Reports of "Militia Takeover" in Oregon
- Thread starter dakota.potts
- Start date
- Status
johnwilliamson062
Moderator
Clearly someone here does not.
How do you not understand that driving a vehicle at high speed into a road block is "threat of bodily harm." How do you not understand a vehicle can be a deadly weapon? You try to run over ANYONE, then they have the right to defend their life. Once you've crossed that line, are known to be armed, and have stated you would rather die than be arrested, you better kneel with your hands up if you want to de-escalate.
Last edited:
Simple stuff. There's an old adage about stupid games and stupid prizes... seems to apply.
If you are participating in an illegal armed protest, evading police and running road blocks and are on record saying you won't be taken alive then it's pretty reasonable to assume you're gonna catch a bullet when you drop your hands and reach for your belt where you keep your 9mm. If you are on the other side of that badge you'd be a complete fool to not consider yourself under threat of serious bodily harm or injury when Lavoy "crazypants" Finicum reaches for his waistband while surrounded by police officers.
Let's boil down whats really wrong with this assessment. "...just because he thinks I'm a threat" as if it was the officers' willy-nilly knee jerk reaction that got Crazypants killed. You can't just remove old Finicum from the previous 3 weeks of insanity and put him in your shoes, abiding the law and minding your own business walking down the street with your trusty CCW tucked away in your pocket. That's not what happened. Homeboy acted like an armed and dangerous criminal brazenly and continuously right up until he was knocked down for reaching for his waistband where he "just so happened" to carry his pistol.
Last edited:
ronl said:
If your actions while carrying your 9mm cause someone (whether they are a sworn officer or not) to reasonably think that you are threatening them with serious injury or death, then yes, they have the right to shoot you.
If the reasons are not obvious (you were trying to run them over with your car, breaking into their house, pounding their head on the ground, etc) then whether their actions were "reasonable" or not will be determined in court.
SocialAnarchist
Moderator
There is no government conspiracy here and there were no blood thirsty cops looking to kill anyone. This so called protest was, from the start, an illegal act. Further enhanced by those perpetrating it being armed and making threats to kill those that tried to intervene, or proclaiming a willingness to die for the cause. Finicum had made multiple public declarations saying he would die before going to prison. When you evade police at a high rate of speed, drive at them at a high rate of speed, then exit your vehicle and fail to follow orders while reaching inside your clothing, when you are known to be armed, you should expect to get shot. Finicum is not a dead hero, or a martyr, he was just another misguided anti-government wacko. I feel no pity or sorrow for him, but I do feel pity for his family because of his death.
Why do all these items get included as a reason to get shot?
They are as follows:
1. He was a whack job and a conspiracy theorist.
2. He made public statements.
3. His cause is not just.
4. He didn't believe the way most people do.
5. His fight is not anything others believe in.
6. He ran from the cops.
All of the above reasons have been listed (here on this forum) as cause for use of deadly force. These do not qualify as anything. Running from the cops is not a reason either...
What was the reason?
These and these alone:
1. He attempted to ram a roadblock.
2. The officers felt he was grabbing a gun.
Anything else you are injecting your opinion of what someone should die for. Being an anti/government nut-job is no reason to shoot at someone, but yet it keeps being brought up as a reason why he was shot.
We could argue the tactics and all the why's of the decicision to apprehend and so on.
Very little fits within the realm of deadly force.
Bad behavior at previous times according to opinion does not constitute deadly force or add more justification or justice.
Only two facts that I mentioned have any bearing on why he was shot.
They are as follows:
1. He was a whack job and a conspiracy theorist.
2. He made public statements.
3. His cause is not just.
4. He didn't believe the way most people do.
5. His fight is not anything others believe in.
6. He ran from the cops.
All of the above reasons have been listed (here on this forum) as cause for use of deadly force. These do not qualify as anything. Running from the cops is not a reason either...
What was the reason?
These and these alone:
1. He attempted to ram a roadblock.
2. The officers felt he was grabbing a gun.
Anything else you are injecting your opinion of what someone should die for. Being an anti/government nut-job is no reason to shoot at someone, but yet it keeps being brought up as a reason why he was shot.
We could argue the tactics and all the why's of the decicision to apprehend and so on.
Very little fits within the realm of deadly force.
Bad behavior at previous times according to opinion does not constitute deadly force or add more justification or justice.
Only two facts that I mentioned have any bearing on why he was shot.
johnwilliamson062
Moderator
What exactly is difficult about this?
As ridiculous as the four still there thinking the FBI is going to let them walk with no charges. What a bunch of losers. What did they think was going to happen? I' m one of very few on this forum who supports any sort of protest or civil disobedience, but you have to go into it willing to accept the consequences. Otherwise, stay at home and sign a change.org petition.
Last edited:
Rickyrick dunno how much if any is directed at me but to clarify, what got him killed was running the roadblock, evading police and then reaching for his waistband where he did in fact have a pistol. I think that was clear from my post though. However, the other stuff though is true and while it is not grounds for being shot it is certainly not off limits while discussing why he would be considered armed and dangerous.
zincwarrior
New member
Incorrect. Statements he made about not being taken alive could be used as evidence in any inquest or trial if that information was known to the officers.
I could buy that.
To me, his actions at the roadblock don't even need additional qualifiers. Enough cause was present.
That's the point I'm trying to make.
We can't justify deadly force by saying people are political dissidents, nut-job, whacko, hillbilly or tinfoil hat wearers; so we should not add these statements when deciding if deadly force is justified.
How would it look if a police professional was asked why deadly force was justified and his response was:
"he was a conspiracy theorist, wore a tinfoil hat, I thought his reason for protest was invalid, he's a yeehawdist, he fled from a traffic stop. Oh, by the way, he ran a roadblock and reached for his gun"
We shouldn't respond like that either.
The answer is, he crashed through a roadblock in a dangerous manner and reached for a gun. That's it. And maybe made threatening statements could be added as well.
To me, his actions at the roadblock don't even need additional qualifiers. Enough cause was present.
That's the point I'm trying to make.
We can't justify deadly force by saying people are political dissidents, nut-job, whacko, hillbilly or tinfoil hat wearers; so we should not add these statements when deciding if deadly force is justified.
How would it look if a police professional was asked why deadly force was justified and his response was:
"he was a conspiracy theorist, wore a tinfoil hat, I thought his reason for protest was invalid, he's a yeehawdist, he fled from a traffic stop. Oh, by the way, he ran a roadblock and reached for his gun"
We shouldn't respond like that either.
The answer is, he crashed through a roadblock in a dangerous manner and reached for a gun. That's it. And maybe made threatening statements could be added as well.
He did not attempt to crash through a roadblock. If he were attempting to crash through a roadblock, he would not have veered off to the left as seen in the video. He was attempting to evade, which is a completely different matter. He could have plowed right through, but the video makes it very clear he chose to attempt to evade. Garner vs. Tennessee made it clear that deadly force cannot be applied to a situation where a suspect is attempting to flee from police without the suspect threatening deadly force. As to the statement made concerning his willingness to die for the cause being admissable in a court of law, that would be decided by a judge, and the question would certainly have to be raised did it apply at the moment of the incident. Many here choose to look beyond the certain fact that the man never presented a weapon of any kind in the incident. I will say again that if a weapon is not presented, there can be no threat of bodily harm, especially to trained officers with weapons pointed at the suspect. If a weapon were presented, then have at him, fill him full of lead, you'd be fully justified. The fact remains that there was no weapon of any kind presented. It is a fine line I will admit, but a fine line that needs to be defended voraciously, because it is one of the fine lines that separate us from Nazi Germany or a banana republic.
johnwilliamson062
Moderator
But a reasonable person would have believed him to be doing so as he approached at high speed with impassible snow drifts on each side. Do you expect them to wait until the vehicle impacts to react?
There isn't any jurisdiction where any of the officer would be found at fault.
He wanted a confrontation and he got one. I'm sure he thought he would go out in a blaze of glory, but instead he just tripped in the snow. Tough luck for him.
And the second he veered off to avoid the roadblock that would have proved that assumption wrong. Not addressing the core issue here. The man was killed without presenting a weapon. The law is pretty clear, just not applied equally, as it should be. There is this little thing called due process, which is not applicable when you're dead. I'll say one other thing, if there is a civil case to arise from this, the taxpayers should be ready to pony up at least a few million hard earned dollars. I do not condone the actions of the Bundy's; they're a bunch of idiots, but the law is not supposed to differentiate between idiots and Mensa candidates. What is utmost in my mind, is that if it can be done to Finicum, it can done to you or me, and that is what ticks me off.
It was not an assumption ronl. It was logical thinking. I am surprised law enforcement showed such restraint. For all anyone knew, the SUV could of been armed with explosives. A whole lot of folks would of been meeting their maker, and many would of been on the other side of the roadblock.
You are right about one thing, we the tax payers do not need to spend a few more million. We have already spent well beyond that amount while showing patients to a group of armed felons. If convicted, they will never carry a firearm again legally. It will just add one additional crime on their rap sheet.
You are right about one thing, we the tax payers do not need to spend a few more million. We have already spent well beyond that amount while showing patients to a group of armed felons. If convicted, they will never carry a firearm again legally. It will just add one additional crime on their rap sheet.
There haven't been any claims that the occupants fired out of the vehicle. Yet you can clearly see two bullet strikes on the truck along with flashbangs after the driver is down. Also, someone else was wounded and I've seen no reports that that person had a gun, nor reaching for a gun, even nothing about the remaining occupants trying to flee or operate the vehicle.
Taking the video at face value, along with statements released, there's justification of using deadly force on the driver... Only for the actions at the roadblock.
There must been a reason to continue to fire upon the remaining occupants.
Taking the video at face value, along with statements released, there's justification of using deadly force on the driver... Only for the actions at the roadblock.
There must been a reason to continue to fire upon the remaining occupants.
Logical thinking? Seriously disagree with you there. Look closely at the vid. Are there any people in the direction taken by the driver? No. He was trying to evade the stop. He took a path away from the officers, which would logically indicate he was trying to avoid harming anyone else. If taken on visible evidence, it was a bad shoot. There are political and economic factors that necessitated the rapid termination of the events at Malheur. It needed to be done. Just a sad thing that a man was killed in the process. Needless killing is never a good thing.
- Status