I wonder also about the bait-and-switch behavior
of our employees, senators and representatives,
who have failed to follow-through on their campaign
promises. . we need more accountability here! -- j
.

yes, and while I agree with those conditions, there
might be modifications involving property rights and
usurpation of States' rights. . failure of the federal
government to remain within the restrictions of the
constitution is another area which should be explored,
IMHO. -- j
.

Yes, the prosecution appealed the sentence in a timely manner. The trial judge strayed outside the mandatory sentencing range set by law. Such things get reversed even if the judge's sentence was more just. The judge doesn't get to overrule Congress and the President.

I agree that the video is far from conclusive. We should listen to what the various witnesses say also. That includes both the Finicum sympathizers and the police (as well as anyone else who was in the God forsaken area). And don't forget the autopsy results. I admit ignorance as to whether Finicum was stupid enough to go for his loaded gun. I never met nor talked with him. Although, it should be noted, he did make statements to the press about his willingness to die for the cause and aversion to incarceration fairly recently and he did flee from the traffic stop and try to escape capture. Collectively that is consistent with a "death by cop" mentality. Evaluate as more information comes available.

Rand opined that revolution is justified when: (1) Your right to vote has been abridged; (2) taxation has become confiscatory; and (3) you are not allowed to emigrate. What do you think of those conditions and do you think they have been satisfied?

Okay, just suspicion. Please do not hesitate to re-post when you have some evidence.

A dispute about property rights is not "entrapment" under the law. You have a pure legal argument. Assert it in Court, but do not pretend that you have been "entrapped."

my point is this::: the feds have invited us citizens
to occupy our land -- like my 34 acres -- in peace
for decades. . recently, they have conjured up
reasons for modifying that peace like water rights
and environmental rule changes. . I view this as a
bait-and-switch situation, where the feds have
changed their side of the contract without any
due process with the land-owners. . my source
is business school (MBA, 1984) and I fear that
these unilateral changes are tantamount to a
challenge to the land-owners' property rights. -- j
.

it seems like armed insurrection is the ultimate end
to all of this, dammit, and the only things which have
yet to be decided are who, when and where. -- j
.

as you have observed here in the gulch, there is a
certain wariness of government's use of force, and
this of course includes incarceration. . when a person
is sentenced to prison, it is a serious thing. . when a
sentence is increased, through whatever means,
it seems as though it could be a manipulation to
control unruly people beyond the first effort. . no
matter the change, for the better or worse, I am
just naturally suspicious.
Thank You for your research, your knowledge and
seasoning on legal matters. . I just wonder how this
Hammonds case was appealed. . someone must
have been dissatisfied with the original sentences. -- j
.

So, alerted by this post I went and hunted down the video. From a distance, it's really far from conclusive. He clearly had his arms up and brings them down. Of course he is stumbling around in deep snow and he may simply have been trying to keep his balance -- if you start to fall you drop your arms.

Since both arms go down instead of just one I'm inclined toward that. Plus if two people are pointing pistols at you it's really stupid to reach for a gun.

I do agree with that. The only conclusion I draw from that is they probably planned on staying at the Hammond's Ranch, and when that fell through, this place seemed like a great place to kick it.

I do not have any reason to think it was altered I just know its simple and the Fed's do it all the time.

I'm not trying to say the defendants aren't guilty of obstruction. That is for a court of law. What I'm concerned about first and foremost is that the Federal agents were far more interested in arresting the protesters than in investigating the cause of the protest. There was a very interesting history piece on this situation that outlines some of the egregious behavior on the part of the refuge managers that the FBI should be investigating. See http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2... for more.

Okay, first you are correct that law enforcement could have tried to arrest the defendants at the refuge. However, Waco and Ruby Ridge show that setting up a siege and invasion situation does not end well. Instead, they did not press the occupiers, did not restrict their access or egress or cut off their supplies and, most importantly, did not try to invade and arrest. A different strategy was applied. Wait them out and then try to arrest when they left the property under some ruse. Unfortunately that strategy still led to a death. I don't think this was a traffic stop. The officers intended to arrest the defendants and they tried to do so. A civil negligence action would have zero chance of succeeding here. It is not negligent to have weapons drawn when attempting to arrest armed individuals. Finicum was shot in the back? I had not read that. Interesting. That was not clear from the helicopter footage. Was he shot multiple times?
As for the bank robber (or any other suspected felon), cops uses ruses, lies, misdirection, false promises, fraudulent assertions, etc. all the time to effect arrests or gain confessions. There seems nothing out of the ordinary in this case in that respect. The defendants better come up with better defenses if they wish to avoid prison in this matter.

Your question is a legitimate one and I probably share your point of view regarding federal dominion over huge swatches of land in the American west. However, I don't think you and I ought to seize federal facilities to make our point. These are legal and political issues which do not, on the face of it, justify armed insurrection.

Do you have some specific reason to think the film was "altered" or do you just not like the possibility that Mr. Finicum was going for his loaded firearm?

Law Enforcement baited them into a knowingly dangerous situation based on pretenses and deception. If you don't want to call that legal entrapment, I'll go for something on the civil side: gross negligence and (criminal) negligent homicide. That every officer at the blockade had their arms out and pointed, loaded with safeties off and on hair-trigger for a "traffic stop" as this is being painted is absurd. I normally side with law enforcement first, but this has all the earmarks of picking a fight that wasn't necessary. Not one of the protesters ever pulled a gun or fired a shot. And the man who was killed was shot in the back.

As for my position, Federal law enforcement officers have had every opportunity for weeks to engage in dialogue with the protesters. They had those same weeks to effect an arrest at the refuge. That they chose instead to collude with local law enforcement and offer a peaceful discussion only to turn around and reneg on that commitment shows blatant dishonesty and ulterior motives. I can not defend any such - regardless of its purported "legality".

As for your example, do you really want to argue that a Sheriff is going to offer alleged bank robbers the chance for an escort into a neighboring county to talk with the citizens there? You're reaching...

I live about 300 miles from the site of all this stuff and have been hearing about it from people who have been there. I don't necessarily agree with the takeover of the office, but I can understand the frustration of the ranchers and having looked at the long train of abuses and usurpations over the last 40 years in that area, I can come to a reasonably informed decision that the Federal government is way out of bounds and needs to be called on this. The problem is that they are judge, jury, and executioner and there is no court of appeals. Such took place prior to the Declaration - when the colonists petitioned for redress of grievances and were pointedly ignored by government at the time.

They have already served their time, and they have been cooperative since release. At this point they will do anything to throw the final blow to get that land, the Hammond's Ranch I mean. Besides I have rarely met a police officer that wasn't "jumpy" and damn quick to pull the trigger. It is what it is, but I still think there's much more to it all then we will ever know! I just want to know what the hell the government needs all that land for. What's the purpose of taking this family's ranch? That's the only thing no being answered.

Yes he was armed but that doesn't mean he was going for the gun. And I am not sure if you're familiar with film, but it can easily be altered.

Are you really saying the government "invited" these people to occupy the wildlife refuge?? That might be entrapment if true, but I haven't heard anyone assert that before. Do you have a source for this?

No, mere deception is not entrapment. Entrapment is when law enforcement encourages and advances the commitment of a crime and then arrests the defendants for the very crime the government helped them commit. That did not happen here. No arm of the government encouraged or helped the defendants seize the wildlife refuge. If you know differently, please cite your source. The invitation to speak and the escort was apparently a ruse designed to trick them into a situation where they could be arrested on the warrants that had already issued. Police deceive and trick people to effect lawful arrests every day. It is both legal and commonplace. It couldn't be that you think this arrest was an example of "entrapment" because you have a position regarding the guilt or innocence of the defendants regarding the underlying crime, could it? If they had been accused bank robbers who were tricked in this manner would your position regarding "entrapment" be the same?

I don't know why it "stinks" to allow an appellate court to review a sentence alleged to be unlawful. This sentence was, in fact, unlawful. If the Hammonds had been unlawfully sentenced too harshly by the trial judge would you think it "stinks" if the appellate court had reversed that? CNN reported this morning that the officer who shot Finicum was a state police officer. The arrest was effected by a joint group of federal and state law enforcement officers. Sorry I can't give you a better source at the moment. My guess is that we will soon have the name and rank of the officer.

Valid take, I think. MLK has been completely forgotten or his message bastardized beyond any resemblance of what he intended. The man, though, was really on to something - a great mind.

Heard Stefan Molyneioux explain it a certain way recently. A law is a rule that you, as a citizen, adhere to unless you want to be killed...or something along those lines. Made me laugh, but it's true. And, best of all, we citizens allow it. You don't have to attend a sports event, play on a team, go for a hike, dance to a certain song...all with an element of choice. But laws...you had better adhere or get crushed. Interesting take...