Jan 30, 2016 Ongoing Protests of the murder of Lavoy Finicum Burns, Oregon

originally posted by: Boadicea

Fair enough. Looking at the FBI webpage, they use the term "traffic stop" several times, but do not use the word "routine." They also use the word "action" once, and "operation" a few times. Still a misrepresentation, but technically correct.

So as it turns out, you and other "patriot" supporters are the only ones using the word that you're all bitching about. Go figure!

What was it you were saying about incompetence? "Just a tiny bit better that deliberate dishonesty," I think.

You people are truly delusional.

originally posted by: bandersnatch
Sad to see the vituperative comments....
Obviously there are posters who think Uncle Sam still has their best interests at heart.....
The protestors may have been all those things you said...but at least they had THE COJONES AND DEDICATION TO STAND UP FOR THEIR CAUSE....
The majority of keyboard cowards dissing them seem to believe the government is their friend....good luck with that....
These people are neither heroes nor villians ...just ordinary Americans who have been driven to their actions by
a monolithic government that seeks its own perpetuity at the peoples expense....

sure
what were they demanding? nothing much last I checked.
same as BLM..just some general ideological nonsense.

and if you make a stand, you dont then leave the stand for whatever the hell he was doing many miles away (going for mcdonalds or whatnot I suppose)....it doesn't work like that. no time outs in a stand off

a reply to: Shamrock6

Tomatoes... tomawtoes...

You call it what you will. I'll call what I will. You know as well as I do that while it can technically be called a "traffic stop," and you also know that to most people that means being pulled over for a traffic violation, not a pre-planned ambush for criminal warrants. And as an officer, I'm sure you know much better than I that there are more appropriate terms that would better represent their actions if their intention was full disclosure and providing the whole truth.

a reply to: Flatfish

So as it turns out, you and other "patriot" supporters are the only ones using the word that you're all bitching about. Go figure!

What was it you were saying about incompetence? "Just a tiny bit better that deliberate dishonesty," I think.

You people are truly delusional.

And yet I'm the one who took the initiative to actually track it down to the source, admitted my mistake in the use of the word "routine" by the FBI (though I was correct about the use of the term "traffic stop,"), publically correcting myself and the record. But I'm the delusional one?

Okay.

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: Flatfish

So as it turns out, you and other "patriot" supporters are the only ones using the word that you're all bitching about. Go figure!

What was it you were saying about incompetence? "Just a tiny bit better that deliberate dishonesty," I think.

You people are truly delusional.

And yet I'm the one who took the initiative to actually track it down to the source, admitted my mistake in the use of the word "routine" by the FBI (though I was correct about the use of the term "traffic stop,"), publically correcting myself and the record. But I'm the delusional one?

Okay.

I would just imagine the poster that asked you who said it, also took the time to look for it prior to asking the question.

I know I would and I almost did, because I thought about asking you the same question, but I didn't want to ask if I didn't already know the answer and I didn't feel like spending my time looking it up.

Mainly because I wasn't the one who asserted it in the first place.

On the one hand, I commend you for looking it up and admitting the error.

On the other hand, Now you're arguing about the term "traffic stop."

I get the distinct feeling that so long as they use anything other than "premeditated assassination" to describe the encounter, you won't be satisfied.

Hence, my use of the term "delusional" to describe the mindset.

a reply to: darkstar57

it says REDACTED

Redacted means that parts (names) have been obscured for public release. You can see the those parts in the document.

So is there any updated information are is everyone just regurgitating everything that's been post repeatedly in the five other threads on the same topic?

If you were LEO trying to gather information on this standoff and the risks involved, and you saw the video below, which was publicly available as a feed during all this happening, how would you prepare for a potential encounter with a group of these guys? Would you put away your own guns and ask to sing kumbaya with them or what?

And don't these guys do a great job of PR? Aren't you proud of how well they express themselves? Doesn't it make you want to run down there and join them as soon as possible?

a reply to: Flatfish

On the one hand, I commend you for looking it up and admitting the error.

I appreciate that. Thank you.

On the other hand, Now you're arguing about the term "traffic stop."

I'm not the only one who has objected to its portrayal as such. I have heard legal folk call it a "felony stop," a common means of apprehending felons. So I do take exception to the use of "traffic stop," as there are more appropriate terms. I consider it a significant -- and intentional -- mischaracterization.

I get the distinct feeling that so long as they use anything other than "premeditated assassination" to describe the encounter, you won't be satisfied.

Hence, my use of the term "delusional" to describe the mindset.

No, not at this point anyway. While I do suspect that was exactly the intention of whoever set this ambush up this way, at this point there is no evidence that it was deliberate malice as opposed to incompetence and negligence.

I will be satisfied when "they" are held accountable for creating a volatile and life-threatening situation -- for EVERYONE involved.

If/when it can be proven that they shot up the car without provocation and without giving those inside the opportunity to surrender, then I will insist it be called a premeditated assassination.

a reply to: schuyler

careful.

The Oregonian is MSM.

Could be actors in that vid.

originally posted by: SaturnFX

originally posted by: Rezlooper

originally posted by: SaturnFX
Murdered?
he was pulling a gun

he was killed
unfortunate, but pull a gun on a cop, and you're gonna get shot.

Did you actually see a gun? Did you actually see him pull anything? The video doesn't show whether he was even reaching for a gun. IMO he was reaching down in reaction to being shot.

not up to me to see anything. I seen him being surrounded, running around, and reaching for something in the coat..now, he might have suddenly realized he needed a breath mint after running from the cops, threatening them, and saying he will die fighting em...totes makes sense.

It will be properly investigated, but like anyone of any color..you dont run from police, and you damn sure dont start reaching for crap when they got guns drawn..you lift your hands high in the air and play it cool..because they have guns and the authority to shoot your ass if they feel threatened.

Moan about that as much as you want, but you know full well thats the truth they are dealing with here. Everyone wants to blame someone when in mourning, but that is typically pointless. Investigate it? sure..should always be an investigation when someone dies, just this video looks pretty damning.

Okay... investigate it. Unfortunately, all they've given us is this helicopter video which you can't tell anything for certain, especially if he was simply reaching for his "coat" as you point out. My guess is as good as your guess, and mine is that he was shot when he "reached." The truth lies in the body cams, dash cams and audio sounds that we have been denied. Why is that?

Also, as you say, when you face cops with guns drawn, you put your hands up... is this not what he did? At what point do you not see his hands up. Who puts their hands up and then decides once a bunch of guns are pointed at you to reach for your coat? No, the most logical answers are that he was "reaching" for the burning, stinging sensation he felt from a projectile fired into his lower body somewhere.

Has anyone seen a picture of the vehicle?

So far Sarah's witness testimony has been eerily accurate and I love how everyone jus wants to dismiss it to support their narrative.

I want more evidence before ASSuming anything.

I want to see a picture of the vehicle where all the holes are and how many there are.

Stop jumping to conclusions I'm sick of reading the ignorance.

originally posted by: onequestion
Has anyone seen a picture of the vehicle?

So far Sarah's witness testimony has been eerily accurate and I love how everyone jus wants to dismiss it to support their narrative.

I want more evidence before ASSuming anything.

I want to see a picture of the vehicle where all the holes are and how many there are.

Stop jumping to conclusions I'm sick of reading the ignorance.

I've been thinking the same thing. She said there were a hundred shots, maybe an exaggeration, but I'll bet there were dozens of shots fired at them and the proof will lie in the vehicle itself, along with audio from their body cams. Will they release that to the public so quickly as the inconclusive helicopter video was released? Doubt it.

originally posted by: onequestion
Has anyone seen a picture of the vehicle?

I would also very much like to see a picture of the vehicle. Sarah said "hundreds" (her word) of bullets were fired at the truck. It ought to be easy enough to see one way or another if we could get a pic of the truck.

a reply to: schuyler

Everyone's jumping to conclusions and we don't even know anything yet!
[snip]

The government would never hurt you! They only wanna protect you to death! Corporate interest would never pay off politicians! Never!

a reply to: Rezlooper

It's probably hard to discern 20 shots from 100 shots when they are whizzing by your head and you just watched someone get gunned down.

a reply to: Rezlooper

And your right there is something fishy with how they released the video but don't want to show any pictures of the vehicle.

Obviously they fired into the vehicle as one of the people inside got shot.

a reply to: onequestion

It's probably hard to discern 20 shots from 100 shots when they are whizzing by your head and you just watched your father get gunned down.

Who watched their father get gunned down?

Yeah, I know. Just a detail. One that interrupts your hyperbole.

a reply to: onequestion

The government would never hurt you! They only wanna protect you to death! Corporate interest would never pay off politicians! Never!

Five strawman arguments at once. Awesome.

Who has made those claims?

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: Rezlooper

It's probably hard to discern 20 shots from 100 shots when they are whizzing by your head and you just watched your father get gunned down.

It's this kind of thing that shows you are misinformed. Sarah's father is not Finicum. Sarah's mother brought her and her siblings to the compound to (if you can believe this, but it is so) sing for them. She is not related to anyone originally in the occupation force. You're making up stuff, and when you do that, your credibility suffers.

Now you're also trying to discount and explain away what she said in advance just in case we can't find 100 bullet holes. She SAID "hundreds." I heard the account.

Now let's take a look at the truck and see. Yup, they might not show us, but it is a reasonable thing to ask for a pic.