Militia standoff going on right now in Oregon!

[mojo84]

Here is another good article that provides conflicting info.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/co ... -by-police

Like I said previously, it "appears" to me he was reaching for something. I made no definitive conclusions. You appear to be the one that has though.

Based on your comments, I guess all roadblocks of people that have been breaking the law are "ambushes".

There is no one on here harder oncops when are obviously in the wrong than me. I have even been erroneously accused of being anticop. In this instance, we have people that have been breaking the law, wouldn't stop for the cops so a roadblock was set up and it APPEARS the guy was shot after reaching for something on the left side of his body. I believe based on these three things and if one objectively looks at this, it APPEARS the shooting MAY have been justified.

Soccerdad, I fully understand who we are talking about. Do you understand we are talking about armed peoplofficehave been illegally occupying a government office and didn't stop for the police like the other vehicle did? Haven't we discussed on here before that a charging vehicle is a deadly threat. A vehicle not stopping at a road block MAY be justification to shoot.

Have we all become so jaded and cynical we just can't objectively evaluate what we see?

[Javier730]

I appreciate your response but I do think we need to look at this stuff objectively and not through the tainted lens that the cops are always wrong and there's a big conspiracy and cover-up behind every event.

We are talking about a government agency that has been shown to be dishonest in the past. When dealing with a known liar, it is not biased or tainted to assume that they might be lying yet again. It is logical.

Alot of police officers have been caught lying, that does not mean you can call the entire agency liars everytime they speak.

[VMI77]

As he approaches the blockade, Mr. Finicum clearly swerves to the left to avoid colliding with the patrol units.

His brake pedal would of worked better at avoiding the collision.

The road looked a bit icy.

The vehicles not being in the road would have worked even better at avoiding a collision.

As he approaches the blockade, Mr. Finicum clearly swerves to the left to avoid colliding with the patrol units.

His brake pedal would of worked better at avoiding the collision.

Oh come on....they were ambushed...they set up the roadblock around a curve, in conditions of ice and snow. Brakes often don't work too well in those conditions.

I can see him take the last bend on the road and I appears he noticed the vehicles on the road at about 9:01. That is when you can see his brake lights come on. He taps his brakes a few times between 9:01-9:05. He then rides the brake from 9:12 and on as he hits the snow. If the road was a bit too icy for his brakes to work, he had plenty of time to pull into the snow and it didnt have to be right in front of the road block.

Yes its true there would be no collision had there not been vehicles blocking the road, but the fact is there was vehicles on the road and those vehicles were legally placed there by LEOs. Not trying to get through police who are obviously blocking the road would have been the best choice. I dont believe he intended on stopping. I believe he was going to avoid the road block and try to get away.

Have you ever driven on ice and snow in a place where there is a lot of it? I used to live in the NE....you have a very unrealistic view of how easy it is to control a vehicle going as fast as that one under those conditions.

I'm maybe a little more concerned with morality than legality. Lot's of things are legal that are wrong and being legal doesn't make them right. They could have put that roadblock up anywhere and they CHOSE to place it around a curve in conditions of ice and snow.

Your contention that he intended to avoid the road block and get away tells me you've never driven in deep snow. There is no way he could have avoided that roadblock without getting bogged down in deep snow. Even if his truck could have made it through the snow it would have been at something like a walking pace. But even if he did...so what? Get away to where? So they arrest him ten minutes later and have something else to charge him with. What's your point?

[mojo84]

As he approaches the blockade, Mr. Finicum clearly swerves to the left to avoid colliding with the patrol units.

His brake pedal would of worked better at avoiding the collision.

The road looked a bit icy.

The vehicles not being in the road would have worked even better at avoiding a collision.

As he approaches the blockade, Mr. Finicum clearly swerves to the left to avoid colliding with the patrol units.

His brake pedal would of worked better at avoiding the collision.

Oh come on....they were ambushed...they set up the roadblock around a curve, in conditions of ice and snow. Brakes often don't work too well in those conditions.

I can see him take the last bend on the road and I appears he noticed the vehicles on the road at about 9:01. That is when you can see his brake lights come on. He taps his brakes a few times between 9:01-9:05. He then rides the brake from 9:12 and on as he hits the snow. If the road was a bit too icy for his brakes to work, he had plenty of time to pull into the snow and it didnt have to be right in front of the road block.

Yes its true there would be no collision had there not been vehicles blocking the road, but the fact is there was vehicles on the road and those vehicles were legally placed there by LEOs. Not trying to get through police who are obviously blocking the road would have been the best choice. I dont believe he intended on stopping. I believe he was going to avoid the road block and try to get away.

Have you ever driven on ice and snow in a place where there is a lot of it? I used to live in the NE....you have a very unrealistic view of how easy it is to control a vehicle going as fast as that one under those conditions.

I'm maybe a little more concerned with morality than legality. Lot's of things are legal that are wrong and being legal doesn't make them right. They could have put that roadblock up anywhere and they CHOSE to place it around a curve in conditions of ice and snow.

Your contention that he intended to avoid the road block and get away tells me you've never driven in deep snow. There is no way he could have avoided that roadblock without getting bogged down in deep snow. Even if his truck could have made it through the snow it would have been at something like a walking pace. But even if he did...so what? Get away to where? So they arrest him ten minutes later and have something else to charge him with. What's your point?

Maybe they shouldn't have going that fast in the first place. Why were they?

[VMI77]

I appreciate your response but I do think we need to look at this stuff objectively and not through the tainted lens that the cops are always wrong and there's a big conspiracy and cover-up behind every event.

We are talking about a government agency that has been shown to be dishonest in the past. When dealing with a known liar, it is not biased or tainted to assume that they might be lying yet again. It is logical.

Alot of police officers have been caught lying, that does not mean you can call the entire agency liars everytime they speak.

Apples and oranges. I didn't say FBI agents have lied I said THE FBI has been caught lying. These were not cases where an individual agent lied about something, or several agents lied, but cases where the leadership of the FBI lied, making it an INSTITUTIONAL lie. So yes, any OFFICIAL claim is therefore questionable, based as soccerdad said, on simple logic.

Edited to add:

I misspoke in my first attempt at a reply. Your response about calling an entire agency liars based on one member lying is a strawman to begin with. Who has called an entire agency liars because one officer lied? I don't consider all members of an agency to be liars even if one member lies and that lie is countenanced and repeated by the agency leadership. However, if the leadership lies the institution is dishonest, whether individual members of that institution are or not.

Furthermore, no one in this forum, at least since I've been posted, has ever said the cops are always wrong and there is always a conspiracy (strawman word) and cover-up behind every event. Some of the incidents that have been discussed here where police have shot someone are unequivocally justified. Some may not be unequivocal, but also don't appear to be questionable, and I don't see anyone saying the cops are wrong and covering-up on those either.

The fact is that at times LE does lie, both at the individual level and at the institutional level. It's illogical to assume LE always tells the truth after they have been caught lying even once. Logically, you follow the evidence. If evidence supports the claims then there is no question.

[VMI77]

As he approaches the blockade, Mr. Finicum clearly swerves to the left to avoid colliding with the patrol units.

His brake pedal would of worked better at avoiding the collision.

The road looked a bit icy.

The vehicles not being in the road would have worked even better at avoiding a collision.

As he approaches the blockade, Mr. Finicum clearly swerves to the left to avoid colliding with the patrol units.

His brake pedal would of worked better at avoiding the collision.

Oh come on....they were ambushed...they set up the roadblock around a curve, in conditions of ice and snow. Brakes often don't work too well in those conditions.

I can see him take the last bend on the road and I appears he noticed the vehicles on the road at about 9:01. That is when you can see his brake lights come on. He taps his brakes a few times between 9:01-9:05. He then rides the brake from 9:12 and on as he hits the snow. If the road was a bit too icy for his brakes to work, he had plenty of time to pull into the snow and it didnt have to be right in front of the road block.

Yes its true there would be no collision had there not been vehicles blocking the road, but the fact is there was vehicles on the road and those vehicles were legally placed there by LEOs. Not trying to get through police who are obviously blocking the road would have been the best choice. I dont believe he intended on stopping. I believe he was going to avoid the road block and try to get away.

Have you ever driven on ice and snow in a place where there is a lot of it? I used to live in the NE....you have a very unrealistic view of how easy it is to control a vehicle going as fast as that one under those conditions.

I'm maybe a little more concerned with morality than legality. Lot's of things are legal that are wrong and being legal doesn't make them right. They could have put that roadblock up anywhere and they CHOSE to place it around a curve in conditions of ice and snow.

Your contention that he intended to avoid the road block and get away tells me you've never driven in deep snow. There is no way he could have avoided that roadblock without getting bogged down in deep snow. Even if his truck could have made it through the snow it would have been at something like a walking pace. But even if he did...so what? Get away to where? So they arrest him ten minutes later and have something else to charge him with. What's your point?

Maybe they shouldn't have going that fast in the first place. Why were they?

I don't know. I've read that they were fleeing after being shot at previously. I have no idea if that's true or if not, what the reason might be. Frankly, I found their speed in the video a little surprising. Maybe they were just driving the speed limit? I have no idea.

How did Ryan Bundy get shot?

[mojo84]

As he approaches the blockade, Mr. Finicum clearly swerves to the left to avoid colliding with the patrol units.

His brake pedal would of worked better at avoiding the collision.

The road looked a bit icy.

The vehicles not being in the road would have worked even better at avoiding a collision.

As he approaches the blockade, Mr. Finicum clearly swerves to the left to avoid colliding with the patrol units.

His brake pedal would of worked better at avoiding the collision.

Oh come on....they were ambushed...they set up the roadblock around a curve, in conditions of ice and snow. Brakes often don't work too well in those conditions.

I can see him take the last bend on the road and I appears he noticed the vehicles on the road at about 9:01. That is when you can see his brake lights come on. He taps his brakes a few times between 9:01-9:05. He then rides the brake from 9:12 and on as he hits the snow. If the road was a bit too icy for his brakes to work, he had plenty of time to pull into the snow and it didnt have to be right in front of the road block.

Yes its true there would be no collision had there not been vehicles blocking the road, but the fact is there was vehicles on the road and those vehicles were legally placed there by LEOs. Not trying to get through police who are obviously blocking the road would have been the best choice. I dont believe he intended on stopping. I believe he was going to avoid the road block and try to get away.

Have you ever driven on ice and snow in a place where there is a lot of it? I used to live in the NE....you have a very unrealistic view of how easy it is to control a vehicle going as fast as that one under those conditions.

I'm maybe a little more concerned with morality than legality. Lot's of things are legal that are wrong and being legal doesn't make them right. They could have put that roadblock up anywhere and they CHOSE to place it around a curve in conditions of ice and snow.

Your contention that he intended to avoid the road block and get away tells me you've never driven in deep snow. There is no way he could have avoided that roadblock without getting bogged down in deep snow. Even if his truck could have made it through the snow it would have been at something like a walking pace. But even if he did...so what? Get away to where? So they arrest him ten minutes later and have something else to charge him with. What's your point?

Maybe they shouldn't have going that fast in the first place. Why were they?

I don't know. I've read that they were fleeing after being shot at previously. I have no idea if that's true or if not, what the reason might be. Frankly, I found their speed in the video a little surprising. Maybe they were just driving the speed limit? I have no idea.

How did Ryan Bundy get shot?

Probably when the cops shot at the vehicle when it was obvious it wasn't going to stop at the road block. I saw that he was shot after I posted my previous comment. At that time I wasn't aware another person was shot. Some consider a vehicle a deadly weapon when operated by a known armed criminal that refuses to stop for a cop or a roadblock.

I suspect even if it could be proven wthout a doubt Finicum was reaching for a gun, you would still claim the shooting was unjustified.

[Soccerdad1995]

I appreciate your response but I do think we need to look at this stuff objectively and not through the tainted lens that the cops are always wrong and there's a big conspiracy and cover-up behind every event.

We are talking about a government agency that has been shown to be dishonest in the past. When dealing with a known liar, it is not biased or tainted to assume that they might be lying yet again. It is logical.

Alot of police officers have been caught lying, that does not mean you can call the entire agency liars everytime they speak.

I agree. If someone lies. They are a liar. That does not mean they are lying every time they speak. It does mean that a reasonable person should be suspicious every time they speak.

And I would never assume that a police officer, politician, or lawyer (among others) was ever telling me the truth.

[mojo84]

I appreciate your response but I do think we need to look at this stuff objectively and not through the tainted lens that the cops are always wrong and there's a big conspiracy and cover-up behind every event.

We are talking about a government agency that has been shown to be dishonest in the past. When dealing with a known liar, it is not biased or tainted to assume that they might be lying yet again. It is logical.

Alot of police officers have been caught lying, that does not mean you can call the entire agency liars everytime they speak.

I agree. If someone lies. They are a liar. That does not mean they are lying every time they speak. It does mean that a reasonable person should be suspicious every time they speak.

And I would never assume that a police officer, politician, or lawyer (among others) was ever telling me the truth.

Even when there is video that appears to substantiate what they say?

[parabelum]

Please look up where these people were going, and whether FBI knew where they were headed.
And listen again to the witness statements.

The "criminals" here are the Feds, more specifically BLM fascists who set the stage for this and many other confrontations with their land grabs, intimidations, and other fascist tactics to grow the machine.

Yes, I'm calling them fascists. I'm appalled at their actions against people they swore an oath to protect.

[parabelum]

Think about this paradox, we leaflet ISIS to make sure that not one of their filthy terrorist fuel drivers is killed by our air strike, BUT, a white Patriot is put down like an animal for standing up for his constitutional rights, and tripping up in knee deep snow.

I'm going to take a walk now.

[VMI77]

As he approaches the blockade, Mr. Finicum clearly swerves to the left to avoid colliding with the patrol units.

His brake pedal would of worked better at avoiding the collision.

The road looked a bit icy.

The vehicles not being in the road would have worked even better at avoiding a collision.

As he approaches the blockade, Mr. Finicum clearly swerves to the left to avoid colliding with the patrol units.

His brake pedal would of worked better at avoiding the collision.

Oh come on....they were ambushed...they set up the roadblock around a curve, in conditions of ice and snow. Brakes often don't work too well in those conditions.

I can see him take the last bend on the road and I appears he noticed the vehicles on the road at about 9:01. That is when you can see his brake lights come on. He taps his brakes a few times between 9:01-9:05. He then rides the brake from 9:12 and on as he hits the snow. If the road was a bit too icy for his brakes to work, he had plenty of time to pull into the snow and it didnt have to be right in front of the road block.

Yes its true there would be no collision had there not been vehicles blocking the road, but the fact is there was vehicles on the road and those vehicles were legally placed there by LEOs. Not trying to get through police who are obviously blocking the road would have been the best choice. I dont believe he intended on stopping. I believe he was going to avoid the road block and try to get away.

Have you ever driven on ice and snow in a place where there is a lot of it? I used to live in the NE....you have a very unrealistic view of how easy it is to control a vehicle going as fast as that one under those conditions.

I'm maybe a little more concerned with morality than legality. Lot's of things are legal that are wrong and being legal doesn't make them right. They could have put that roadblock up anywhere and they CHOSE to place it around a curve in conditions of ice and snow.

Your contention that he intended to avoid the road block and get away tells me you've never driven in deep snow. There is no way he could have avoided that roadblock without getting bogged down in deep snow. Even if his truck could have made it through the snow it would have been at something like a walking pace. But even if he did...so what? Get away to where? So they arrest him ten minutes later and have something else to charge him with. What's your point?

Maybe they shouldn't have going that fast in the first place. Why were they?

I don't know. I've read that they were fleeing after being shot at previously. I have no idea if that's true or if not, what the reason might be. Frankly, I found their speed in the video a little surprising. Maybe they were just driving the speed limit? I have no idea.

How did Ryan Bundy get shot?

Probably when the cops shot at the vehicle when it was obvious it wasn't going to stop at the road block. I saw that he was shot after I posted my previous comment. At that time I wasn't aware another person was shot. Some consider a vehicle a deadly weapon when operated by a known armed criminal that refuses to stop for a cop or a roadblock.

I suspect even if it could be proven wthout a doubt Finicum was reaching for a gun, you would still claim the shooting was unjustified.

Since that conclusion can't be arrived at based on anything I've said I take it for what it is: an insult and attack on my character.

[VMI77]

Think about this paradox, we leaflet ISIS to make sure that not one of their filthy terrorist fuel drivers is killed by our air strike, BUT, a white Patriot is put down like an animal for standing up for his constitutional rights, and tripping up in knee deep snow.

I'm going to take a walk now.

In fairness, I'd guess that most of those here object to warning those truck drivers before an air strike. But as far as our leftist administration goes you're absolutely correct. They care more about foreign terrorists than they do about American citizens, especially if those citizens don't align themselves with the left.

[Soccerdad1995]

Here is another good article that provides conflicting info.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/co ... -by-police

Like I said previously, it "appears" to me he was reaching for something. I made no definitive conclusions. You appear to be the one that has though.

Based on your comments, I guess all roadblocks of people that have been breaking the law are "ambushes".

There is no one on here harder oncops when are obviously in the wrong than me. I have even been erroneously accused of being anticop. In this instance, we have people that have been breaking the law, wouldn't stop for the cops so a roadblock was set up and it APPEARS the guy was shot after reaching for something on the left side of his body. I believe based on these three things and if one objectively looks at this, it APPEARS the shooting MAY have been justified.

Soccerdad, I fully understand who we are talking about. Do you understand we are talking about armed peoplofficehave been illegally occupying a government office and didn't stop for the police like the other vehicle did? Haven't we discussed on here before that a charging vehicle is a deadly threat. A vehicle not stopping at a road block MAY be justification to shoot.

Have we all become so jaded and cynical we just can't objectively evaluate what we see?

First off, yes it was an ambush. That is a factual statement, and does not imply judgment as to whether the ambush was right or wrong. A roadblock was set-up on an icy road, around a blind corner. And armed agents of the state were lying in wait in the surrounding woods. All similarly situated roadblocks could be described as ambushes. Not all roadblocks are ambushes, and whether the intended target has violated any laws is irrelevant in determining whether something is an ambush.

And second, I am trying to objectively evaluate what I can see from the video, which isn't a whole lot. I cannot objectively determine that the shooting victim was reaching for anything, nor can I objectively determine that he was reaching toward a specific pocket. I can say that whether he actually had a weapon in a given location is less relevant than whether the shooter reasonably believed that he was reaching for a weapon. Unfortunately, there is not enough on that video for me to make a definitive conclusion on whether the shooting was justified.

[mojo84]

As he approaches the blockade, Mr. Finicum clearly swerves to the left to avoid colliding with the patrol units.

His brake pedal would of worked better at avoiding the collision.

The road looked a bit icy.

The vehicles not being in the road would have worked even better at avoiding a collision.

As he approaches the blockade, Mr. Finicum clearly swerves to the left to avoid colliding with the patrol units.

His brake pedal would of worked better at avoiding the collision.

Oh come on....they were ambushed...they set up the roadblock around a curve, in conditions of ice and snow. Brakes often don't work too well in those conditions.

I can see him take the last bend on the road and I appears he noticed the vehicles on the road at about 9:01. That is when you can see his brake lights come on. He taps his brakes a few times between 9:01-9:05. He then rides the brake from 9:12 and on as he hits the snow. If the road was a bit too icy for his brakes to work, he had plenty of time to pull into the snow and it didnt have to be right in front of the road block.

Yes its true there would be no collision had there not been vehicles blocking the road, but the fact is there was vehicles on the road and those vehicles were legally placed there by LEOs. Not trying to get through police who are obviously blocking the road would have been the best choice. I dont believe he intended on stopping. I believe he was going to avoid the road block and try to get away.

Have you ever driven on ice and snow in a place where there is a lot of it? I used to live in the NE....you have a very unrealistic view of how easy it is to control a vehicle going as fast as that one under those conditions.

I'm maybe a little more concerned with morality than legality. Lot's of things are legal that are wrong and being legal doesn't make them right. They could have put that roadblock up anywhere and they CHOSE to place it around a curve in conditions of ice and snow.

Your contention that he intended to avoid the road block and get away tells me you've never driven in deep snow. There is no way he could have avoided that roadblock without getting bogged down in deep snow. Even if his truck could have made it through the snow it would have been at something like a walking pace. But even if he did...so what? Get away to where? So they arrest him ten minutes later and have something else to charge him with. What's your point?

Maybe they shouldn't have going that fast in the first place. Why were they?

I don't know. I've read that they were fleeing after being shot at previously. I have no idea if that's true or if not, what the reason might be. Frankly, I found their speed in the video a little surprising. Maybe they were just driving the speed limit? I have no idea.

How did Ryan Bundy get shot?

Probably when the cops shot at the vehicle when it was obvious it wasn't going to stop at the road block. I saw that he was shot after I posted my previous comment. At that time I wasn't aware another person was shot. Some consider a vehicle a deadly weapon when operated by a known armed criminal that refuses to stop for a cop or a roadblock.

I suspect even if it could be proven wthout a doubt Finicum was reaching for a gun, you would still claim the shooting was unjustified.

Since that conclusion can't be arrived at based on anything I've said I take it for what it is: an insult and attack on my character.

It is not an attack on your character. I stated my opinion based on you continually stating because the FBI has been caught lying, you do not believe them in this case in spite of what is seen in the video. Many of not most of the time I agree with your comments. In this case you are so ardent and vehement in your position that this is an unjustified shooting and an "ambush", I believe you are not looking at this objectively. I was not trying to attack your character or insult you.

Whether one agrees with the FBI, government or BLM, we have to realize these occupiers have been breaking the law and have made people very aware they are armed and willing to use those arms.