Militia standoff going on right now in Oregon!

[VMI77]

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.

You obviously see the situation clearly, logically, and objectively. I would add that without knowing exactly when the shots were fired we can't come to a conclusion either. We don't know whether he lost his balance, reached for a gun, or reached for his side after being shot. Furthermore, even if we assume he did reach for a gun we don't know whether that was before being shot....making the shooting justified...or after being shot, making it murder. It's also possible that he lost his balance and knowing that he was armed that movement was mistaken for him reaching for a gun. That might make the shooting itself justified but it doesn't change the fact that there was no reason to stage the road block as an ambush in the first place.

[mojo84]

Soccerdad, agree with this statement of yours.

Unfortunately, there is not enough on that video for me to make a definitive conclusion on whether the shooting was justified.

I would also add there isn't enough to objectively make a definitive conclusion it wasn't.

[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.

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.

Baloney. It is a personal attack. Fact 1: the FBI, institutionally, has been caught lying. Fact 2: I have not once said the shooting was unjustified and this will be at least the third time I've said we can't determine from this video alone whether the shooting was justified or not.

Apart from those two facts, you said this:

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

We're on a gun forum where one of the primary conversations is self-defense and what is or is not a legal and justified use of lethal force. You said I'd call it unjustified even if PROVEN WITHOUT A DOUBT FInicum was reaching for a gun. In order to do that I'd essentially have to be a liar and in no case could I do what you say without being intellectually dishonest. There is no other way possible to interpret that except as a personal attack. If we were still living in the 18th century south I'd be forced as a matter honor to call you out and this afternoon you'd be finding a Second and negotiating the time and place of the duel.

[Soccerdad1995]

Soccerdad, agree with this statement of yours.

Unfortunately, there is not enough on that video for me to make a definitive conclusion on whether the shooting was justified.

I would also add there isn't enough to objectively make a definitive conclusion it wasn't.

Which is exactly what I said.

[mojo84]

Soccerdad, agree with this statement of yours.

Unfortunately, there is not enough on that video for me to make a definitive conclusion on whether the shooting was justified.

I would also add there isn't enough to objectively make a definitive conclusion it wasn't.

Which is exactly what I said.

Just pointing out it cuts both ways.

[puma guy]

Any opinions on this encounter at this point is simply speculation. Regarding the honesty of our government, it's agencies and some of it's agents. Two Words - Ruby Ridge.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_Ridge

[bayou]

I am relatively new to the forum, having visited as a guest for several months. I see that several of the posters here have been active for years and maybe there is some familiarity that I haven't acquired yet. This familiarity may be leading to some of the perceived (by me) strife. I think everyone can agree that without physically being there no one can be sure as to the full nature of the incident and whether it was a very unfortunate series of events or something else. The end result is the same though, a man has met his maker and the issue in Oregon has not yet been resolved.

[Javier730]

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?

There you go. Who drives that fast under those conditions? Someone trying to get away from the police maybe? I still dont believe he did not have control of the vehicle. He could of slowed down. He taps his brakes at 9:01 and it takes him 17 seconds to reach the road block. That is plenty of time to slow down or pull into the snow to stop the vehicle and it didnt have to be right next to the road block. He obviously thought he was gonna make it through.

Putting up a road block in a straight shot would be more dangerous. It gives the driver time to build up speed to try and crash through the road block increasing the danger. Putting the road block about 20 seconds from the curve made sure the driver slowed down a bit, which would reduce the chances of a LEO getting hit.

Tell that to everyone else who chooses to evade law enforcement in their vehicles. They believe they can get away. The dont understand the chances of getting away are very slim. This guy didnt either.

Watch the beginning of the video. What does a person not trying to get away do? They comply. They dont drive away at high speeds in icy conditions. Funny how its said he was not trying to get away when he clearly drove off. To say the road block caused the collision is ridiculous. He should of been at the same spot he was in at 1:10-8:14, in his vehicle waiting for the officers instructions.

Yes its tragic, but he caused his own death.

[mojo84]

Finicum was a rancher from Arizona as best I can tell. I have no idea how familiar he was with driving in the snow or whether he knew what effect the snow would have on the progress of his truck. It's apparent from previous actions he was not inclined to comply.

[Javier730]

Finicum was a rancher from Arizona as best I can tell. I have no idea how familiar he was with driving in the snow or whether he knew what effect the snow would have on the progress of his truck. It's apparent from previous actions he was not inclined to comply.

Anyone who has doubts can click on 8:14 on the video AndyC posted.

[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?

There you go. Who drives that fast under those conditions? Someone trying to get away from the police maybe? I still dont believe he did not have control of the vehicle. He could of slowed down. He taps his brakes at 9:01 and it takes him 17 seconds to reach the road block. That is plenty of time to slow down or pull into the snow to stop the vehicle and it didnt have to be right next to the road block. He obviously thought he was gonna make it through.

Putting up a road block in a straight shot would be more dangerous. It gives the driver time to build up speed to try and crash through the road block increasing the danger. Putting the road block about 20 seconds from the curve made sure the driver slowed down a bit, which would reduce the chances of a LEO getting hit.

Tell that to everyone else who chooses to evade law enforcement in their vehicles. They believe they can get away. The dont understand the chances of getting away are very slim. This guy didnt either.

Watch the beginning of the video. What does a person not trying to get away do? They comply. They dont drive away at high speeds in icy conditions. Funny how its said he was not trying to get away when he clearly drove off. To say the road block caused the collision is ridiculous. He should of been at the same spot he was in at 1:10-8:14, in his vehicle waiting for the officers instructions.

Yes its tragic, but he caused his own death.

[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?

There you go. Who drives that fast under those conditions? Someone trying to get away from the police maybe? I still dont believe he did not have control of the vehicle. He could of slowed down. He taps his brakes at 9:01 and it takes him 17 seconds to reach the road block. That is plenty of time to slow down or pull into the snow to stop the vehicle and it didnt have to be right next to the road block. He obviously thought he was gonna make it through.

How fast was he going? It looked speedy to me but for all we know he was driving under the speed limit. 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. Lot's had to be going on during that 17 seconds, probably including processing the exhortations of the other vehicle occupants as well as deciding what to do and drive the vehicle.

Putting up a road block in a straight shot would be more dangerous. It gives the driver time to build up speed to try and crash through the road block increasing the danger. Putting the road block about 20 seconds from the curve made sure the driver slowed down a bit, which would reduce the chances of a LEO getting hit.

No one was going to crash through the vehicles used in that road block. And if he'd continued into the vehicles they would have lit him up. 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. As parabelum pointed out, we warn terrorists so they can get out of their trucks before we hit them with an airstrike.

Tell that to everyone else who chooses to evade law enforcement in their vehicles. They believe they can get away. The dont understand the chances of getting away are very slim. This guy didnt either.

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.

Watch the beginning of the video. What does a person not trying to get away do? They comply. They dont drive away at high speeds in icy conditions. Funny how its said he was not trying to get away when he clearly drove off. To say the road block caused the collision is ridiculous. He should of been at the same spot he was in at 1:10-8:14, in his vehicle waiting for the officers instructions.

Yes its tragic, but he caused his own death.

I don't know where you're getting that he said he was not trying to get away. The female in the car said they were fleeing being shot at. Seems to me that is an admission they were trying to get away until they encountered the road block. I've also read that they were attempting to contact a Constitutional sheriff and didn't want to deal with the feds.

But yes, in the longer view he caused his own death, way before he ever got shot. The protest, they way they handled the protest, were part of it, foolishly believing and trusting the feds and going where they were headed was another part of it. And as long as all of us are sufficiently obedient to authority we probably won't be shot.

Personally, I wouldn't do what he did, or for the reason he did it, and especially not now. I suppose most of us have lines that cannot be crossed. However, we should consider the fact that WE are the greatest enemies of the Obama administration and liberals in general. They don't consider this death tragic; they're celebrating it. At some point those who consider us enemies may pass a law confiscating our firearms. The antis are already saying they want our blood. If that happens, then all of us will be subject to the same kind of action by the federal government, and if we're good little boys and girls maybe they'll leave us alone...or maybe they won't.

You say there is evidence Mr. Funicum was not inclined to "comply." Is there a point at which you will ever not be inclined to comply? I think he died on the wrong hill in the wrong battle. However, I'm not at all quick to condemn someone for declining to comply with out unconstitutional, lawless, overreaching federal government.

[parabelum]

Hey, calling all Patriots out there. When would YOU stand your ground and defend your rights?
What would it take for YOU to get into crosshairs of this tyranny?

I think the main point of this whole post got lost.
Feds are the criminals, not the ranchers defending their property and the property of their brothers.

When does it hit home?

http://woundedamericanwarrior.com/govt- ... xas-style/

[VMI77]

[VMI77]

Let's make sure we understand our government's priorities: http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2014/ ... ands-list/

The Obama administration appears to have a terrorist “hands off” list that permits individuals with extremist ties to enter the country, according to internal Department of Homeland Security (DHS) documents obtained by a United States Senator.

It gets better. The DHS emails also reveal that this particular terrorism suspect has actually taken legal action against the U.S., presumably because authorities violated the hands off policy. The subject “has sued CBP twice in the past and that he’s one of the several hands off passengers nationwide,” according to the DHS emails obtained by Senator Grassley’s office. The documents go on to say that the terrorist’s records were removed and that the DHS Secretary (at the time Janet Napolitano) was involved in the matter.