You do seem a tad overeager to rise to the defense of an Oregon trooper who shot this man to death in what is AT LEAST a very questionable instance of "law enforcement." I don't want to pre-judge the trooper. I want to see and hear AS MUCH of the actual evidence as possible.
When the incident first happened, we were told that Finicum was unarmed when shot to death. Now it turns out that he had a 9MM automatic in a holster, which he had every right to have and carry. That teaches me not to jump to conclusions based on media reports. I should have known better.
Was he actually reaching for that weapon when he was shot in a police stop? In that event, perhaps the trooper was justified. Could he have been tasered instead, then otherwise. Is his possession of the firearm merely being used as a justification after the fact without evidence that he intended to draw it? Right now, we don't really know. I wasn't there.
How many times was he shot? Was he shot in the vicinity of the gun which the police claim he was drawing, in which case his hand moving toward the wound may have been voluntary. Did he reach first (or at all) or was he shot first?
I would very much like to see a really first rate trial attorney like the now retired Gerry Spence of Wyoming take on the case of the widow and the orphans. I would also like to see the trooper represented by a first rate defense attorney in any civil or criminal matter and then let the chips fall where they may. Ideally, in a case of such major public importance, the matter would be tried in federal court before a well-respected and scrupulously neutral judge. Federal jurisdiction can likely be invoked by noting the involvement of the FBI in what superficially seems to have been a planned ambush.
When the original story was that the gentleman killed was allegedly unarmed, I confess jumping to the conclusion that it sounded like a murder and now I am not so sure either way. I am not overly sympathetic to the seizure of this nature center which seizure and the attendant risk to human life on both sides seems disproportional to what those seizing it are complaining about.
Gerry Spence always expressed himself as being very much in opposition to Randy Weaver's eccentric views but represented him anyway and got him off on any criminal charges and secured a multimillion dollar settlement for Randy Weaver and his family for the atrocities against them by Federal Marshals and FBI officers and officials at Ruby Ridge. Justice was served impartially.
Spence was a truly extraordinary trial attorney but at his advanced age (87 years old) he no longer tries cases or apparently practices law. OTOH, there a LOT of trial lawyers out there, some of them outstanding if not quite Spence but perfectly able to represent the widow and children. If it turns out that the facts and evidence fairly support prosecution for murder (beyond a reasonable doubt), let the trooper be prosecuted as such and let him be ably defended.
As a nation, however, we must understand, whether this trooper is guilty or not, that a badge is NOT a license to kill civilians when the killing is not justified by a scrupulous reading of the law.
Nothing worthy is advanced by calling each other names.
Whatever else is true, the Feebies and the troopers involved do not seem to have been "Officer Friendly" types.
Thank you for your impassioned plea for justice, in the correct sense of the word.
I would only like to point out to anyone that might not have heard the FBI spokesman say it, that Finicum “was found” to have a loaded 9MM handgun “in his left pocket” and that he “appeared” to make motions that looked like he “may have been” reaching toward the left pocket (my paraphrasing, not actual quotes). That means that the gun was NOT in sight and they didn’t know about it until after they searched his body, right?
So, explain again, Mr. Spokesman (and certain other posters), why was he shot?