Don't worry this government is working hard to create one....
No they are not. They are doing what they can to avoid it. Just like most governments including ours is constantly downplaying Muslim violence.
Our government doesn't give two hoots about black people rioting and burning down their own neighborhoods. They do give a hoot about about a bunch of people that believe in the constitution and personal rights getting together and getting pissed off. For every one of them there are 10 thousand more that just need a little extra push to get them to be unruly.
There are 300 million guns in America. A good majority I believe are held by the people the government fears the most.
The whole thing would be self perpetuating carnage,blame and hate.
At some point even people that side with government control will stand up and demand the government change that is needed. They simply won't be able to stomach watching so many Americans getting killed on our own soil by our own government.
Be some ugly **** . Our leaders don't want any of this to happen mostly probably because it is a threat to their control and power but also maybe because they are not completely evil and don't want such atrocities to happen.
That video underscores something that I have heard before. Every law has as the ultimate consequence death for non-compliance. Even a parking ticket has death for non-compliance. Refuse to pay the ticket, your registration does not get renewed. Drive with out of date registration and the police will try to pull you over. Continue to not comply and they will forcefully pull you over. Continue to refuse to comply and they can and have killed people.
The government has a monopoly on force and the government has the ability to escalate force. The government does and will use violence to enforce the laws. So every law has the potential to kill.
That video underscores something that I have heard before. Every law has as the ultimate consequence death for non-compliance. Even a parking ticket has death for non-compliance. Refuse to pay the ticket, your registration does not get renewed. Drive with out of date registration and the police will try to pull you over. Continue to not comply and they will forcefully pull you over. Continue to refuse to comply and they can and have killed people.
The government has a monopoly on force and the government has the ability to escalate force. The government does and will use violence to enforce the laws. So every law has the potential to kill.
That is why, laws should be fearfully written, and kept to a minimum.
Second Eyewitness: Chronicling the Tragic Ambush and Murder of LaVoy Finicum [Video]
Posted on Jan 31, 2016 in Daily News, Features | 48 comments Shawna Cox and Ammon Bundy at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Harney County, OR.
Jan. 2016 – Shawna Cox (left) and Ammon Bundy at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Harney County, OR.
BURNS, OREGON – January 30, 2016 (Last Updated 1/31/2016 at 3:37 AM) — BREAKING NEWS: Shawna Cox is one of five occupants who traveled in with LaVoy Finicum in his white pickup truck on January 26, 2016. Tonight at 10pm Mountain, Rick Koerber and Free Capitalist Radio broadcast ((video below)) her first-hand statements from a telephone interview earlier in the day, recounting the events she experienced, including the tragic shooting death of Mr. Finicum on January 26. This is the second eyewitness account being reported to the public, both differ dramatically from the official FBI story.
Prior to the Oregon State Police shooting, Mr. Finicum and the occupants were traveling north on U.S. 395, headed to a public meeting in John Day, Grant County, Oregon. At the meeting Ammon Bundy, LaVoy Finicum and Sheriff Glenn Palmer were expected to speak to a crowd of approximately 200+ supporters.
In fact, Oregon Senator Ron Wyden said yesterday that he and Oregon Senator Jeff Merkley had met with FBI Director James Comey and talked about the protesters at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge only “a few hours” before the dramatic incident, and had expressed concerns that the standoff was “a situation where the virus was spreading” and action needed to be taken. The “virus” apparently, was protest and civil disobedience. In any event, action was taken, and not only did it lead to several arrests, it also brought about the violent death of LaVoy Finicum by state and local law enforcement.
Countering what the FBI has called, a growing number of inaccurate and inflammatory accusations in social media (namely that Mr. Finicum was murdered “in cold blood”), on January 28 the FBI unexpectedly released ariel video of the tactical operation, including graphic footage of the shooting. The FBI also held a press conference and issued a formal statement interpreting the video.
But, the release of the video has fueled new outrage and skepticism in the official story. The FBI’s account is that “three shots” were fired killing Mr. Finicum as he allegedly appeared to reach for a gun in his belt or inside coat pocket (government agents have offered both versions of that story), after exiting his vehicle – at first with his hands up. But, an initial eyewitness account, along with several critical reviews of the video call the FBI version into serious question, claiming that government agents had already fired two shots at the truck (with no firing by Finicum or his passengers) and were firing at him when he exited the vehicle in an attempt to surrender.
FreeCapitalist.com has already published a detailed review of witness statements made so far, including statements by Ammon Bundy (to his wife and father), statements of a driver of the second vehicle Mr. Mark McConnell, and an eyewitness statement from an 18-year old female passenger in Mr. Finicum’s pickup, Victoria Sharp. The mainstream media has given little attention to Ms. Sharp’s first-hand recounting, including the firing of “hundreds” of rounds of ammunition and that Mr. Finicum was shot first, while his hands were in the air as he exited his vehicle. On the other hand, Facebook videos posted by Mr. McConnell have received broad attention where he claims (second hand) that Mr. Finicum was shot while rushing at law enforcement agents. (Update: 1/31/2016 Readers of FreeCapitalist.com pointed out after the publication of this story, that Mr. McConnell’s Facebook timeline now includes a new video apologizing for his second hand speculation.)
Today, Shawna Cox, who was also a passenger in Mr. Finicum’s truck provided a second eyewitness account of the events, including her efforts to try and help protect Ms. Sharp (and Ryan Bundy who was also a passenger) during “a hailstorm” of gunfire. Describing desperate pleas, screams, and constant prayer, Ms. Cox recounted her recollection of a barrage of “hundreds” of rounds of ammunition being fired into the white pickup truck by law enforcement agents – before, during and after Mr. Finicum’s death. The interview (included below) took place after Ms. Cox contacted me via text message, and in a subsequent telephone interview relayed her personal account of the events, including what she witnessed, what she heard and her first-hand recollection of how events were set-up by a suspected government informant.
In this January 30, 2016 episode of Free Capitalist Radio, Ms. Cox also expresses some reservation in sharing these details noting that, based upon her observation, the FBI and OSP wanted all of passengers in the vehicle dead, and that while free on pretrial release – she is still in a very risky legal and personal situation. But, she explains, “the truth must get out.” Her mission now, she says, is helping in the defense of all those arrested (including herself) and remaining dedicated to protecting the Constitution and continuing the fight to stop the abuses brought to light by the Malheur Refuge protest. In doing this, she says, she is also honoring the sacrifice made by LaVoy Finicum.
FreeCapitalist.com is planning to do a composite video of the FBI ariel footage accompanied with these two eyewitness accounts, and a related story comparing the factual allegations to the video evidence. This should be published in the next few days.
Now....This is going to ruffle a few feathers here of the more emotional but here goes.
Callously in terms of overall end results it would be best if we had a Waco situation.
It is callous, but that doesn't mean it can't be true. Finicum may have had that in mind early on when he stated he wouldn't go to jail. If he felt it was a cause worth dying for, then letting his death happen in a way that could rally support to his cause is not hard to believe.
That's the problem with standoffs against government. It's a big game of chicken and sooner or later one person's gonna blink. If you go into that game planning to bluff your way out of it, you should just stay home. If it's not a cause you feel is worth dying, or killing, for, you should just stay home. Otherwise, just have a protest and get arrested and get your camera time to make your voice heard.
Originally posted by Rickady88GT: Tragic yes, ambush and murder? Not in the video I saw. Is there another one that shows an actual ambush and murder?
Ambush? They were supposedly on the way to Sheriff Palmer in Grant county at a meeting. If you look at the road block, you will see snow mobile tracks, you will also notice it was hidden around a turn, and agents in the tree line. The agent that fired the fatal shot came out of the tree line. I would say, Ambush probably.
Murder? dunno, but that was the articles words. If Finicum was clutching from being shot, yes it was murder. If he was going for a gun it was self defense.
Farm bureau leader calls out feds on burn policy Same practice landed ranchers in jail By Dan Wheat
Capital Press Published: January 13, 2016 12:01AM
OKANOGAN, Wash. — It’s “outrageous and hypocritical” that the federal government imprisoned two Oregon ranchers for a backburn that got away from them and burned a little over 100 acres of public land while federal and state agencies backburned thousands of acres of private land in Okanogan County last summer and were not held accountable, the president of the Okanogan County Farm Bureau says.
“My definition of homeland security is America’s ability to feed itself. There is nothing more important. America has to stop the war on agriculture,” said Nicole Kuchenbuch, a rancher and county farm bureau president.
“If this nation’s farmers and ranchers are forced out of business, America has succeeded in staging her own famine,” she said.
“The media tendency is to turn things into racial or socio-economic issues and vilify ranchers as a bunch of ignorant honkies. It’s important to realize the American government is oppressive to all colors of people and everyone just wants to be free, healthy and prosperous,” she said.
Incidents like ranchers and militia occupying the seasonally closed Malheur National Wildlife Refuge near Burns happen when people feel so “abused” by government that “they feel they have no other choice,” Kuchenbuch said.
“I don’t agree with having a standoff, but they captured the attention of the United States,” she said.
The resentencing of Harney County ranchers Dwight and Steven Hammond to five years in prison is just one of many examples throughout ranching areas of the West in the last several decades of the heavy handedness of federal agencies in acquiring more land and squeezing out ranches to satisfy environmentalists who want a national park from the Yukon to Yellowstone, Kuchenbuch said.
The government agencies deny squeezing ranches.
It’s not coincidence that agencies have bought many Okanogan County ranches and that there have been problems between the government and ranchers in Nevada and other Western states, she said.
“We believe they are systematically squeezing us out. They use every means possible. Direct buyouts, conservation easements, fire, sage grouse and wolves. The Endangered Species Act. Sometimes they pay 10 times the market value and every parcel sold jeopardizes those left,” Kuchenbuch said.
“We do not trust that they will leave people alone, as witnessed with the Hammond family,” she said.
Burned out by wildfires
A couple of dozen ranches have been burned out by wildfires that burned more than 1 million acres of Okanogan County in the past two summers. State and federal grazing allotments cover 50 to 80 percent of that, Jack Field, executive vice president of the Washington Cattlemen’s Association, has said.
Ranchers are hard-pressed to find grazing land. One-third of 600,000 acres burned in the Okanogan, Tunk Block and North Star fires in 2015 was caused by agency backburning, Okanogan County Commissioner Jim DeTro has said.
Ranches in several parts of the county lost private timber, grazing grounds, hay, barns and equipment to agency backburning that ranchers opposed.
Kuchenbuch, her husband, Casey, and her father, Rod Haeberle, fought a fire alongside firefighters on their ranch last summer and begged them not to backburn 1,000 acres of their private land.
The agency did it anyway to protect homes but destroyed Haeberle Ranch timber, miles of fencing, the family’s mountain cabin and a set of corrals.
“We were told afterward that there is no restitution for our losses,” Kuchenbuch said.
Touchy subject
Backburning is so touchy that agencies don’t talk about it on their radios, rather commands are given in person, she said.
The homes could have been protected had the U.S. Forest Service allowed the Kuchenbuchs and Gebbers Farms to continue building a firebreak from private ranch land onto forest service property, she said. But the agency never fought the fire offensively, only defended homes, she said.
The forest service has said it doesn’t attack fires when it’s not safe to do so but that its goal in the Okanogan was to put them out.
Protecting towns was the priority and fire resources were spread so thin that rural residents were left to fend for themselves in many places, Kuchenbuch said.
When that happens, they don’t have time to wonder whether a backburn they do or other efforts are legal, she said.
“We are forced to defend ourselves in any manner we know. If the Hammonds (in Oregon) are arson-terrorists, then so were a whole lot of people up here including the agencies and civilians who did whatever they needed to save their property,” she said.
“It’s hypocritical for the government to employ the same practices they convicted the Hammonds of,” she said.
The Hammonds, who have already served sentences in jail, should be pardoned, she said.
Ambush? They were supposedly on the way to Sheriff Palmer in Grant county at a meeting. If you look at the road block, you will see snow mobile tracks, you will also notice it was hidden around a turn, and agents in the tree line. The agent that fired the fatal shot came out of the tree line. I would say, Ambush probably.
Murder? dunno, but that was the articles words. If Finicum was clutching from being shot, yes it was murder. If he was going for a gun it was self defense.
I am not convinced it can be called an ambush. This is a VERY high profile case, a number of officers on scene is appropriate. The end of the chase was not the beginning, it started much earlier up the road at a traffic stop that was unsuccessful. The truck stood motionless for several minutes before it took off. The road block was absolutely within reason. The caution used or displayed was also within reason given this person alluded to potential violence and or a commitment to not be taken into custody. It is ALWAYS wise to have at least one backup plan. The "people in the woods" was one of those backup plans.
I understand that this issue is very personal to some, and now deadly to at least one person so far, but the use of the words murder and ambush takes away credibility from this argument.
Are some saying that the officiers who shot LaVoy were not doing their job? That they had a motive? Just asking, as these are people, just like you and me. They have families, they have a life outside of work, they vote, they take vacations, they uphold the laws.
It sounds like some want to accuse them of murder for doing their job, and we know their life was on the line, as they were dealing with heavily (one could say) armed (angry) men.
Are some saying that the officiers who shot LaVoy were not doing their job? That they had a motive? Just asking, as these are people, just like you and me. They have families, they have a life outside of work, they vote, they take vacations, they uphold the laws.
It sounds like some want to accuse them of murder for doing their job, and we know their life was on the line, as they were dealing with heavily (one could say) armed (angry) men.
Were the officers/agents who were involved with the Ruby Ridge and Waco incidents just doing their jobs?
[This message has been edited by Darth Fiero (edited 02-01-2016).]
Why did the officers not approach the truck at all during the original stop? They just stood back at their vehicles pointing guns at the truck. For minutes--Did they WANT him to flee?
quote
Originally posted by Rickady88GT:
I am not convinced it can be called an ambush. This is a VERY high profile case, a number of officers on scene is appropriate. The end of the chase was not the beginning, it started much earlier up the road at a traffic stop that was unsuccessful. The truck stood motionless for several minutes before it took off. The road block was absolutely within reason. The caution used or displayed was also within reason given this person alluded to potential violence and or a commitment to not be taken into custody. It is ALWAYS wise to have at least one backup plan. The "people in the woods" was one of those backup plans.
I understand that this issue is very personal to some, and now deadly to at least one person so far, but the use of the words murder and ambush takes away credibility from this argument.
I am not convinced it can be called an ambush. This is a VERY high profile case, a number of officers on scene is appropriate. The end of the chase was not the beginning, it started much earlier up the road at a traffic stop that was unsuccessful. The truck stood motionless for several minutes before it took off. The road block was absolutely within reason. The caution used or displayed was also within reason given this person alluded to potential violence and or a commitment to not be taken into custody. It is ALWAYS wise to have at least one backup plan. The "people in the woods" was one of those backup plans.
I understand that this issue is very personal to some, and now deadly to at least one person so far, but the use of the words murder and ambush takes away credibility from this argument.
The road block was a ambush site. The traffic stop was not. As pointed out, the feds did not approach and without audio we don't know if the feds said something or nothing at all. The road block was put around a curb to not be seen, snow mobile tracks indicated it was scouted out, and essentially a kill box, if need be. Been hearing they had permission to meet Sheriff Palmer of Grant County. I don't know from who, but if true, and was given by the FBI. Then, yes ambush is entirely accurate.
Why did the officers not approach the truck at all during the original stop? They just stood back at their vehicles pointing guns at the truck. For minutes--Did they WANT him to flee?
I was not there, so technically you are asking the wrong person. If you are asking for my opinion, then I would say that I don't think they just stood and pointed guns at the truck. I can't imagine the COPS staying silent, or not giving verbal commands to the occupants of the truck. The commands would have consisted instructions to exit slowly with hands up. Before this stop was initiated the likelihood of an armed confrontation was thought to be high. Distance is safety, so during a scenerio like this, the safest course of action is to keep a safe distance from the truck and attempt to use verbal commands to gain compliance.
The road block was a ambush site. The traffic stop was not. As pointed out, the feds did not approach and without audio we don't know if the feds said something or nothing at all. The road block was put around a curb to not be seen, snow mobile tracks indicated it was scouted out, and essentially a kill box, if need be. Been hearing they had permission to meet Sheriff Palmer of Grant County. I don't know from who, but if true, and was given by the FBI. Then, yes ambush is entirely accurate.
Are you saying the Officers conspired to kill them?
AMBUSH Noun, Also, ambushment
1.
an act or instance of lying concealed so asto attack by surprise:
The highwaymen waited in ambush near theroad.
2.
an act or instance of attacking unexpectedlyfrom a concealed position
I don't see this as an ambush, it was just a road block. IF it was setup in advance, I would call it good planning on the part of the Officers in case the initial stop failed.
Any one could have made those tracks in the snow, but let's just assume the Officers made them: they anticipated the individual would fire his gun at Police. So the prudent thing to do is hide behind cover in case it goes that direction. NOTHING ad normal or controversial here.
Are you saying the Officers conspired to kill them?
AMBUSH Noun, Also, ambushment
1.
an act or instance of lying concealed so asto attack by surprise:
The highwaymen waited in ambush near theroad.
2.
an act or instance of attacking unexpectedlyfrom a concealed position
I don't see this as an ambush, it was just a road block. IF it was setup in advance, I would call it good planning on the part of the Officers in case the initial stop failed.
Any one could have made those tracks in the snow, but let's just assume the Officers made them: they anticipated the individual would fire his gun at Police. So the prudent thing to do is hide behind cover in case it goes that direction. NOTHING ad normal or controversial here.
No, I believe they were prepared to end it, one way or another. From the video I believe, but this is speculation, because of no audio they were ordered to surrender. That was the chance, they were given to end it peacefully. The road block was there in case the stop failed, and it was a elevated force action. Didn't mean they had planned on gunning them all down. I still want the audio and body cam footage. I can't say any more without speculation.
[This message has been edited by dennis_6 (edited 02-01-2016).]
Did anyone notice that he reached over to his LEFT waist area after bailing out of the truck. The earlier photo clearly shows him with a revolver on his RIGHT hip. Why would he reach to his left area? The feds say he had a pistol in his pocket. His left pocket? Makes you say hmmmmmmm.
No, I believe they were prepared to end it, one way or another. From the video I believe, but this is speculation, because of no audio they were ordered to surrender. That was the chance, they were given to end it peacefully. The road block was there in case the stop failed, and it was a elevated force action. Didn't mean they had planned on gunning them all down. I still want the audio and body cam footage. I can't say any more without speculation.
If I were to speculate on this video (I assume at this point we all are) I would say the Officers gave the driver ample time to comply with orders that were no doubt being given. The speculation here is that they did not shoot him IN the truck OR while he was exiting the truck in an erratic and potentially hostile manner. AND no one else was hurt. The one person that challenged the Officers was the only casualty, those that complied with orders to exit in a deliberate, slow, safe manner survived unharmed.
Did anyone notice that he reached over to his LEFT waist area after bailing out of the truck. The earlier photo clearly shows him with a revolver on his RIGHT hip. Why would he reach to his left area? The feds say he had a pistol in his pocket. His left pocket? Makes you say hmmmmmmm.
Earlier I had suggested that he could have reached for nothing at all to bait the Police into shooting him (unarmed). He made more than one attempt at this ghost grab, even flapping his jacket. NONE of this suggests he wanted to surrender.
No, I believe they were prepared to end it, one way or another. From the video I believe, but this is speculation, because of no audio they were ordered to surrender. That was the chance, they were given to end it peacefully. The road block was there in case the stop failed, and it was a elevated force action. Didn't mean they had planned on gunning them all down. I still want the audio and body cam footage. I can't say any more without speculation.
So, if I understand this correctly you said that the Police only gave them ONE chance to surrender peacefully and intended from the beginning to conspire to give them ONE chance and could have made up an elaborate plan to meet with some body in order to lure them out for the purpose of harming them if they don't take that ONE chance to surrender peacefully. That ONE chance was the first stop and the second stop was automatically going to be violent? I don't understand this logic? Killbox, ambush, murder are words from people that have made up their mind,......typically.
No, I believe they were prepared to end it, one way or another. From the video I believe, but this is speculation, because of no audio they were ordered to surrender. That was the chance, they were given to end it peacefully. The road block was there in case the stop failed, and it was a elevated force action. Didn't mean they had planned on gunning them all down. I still want the audio and body cam footage. I can't say any more without speculation.
Most of what you say IS speculation (just pointing it out)
LOL... shoot the messenger eh? I guess I struck a nerve.
Where have I said anything here on this topic that is "liberal bias"? I said we need more facts, more information and what is the most probable scenerio. YOU are the one speculating it was an ambush and such... borderline tin-foil hat material. Take a look... most of your comments are pure speculation. Too funny!
[This message has been edited by jaskispyder (edited 02-02-2016).]
Most of what is said here--on both sides, is speculation. There's only one thing we know for sure. Dead men tell no tales. People are prone to believe a video if it supports what they want--if it does not, they say "I'll wait for those who were there to tell what happened". Inversely, the same people will often say that "Eye witness accounts usually get it wrong, so lets wait for the video".
I could not convict the leos for excessive force from that video, but neither could I convict Finicum if he survived, on reaching for a weapon. That video is only proof, that Finicum died, nothing more.
It seems a little disingenuous to down play the video that much. Think about what people would be saying about this "trafic stop" incedent if we had no video at all. The video is valuable, but we have to take it at face value.
It seems a little disingenuous to down play the video that much. Think about what people would be saying about this "trafic stop" incedent if we had no video at all. The video is valuable, but we have to take it at face value.
Never stopped LEOs from playing down videos in the past.
Just a snip... Federal grand jury returns indictments against Bundys and co-defendants
A federal grand jury Wednesday issued indictments against Ammon Bundy, his brother and at least nine other co-defendants arrested last week in the armed takeover of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge outside of Burns. http://www.oregonlive.com/o...ury_returns_ind.html
Murdered! The law that protects us MURDERED this man. He was guilty of many things, but none that deemed MURDER constitutional.
I am going on what I have read and watched pertaining to this case. There are prior bullet holes in the man's truck from the first stop. At the second scene, the FBI sent America a grainy video depicting what happened. That video should be put into evidence of a cover up.
To me its not plausible that he got out of his truck with both hands in the air to surrender.....then would reach for a gun, even if it was on the wrong side of where he normally carried it. Dont wash with me at all. The cops wanted someone dead to make a point. If they were going to have a 'gunfight at the OK corral', why didnt the others in the truck also come out guns drawn ?
why didnt the others in the truck also come out guns drawn ?
Because LaVoy wanted exactly this to happen... he wanted to die a martyr.... of course that is speculation..... just like what others are posting, but at least I am willing to admit it
It NEVER should have come to gunshots unless the ranchers fired first!!! Thugs are allowed to burn a whole town down and the cops are told to give them room. A death was planned. Was it planned down to this time, place, and person? I don't know. They had full intention to have a "show of force!" As far as I'm concerned, this blood is on Obama's hands. He interjected into every LOCAL problem but didn't have time to address an issue about FEDERAL land.
It NEVER should have come to gunshots unless the ranchers fired first!!! Thugs are allowed to burn a whole town down and the cops are told to give them room. A death was planned. Was it planned down to this time, place, and person? I don't know. They had full intention to have a "show of force!" As far as I'm concerned, this blood is on Obama's hands. He interjected into every LOCAL problem but didn't have time to address an issue about FEDERAL land.
wow.... now we are blaming Obama? How about blaming the ranchers for their actions.. you know, the people who are responsible for this mess... sigh. Looks like the driver (LaVoy) decided he was above the law. I guess next time a cop wants to pull me over, I should just keep driving and claim I am doing it for the children! LOL!
The only person who planned a death was LaVoy, himself. Time to place the blame where it belongs. No one forced LaVoy to drive away, or to get out of his vehicle and walk around. If I did that, I would expect to be shot also, especially if the cops knew I was carrying and had a death wish.
(just pointing it out)
