The People Had Overwhelming Force at the Bundy Ranch, and They Showed Restraint... But When...

a reply to: TheBadCabbie

This is a misrepresentation of what you are reading.

I don't believe I have seen anyone in this thread that are happy that someone died. We are rather pointing out, that he made decisions that resulted in his death. His death is a result of consequences of his choices.

originally posted by: mzinga
a reply to: TheBadCabbie

This is a misrepresentation of what you are reading.

I don't believe I have seen anyone in this thread that are happy that someone died. We are rather pointing out, that he made decisions that resulted in his death. His death is a result of consequences of his choices.

Fair enough, and it wasn't aimed at you in particular. There have been a lot of responses in many of these threads that have callously called for the occupiers to all be summarily shot or run down with APC's, since our discussion of the occupation began really. I'm not even necessarilly referring to this particular thread per se, though I've noted the same sort of activity here as well.

I'd say that I meant no offense, but I wouldn't really mean that so I won't. Those people who've been providing that sort of input disgust me, honestly. All lives do matter, black, white, muslim, christian, sane, insane, or whatever other label you want to put on them. Such disregard for life is offensive to me, so I can't help but feel compelled to voice my disgust.

originally posted by: TheBadCabbie

originally posted by: spy66

Yes. We are trained to know when it is time to pull the trigger. We who are trained to handle situations like this, and operate With a different Level of threat than you would.

Even if he had put his hand on a holstered weapon, it is still not the right time to pull the trigger. The subject is still not a imminent threat. Becasue the gun is still holstered and safe.

It is when the subjects pulls a holstered weapon up and out of the holster, and up into fireing position... we make the decision to pull the trigger or not.

This is probably hard for you to grasp, but than again you dont have this Level of training.

Thank you! Finally someone talks some sense regarding rules of engagement and authorization of the use of deadly force. Just because many cops will gun you down because you make any move that could possibly be construed as you reaching for a weapon, doesn't mean they should. It's reassuring to hear that the FBI practices a higher standard of the rules of engagement. Of course, if you are correct, that means Finicum was assassinated, plain and simple. I tended to be of that opinion before reading your comments, but I think your assessment gives further confirmation to that notion. We also have the layout of the roadblock, the fact that it was even set up in the first place, and the reports of shots being fired at the first stopping point to support this assessment. I'm probably missing some other points, though. What else am I not noticing?

What else are you missing.

Was the roadblock only manned by troopers?

- If you observe the menn at the roadblock notice the gear they are wearing. They are not all wearing the same gear. The troopers would wear the same gear. The FBI are not wearing the same gear as the troopers because FBI are not issued the same set up.

- Pay attention to how they react to the situation. The troopers take cover, they dont ingage and secure the car the victim drow of the road. There are still People inside the white truck.

- Pay attention to who is ingaging the subject. His gear is not the same as the troopers, he dosent react the same way as the other troopers. That is because the troopers have a different Level of training then the FBI. The manner the FBI ingaged the subject is in line With FBI HRT training.

Non of the troopers cover or secure the actions the FBI agent is doing on his own, as he is ingaging the subject. They are not even securing the car. They are all taking cover. Because that is what they are trained to do.



Is the FBI who is moving to the left in front of the subject shooting at the subject?

- To be able to observe this you have to focus on the motion of the front sight of the gun he is holding and pointing at he subject. If he is shooting his weapon.... the front sight will move up and Down.

- As far as i can see from the video...the FBI is shooting at the subject as soon as he steps over the first track in the snow left from the victims car.

- The other agent stationed behind the subject who is being ingaged, is moving out of the FBIs line of sight as he is shooting at the subject. It also look like this person observes his left arm after he ingaged the subject from behind.

- After he ingaged and brough Down the subject,.... he brings his left arm and weapon Down to the snow, and looks at his left arm, as if he has been hit.
PS. You never bring you weapon Down after you have ingaged a subject. You keep Your weapon on the target at all time to make sure the threat is secure. The subject is not secure until you have checked and made sure. That is protocal.



- After the subject is brought Down...Notice how they all react and where they stand compared to the victims car. The victim is not yet dead. So the FBI agent who ingaged the subject brings his weapon up again and Points it at the victim.

But they dont seam to be to worried about the white truck since they are standing practically right behind it.

This makes me question why they chose to shoot up the victims truck after. Because non of them hardly paied any attention to the white truck at all.



If you observe from the camera as it moves arround the site. I question if the camera is on a drone or a chopper.

After the camera makes a pass around the site. I can see red dots on the victim in the snow. The red dots are on the victims throat. Since the victim was hit in the face. I think this is when it happened. THere were snipers on the chopper who made the shot that hit im in the face. The wond is probably from left to right.

originally posted by: hellobruce
Why do you think the FBI were involved in the shooting?

Why do you think they weren't?

How about the FBI never shot anyone?

And your source that supports that claim is?

originally posted by: mzinga
a reply to: TheBadCabbie

This is a misrepresentation of what you are reading.

I don't believe I have seen anyone in this thread that are happy that someone died. We are rather pointing out, that he made decisions that resulted in his death. His death is a result of consequences of his choices.

In support of my earlier expression of disgust. From this thread:

They broke the law. He was a criminal. He deserved what he got. BAM!

I just don't personally understand how you could be so supportive of these freeloading religious fanatics...

FFS, I have no sympathy for these people. They break the law, they commit property damage, they call for support from other whackdoodles and then they complain about the fact that they are treated like the terrorists that they are. Well, that cost one of them his life.

'paranoid whackdoodle'

pretty sure thats exactly whats supposed to happen when you have an armed and mentally unstable criminal on the run

level the entire structure and rebuild

They did, which is why they shot the nutter!

Meh. I'm perfectly, 100% happy with what happened to the protesters in Oregon.

He was then put down.

and committed suicide by cop. So it was handled properly.

So, mostly not you, and I'll agree that the comments in this thread after a man has been killed are fairly tame in comparison to the commentary in earlier threads calling for action by the authorities. I still hold to my earlier assessment that the commentary in the threads on this subject has contained a lot of callous calls for harsh action, and that I find those disturbing.

As to your comment: "He was then put down." Sounds as though you are referring to a horse with a broken leg or an old dog who can't get around the yard anymore. 'Oh, well, Spot was getting pretty old, slowing down a bit. He peed on the floor a couple times without letting me know he needed to go outside. We had to put him down.' I'm not trying to incite your anger, as I personally find your comment to be less offensive than many of the others I've quoted. I just thought I should include it with an explanation to share my feelings on how I and others might interpret it. I know, it's a discussion forum, and so we are all free to give our opinions here; but I am also free to have a negative reaction to those comments and share my opinion on them.

originally posted by: gpols
a reply to: Flatfish

This guy wanted to start a second American Revolution(in his mind) and said as much on camera that he went there to die. He got what he wanted. Death.

the fact remains he made it clear when all this started he went there to die and the FBI and local officers acted accordingly.

Do you have a source to support this claim, that Mr. Finicum had a deathwish?

originally posted by: MrSpad

They guy had a gun and had made clear he planned on using it. Just because he was the only one who kept his word does not make him a victim.

Can you please present a source to verify this claim, Mr. Spad, that Mr. Finicum had a deathwish?

originally posted by: fartlordsupreme
a reply to: spy66

even if we are to assume that he was not in fact reaching for a weapon (which is laughable) the shots were justified because this man had stated his intent to fight to the end and continued to behave in a manner which indicated that he was not lying about that

other than actually firing his weapon he did almost everything possible over the preceeding weeks to come off as a significant threat to those agents and officers
why would it be reasonable to assume that those words and actions were empty?

Do you have a source that supports these claims of Mr. Finicum stating his intent to fight to the end, O Supreme Lord of the Fart? I have been trying to locate this elusive video or article containing a direct quote of these strong statements. Surely one of your supreme fartmastery must know where a simple BadCabbie such as myself might locate such a source?

originally posted by: TheBadCabbie

originally posted by: fartlordsupreme
a reply to: spy66

even if we are to assume that he was not in fact reaching for a weapon (which is laughable) the shots were justified because this man had stated his intent to fight to the end and continued to behave in a manner which indicated that he was not lying about that

other than actually firing his weapon he did almost everything possible over the preceeding weeks to come off as a significant threat to those agents and officers
why would it be reasonable to assume that those words and actions were empty?

Do you have a source that supports these claims of Mr. Finicum stating his intent to fight to the end, O Supreme Lord of the Fart? I have been trying to locate this elusive video or article containing a direct quote of these strong statements. Surely one of your supreme fartmastery must know where a simple BadCabbie such as myself might locate such a source?

Here you go glad I could help.
www.nbcnews.com... ce=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Many people don't know him but he wrote a book one cowboys last stand for freedom. Even had a blog where he released videos under this title. Odd title don't you think has sort of a Custer thing going there huh?? Having watched some of his videos he would not plan to surrender he fancied himself as some kind of Wyatt Earp. I think that's why you had others that said originally he charged the police. They knew what he was like and his reluctance to deal with authorities.

If you haven't watched his videos I suggest you do then cone back on here and say he would surrender.

originally posted by: spy66

What else are you missing.

Was the roadblock only manned by troopers?

- If you observe the menn at the roadblock notice the gear they are wearing. They are not all wearing the same gear. The troopers would wear the same gear. The FBI are not wearing the same gear as the troopers because FBI are not issued the same set up.

- Pay attention to how they react to the situation. The troopers take cover, they dont ingage and secure the car the victim drow of the road. There are still People inside the white truck.

- Pay attention to who is ingaging the subject. His gear is not the same as the troopers, he dosent react the same way as the other troopers. That is because the troopers have a different Level of training then the FBI. The manner the FBI ingaged the subject is in line With FBI HRT training.

Non of the troopers cover or secure the actions the FBI agent is doing on his own, as he is ingaging the subject. They are not even securing the car. They are all taking cover. Because that is what they are trained to do.

Noted and agreed with regard to all of these assessments

Is the FBI who is moving to the left in front of the subject shooting at the subject?

- To be able to observe this you have to focus on the motion of the front sight of the gun he is holding and pointing at he subject. If he is shooting his weapon.... the front sight will move up and Down.

- As far as i can see from the video...the FBI is shooting at the subject as soon as he steps over the first track in the snow left from the victims car.

I can't be sure either way that that's what I'm seeing. The front sights might be moving, then again that might be my confirmation bias kicking in. Perhaps if I had a larger screen with better resolution, but from this vantage I can't really tell either way. I thought I saw a reflexive jerk on the first few watches, but I'm tending to second guess myself at this point on that conclusion as well. It is clear that he drops his arms to his sides and brings them back up, then drops them to his sides again, well before he makes a motion that could be interpreted as reaching for what might have been a firearm. Not the picture of a man stepping out to do battle in any case, even an untrained one.

- The other agent stationed behind the subject who is being ingaged, is moving out of the FBIs line of sight as he is shooting at the subject. It also look like this person observes his left arm after he ingaged the subject from behind.

- After he ingaged and brough Down the subject,.... he brings his left arm and weapon Down to the snow, and looks at his left arm, as if he has been hit.
PS. You never bring you weapon Down after you have ingaged a subject. You keep Your weapon on the target at all time to make sure the threat is secure. The subject is not secure until you have checked and made sure. That is protocal.

Noted. What do you make of that? Ricochet? Stray round from another shooter? Something else?

- After the subject is brought Down...Notice how they all react and where they stand compared to the victims car. The victim is not yet dead. So the FBI agent who ingaged the subject brings his weapon up again and Points it at the victim.

But they dont seam to be to worried about the white truck since they are standing practically right behind it.

This makes me question why they chose to shoot up the victims truck after. Because non of them hardly paied any attention to the white truck at all.

Noted and agreed. The two prominent agents in the video do not seem to consider the truck to be a threat, though it looks as though the State Troopers are covering it. Why shoot it up, then? The troopers popping off? Pre-planned actions to proceed with overwhelming force in the hopes of catching as many dissentors(they didn't give it up at the first stop) in the crossfire? What?

If you observe from the camera as it moves arround the site. I question if the camera is on a drone or a chopper.

After the camera makes a pass around the site. I can see red dots on the victim in the snow. The red dots are on the victims throat. Since the victim was hit in the face. I think this is when it happened. THere were snipers on the chopper who made the shot that hit im in the face. The wond is probably from left to right.

Noted. Perhaps...

The other observation I had earlier made but did not mention in my previous post, which you also mentioned in an earlier post, is the fact that Mr. Finicum abandoned his cover: not a wise decision for a man who was about to instigate a gun battle against overwhelming odds. Even an untrained individual should have realized this.

Suicide by cop? Maybe...seems unlikely based on his previous statements. A lot of posters seem to want to portray him as a man with a serious death wish, who had repeatedly threatened lethal force. I have been unable to substantiate this claim. In fact, I have found the opposite to be true. Mr. Finicum appears to have had no desire to go down in a hail of gunfire, or to sacrifice himself, and was clear in that regard in several interviews.

He is on record as saying he had no desire to spend his days in a concrete box, but who does? He stated that freedom was perhaps worth dying for, but that is a sentiment that has been expressed by many a patriotic American; so, I have a hard time interpreting that as meaning that he had a death wish.

originally posted by: dragonridr

Here you go glad I could help.
www.nbcnews.com... ce=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Many people don't know him but he wrote a book one cowboys last stand for freedom. Even had a blog where he released videos under this title. Odd title don't you think has sort of a Custer thing going there huh?? Having watched some of his videos he would not plan to surrender he fancied himself as some kind of Wyatt Earp. I think that's why you had others that said originally he charged the police. They knew what he was like and his reluctance to deal with authorities.

If you haven't watched his videos I suggest you do then cone back on here and say he would surrender.

Noted. He says "there are things more important than life, and freedom is one of them." This is in the midst of an extremely leading interview, during which the reporter is practically doing backflips in an attempt to get Mr. Finicum to make a statement that could possibly be construed as threatening. I suggest you watch the entire interview, posted in my thread on Mr. Finicum, here: The Robert LaVoy Finicum Thread. While you're there, you should have a look at the other interviews(and that one) that I reference where he specifically states that he has no desire to engage in violence with the authorities. It might provide a little more clarity for you.

I am open minded to the possibility of Mr. Finicum having or developing a fatalistic attitude during the incident in question. I have as of yet found no evidence that supports this claim. So, are there any sources you can cite that actually support this claim, or just misconstrued statements?

I agree looking at my comment 'he got put down' taken out of context sounds like a comment someone may make about a pet.

In context however I was trying to make the point that he had many opportunities to survive this ordeal. When he put law enforcement lives at risk deadly force is a likely outcome, and a judgement call.

Can anyone here state that during this entire fiasco that law enforcement lives were not in immediate danger? The decision to use deadly force is a judgement call. Similar to a referee trying to make a determination between a blocking or charging foul. Did they get it right isn't up for us to decide. The individual forced the authorities to make the judgment call, and had many avenues for a peaceful resolution.

We can't make excuses for bad decisions.

a reply to: TheBadCabbie

That NBC interview was very leading, it's like the guy was trying to back LaVoy into a corner, and not a good example of what LaVoy said at other times. I've repeatedly looked for the videos I saw last week but I've yet to be able to find them. There were also articles with his statements about refusing to be arrested, which matched video statements, but it seems everything I saw is not where it was. Never did I hear or read LaVoy advocate violence and never did I think he had a death wish. What I saw was a man who drew his line in the sand early on after arriving at the refuge.

I tend to agree with those who say the refuge was infiltrated with "spies" who were reporting to law enforcement what people were saying out of the public eye so I would say there is a whole body of discussions at the refuge which was not public.

Here's a link to LaVoy's last interview with, "The Oregonian," before his death which I'm sure you've seen. He knew things had changed and there might be "kinetic action" coming very soon from law enforcement:

Link

a reply to: TheBadCabbie

Noted. What do you make of that? Ricochet? Stray round from another shooter? Something else?

After watching that even a few more times. I think i made a mistake. The trooper is not shooting a gun but a Taser.
The trooper was moving in to tase the subject.
The reason i say this is based on where the trooper have his right hand. As the trooper is moving forwared towards the subject from behind. YOu can see he has his right hand on a holstered weapon all the time. In his left hand he is pointing a taser at the subject.
- Note. A cop would have his taser located opposit of his weapon.

It is becasue he is using a Taser the movment of his arm looks odd. It is not because he was hit.


Suicide by cop......No way. He surrendered, but was not allowed to. The troopers never de-escalated the situation when they clearly observed he had left his car With his hands out to the side and over his head. The one tropper put him self in harms way by leaving cover and getting very Close and personal With him...without support. No Wonder the trooper thought he had to shoot. The trooper had put himself in a very bad spot by moving out into the open face to face With him.

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: TheBadCabbie

Noted. What do you make of that? Ricochet? Stray round from another shooter? Something else?

After watching that even a few more times. I think i made a mistake. The trooper is not shooting a gun but a Taser.
The trooper was moving in to tase the subject.
The reason i say this is based on where the trooper have his right hand. As the trooper is moving forwared towards the subject from behind. YOu can see he has his right hand on a holstered weapon all the time. In his left hand he is pointing a taser at the subject.
- Note. A cop would have his taser located opposit of his weapon.

It is becasue he is using a Taser the movment of his arm looks odd. It is not because he was hit.


Suicide by cop......No way. He surrendered, but was not allowed to. The troopers never de-escalated the situation when they clearly observed he had left his car With his hands out to the side and over his head. The one tropper put him self in harms way by leaving cover and getting very Close and personal With him...without support. No Wonder the trooper thought he had to shoot. The trooper had put himself in a very bad spot by moving out into the open face to face With him.

Whoah! That's a grim thought. What if they tasered him in the face? What happens if you get an eye shot or something? Would it have been lethal? I suppose it could have been even if they hadn't hit an eye...I agree that that's a good possibilty just on recall...the way he holds his arm out straighter than you would typically cradle a pistol. Perhaps they were trying to taze him, shooting him with rubber bullets n stuff, then they think he's trying to draw, the first marksman takes the shot, and the rest take their shots in solidarity. I don't know. I'm not sure how good I feel about virtually slicing and dicing him here on the board. Guess I'd make a crappy coroner(or maybe a good one, yuck!). Poor guy.

originally posted by: mzinga
I agree looking at my comment 'he got put down' taken out of context sounds like a comment someone may make about a pet.

In context however I was trying to make the point that he had many opportunities to survive this ordeal. When he put law enforcement lives at risk deadly force is a likely outcome, and a judgement call.

Can anyone here state that during this entire fiasco that law enforcement lives were not in immediate danger? The decision to use deadly force is a judgement call. Similar to a referee trying to make a determination between a blocking or charging foul. Did they get it right isn't up for us to decide. The individual forced the authorities to make the judgment call, and had many avenues for a peaceful resolution.

We can't make excuses for bad decisions.

If they actually shot at him at the first stop, though, then I think most people would have had a personal apocolyptic moment. For you at that point, the rule of law has broken down, and you really have no reasonable expectation that the authorities expect to return anything other than a body to the government facility. At that point, it's a "the man's tryin' to gun me down" type scenario, so anyone with the cajones is going to try and do just about whatever he can to protect himself and those he cares about. If that is actually how it went down, I think he could have shot all those cops and in an actual fair court, might have even been acquitted of the charges. You have no reasonable expectation of the rule of law prevailing in that type of situation.

Even if that's not true(if he wasn't shot at at the first stop); no, I disagree. They were on their way to a meeting that was orchestrating a process that would have led to a peaceful resolution. He probably could've plowed that roadblock in his truck and kept rolling if he wanted to be mean. Instead he swerved to the side, knowing he would get stuck, and stepped out of the vehicle(his only hard cover close enough at hand to be of any use in a firefight) with his hands held away from his body and clearly visible to all of the guys with the guns(and probably yelling), and got shot to death. He was perhaps a threat to the authorities within their minds, but nothing more, in my speculative opinion. The authorities got the ol' itchy trigger finger like they tend to do, or it was a calculated hit for whatever reason.

If he'd gotten mean enough, he might've survived the roadblock, and possibly even escaped. I would imagine fully escaping and evading would have been very unlikely, if the authorities had chosen their terrain well enough for the ambush; but it would still have been a possibility, however unlikely. If anything, his desire for a peaceful resolution is what cost him his life, in my opinion.

a reply to: TheBadCabbie

Whoah! That's a grim thought. What if they tasered him in the face? What happens if you get an eye shot or something?

That would be pure Luck since the needles are far from accurate. I doubt he would aim for the smallest target on his body

The question is even if the Taser needles would go through his jaket. So, i dont think the Taser worked on him or brought him Down.

But, One thing is for sure. The trooper who approached from behind did not shoot or kill the victim.

a reply to: tweetie

Thanks tweetie, I hadn't come across that video yet. Again, he seems very rational and sane there. He's not threatening anyone, or acting at all fatalistic.

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: TheBadCabbie

Whoah! That's a grim thought. What if they tasered him in the face? What happens if you get an eye shot or something?

That would be pure Luck since the needles are far from accurate. I doubt he would aim for the smallest target on his body

The question is even if the Taser needles would go through his jaket. So, i dont think the Taser worked on him or brought him Down.

But, One thing is for sure. The trooper who approached from behind did not shoot or kill the victim.

I think you're right. He would have had the rest of the LEO's downrange if that had been a firearm. Just found this video here in this thread I made. You gotta watch this thing, man. The analyst hosting the video explains it pretty well.