said. It is highlighted in red.

When you start saying you know it's obvious what someone was thinking by watching a video where he doesn't even speak you're far into the realm of speculation.

You can tell what a person is more than likely thinking based on their actions. Is it obvious he was thinking about stopping or fleeing? You said yourself even if he could get away where would he go and that he would be caught eventually. So why flee? Why even drive up to the road block? It obvious to me that he did not intend to stop and that he intended to get through.

If they were really that concerned about him speeding up into the road block they could have put up a warning sign and a speed strip to take out his tires well before he was a threat to the road block.

Warning signs at this point would be as effective as "No Guns Allowed" signs are to criminals and spike strips are dangerous. Here is what the FBI says on them.
https://leb.fbi.gov/2012/september/bull ... ike-strips

Based on the same information I come to the opposite conclusion. He was a family man in his 50s with no criminal record.You're assuming either than he didn't know the odds are slim to none or that he was stupid. I assume he was at least as well informed as I am. Since I know there is no percentage in running a road block I wouldn't do it. And for that reason I don't think it likely that is what he was trying to do either.

You dont have to have a criminal record to commit a crime. Before being arrested for committing a crime, first time offenders dont have criminal records. I be willing to bet most mass gunmen did not have criminal records before they committed their crimes.
I am assuming he didnt know the odds were not in favor of getting through. He must have known the odds of him getting away were slim, yet he still tried. So even if he did know about the slim chance of getting through the road block, just like fleeing, I believe he still tried. I see no evidence of him being fired on.

The only reason I said that you didn't have to have a criminal record to commit a crime was because you said Finicum was a family man with no criminal record. I understood that as you saying he would not break the law because that.

I am in no way in support of police killing people just because the they are armed like you tried to get across by putting what I said a sentence before mentioning the man killed by police at the Costco.

And as far as being armed is concerned...all of us here are likely to be armed. Javier says not having a criminal record doesn't mean you can't be a criminal. The police in Vegas shot a guy coming out of a Costco store who was a West Point grad and concealed carrier. The "he was armed" justification can be used against all of us, and the antis would love for just that to happen, and for any of us carrying a gun to be killed by the police. They're celebrating Funicum's death. They'll celebrate any of us being killed whether we deserve it or not.

Your bringing up a man being killed by police and making it seem like I'm okay with it. It is very insulting. Thats like me saying, "VMI77 says you can not commit a crime or be stupid if you do not have a criminal record. Adam Lanza killed 26 people in Sandy Hook Elementary. 20 of them were children. Adam Lanza did not have a criminal record." Doing that is not cool...

[mojo84]

The time and date stamp on the video was addressed in the FBI press release in the link I provided. That was brought up by Alex Jones in one of his Infowars conspiracy theories.

[parabelum]

Given the level of unprofessionalism by the "officers", breaking cover, jumping in front of the vehicle, exposing themselves to crossfire etc. I would not be surprised to learn these were BLM agents or some other stooges and NOT OSP or FBI. The way they handled this was so bad.

Shame on all of them for executing Patriot like an animal.

[jason812]

This is was not well thought out by both sides. Without audio, it is real easy to make conclusions about what he was doing with his hands. One possibility is he was reacting to getting shot. He was moving erratically.

Who jumps in front of a moving truck?

[Breny414]

This is was not well thought out by both sides. Without audio, it is real easy to make conclusions about what he was doing with his hands. One possibility is he was reacting to getting shot. He was moving erratically.

Who jumps in front of a moving truck?

I don't think he was intentionally jumping in front of the truck, he was more than likely moving out of the way of what he perceived to be the path of the truck. The truck swerved at the last instant.

[jerry_r60]

I read much of this thread...I saw a little discussion about claims the truck was full of holes etc. I wasn't sure at what point in time all that shooting was supposed to have taken place. Most of the focus in the thread has been on the shooting of the individual that was killed. There were a couple of other things I saw in the video that got my attention. It's hard to tell exactly what all of them are. I'm not trying to make any particular point one way or the other. Just trying to understand what I see.

For one, you can sometimes see what looks like red laser dots on some of the people getting out of the car. Just thought it was interesting and expected.

after the shooting, you see the driver door start to open and close a few times. Then at about 9:53 There is a flash right around the driver door. incoming/outgoing shot? something else? I was thinking outgoing shot when I first saw it.

10:00 Flash a couple yards away from passenger side. Looks like a shot but it's a few yards away from the truck and no one there. What's that?

10:21 White puffs of smoke or snow or glass on passenger side window.
10:47 again with the white puffs.

Not sure what all was going on.

[Javier730]

I read much of this thread...I saw a little discussion about claims the truck was full of holes etc. I wasn't sure at what point in time all that shooting was supposed to have taken place. Most of the focus in the thread has been on the shooting of the individual that was killed. There were a couple of other things I saw in the video that got my attention. It's hard to tell exactly what all of them are. I'm not trying to make any particular point one way or the other. Just trying to understand what I see.

For one, you can sometimes see what looks like red laser dots on some of the people getting out of the car. Just thought it was interesting and expected.

after the shooting, you see the driver door start to open and close a few times. Then at about 9:53 There is a flash right around the driver door. incoming/outgoing shot? something else? I was thinking outgoing shot when I first saw it.

10:00 Flash a couple yards away from passenger side. Looks like a shot but it's a few yards away from the truck and no one there. What's that?

10:21 White puffs of smoke or snow or glass on passenger side window.
10:47 again with the white puffs.

Not sure what all was going on.

Flash bangs and oc pellets

[VMI77]

Javier says not having a criminal record doesn't mean you can't be a criminal.

Here is what I said. It is highlighted in red.

When you start saying you know it's obvious what someone was thinking by watching a video where he doesn't even speak you're far into the realm of speculation.

You can tell what a person is more than likely thinking based on their actions. Is it obvious he was thinking about stopping or fleeing? You said yourself even if he could get away where would he go and that he would be caught eventually. So why flee? Why even drive up to the road block? It obvious to me that he did not intend to stop and that he intended to get through.

If they were really that concerned about him speeding up into the road block they could have put up a warning sign and a speed strip to take out his tires well before he was a threat to the road block.

Warning signs at this point would be as effective as "No Guns Allowed" signs are to criminals and spike strips are dangerous. Here is what the FBI says on them.
https://leb.fbi.gov/2012/september/bull ... ike-strips

Based on the same information I come to the opposite conclusion. He was a family man in his 50s with no criminal record.You're assuming either than he didn't know the odds are slim to none or that he was stupid. I assume he was at least as well informed as I am. Since I know there is no percentage in running a road block I wouldn't do it. And for that reason I don't think it likely that is what he was trying to do either.

You dont have to have a criminal record to commit a crime. Before being arrested for committing a crime, first time offenders dont have criminal records. I be willing to bet most mass gunmen did not have criminal records before they committed their crimes.
I am assuming he didnt know the odds were not in favor of getting through. He must have known the odds of him getting away were slim, yet he still tried. So even if he did know about the slim chance of getting through the road block, just like fleeing, I believe he still tried. I see no evidence of him being fired on.

The only reason I said that you didn't have to have a criminal record to commit a crime was because you said Finicum was a family man with no criminal record. I understood that as you saying he would not break the law because that.

I am in no way in support of police killing people just because the they are armed like you tried to get across by putting what I said a sentence before mentioning the man killed by police at the Costco.

And as far as being armed is concerned...all of us here are likely to be armed. Javier says not having a criminal record doesn't mean you can't be a criminal. The police in Vegas shot a guy coming out of a Costco store who was a West Point grad and concealed carrier. The "he was armed" justification can be used against all of us, and the antis would love for just that to happen, and for any of us carrying a gun to be killed by the police. They're celebrating Funicum's death. They'll celebrate any of us being killed whether we deserve it or not.

Your bringing up a man being killed by police and making it seem like I'm okay with it. It is very insulting. Thats like me saying, "VMI77 says you can not commit a crime or be stupid if you do not have a criminal record. Adam Lanza killed 26 people in Sandy Hook Elementary. 20 of them were children. Adam Lanza did not have a criminal record." Doing that is not cool...

I stand by this remark: "Javier says not having a criminal record doesn't mean you can't be a criminal." In fact, you used nearly the same words with the same meaning in a different order when you said: "You don't have to be a criminal to commit a crime."

I don't know how anyone can read the entirely of what I wrote and conclude something as ridiculous as that I said having no criminal record means a person will never break the law. Nor do I see how it can be interpreted as me saying that you support police killing people just because they are armed. Reread what I wrote....you even quoted some of it....it was a caution against letting our enemies use the notion that merely being armed is a justification for being shot. I'm addressing how the antis want just that to happen and celebrate it when it does.

When you slay me though is when you say it's insulting, and would be like you attributing to me the remark that someone cannot commit a crime or be stupid if they don't have a criminal record, after you actually just uttered nearly that very remark in the same response:

"The only reason I said that you didn't have to have a criminal record to commit a crime was because you said Finicum was a family man with no criminal record. I understood that as you saying he would not break the law because that."

So, since you did actually say that to me are you now saying you were trying to be insulting? I didn't take it as an insult.

I sometimes fail to make myself clear and say something that can reasonably be interpreted in a way I didn't intend. I don't think that's the case here. I made several comments along the same lines so there is plenty of context. Clearly, as I just pointed out, your reading of my remarks is a little haphazard when you are able to posit something as a hypothetical insult you could have made to me and that something turns out to be something you actually said.

[Javier730]

Javier says not having a criminal record doesn't mean you can't be a criminal.

Here is what I said. It is highlighted in red.

When you start saying you know it's obvious what someone was thinking by watching a video where he doesn't even speak you're far into the realm of speculation.

You can tell what a person is more than likely thinking based on their actions. Is it obvious he was thinking about stopping or fleeing? You said yourself even if he could get away where would he go and that he would be caught eventually. So why flee? Why even drive up to the road block? It obvious to me that he did not intend to stop and that he intended to get through.

If they were really that concerned about him speeding up into the road block they could have put up a warning sign and a speed strip to take out his tires well before he was a threat to the road block.

Warning signs at this point would be as effective as "No Guns Allowed" signs are to criminals and spike strips are dangerous. Here is what the FBI says on them.
https://leb.fbi.gov/2012/september/bull ... ike-strips

Based on the same information I come to the opposite conclusion. He was a family man in his 50s with no criminal record.You're assuming either than he didn't know the odds are slim to none or that he was stupid. I assume he was at least as well informed as I am. Since I know there is no percentage in running a road block I wouldn't do it. And for that reason I don't think it likely that is what he was trying to do either.

You dont have to have a criminal record to commit a crime. Before being arrested for committing a crime, first time offenders dont have criminal records. I be willing to bet most mass gunmen did not have criminal records before they committed their crimes.
I am assuming he didnt know the odds were not in favor of getting through. He must have known the odds of him getting away were slim, yet he still tried. So even if he did know about the slim chance of getting through the road block, just like fleeing, I believe he still tried. I see no evidence of him being fired on.

The only reason I said that you didn't have to have a criminal record to commit a crime was because you said Finicum was a family man with no criminal record. I understood that as you saying he would not break the law because that.

I am in no way in support of police killing people just because the they are armed like you tried to get across by putting what I said a sentence before mentioning the man killed by police at the Costco.

And as far as being armed is concerned...all of us here are likely to be armed. Javier says not having a criminal record doesn't mean you can't be a criminal. The police in Vegas shot a guy coming out of a Costco store who was a West Point grad and concealed carrier. The "he was armed" justification can be used against all of us, and the antis would love for just that to happen, and for any of us carrying a gun to be killed by the police. They're celebrating Funicum's death. They'll celebrate any of us being killed whether we deserve it or not.

Your bringing up a man being killed by police and making it seem like I'm okay with it. It is very insulting. Thats like me saying, "VMI77 says you can not commit a crime or be stupid if you do not have a criminal record. Adam Lanza killed 26 people in Sandy Hook Elementary. 20 of them were children. Adam Lanza did not have a criminal record." Doing that is not cool...

I stand by this remark: "Javier says not having a criminal record doesn't mean you can't be a criminal." In fact, you used nearly the same words with the same meaning in a different order when you said: "You don't have to be a criminal to commit a crime."

I don't know how anyone can read the entirely of what I wrote and conclude something as ridiculous as that I said having no criminal record means a person will never break the law. Nor do I see how it can be interpreted as me saying that you support police killing people just because they are armed. Reread what I wrote....you even quoted some of it....it was a caution against letting our enemies use the notion that merely being armed is a justification for being shot. I'm addressing how the antis want just that to happen and celebrate it when it does.

When you slay me though is when you say it's insulting, and would be like you attributing to me the remark that someone cannot commit a crime or be stupid if they don't have a criminal record, after you actually just uttered nearly that very remark in the same response:

"The only reason I said that you didn't have to have a criminal record to commit a crime was because you said Finicum was a family man with no criminal record. I understood that as you saying he would not break the law because that."

So, since you did actually say that to me are you now saying you were trying to be insulting? I didn't take it as an insult.

I sometimes fail to make myself clear and say something that can reasonably be interpreted in a way I didn't intend. I don't think that's the case here. I made several comments along the same lines so there is plenty of context. Clearly, as I just pointed out, your reading of my remarks is a little haphazard when you are able to posit something as a hypothetical insult you could have made to me and that something turns out to be something you actually said.

We obviously have different opinions about the evidence given. This thread is maybe being hijacked with our discussion. Since the thread is not just about you or my opinions, or our interpretation of the video, I see no reason to continue as I do not wish to have this thread locked because of our disagreement.

There is still many facts that will come out and can be discussed, no need to ruin that with a discussion that will have no positive outcome.

[Bryanmc]

Given the level of unprofessionalism by the "officers", breaking cover, jumping in front of the vehicle, exposing themselves to crossfire etc. I would not be surprised to learn these were BLM agents or some other stooges and NOT OSP or FBI. The way they handled this was so bad.

Actually, from what I've read from the press releases they were OSP. As someone who worked side by side with several BLM Special Agents and LEOs throughout the course of my career, I can only wonder what experience you have to refer to them as "stooges".

[parabelum]

Given the level of unprofessionalism by the "officers", breaking cover, jumping in front of the vehicle, exposing themselves to crossfire etc. I would not be surprised to learn these were BLM agents or some other stooges and NOT OSP or FBI. The way they handled this was so bad.

Actually, from what I've read from the press releases they were OSP. As someone who worked side by side with several BLM Special Agents and LEOs throughout the course of my career, I can only wonder what experience you have to refer to them as "stooges".

Please take time to read through all posts on this topic, on this and other sites, as well as countless discrepancies noted.

I'm done with this until I see more evidence, for now I stand firmly by what I've said.

[Bryanmc]

I really don't need to read all the posts to respond to yours. The FBI press release says the shooter was OSP. Likely the others in the immediate area were as well. My question to you was how much work have you done with BLM law enforcement to qualify you to refer to them as "stooges". That's a direct question without a requirement to reference whatever flotsam is circulating on the internet. I'm guessing none, but you're welcome to enlighten me.

[parabelum]

Sir, respectfully, given our current administration and the well documented list of recently botched operations by our federal alphabet soup agencies, I have a very low confidence in the accuracy of anything that they put out.

I'm not going to play the argument diversion game with you.

This forum is opinion based, and I stated exactly that, my opinion.

Now, please feel free to educate those of us who are outsiders to the federal LE on this topic. I really would like to know more about why this man was executed like this, why these officers broke cover, exposed themselves to crossfire, let the man bleed out for 10 minutes before they checked on him (they certainly didn't appear worried about the occupants of the vehicle as they broke their cover) etc.
I'm genuinely trying to make sense of this.

I respect and thank you for your service,however.

Welcome to the forum!

[Bryanmc]

I won't engage you in debate, I merely asked you to support a statement you made. You are unwilling to do that and that's ok with me. Just don't expect me to think your opinion is credible.

[Surgeon]

For what it's worth, there is an enhanced video circulating the seems to indicate that the reason he was reaching for his side was because he was shot, then points at the shooter, then is shot in the back, then the head. The first shooter was hidden and to the lower right, almost out of frame near the vehicles. He shoots, then retreats behind the vehicles. The second shooter is behind him and to his left. And then he goes down. Then the head shot.
Considering this analysis...it makes sense as to why he grabbed the side where he was shot. But make your own determination.