Posted on 01/31/2016 9:23:41 AM PST by Sioux-san
Or he reached for Taser prongs sticking out of his left back.
I don’t think he was reaching for his gun. I think he was reflexively reaching his wound. I agree the audio is needed. I believe he was assassinated, as he was an Enemy of the State at that point in time. Cautionary message to we the peasants.
I don’t think he was reaching for his gun. I think he was reflexively reaching his wound. I agree the audio is needed. I believe he was assassinated, as he was an Enemy of the State at that point in time. Cautionary message to we the peasants.
What do you have in the end when there is no longer legal recourse based on Rule of Law and a fair hearing? What do you do when your elected officials in this Constitutional Republic ignore us and do the opposite of what is lawful and right?
There is rule of law and those who surrendered will have their day in court. I am not sure they will sway the court of public opinion because I am still unclear what their demands are.
If you don’t believe in speed limits or disagree with the speed limit on a particular road does that mean you don’t have to stop for blue lights behind your vehicle?
How are you being ignored? Is the armed takeover of a bird sanctuary in a state you don’t even live in lawful and right? The sentence for the Hammonds does inspire some public sympathy, but is the best way to get such a sentence commuted to conduct an armed takeover of property that you do not have legal authority to occupy?
No, the video is great!
It will be a good reference when we can match it up with the videos with sound from on the ground.
Maybe it's taking them a while to "fix" any inconveninet audio...
Just because you don’t like my answer doesn’t mean I am being a dishonest debater. Good grief. I tried my best. You are the one that needs to reflect here. Why do I have to defend TCH? If you don’t like what he wrote, and his lack of examples, how is that my problem? What does this have to do with the price of tea....
I have to ask, when a tyrannical government no longer has any legitimate moral authority and is busy with imposing tyranny and arresting and executing citizens it declares terrorists - at what point should we realize that it is better to die fighting than begging on our knees for mercy from a despotic beast?
Why do we refuse to recognize tyranny at the hand of the Beast in Washington?
If this was 1774, would we be writing that the Colonists at Lexington Green acted completely wrong? That they should have never been on the Common and never assembled in formation against the British Regulars after that first command from Pitcairn to disarm and disperse? That they should have NEVER fired that first shot at a superior British force and NEVER should have resisted when the British regulars charged with bayonets and skewered John Parkers men?
I'm just curious as we denounce those who actually stood in defiance of tyranny as being stupid. Had the Colonists lost Concord, I am sure the historical analysis would be about the same as it is being levied against Bundy and Finicum right now.
The fact they stood at all should be of primary importance to consider, rather than the tactical error they may have made leaving the refuge in the first place.At some point we have to resist, because the longer it takes for us to do so, the less chance we have to preserve what liberty we have left, and eventually our own lives.
Evading ambushes are not grounds for surrender.
The fact is, much of the Revolutionary War was a series of ambushes set up by the Redcoats, and of Washington's miraculous escapes from one set of ambushes after another.
At some point, we have to begin wrapping our minds around the fact that the State is imposing despotism upon us. We are being ambushed every day by the cabal in DC. Look what was done to the Hammonds. Do we surrender to it, or resist it?
Because that is where we have arrived, whether we would admit it or not. Resistance or acceptance.
Do any of us want war? No. No sane man wants war.
But what is worse, is good men doing nothing in the face of evil and tyranny. At least those folks in Oregon made an effort, and the policies of tyranny being imposed by the Fedzilla in Washington has a few more folks aware of what is being done with impunity to the folks who raise your steaks and hamburgers.
Let's not kill the reason there was an armed protest in Oregon to begin with, by declaring what they did as stupid and foolish. Because if we do, any just cause to resist what is being systematically done to us will perish before it is ever born. And that is EXACTLY what Mordor on the Potomac wants to make sure of.
Resisting despotism and tyranny is our duty, even if the State and the majority say it's stupid.
True. Could have been a reflexive action in response to either being shot or being tasered.
“And the black flag waving capital A anarchists are Socialist. Socialist Anarchy. “
Apparently anarchy means whatever you think it means.
Great examples of stopping at a stop sign compared with what is going on out in Western state that have so much of their land owned/occupied by the federal government without Constitutional authority just cuz.
Don’t know if you even care about the details, but here are a few places to start if you are so inclined to know more of what led up to the ambush:
https://www.akpress.org/anarchismandsocialism.html
Details
In these essays grouped around common themes, Wayne Price draws on decades of extensive practical experience in antiwar and student movements, marxist tendency groups and affinity-based anarchist organizations, to make an insightful case for “pro-organizational,” class-struggle anarchism.
In refreshingly accessible, non-polemical prose, Price distills the best of late-20th century marxist economic thought and anti-authoritarian organizing. This informs his coherent takes on such issues as the relation between class and non-class oppressions, productive engagement with reformist movements, technology and primitivism, and the worldwide economic crash of 2008-–2009. Price’s recurrent theme is how revolution can possibly be made out of our collective struggles as workers and other marginalized peoples— and how such revolution can avoid the “successes” of Leninist revolutions of China, Cuba and the Soviet Union.
Finally, Price’s engagement with the trends of anti-authoritarian marxist and anarchist thought serve as a critical introduction to dozens of other essential writers in these traditions, such as Cornelius Castoradis, Ellen Wood, Hal Draper, and Paul Goodman.
I was in the Army and I am pretty familiar with ambushes. This was not an ambush designed to kill - it was plan to arrest people away from the public (and away from the guy in the video I posted above and others possibly like him) in a spot where innocents were unlikely to be harmed.
As a result, 7 of 8 people were arrested. The one who was killed fled in a vehicle (a felony in every state and community), jumped out of the vehicle after it became stuck ignoring commands (always a bad idea), and appeared to reach down while armed (yeah, I know - many disagree because it’s easier for them to believe the officers got up that morning and wanted to kill someone). I can’t reasonably see how blaming law enforcement for this is any more rational than blaming the cop who dealt with Micheal Brown in Ferguson.
The goal of law enforcement was clearly to arrest the individuals in the vehicle who were engaged in a whole host of felony conduct. I suppose a felony stop can be an ambush in that law enforcement tries to select the best spot, but it is NOT an ambush designed to kill - it was designed to arrest.
Perhaps the officers (who most likely preferred to be home with their families and policing their own communities) should have walked up to the barricades at the wildlife refuge and proposed duels at 20 paces?
This is ridiculous.
Just watching the video, that is pretty much my take on it too.
Rule one. When cops are pointing guns at you, don’t reach inside your jacket.
Everyone there knew this was being filmed. I doubt if anyone was going to try to take this guy out unless they could objectively show that they were in immediate danger of death or severe bodily injury.
The movement before the fatal shot was objectively an offensive move.
They all knew that he had publicly stated that he would not be taken alive.
No matter how you feel about the politics of the situation, unless they can show that he was shot with a bullet while his hands were up and he was yelling, “don’t shoot. I surrender,” nobody is going to be prosecuted except the other people in the truck.
It’s a truly sad situation. There was no exit plan for this refuge takeover. LaVoy had publicly expressed his own exit plan and he carried it out.
I know.
Incoming.
Yes, you're correct.
It's clear that there was no Taser. And no wires.
You guys are just amusing, now. :)
JMHO.
As an attorney I have to view the evidence objectively. Objectively, this was a good shoot.
Sorry.
That’s JMHO.
If you are stopped by law enforcement - there are blue lights behind your vehicle and they are ordering you to step out of the vehicle one at a time do you propose ignoring this because you don’t like government? That by it’s very nature would be anarchy.
By my calculations the Bundy Militia or whatever they called themselves had:
Occupied property to which they had no legal authority in a state where they did not reside.
Vandalized the property and used vehicles and property to which they had no legal authority.
Those offenses were far more serious than a traffic violation, but blue lights behind vehicle = pull over. I believe they would garner more public sympathy for not liking speed limit laws or petty traffic laws than the armed occupation of the property of another.
I have read the stuff you posted - it appears to be an interpretation of the constitution that ignores the basic fact that the lands were purchased by the nation “for the nation” prior to the states here (I live out here) even existing.
Using the arguments this group based their beliefs on makes a far stronger case for turning the land back over to the Native Americans who were there when it was purchased (or the tribes their before it was taken from them). Land ownership is messy business - always has been and always will be, but most ranchers (I live next to one who grazes my property with his cows) manage to make a living within the current arrangement paying for grazing rights.
It appears that many like CTH jumped into the fray making more logical arguments than Bundy himself did, but these are matters that have been decided over decades in court. The fact is that the vast majority of Americans support the concept of public lands and that is why nothing has changed.
Much of what I have read to include “the Clinton foundation is going to turn over the wildlife refuge for uranium mining” is not supported. Does anyone really believe they will turn a National Wildlife Refuge into a uranium mine? I believe the Clinton foundation represents crony crapitalism at it’s best by it’s very nature, but what legal basis did the “rancher patriots” from other states believe an armed occupation of a wildlife refuge would bring about change or win others to their side? For what it’s worth, they never mentioned anything about the Clinton foundation that I saw.
Lots of conspiracy theory being put out there, but the legal basis of their arguments have been read by me and it boils down to the fact that we live in a republic and the republic has spoken for over a century on this topic.
FWIW - I think one of the main arguments that I support regarding public lands is that they should be used to promote economic activity that benefits us all in a responsible manner. The problem is that politicians are in charge of that and it’s doubtful that the main beneficiary will be “ranchers.” The public has spoken and if this is tyranny we have lived under it for a century.
Thanks, Jeff. Yours is the most logical explanation I have heard.
Are our law enforcement employees so poorly trained that they shoot anyone who moves?
I have used their training devices. They are better trained than this.
When you are trying to take someone alive, you leave them no chance to escape. I saw the armored vehicles at this place. Why didn’t law enforcement have one there and drive in and close off any chance for escape from the front?
In an ambush, you don’t have your own people in the line of fire. That way you avoid shooting your own people.
I leave it to you to decide.
At the roadblock, did they shut down all the escape routes or did they have clear fields of fire because the pursuit vehicles were not pursuing.
Remember, this was a planned grab. Law enforcement decided where to take these people.
My Father in law is a retired policeman. I have had friends in law enforcement my whole life. I don’t take any pleasure in showing how this was a failed operation.
But it was a failed operation. There is no denying that. They were to be taken alive and one of them is dead. The standard is 100% alive. They didn’t meet the standard. They failed.
If they can’t do that, then they should go into another line of work. Making correct split second decisions is a requirement for law enforcement.
These law enforcement personnel are probably great guys with loving families. I don’t care. They get paid to succeed. They didn’t.
Covering up incompetence isn’t loyalty, it’s accessory.
Yes, you dance like an attorney.
In your post #40, you opined that "Once he drove off it was a felony evasion".
I replied to you that "Both of the women witnesses said he was gettiing shot at at the first stop."
You never replied. Did you miss that?
What do you, as an attorney, suggest Finicum should have done at that point?
Fished around in the back of the truck for a catcher's mitt and gotten out of the truck to "play" with the gentlemen who were "interested" in him?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.