Just as in the Eric Garner case, if this badge thug walks, then the next potential victim has no alternative except to shoot first (and do the advance prep needed to make that possible).

So here's another legal ruling that comes into play regarding the roadblock at which Finicum was fatally shot:

http://www.westernjournalism.com/bomb...

Thoughts?

Feel free to be the defense attorney (on behalf of the police officers) then and explain away those initial two shots.

Here are a few more questions I would ask regarding 161.239:

1) Please explain under 161.239 (c) where there was a threatened imminent use of physical force that would justify you replying with lethal force.
2) Please explain under 161.239 (d) why you felt a use of deadly force was necessary.
3) Please explain how 161.239 (2) is inapplicable given those first two shots which struck the vehicle.

Yes, context IS everything. Lacking those two initial shots, one can make a case for officers acting within the bounds of their jurisdiction and judgement. Those two initial shots which struck Finicum's SUV however are a game-changer because they completely nullify officers' claims to immunity.

Sure am glad to live in a free country where I am a criminal if I defend myself and the police (who are trained to shoot to kill before seeing a weapon and are very likely less intelligent and less able to make rational decisions) can legally kill me in the same conditions.

You obviously hold to the narrative that he was going for a weapon. I do not. Others who saw the weapon the agents claim they took from Finicum's pocket say that it was not familiar to them, and they were around Finicum for days while he open-carried in a shoulder-holster.

The other item which casts doubt on that claim was the Finicum was to be the spokesman at a town hall meeting in the next county to which their group had been invited by the Sheriff of that county to speak. Though some of the members of the party were armed, some claimed the because Finicum knew his role and they were not expecting any trouble that he left his weapon at the refuge before departing.

I would also point out again that they did not flee the first roadblock until they were fired upon by law enforcement without provocation.

Ahh, context is everything. I showed you the rules on law enforcement using force. you show the rule on a 'person' using force which means us non law enforcement people. Cops can kill where a 'person' cannot.

Did you notice where they placed the barricade? It was around a corner - there was only a split second for Finicum's SUV to decide on a course.

I must also remind you that they were fleeing in fear of their lives. Their vehicle had already been hit twice by gunfire initiated by law enforcement. Does the right to defend one's self only extend to law enforcement?

The last thing I would add is that they were not "aiming" for that individual. When you set up a roadblock, the intent is to physically stop the target vehicle while protecting the individuals at the roadblock. That agent was just stupid and ignored the rules of good sense - or he was intentionally trying to create a false argument. When you set up a roadblock, you have to prepare for someone to try to go around. This guy endangered himself by not staying behind protection.

And I would point you to this specific section of the very same code:

161.215 Limitations on use of physical force in defense of a person. Notwithstanding ORS 161.209, a person is not justified in using physical force upon another person if:
(1) With intent to cause physical injury or death to another person, the person provokes the use of unlawful physical force by that person; or
(2) The person is the initial aggressor, except that the use of physical force upon another person under such circumstances is justifiable if the person withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to the other person the intent to do so, but the latter nevertheless continues or threatens to continue the use of unlawful physical force; or

If I'm the defense lawyer, all I have to do is point out the fact that the entire confrontation was initiated and escalated by law enforcement in specific violation of 161.215 (2) and the case is over. Those initial two shots turned law enforcement into the "initial aggressor" and as such voided ANY AND ALL protections afforded under this code.

I would further point out that in 161.239, there is a significant different between the employment of force and the employment of lethal force.

Did you see the same video that I did?
I saw at least 2 officers, both front and back. I did not see an aggressive move by Finicum. The cops who I have gone on patrol with would have had one keep him still with a gun pointed at him while the one behind him, instead of shooting him, cuffed him. Or at the very least explained what they were going to do in order to see if there would be an aggressive move. It looked to me that the cops had made up their minds to execute this guy, and then followed through.

Ruby Ridge

Your argument “Employment of lethal force is only justified when an officer fears for his safety or the safety of others and must be justified by an imminent and substantial threat of bodily harm. “ does not flow with the law. I refer you to the Oregon State Law on this. ORS Volume 4 chapter 161 sections 235 (1) &(2) and Section 239 (1)(a) (c) (e) where I believe I point out the specific applicable reasons they were justified under the law to use deadly force.
235 (1) Preventing his escape. {Finicum gave an ultimatum that he be allowed to escape}
235 (2) Defense of themselves for others (including fellow officers) who from their vantage point arrive at the judgment there is a threat. {Officers can shoot if they believe there is a threat, officers are permitted to make their own judgement call without input from others based upon their information, no conference meeting required}
239 (1)(a) preventing his escape if the crime committed was a felony {The crime of armed occupation of federal property was committed and he wanted to escape}
239 (1)(a) preventing his escape if he attempted to commit a felony involving the use or threatened imminent use of physical force against a person {preventing his escape from the arrest for the crime of the armed standoff where the imminent physical force was threatened. Note that no conviction is required for this determination of the felony. This is aside from his driving}
239 (1)(c) Defending a fellow officer from the threatened imminent use of deadly physical force. {His dangerous driving was a threat. He did not comply or surrender and reached toward his waist twice.}
239 (1)(e) The officers life or personal safety is endangered in the particular circumstances. {His dangerous driving was a threat. He did not comply or surrender and reached toward his waist twice.}

Here is the Law as posted in Oregon https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bil...
161.235 Use of physical force in making an arrest or in preventing an escape. Except as provided in ORS 161.239, a peace officer is justified in using physical force upon another person only when and to the extent that the peace officer reasonably believes it necessary:
(1) To make an arrest or to prevent the escape from custody of an arrested person unless the peace officer knows that the arrest is unlawful; or
(2) For self-defense or to defend a third person from what the peace officer reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of physical force while making or attempting to make an arrest or while preventing or attempting to prevent an escape. [1971 c.743 §27]

161.239 Use of deadly physical force in making an arrest or in preventing an escape. (1) Notwithstanding the provisions of ORS 161.235, a peace officer may use deadly physical force only when the peace officer reasonably believes that:
(a) The crime committed by the person was a felony or an attempt to commit a felony involving the use or threatened imminent use of physical force against a person; or
(b) The crime committed by the person was kidnapping, arson, escape in the first degree, burglary in the first degree or any attempt to commit such a crime; or
(c) Regardless of the particular offense which is the subject of the arrest or attempted escape, the use of deadly physical force is necessary to defend the peace officer or another person from the use or threatened imminent use of deadly physical force; or
(d) The crime committed by the person was a felony or an attempt to commit a felony and under the totality of the circumstances existing at the time and place, the use of such force is necessary; or
(e) The officer’s life or personal safety is endangered in the particular circumstances involved.
(2) Nothing in subsection (1) of this section constitutes justification for reckless or criminally negligent conduct by a peace officer amounting to an offense against or with respect to innocent persons whom the peace officer is not seeking to arrest or retain in custody. [1971 c.743 §28]

" A few rounds were fired at the truck after"
It's unfortunate we say "a rounds were fired" at people posing no threat, as if the normal thing were firing many rounds for no reason. As you say, that's the world we live in.
"Do you really find it so surprising that you never hear about SWAT officers or others that just can't live with what they've become or done"
Yes. Violent crimes is down over the past few decades. Acceptance of violence in all its forms is down. Domestic violence, spanking children, even harsh conditions for farm animals are getting less acceptable. I don't understand why we accept violence in law enforcement, esp when crime is down.

If someone every breaks in my place and I shoot him, I will get no feel of power from it. How lame it would be to kill someone with a gun and think of it as some kind of achievement.

"Hostage Rescue! I didn't see any hostages anywhere. "
I saw that and didn't understand. I don't know if they just happened to work for that department or if that's their way of soft-pedaling use of military tactics to arrest people accused of minor crimes.

Aaah, but for the most part it did work. If you'll notice for the time until Finicum was down, attention and fire was on him. A few rounds were fired at the truck after, but someone called them off and they only used 'flash bangs', gas rounds, and rubber (?) rounds at the side windows after. I think Ryan was struck when the side window was shot out just prior to Finicum exiting the drivers door.

For the second part, you can rest assured that you wouldn't have made the SWAT team. What's the FBI SWAT named? Hostage Rescue! I didn't see any hostages anywhere. 'Those people' aren't from Mars. They grow up all around you and I along with criminals, and that is the truly scary part.

Do you really find it so surprising that you never hear about SWAT officers or others that just can't live with what they've become or done? Mankind's history is replete with such men (and women). Power and the feeling of power and the association with power is one of the most driving emotions of a large portion of mankind.

"Now I am normally a proponent of law enforcement"
I am a proponent of the rule of law. If it works, then we don't judge people by membership in law enforcement, racial groups, etc. We just judge whether their actions are consistent with the law.

If the law says it's okay to shoot at people who pose no threat, like the people in the car, there's something seriously wrong with out laws. IANAL, but I suspect it was illegal.

"he immediately exited the truck, with no indication that the attackers would cease fire, to draw further fire to himself away from the truck."
It didn't work. I'd think they would focus on him. I'd think if he got shot that would stop the adrenaline, and everyone would focus on getting an ambulance, not shooting at suspects who were hiding and posing no threat.
"those that direct and carry out those killings and actions, believe themselves to be in the right and fully justified, and they are drawn from your neighbors, friends, and families."
Where do they find these people? Given the way he was acting, I might have shot him in that situation. But I would be upset with guilt, wondering if I could have avoided it. I would put myself at risk from the other suspects to get him medical attention. They could not order me to shoot into a car with non-threatening suspects. If I were even present there doing some un-related support job, I would resign in protest. Shooting at people who are not a threat is just completely beyond the pale for me. I can't imagine my neighbors participating in anything like this.

Well said.

Please find my primary comment below.

Wrong, a fleeing felon in the act of resisting arrest is at the condition of being subject to the officer's judgment. That is the proper training. Fleeing felons can be killed simply for the act of fleeing. That is law in many states written as such, but in practice in all states when you take into account that officers are directed to take risky and possibly deadly actions to stop the felon other than shooting. A pits maneuver can kill, a tazer can kill, hand to hand contact can kill.

To claim that a speeding vehicle driven off road through the standing area where officers are is not a direct threat is willfully ignoring reality, the fleeing felon learned the hard way you cannot ignore the consequences of ignoring reality.

The Bundy sons and Finicum were foolish. They had been warned and cautioned by numerous others that their tactics and their choice of place were poorly thought out and strategically impossible. They were also strongly advised to move themselves to a location under the purview of a declared 'Constitutional' Sheriff to carry on their protests, with direct warnings that the Fed's were showing indications of increased aggressiveness and to expect 'action' from them in the immediate future. To then leave the site as if it was a normal business affair was careless to a level approaching hubris.

With all of that being said, the 'operation' set up by the FBI SWAT group and OSP SWAT was intended to be violent, either in response to actions by the Bundy's or instigated by the 'ambush' group. I will note that I consider the actions of Finicum after becoming stopped in the snow and after receiving fire on approach and immediately after the stop, courageous. I think that he was fully aware that he was most probably the primary target of the incoming fire and with others in the truck including a young woman, that he immediately exited the truck, with no indication that the attackers would cease fire, to draw further fire to himself away from the truck.

I think that his 'antics' in the snow were intended to keep attention on himself. I think he was hit in the back be a sniper, not in the video, and his reaching to his left side at least twice without drawing a weapon, was in response to that hit. Although there are claims from the gov't that he was struck three times during the fatal shots, I think he was only struck twice in that final volley. I don't think Finicum was on that road wanting to die. I know from his prior statements that he abhorred the idea of being put in a cell, and from his actions drawing the attention and fire from the SWAT men, that he was ready to die at their hands, thinking it would serve as some type of motivator to others.

Calling it 'suicide by cop' just falls into the mind set wished for by the gov't actors. And it further denigrates a very brave act, even if entered into for a foolishly hoped for result by a fairly naive man. I agree it was murder, but from everything we've seen in the last several years from our gov't and these type of 'protest' inter-actions with citizens, there will be no accountability and we can only expect this type of result for those that the gov't deems as 'enemies of the State'. These activities are not those that will be termed or compared to the shootings at Lexington and Concord.

By the way, from what I've read, the 'investigation' is not about the death of Finicum, but rather is about the shooting and actions against the truck's occupants after his downing.

I sincerely hope that the lessons from that entire affair are taken to heart by everybody. This gov't of 'The Land of the Free' will kill you at the slightest provocation, and tyrannize any that don't follow or protest only in the 'accepted manner' at the designated 'free speech' area with PC words. And more to the point, those that direct and carry out those killings and actions, believe themselves to be in the right and fully justified, and they are drawn from your neighbors, friends, and families. These are not just philosophical discussions, these are the realities of our lives.

It doesn't matter who you follow in the 'Great Candidate Show' or which one you vote for. Existence is, A=A, you are here and now, and this is your life. Reality is a cold, hard Bitch and she will not be ignored for long.

Why hasnt anyone said anything about the agent that appears to be hit by the Finicum vehicle? That in itself is assult with a deadly weapon (vehicle). If someone tried to run me down i have a right to defend myself!

Was he holding a weapon? If so, was it in shooting position?
If not, he wasn't a direct threat. if the officers were properly trained there was no need for deadly force. The officers were either improperly trained or they had some unspoken reason to kill the guy.

I have a great respect for the profession of law enforcement and an instinctive distrust of government in general - especially the last decade or so. When you are known to carry weapons publicly while occupying government property, you should not be surprised that when you leave sanctuary, you are now a legitimate candidate for being detained, running a roadblock doesnt help. My comments are based on two things, when a man with a gun on you says dont move, you cannot outdraw him and you don`t win by dying.

I am really shaken up by this. There is no excuse, no matter what he was saying. I'm going to send this to some law enforcement friends and see what they say.

Nicely said, Herb. And from you it carries weight.

Damn, damn, damn, damn!
Never have I seen such a brutal illegal, heinous act performed by any part of law enforcement. There was no reason to kill the man. Anyone with any training could have taken him down and cuffed him. I am chilled to the bone by this video. Corruption from Washington on down the country has devolved into us against them, and no one in the media seems to care. I am beyond angry. What happened to my country? Don't tell me -- I already know.