After seeing that video my doubts have been addressed and this was clearly Finicum's fault. In many ways this almost looks like suicide by cop.
and there was indeed a left-side holster with a loaded 9mm. Idiot planned to outdraw the police to get a couple rounds off, but ironically, was too inept to get his gun out of the holster, in his attempt to go down fighting for #freedom
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Wow. FBI releases complete unedited footage of Oregon arrests, shooting. <a href="https://t.co/cuXG8hLqH2">https://t.co/cuXG8hLqH2</a></p>— Nicholas Thompson (@nxthompson) <a href="https://twitter.com/nxthompson/status/692915597701693444">January 29, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
To be fair, most of us would probably look like Finicum in a similar situation, stumbling and fumbling in the snow. We never quite look as graceful and coordinated as choreographed actors in movies. He probably thought he looked like Clint Eastwood in his mind, though. Hell, just go to the local pick-up basketball game, with all the weekend warriors thinking they are Jordan/Lebron/Curry while shooting ugly jumpers and dribbling the ball off their feet attempting crossover moves. Finicum should have really just stuck to ranching and enjoying time with his family instead of going on this pointless quest.
Just so y'all know, most of these nut jobs are held up in northern Idaho - in, around, and north of Cour D'alene. I worked in the oilfield industry for 5 years, and I would constantly hear stories that went something like "well, I'd love to get me some land up thar in Idaho and just get away from it all. Cour D'alene sure is a nice place from what I hear". Inevitably someone then chimes in "Yeah, Cour D'alene is nice but that is where them militia men are held up". It's like somekind of bizarre dog-whistle/warning among them. But it really is beautiful up there.
The ironic thing about all of this is that these knuckleheads showed us the true meaning of freedom. Not in the way that they meant to, of course, but there are a lot of countries around the world that if you forcibly take over a governmental building while armed to the teeth and threaten to kill anyone who tries to come remove you... well... then you just sort of get erased. In the United States, you can still get your mail delivered to you (by that same government you are railing against). Granted, it mostly consisted of dildos and lube, but it was delivered damn it. It took one of these guys being truly dumb to get himself killed, and the rest are simply being arrested. Think about that. In a forceful occupation of a governmental building for nearly a month, the United States government just simply arrested these people. LaVoy decided to jump out yelling 'Shoot me shoot me' (according to the 18 year old girl's story and the troopers) while reaching for a pocket that troopers had to assume contained a weapon (later proven correct) that would have been wielded by someone who spent weeks talking to the national media threatening government officials and LEO. It is amazing that only one person died. LaVoy may have wished to commit suicide by LEO/Fed or whatever, but he also jeopardized the four other people in the car by his actions. The troopers did a great job in ensuring only one person was killed.
Good post, Donny. They were dealt with like the children they are (or were, in one case). The FBI totally did the right thing in releasing that footage. Keeps Finicum from becoming some sort of big martyr (at least to thinking people). I mean, you try to draw on cops, 99% of Americans will agree, you probably should get shot. As to northern Idaho, I've been a couple of times. Near Cour D'alene, I saw a fairly big skinhead group (not tourists either), and a gun store where you could easily buy Nazi flags and memorabilia. Sweet place. Spoiler (that last statement is sarcasm, before some d&didiot goes posting it two years from now out of context.) Physically beautiful, but that's our Bavaria of the 1920's right there. ****ing scary.
In many ways this was treated by like the Occupy protests and the BLM occupation in front of the Fourth Precinct in Minneapolis. In both those cases people were illegally occupying public property but for the first few weeks the authorities allowed people to come and go. It was only when the surrounding neighbors really started to complain and/or threats of violence before they moved in. I think this is the template now for handling these type of things.
After taking the cops on a chase, you don't get out of your car, until they say. Then they tell you to get on the ground. I'm sure he went against all their orders, while the other guys stayed in the truck, likely as ordered.
My take is that he came out of the truck mad, but not really knowing what to do. After a couple of seconds to think about it, he realizes he'll now be arrested and go to prison unless he does something extreme. So he goes for his gun to force cops to shoot him. I'd have been real interested to see the next chapter if Finicum was shot but not killed. He'd go the hospital, recover, get convicted of several felonies and go to prison. Would he regret any of it? It's a good point. There are too many countries where governments are so overbearing that even their treatment of criminals and rebels is unjust. There are also a lot of places where the government is so weak that armed militias like this cannot be contained, and they're allowed to oppress the people. We're not perfect, but we could do a lot worse. We can just edit this part out. Thank you for that comparison. The Waco comparisons drive me nuts because this is so different. This is still a bit different than Occupy and BLM, because this is (a) much smaller and orderly, (b) armed, and (c) far from population centers. But, it makes sense the Feds would apply a common approach (even if I still think they should have kicked in the doors on day 1).
That's the impression I got as well. Only I think he figured that he would now have to act out on what he claimed he would do, even though he hadn't really ever thought it would come to it. It became time to back up his talk, and he obviously had all kinds of adrenaline and pressure, thus his clumsy efforts. He forced the LEOs to shoot him. Sad and pointless for him to do that.
I think he might've panicked then and there were a lot of conflicting emotions and thoughts going through his head. If he wanted to surrender he could've just easily kept his hands up and kneeled down. If he wanted to fight and die heroically he could've come right out shooting. Instead he couldn't decide on which.
He was probably a little surprised when he turned around and realized his buddies didn't follow him on his charge. Kind of an "oh ****" moment.
Interesting, just the type gear every protestor should have I guess. http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/28/us/oregon-wildlife-refuge-siege-arrests/index.html According to charging documents, a source told a Harney County officer the group had explosives, night vision goggles and weapons, and that "if they didn't get the fight they wanted out there they would bring the fight to town."
Good article from The Christian Science Monitor. Ransacked Oregon refuge shows disdain toward America’s rangers: What’s the fix? http://news.yahoo.com/ransacked-oregon-refuge-shows-disdain-toward-america-rangers-193649213.html A video showing a trash-strewn dormitory at the Malheur Federal Wildlife Refuge suggests in part a panicked escape as federal authorities cracked down on an armed occupation by anti-government activists in eastern Oregon. But to many watching the ragtag occupation of the Malheur, the dormitory mess underscored deep and prevailing disdain not just toward public property, but the men and women in federal uniform who trek into America’s craggiest corners to make sure laws are followed. A widespread backlash against the Malheur occupiers also suggests American sympathy for those who work for the US Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and the US Fish and Wildlife Department. Ten of the occupiers have been charged with threatening and interfering with the duties of a federal officer. “As I understand it, some of the employees in Oregon, on the refuge, had to abandon their homes, [while] occupiers were reportedly in the homes, rifling through personal papers – I mean, holy cow!” says David Hayes, who served as deputy secretary of the Interior under President Obama. “I have tremendous respect for the public servants who are out there in the region, implementing Congress’ laws and looking out for the interest of all Americans, and trying to do their job. For this to become personalized against them is the biggest tragedy of what’s happening.” To be sure, field rangers from the federal government have historically served as the face of Washington on the high plains. And while most Westerners see them as neighbors whose kids attend their schools, a significant subgroup of Westerners – often those bound by public land policies – see them as the enemy. As the 2014 Bundy Ranch standoff and now the Oregon occupation may have shown, the hundreds of individual threats against federal employees may be evolving into a more organized movement, leaning on the Second Amendment as a guarantee against tyranny. Malhuer also raises questions about where is this movement headed – and whether policies and rhetoric can be shifted to ease aggressions toward rangers over Western land use. As opposed to the Waco and Ruby Ridge standoffs in the early 1990s and even the 2014 Bunkerville, Nev., standoff, “Malheur is the first real siege brought about by a group of occupiers on the offensive,” Jim Heim wrote this week in the Washington Post. “Whatever happens next … the Malheur occupation marks a dramatic turn in a long-simmering relationship between the federal government and radicals who view it as overreaching and corrupt.” It’s difficult to track frequency of assaults or threats against federal land managers. But a 2014 FOIA request by High Country News revealed an average of about 500 reported incidents a year, many of them disturbing. They include invective-filled insult sessions, threats of sniper fire, and actual federal employees being targeted with high-caliber bullets. In 2010, an incensed resident told agents he scopes federal employees with his rifle, and “knows where to dispose of bodies so they will not be found.” Making it even more difficult for individual rangers in the West is a drumbeat of media criticism of federal agencies from perches as high as Congress, especially from the populist right. “When the BLM tried to round up Bundy’s cattle for trespassing on federal land, some of Bundy’s crew took up sniper positions and threatened to shoot it out, so the BLM temporarily backed off to avoid bloodshed,” the High Country News wrote in its 2014 report, “Defuse the West.” “Right-wing talk shows instantly jumped to Bundy’s defense, lauding him as a hero fighting federal oppressors.” But whether the number of assaults are going up or down, the intimidation and threat tactics alleged in the affidavits against the arrested Malheur occupiers fit what appears to be an intensifying pattern. To some, that adversarial stance has become a replacement for mandated collaboration and cooperation that is built into federal land management statutes. “I guess if we think that we can play in a sandbox where we argue about everything, know nothing about anything, do nothing about anything, and continue to blame it on someone else – if we think we can play in a sandbox without events like [the Malheur occupation] being the result we are kidding ourselves,” says Merrill Beyeler, a Republican state lawmaker in Idaho, and a lifetime Lemhi County rancher. The conflict appears fueled by broader shifts in the US economy, including a move in the West away from high-pay of natural resource exploration industries (oil, gas, timber, ranching) to the lower pay but steadier employment of a tourism services economy. It also ties into simmering resentments over a struggling middle class and the gradual tipping of American demographics away from a white majority, symbolized by the election of Barack Obama, America’s first black president. “The pain that a lot of these folks feel, that pain is real, it’s legitimate and it’s heartfelt,” says John Ruple, a constitutional law professor at the University of Utah, in Salt Lake City. “But the response to it hasn’t always been the best, and is not always helpful.” Even those who say they don’t support the armed occupation tactic on public lands suggest that getting in the face of federal rangers has been at least in part successful. After all, the US government stood down from the Cliven Bundy standoff in Nevada in 2014, and Mr. Bundy has yet to pay his $1 million in grazing fees owed. Indeed, it dovetails into a broader legislative movement in the West and even Congress to scale back the federal government’s role in managing the wealth of the West. “The message that came out was a message that America and the western United States needed to hear,” B.J. Soper, a member of the Pacific Patriots Network, told the Washington Post. “Change is going to happen out here in the West because of what they’ve done.” The standoff also signaled, to some, a new era of armed pushback as citizens test the Second Amendment’s guarantee of defense against tyranny. But it’s not Washington bureaucrats or policy makers in the line of fire. It’s the local forest ranger. A decade ago, a rancher named Wally Klump was sent to jailed for contempt of court after dismissing BLM rules for public grazing rights. Mr. Klump warned the New York Times in 2004 that the gun might be the final solution for the West’s problems. “The Second Amendment is my ace, and they know it’s my ace,” he told the paper. “The founding fathers gave the individual a gun to fight the tyranny of the government. What’s that mean? The bearer can kill someone in government if the reason is justified. But it’s never been tested. I told them, you take those cows, I’ll kill you as mandated by the Second Amendment.” The shooting of occupier spokesman LaVoy Finicum on Tuesday certainly again raises the stakes. Some have called it an ambush execution. But other so-called patriot groups that have been active in land use issues in the West have called for calm. The FBI released a video showing Mr. Finicum at first with his hands up, but then reaching twice toward a pocket, which turned out to contain a loaded handgun, before being shot. An underlying problem for federal rangers is that, in some ways at least, they’ve been hung out to dry on the range. In a 2015 report, the US Forest Service reported that the steady growth of Western wildfires had sucked the agency’s non-fire funds dry, creating tensions as delays fueled a sense among locals that federal agencies take arbitrary actions. Because of a $115 million dip in funding, “the agency [has had] to forego opportunities to … meet public expectations for services,” the report, “The Rising Cost of Wildfire Operations,” stated. Others say the onus to ease tensions in the West falls on folks like the Malheur occupiers, whose goals, these critics argue, are ultimately unilateral and unworkable. “That’s my frustration with everything that’s gone on this last month – I think it’s a distraction from where attention should be,” says Mr. Beyeler, the Idaho rancher. Instead of working toward solving the West’s problems, the occupiers “disrupted a community, created more conflict, and polarized people.” One irony is that the US Fish and Wildlife Service published in 2013 a collaborative plan for how to manage the Malheur for the next 15 years. Among the collaborators were environmentalists and ranchers, county commissioners and conservationists. “It wasn’t some faceless bureaucrat in Washington putting together that plan, it was local neighbors who worked together,” says Mr. Hayes, the former deputy Interior secretary. Going forward, “I think the federal government has to continue to do that and do it better, and really, really focus on working closely with local communities.”
