Army Officer on Oregon Killing: 'This could be the First Shot of 2nd American Revolution'

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

I've been trying to work out what the "cause" is all about for weeks, and I've yet to see it explained by any of these idiots. Whenever someone gets half an answer it's shrouded in vague anti-government nonsense.

As I understand it, the ranchers want to graze their cattle on land for free. Is this correct? They don't own the land, the land is public land, managed by BLM on behalf of the American people. It's protected lands too, it needs to be managed to prevent these ranchers from culling wild animals and trampling over everything. This is what I have heard the Bundy's preaching - they wanted to cull wild horses in one instance and believe they should have the right to do that on public land and then use that land for their cattle.

The biggest myth here is that the evil Fed is stealing land. It's not stealing land from anyone. These ranchers DO NOT own the land, it IS NOT being stolen from them. They are given great rates for grazing their cattle, but they seem to want it for free and without any oversight or control.

That's just not going to happen.

These men base all of their delusions on a rewritten version of the Constitution, one not recognized in law and one not supported by the general public or their elected government. The Constitution they are reading gives them the impression that they have a inherent and unrestricted right to use and destroy any land they want - clearly this is bs.

I've seen the "Constitution" they all wave around, and it's not the Constitution of the United States, it's the Constitution of an extremist group who want to rewrite the laws to give them absolute power over the democratic public of the country.

In short, these crazies are aiming for a Caliphate.

originally posted by: diggindirt
a reply to: Rocker2013
Well spoken for the True Loyalists side of the issue. All hail the Empire!

I'm loyal to rational thought, reason, democracy and the rule of law.
Tell us, what are you "loyal" to? Desperately wanting a Caliphate like a terrorist group?

originally posted by: SonOfThor
Now, don't put words in my mouth. Where was I arguing that the militia was not under the command of the Governor? You also need to understand that militia is often used as a synonym for armed militants, whether a correct use of the official term or not.

He didn't put any words in your mouth. You stated the facts and he pointed it out again, the most important one being that you can't just get your armed buddies together with all your guns and call yourselves a militia.

Everything I have seen states that Militia are to be regulated by the state and federal government, and that only these well-regulated militia are free of oversight when it comes to arms - although they are regulated just like everyone else.

The Constitution and all supporting laws since has always asserted that individuals around the country DO NOT have a free and open right to arm themselves without regulation by the federal government. The only people who's right to bear arms cannot at all be prevented is militia, which have to be recognized and regulated.

These men were not a militia, because they were not regulated as one by any state or the federal government. So, the only thing they can call themselves is a paramilitary force - something which is illegal in most respects.

originally posted by: SonOfThor
As far as this topic goes I don't think it's conclusive what happened, without being able to tell when the first shots were fired.

I think it's conclusive that Finicum was part of an armed group who had threatened to kill federal and state employees, had used children as Human shields, had threatened locals and made terroristic demands based on a political cause and had stated on more than one occasion that he would not allow anyone to arrest him and he would shoot.

I think it's conclusive that the authorities tried to pull them over and arrest them for these crimes, peacefully and without incident. I think it's conclusive that he then sped away from those officers, almost crashed into them, nearly killed a federal agent with his vehicle, then got out of the vehicle - while armed.

Given thee sequence of events, I think it's ENTIRELY reasonable that he was shot!

This is not a kid having supposedly stolen a cigarette, or a man supposedly selling them on the street, or a disturbed kid with a knife walking down the middle of a road, or a 12 year old boy playing with a toy gun in a park.

This was a grown man who had spent a month of his life making threats to kill, making terrorist demands, involved in an armed insurrection against the federal government.

They were right to shoot him, and the only people to blame for what happened are the gun nuts and yeehawdists who decided they want a Caliphate to call their own.

a reply to: SonOfThor

Where did I argue that you "argued that the militia was not under the command of the Governor?" Read again and if you find it, quote me.

Yes, words do have many meanings, however, in this instance, this word has a very particular meaning that does not equate to "group of armed scofflaw citizens."

Many are not concerned with "what actually happened" ... as we see here.

a reply to: Rocker2013

What most of a certain kind of ideologue do not choose to understand is that the American tradition in the early part of our history was that there was NO STANDING ARMY (Except during the Revolutionary War). Therefore, the State and Federal governments did indeed depend on the system of Volunteers. This was true for most of the 18th and 19th centuries.

That is also the basis of the 2nd Amendment (prior to Heller), which actually pointed to the Common Law right of Englishmen (and subsequently Americans) to bear Arms in support of the Militia which was always under the auspices of a duly appointed/elected Commander in Chief.

Not a politically activist gun club ... as we see here.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Loyalist to the US Constitution?

Abso-dang-lutely.

If that is truly the case, then frankly I have to say : You're doing it wrong.

Dissent, grumbling, disobedience, and the wary sideways glare at government have ever been the hallmark of true American patriotism.

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: Konduit
Is it standard procedure to use a hail of bullets to try to stop a vehicle?

When was their "a hail of bullets"?

Have you watched the video or read any of the news reports? Over 100 shots were fired, all by the FED's. How do you think 1 person was wounded by shrapnel?

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: Konduit
Is it standard procedure to use a hail of bullets to try to stop a vehicle?

yes, the idiot killed said he would not be arrested, so he certainly was looking for a fight!

It was an ambush, they even had snipers in the trees. They knew exactly what they were doing.

a reply to: Rocker2013

I will attempt to bulletize the basic elements (and there are many) in an effort to answer your questions objectively...

The first thing to understand is the events which started this particular standoff involved the Hammond family (not the Bundy's). Although the Hammond issues and the Bundy's may appear similar they are actually only distantly related. Many get confused on this point so it bears mention to keep in mind for the following items.

I'll list off the points (in hopefully some semblance of order) as factually and succinctly as possible and try to clarify the mystery associated with each...

1. Ranchers are allowed to 'lease' federal land (BLM and other) for the purposes of grazing livestock (cattle, etc.). They pay a per-head fee for these leases. Both Hammond and Bundy have participated in these programs for decades (and this is basically where the similarities between the two family's issues end).

2. The fee for leasing federal land is orders of magnitude cheaper than leasing private land for the same purposes. For example; they pay on the order of $1 per head per year. We pay approximately $0.30-0.50 per head...per month. (just as an example)

3. Ranchers who lease federal land are required to make whatever 'improvements' are required to the land to support the livestock they graze on the land. They do not receive any promise of remuneration for these improvements other than the money they make from the livestock itself. In other words, these improvements are a cost of doing business and do not entitle the rancher to anything (property or otherwise).

4. 'Improvements' must be made in accordance with the laws and regulations of the land based on designation. So, national forrest land will have a different set of rules than raw BLM land. There are many different land designations and going into all of them goes beyond the scope of this response. NOTE: Some of these disputes arise when the designation of the land is changed with, or without, notice.

5. The majority of the Bundy (formerly) leased land is overseen by the BLM. The Hammond land is overseen by a mixture of the US Forest Service and the BLM (depending on location).

6. Many federal land leases span many decades, even generations in some cases. In some cases federal land leases may also date as far back as 'homesteading' laws of the early to mid 19th century. This further complicates matters. I believe the Bundy's may fall into this latter category. I'm not sure about the Hammond's.

7. Right or wrong, many long time (generational) land lease ranchers conduct operations on the land similar to if they owned it (but they don't own it). In other words, some generational ranchers act as if they own the land. They are still bound by the laws which govern the land.

8. Rancher's don't have 'title' to the land. If they terminate, or refuse to pay for, their lease they lose the right to use the land any further. These are not a new laws, they are as old as the leases themselves.

9. Fences - I could probably write an entire book on fences alone. Suffice to say fences (along with water, which we'll get to in a moment) are very long and complicated discussions. Fence laws (and there are such things) are very old laws, and they are governed on a state by state basis. Some states are 'fence-out' states (meaning you as the lessee are responsible for fencing "out" other (livestock, wildlife, etc) unwanted animals. Other states are reverse of this. Remember this because we'll need to revisit it later.

10. Much of leased land is un-fenced, simply because the amount of fencing required would be staggering from a cost perspective. Many people wonder how a ranchers keep their livestock from just wandering off (and some do, but not often). Once you've been ranching for a while you understand how to keep your livestock in certain areas (and I could write several books on this topic too, and refer to numerous hundreds of others which have already been written). In short, things like water, feed and even a cowboy or two can keep vast herds of animals in certain areas without needing to fence them in.

---- End Part 1 --- (Part II to be continued in the next post)

originally posted by: blood0fheroes

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Loyalist to the US Constitution?

Abso-dang-lutely.

If that is truly the case, then frankly I have to say : You're doing it wrong.

Dissent, grumbling, disobedience, and the wary sideways glare at government have ever been the hallmark of true American patriotism.

Being suspicious of those in power is a natural thing, that doesn't mean you get to usurp the democratic rights of the public to push your individual idealistic causes.

You see, you guys seem to forget that a real Patriot supports the rights of the people to elect a government to represent them. As is usually the case, the right wing seems to think that democracy is fine until something happens that they personally disagree with, then it's time to forget democracy and the Constitution, forget the rights of other citizens, they want to have their cake and eat it too.

It doesn't work like that.

By all means be suspicious of elected officials, watch them like a hawk, call them out on their dodgy dealings and self-enriching ways, but don't ever try to justify terrorism against fellow countrymen and women as though it's "patriotic" to attack their democracy.

a reply to: Rocker2013

--- Part II ---

11. The "land", by virtue of the first three words of the US Constitution, "We the People", and specifically the United States military defending our boundaries, belongs to all citizens. I won't get into a bunch of Constitutional rhetoric here, but basically the premise is the government is formed of the people, by the people and for the people. Therefore, everything contained within it belongs to the people.

Now we start getting into some of the specifics of the disputes themselves...and some of the personalities behind them.

12. In 2014 (and for many years leading up to it) the Cliven Bundy family (of Nevada) became increasingly more fundamentalist in their interpretation of the US Constitution. For a number of years prior to 2014 Cliven Bundy himself came to believe the federal government did not have the authority to administrate the land and stopped paying his grazing fees as a result. Technically this made him no longer able to legally use the land. Again, these laws are not new, but are as old as the leases themselves.

13. There were events which lead up to Bundy believing what he did/does. These events fall into two categories; (one) actual events undertaken by government officials (which in some cases are genuinely questionable), and (two) religious beliefs.

14. Cliven Bundy is a member of the Church of Latter Day Saints, a Mormon. View history how you will, but the Mormon's believe that they were severely persecuted following their foundation and were exiled to the west (under Brigham Young). Many early Mormon's believe that when they migrated west to SLC, UT that the federal government at the time promised them title to any land they could settle. (Note: so right off the bat one can see why someone like Bundy with a fundamentalist view of history might have an issue with paying land leases for land he believes he has a rightful religious claim to). Again, not saying it's right or wrong, but just trying to state the facts.

15. In 2014 the federal government began to effectively evict the Bundy family from their land for failure to pay the grazing leases. This, and the events which followed, is the source of the Bundy family's cause. Again, not to be confused with the Hammond family of Oregon (where the current dispute is).

---- End Part II ---- (continued in part III in a separate post)

originally posted by: Konduit
Have you watched the video or read any of the news reports? Over 100 shots were fired, all by the FED's. How do you think 1 person was wounded by shrapnel?

Hang on a moment, I distinctly recall the FBI spokesman yesterday stating that this would all be determined by the investigation and that the information about how many bullets were fired was not available as that investigation was ongoing.

So, where have you gathered this information to make the claim that there was a "hail of bullets"?

Let me guess, Facebook rants and right-wing bloggers by any chance? Alex Jones? InfoWars?

All unsubstantiated bs - as usual.

originally posted by: Konduit
It was an ambush, they even had snipers in the trees. They knew exactly what they were doing.

Oh noes! They had armed agents! How dare they use armed agents when pulling over two cars full of terrorists who had already stated on record more than once that they were:

1. Willing to murder government agents,
2. Would not allow themselves to be arrested without a fight,
3. Would kill anyone who tried to stop them from continuing their terrorist way,

Yeah, totally not fair to have armed officers of the elected government stopping you after repeatedly threatening to murder others!

/sarc

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Thanks for the rundown. I knew much of this but it's nice to have it all laid out there in such a succinct way.

I was trying to discuss this with another person on another site a couple of days ago and the analogy of private renting came up. It's really not that different, is it? These ranchers are renting land (for next to nothing) from the public (the government is a representation of the American public) and they are required to behave reasonably within that rented space according to the agreements they made.

The only complaint there could possibly be here is that the BLM might unfairly change the terms of an agreement without consulting with the tenant. If that happens I can understand there being a little bit of animosity and perhaps something should be done to rectify that.

However, from what I know, this is basically (taking it down to its core) the ranchers want to steal the land from the people and make it theirs to do with what they wish without charge.

Obviously, that's not going to happen and it's entirely unreasonable to expect that to happen.

Again, it seems that all of their nonsense is based on the belief that the government is not an elected democratic government, or that they just want to get rid of this democratic system entirely. They seem to have completely missed the fact that the federal government is the public, they seem to believe it's an "invading force" and that it's "stealing land" that didn't belong to them in the first place.

I don't think I'm as confused about their motivations as I thought I was, I think I was just failing to grasp how ridiculous these people really are.

a reply to: Rocker2013

---- Part III ----

16. The Hammond ranch in Oregon was also a multi-generational livestock endeavor. Hammond, like Bundy, also leased federal land for grazing cattle. As noted, this is where the similarities between the two families, and the two disputes, ends. Hammond's issue is far different (and, in my mind, much more credible).

17. In Hammond's case one of the first elements of their dispute involved water. I could probably write five books on the subject of water alone. In the west there's a saying...Whiskey's for drinkin', and water's for fightin'!. Frankly, I'm not sure I've ever heard a more true and accurate statement. The federal government began to increasingly encroach on the Hammond ranch by re-classifying land (as noted earlier). This reclassification, along with fencing, effectively fenced Hammonds cattle out of 'improvements' the family had made at their own expense, namely water. It may not sound like much, but it's a HUGE deal. These acts by the federal government crippled the Hammond ranching business and forced them to sell off as much as 50% of their 300,000 head operation. It was these events where the beginnings of the battle lines between the Hammonds and the federal government began to be drawn.

Unfortunately, I need to be brief now because I must go. I will try to fill in any blanks later. Anyway...

18. The current dispute with the Hammonds doesn't have anything to do with water (quite the opposite actually), but understanding the background is important to understanding the tension between the parties. The current dispute involves fire. The BLM and USFS has a practice of intentionally setting fires to burn dead-fall and underbrush (debatably to reduce forest fire damage risk). The BLM/USFS set just such a fire on property adjacent to Hammond (and arguably on property being leased by Hammond). A lightning storm caused the government set fire to grow out of control. The Hammonds then set what is known as a "back fire" (which is a fire used to burn fuel in front of an area to be protected from fire). The government alleges the Hammonds set this fire intentionally close to a camp of government fire fighters. Hammonds were charged with arson and terrorism as a result.

19. The accused Hammonds eventually plead guilty to setting the fires (although I believe they plead to a lesser charge) and were sentenced to prison. They voluntarily surrended and were imprisoned.

20. After some time served a court released them from prison.

21. Following their release a higher court reversed the lower court's decision stating they did not have the authority to release them and ordered them back to prison. (In my eyes this seems like retribution, but that's just my opinion). Once again, the Hammonds surrendered and were returned to prison.

22. These events, and the apparent injustice, are what lead the Bundy's (of Nevada) to spin up the whole militia angle in the current dispute.

23. Shortly after the Bundy's engaged the dispute the Hammond's distanced themselves from Bundy and their cause saying the Bundy's did not represent them.

24. The Bundy's then moved to occupy the refuge buildings where they are now making national headlines.

25. And after all this...some extremist Mormon from Colorado City, Az by the name of Funicum showed up on the scene in a government truck, became the cause's spokesperson (because Ammond Bundy is likely too much of a hot head) and paraded around in the national media calling the country to arms...and wound up getting killed as he had vowed to do.

Note - This is pretty much the history as I see it. There's tons more detail, but as I noted I need to go.

Hope this helps.

originally posted by: Konduit

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: Konduit
Is it standard procedure to use a hail of bullets to try to stop a vehicle?

When was their "a hail of bullets"?

Have you watched the video or read any of the news reports? Over 100 shots were fired, all by the FED's. How do you think 1 person was wounded by shrapnel?

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: Konduit
Is it standard procedure to use a hail of bullets to try to stop a vehicle?

yes, the idiot killed said he would not be arrested, so he certainly was looking for a fight!

It was an ambush, they even had snipers in the trees. They knew exactly what they were doing.

Can you forward me that report you have of over 100 shots being fired or is this additional YouTube fact like he was executed while on his knees?

originally posted by: blood0fheroes

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Loyalist to the US Constitution?

Abso-dang-lutely.

If that is truly the case, then frankly I have to say : You're doing it wrong.

Dissent, grumbling, disobedience, and the wary sideways glare at government have ever been the hallmark of true American patriotism.

Not your place to say frankly. You don't define what it means to be American. The very idea that you could do so is ... unAmerican in itself.

Yes, we question and doubt the people IN government who don't follow COTUS or our laws. Not our system itself, which is what these scofflaws were doing. Are you?

I choose to stand up for the truth in the face of folks who trample the Constitution, spit in the face of State and Federal law, or recklessly endanger innocents, etc. What are you doing?

Advocating for insurrection? Siding with traitors?

I think the middle ground is dissent and disobedience of the government, not the constitution. The actual problem is the govt ignoring the constitution.

Dissent and disobedience of the constitution is the un-American thing.

It's only what kept us from being europe in the 18th century, then later kept us not-europe WRT Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin. Then later kept us not-USSR, not China, not Cuba, and so on. I like the constitution, every word as written.

WRT to the shooting, it sounds like the FBI has released a drone video that can be interpreted as either a justified or unjustified shooting (shades of seeing 2 complete opposite stories in every cop shooting video).....but no audio which would give invaluable data regarding timing of shots, number of shots, possible verbal exchanges.

That doesn't look too good on the FBI.

originally posted by: stevieray
it sounds like the FBI has released a drone video.....but no audio w

Why do you think a drone would have audio?

That doesn't look too good on the FBI.

Yes it does actually, it shows he was not "dragged from his car and executed", it shows he was shot when he went to reach to his waist.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Very sober and solid overview. Thank You.

a reply to: hellobruce

Finicum did several things which exponentially increased his risk (if you watch the whole video, and not just the shooting part.)

First, he did stop (back where the Jeep was), and a person got out and was taken into custody.

He then sat there in the truck for 3+ minutes without moving. This is presumably when the 'heated exchange' inside the vehicle took place. The whole time LEO'S where clearly ordering him to get out while using their vehicles as shields.

Then he sped off, away from the traffic stop (fleeing / pursuit). And he drove quite a ways down the road to a 2nd road block.

He swerved to miss the road block and some spike strips. He did actually miss the spike strips, bu narrowly missed an officer standing in the road. Regardless of his intent, the officers would have viewed this as using the vehicle as a weapon.

He then exited the road and crashed into a snow bank. You can tell he crashed from the snow flying and the steam coming from the radiator.

He then exited the vehicle, but rather than get down (as he, or anyone, would be commanded to do), he remained standing, turned to face the officers (another strike) and began running around with his hands outstretched.

It doesn't really matter whether he was shot before he reached for his jacket, he had already given law enforcement enough cause to use deadly force. Sorry, but he had.

As I noted elsewhere here, I suspect he was demanding to speak with the Sheriff...and only the Sheriff. This is consistent with the Bundy mantra in that they believe only the Sheriff has jurisdiction and all others do not.

Once the shooting started, tensions being what they were...all bets were off.