Would you care to elaborate?

The Bundy's actions were in part understandable and in part not wanted. I believe there is a legitimate complaint against the Federal abuse of authority in these land cases and the protests - as ill-conceived as they may have been - were to attempt to expose this to the public and garner investigation and change. That being said, law enforcement did not stop a convoy "carrying help" - they stopped a convoy which had been specifically invited by the Sheriff of a neighboring county to address that county's citizens at a town hall-style meeting. Law enforcement had to invent a traffic violation to pull them over in the first place. (You can check, but no misdemeanor traffic violations were alleged against any member of the convoy.)

The second item of sincere questionability is the presence of armed Federal officers at a roadblock for supposed "traffic violations". And not only armed, but with safeties off and fingers on triggers.

The third is the fact that the vehicle carrying Finicum was fired upon during the first stop - minutes before he was ultimately killed. And there was not only no mention of that in the original police reports, but would represent a significant escalation in the situation caused by law enforcement.

As to the drone footage, what I find interesting is that there should also be accompanying audio. The claim is that there were technical difficulties and no audio was working. This also leads me to question the absence of body cameras on the law enforcement personnel. Those cameras more than once have been used to justify an officer's actions. That neither the Oregon State Troopers nor the FBI were wearing them speaks volumes in my mind.

There is also the fact that there isn't a single alleged incidence of a firearm being pulled or pointed at any law enforcement officer by any of the dozens of people in the convoy, but Ryan Bundy also ended up getting shot.

Now I am normally a proponent of law enforcement, but there are far too many things about this case that don't sit right with me to simply blow it off as some lunatic committing suicide by cop. You are welcome to your own opinion on the matter, of course.

"His conduct was sufficient reason to permit law enforcement to shoot."

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. Where was such a threat the first time the vehicles were stopped and the SUV with Lavoy Finicum was hit? THAT is the match in the tinder. And in the case where he actually did get shot, I will be interested to see if a jury agrees that Finicum represented a real danger to law enforcement: an old man in foot-deep snow with his hands up. Verbally challenging law enforcement to let him go or shoot him isn't a threat of harm. There must be a physical act involved. And unfortunately, because all we have is an overhead drone shot - curiously without audio - we have no idea of knowing whether Finicum reached for a pocket gun (see comments above about said gun) or reacted to being shot in the side. The lack of body cameras on any of the law enforcement personnel - either State or Federal - is suspicious to me in an age where they are not only prevalent, but mandated in many cases - especially when they are generally used to justify the actions of law enforcement personnel.

"By this point he was already considered an armed and dangerous felon"

One becomes a felon only after conviction. What is interesting is that he had met with and talked to the FBI several times when they had come to the refuge to scope things out and there had been no problems whatsoever.

"his refusal to comply on the first order is usually reason enough for them to shoot."

Again, in the absence of an imminent and substantial threat of bodily harm, there is no justification for lethal force even if the suspect is refusing to cooperate with verbal orders. That's what tasers and trained canines are for, and barring that, simply tackling the suspect. If simply running away from the police were justification for lethal force, we'd have a thousand police-fueled homicides on our hands every day. It just isn't justification and never has been.

Did you really listen carefully to the gunshots? There were shots fired before Finicum even got out of the truck, and the first shots that hit him came before he reached for his chest, so the crap about reaching for a gun is a fiction. The continuing barrage of shots fired at the vehicle when no one is showing any sign of aggression is the result of an out of control law enforcement crew, amped up on testosterone and adrenalin.

I don't agree with the action Bundy and others involved took, but the overreaction by the FBI and state police is inexcusable. This is what we get when we allow improperly trained law enforcement to take on the trappings of a military force. You may applaud the results, but you may want to rethink this when more incidents happen for even less offenses.

Sorry - when you start posting logical flaws and inaccuracies, it is time for me to thank you for your time and leave. Thank you for your interesting comments.

I left that place during 1975 when The Time Tunnel reruns were on TV.

Let's just say that the shooting "was" justified. If that's the case..."why" did the agents hide the fact that they started shooting much earlier than what was previously reported?

No, damn it, there IS something wrong here and it needs to be addressed...not simply swept under the rug because the locals are glad it's over.

His conduct was sufficient reason to permit law enforcement to shoot. Yes there was a road block. Yes roadblocks are legitimate. He tried and failed to run the roadblock. Then after exiting the vehicle he behaved in a way that implicates a threat. In order to not get yourself dead you should 1) not tell them to kill you, 2) you should not disobey their orders to put yourself in a low threat position, 3) you should not make any movement that looks like you are increasing your threat level. By this point he was already considered an armed and dangerous felon, his refusal to comply on the first order is usually reason enough for them to shoot. They don't need to wait for further escalation by the criminal, law enforcement are entitled to escalate the use of force. That is and has been reality for decades.

I live in the swamp on a dead end dirt road on a property that is hard fenced and gated. If I have an issue with the law and I choose to comply instead of hunker and bunker - as the Hammonds did, If I asked any "help" that showed up to please leave and stay out of it -as the Hammonds did, if some of that help took over the park a couple miles away and were openly carrying weapons - as they were. If the LEO`s set up a roadblock on public right of way to stop a vehicle carrying armed "help" and the vehicle runs it, then a man known to carry in a shoulder rig gets out and reaches while being covered....why is anyone surprised they lit him up? As to the theory he was reaching because he was shot - I would need to see evidence of that, if true, it was murder, if not I would say he died of stupidity. As to the "ambush" theory, if it truly was designed as an ambush, none of us would ever know there was drone footage.

The intent was not to get into a "pissing match". You presented your opinion. I presented an alternative. If you choose not to consider it, that's up to you.

They were protesters. Of course they went in to draw attention to themselves. That being said, they have a legitimate concern - that of Federal authority over land being asserted and overriding private property rights. The history both of the bundy Ranch in Nevada and the Hammond Ranch in Oregon both showed egregious abuse of that power by BLM and other federal agencies in the area. The Hammonds went back to jail on Federal terrorism charges - even after they had agreed to do time for the original infraction more than two years ago. They had no one to advocate for them but outside groups because most of the other ranchers had been driven off by the BLM over the past 40 years. I can give you a link to the history of the area if you would like. It was very telling.

That being said, I find nothing done in the protest justifying the taking of a man's life. You can call him crazy if you want, but the facts are law enforcement opened fire despite no weapon ever being drawn - and that was minutes before the confrontation that killed him. They set up a roadblock with armed officers waiting at both places in strategic positions with weapons loaded and safeties off. They initiated the confrontation - not the protesters. It was a planned event.

"However, these out-of-staters did just that - come in from every state -but- Oregon to commit a crime (whether they think so or not, it was illegal)... which makes it an interstate crime... which (sadly) puts it well within the jurisdiction of the FBI."

No trials have been concluded and no guilty verdicts issued, so no crimes have been committed. The Sheriff, however, has ultimate local jurisdiction. The Refuge is public property - an entirely legal place to protest and completely deserted at the time. The best they have been charged with are trumped-up accusations originating from the Nevada standoff several years ago and "interfering with a federal officer" - even though none were present at the refuge.

This whole things stinks to high heaven, but if you'd rather hold your nose, that's up to you.

Exactly. :-) Pretty wise for someone who escaped the La Brea tar pits to write another day! --giggles--

Hey, I won't get into a pissing match with you... Even if you do get your news from KOBN or KBNH (I like KCNO better, sorry) the evidence points elsewhere. (And if you're really from these parts, you know what the cell coverage is like... and know damned near no one up here has decent - or any - cell coverage.)

I wasn't there, I can only go by what I saw and what I heard. But I will tell you that, while I am no fan of the DHS, the FBI, or the police state of fear we have become, I still think a bunch of out-of-staters coming in, pissing in someone else's back yard as a publicity move and stirring up crap for them was about as wrong as the feds coming in and stomping on it, in the middle of cowboy country that was doing nothing but minding their own business.

However, these out-of-staters did just that - come in from every state -but- Oregon to commit a crime (whether they think so or not, it was illegal)... which makes it an interstate crime... which (sadly) puts it well within the jurisdiction of the FBI.

Bottom line - these out-of-state outsiders went to Burns and deliberately kicked a f***ing hornets nest, hoping to stir up the hornets for a big ol' publicity event. They succeeded in their publicity event, they got the hornets pissed and flying, ready to sting, and they got stung - bad.

And because they kicked the hornets nest trying for a reaction, we are supposed to say "Aw, poor babys, those nasty hornets shouldn't have stung you"... I call BS.

Anyway... that's -this- local's take on the events just northeast of me.

My mind is still open to what really happened.
Suddenly again I wonder what really happened to a certain recently deceased Supreme Court Justice in a bedroom owned by an Obama supporter.
Pillow Talk is a Doris Day movie. Cough! Cough!

The video doesn't show if LaVoy reached for a gun. But it shows after he was shot they didn't go and disarm him. If they thought he was trying to shoot them, why didn't they disarm him? Why didn't they try to get him medical attention? There were many shots at the car, even though no one did anything threatening. It seems like everything they did just escalated the situation instead of diffusing it. If they had said, "We have someone shot. We need you to secure the area before medics can come in. Please come out with your hands up," they probably would have complied.

The police had the suspects surrounded. The police could have simply waited while everyone's adrenaline subsided. Even if the other suspects had been intent on fighting the police, with time they would get thirsty and want to use the bathroom, and this would work in the police's favor. Time was on the police's side.

It is disgraceful on many levels.

Those who knew Finicum say that they do not recognize the weapon that officers claim they found on the body. There is also the suspicion that Finicum was shot in the lower side - where the instinctive reaction is to reach for it. What is also suspicious is that for some reason none of the officers' body cameras were on, nor was the drone's audio functioning.

What is missing from the overhead (for some unknown reason) is the audio that exposes Finicum getting shot. When his hands drop, it is because he's just registered that fact. Witnesses testify that Finicum left his gun because he was going to be the spokesman at a meeting in the next county with the Sheriff there and the citizens who were waiting in an school auditorium. Those who saw the gun supposedly found on Finicum's body have said they did not recognize it.

What is also pointed out is that their vehicle had already been shot at during the previous stop, which is why they decided to leave. They rightly feared for their lives.

You're welcome to your opinion. I live only a short ways away and local radio has been following this story very closely as well as having witnesses testify about what happened. Here's some alternate thoughts:

1) It wasn't a traffic stop at all - it was an ambush. Police don't have guns at the ready for a traffic stop and don't set up a roadblock with armed FBI agents in tactical gear five miles down the road. That was a pretense. You'll notice that the Oregon State Troopers never cited anyone in the group for a traffic violation.
2) Did you notice how it was done in an area with no cell service?
3) The vehicle was shot BEFORE they drove off and with no provocation. That is an entitlement to fear for one's life and no one has a responsibility to obey law enforcement when law enforcement initiates a threat on life like that.
4) This isn't suicide by cop. Finicum told them over and over that he had an appointment with the Sheriff in the next County - which they did (to address that county's residents assembled in a school auditorium).
5) Finicum was unarmed. He reached down because he'd just been shot. Those who knew Finicum question that the gun that the Feds supposedly found in his pocket belonged to Finicum because they didn't recognize it, even though he commonly carried in his shoulder holster.
6) Finicum had personally talked to many of the FBI agents who had visited the compound prior to this event and had made videos indicating that while everything had started out fine, the FBI agents had begun being more and more hostile with no apparent reason.

" the cops showed incredible restraint"

Showing restraint would have been waiting until a weapon had been shown to the officers before drawing their own - if this was a simple traffic stop.
Showing restraint would have been escorting the group to the waiting Sheriff in the next County and having their talk there.
Showing restraint would have been NOT having the FBI involved - let alone for a traffic stop.
Showing restraint would have been approaching Finicum after he got out of the vehicle and arresting him. At most use a dog to take him down.
Showing restraint would have been to NOT SHOOT HIM.

Who showed tremendous restraint? The protesters. No firearms were ever drawn or pointed at law enforcement agents by protesters during this entire event.

PS - Finicum wasn't the only one shot, either. Ryan Bundy was also shot - just not fatally.

Whatever happened to "live to fight another day?"
Whether its cops, crooks or both, if several gunmen have the drop on me, I'm not gonna go for the pocket pistol I carry.
Now should I be diagnosed as terminally ill, that's a whole different deal. I may prefer a suicide by cop martyrdom for a just cause.
Another "aw, hell, just go for it" scenario would be Muslim terrorists, who'd like to make a video of cutting my head off.

The videos I have seen show an armed man refusing orders to surrender. The known armed man who made statements in the past about using deadly force to resist the government. He then feinted or reached for his waist band twice. The audio I heard was of him telling them to either let him go free or ' to put the bullets to him' He was a fool. He killed himself with his choices. I may agree on some points that the governments this group complained about were self serving, but their method was illogical, improper, and ineffective. I would have suspicion of the government agent's conduct if they shot everyone in the van, but this case is clear. This is not the same as the sniper of Ruby Ridge shooting a woman holding a baby.

This may rub people the wrong way, but... tough.

Releasing the video justified the shooting - not the ravings of a lunatic, but with officers pointing guns at him, telling him to get on the ground, and keep his hands in sight...

He stuffs his right hand under his jacket, which is what happens immediately before someone (whether he was going to or not) wraps his fingers around the grip of a firearm in a shoulder holster, pulls it out, presents it, and pulls the trigger...

If Johnny Law has guns pointed at me, the last thing I am going to do is (1) not do what the cop wanted, (2) instead do something the cops told me specifically NOT to do, and (3) Do something that looks like you're reaching for a concealed weapon In a shoulder holster, whether or not you actually have a shoulder holstered weapon.

The videos show these 3 things going on... In real life - they call this specific set of actions "Suicide by Cop". Obviously the cat was mentally imbalanced... which I am sure will come into the equation as well.

You have a potentially armed person with a known animosity towards you making insane and bizarre comments, then not just ignoring you but doing an action that is specifically linked to pulling out a firearm.

That's like saying that that nice german shepherd with a foamy mouth and snarling at you with rabies doesn't mean bad, so you should go up and cuddle it and pet it, because inside it's all a nice doggy...

The guy was obviously mentally unstable, per his own video from the truck... the cops showed incredible restraint until they were threatened. Once they did they responded, not only as they were trained to do, but what anyone in a similar situation - cop or not - would do - perceive a threat and neutralize it.

Me? I would have shot the guy dead. Sorry, but that's a RATIONAL response to the highly irrational actions. of a potentially dangerous, potentially armed, demonstratedly psychotically deranged person.

the original video convinced me that the feds shot first;;;
this just convinces me more. . and will justice be served? -- j
.

I keep telling y'all, that when real "thinking" humans allow themselves to be governed (always by Force), Waco and Finicum and many other such are to be expected as "the norm".

Self-defending of our each and every homestead is the only Gulch possible for however long we continue to be Ruled... by whom? Other humans!

"Taking full responsibility" is the verbal substitute for accountability.

The ones in the car already went to jail. They are still awaiting trial.

Next, the AG takes "responsibility". the shooters get promotions, and those in the car go to jail.

I am quite surprised that this video has been released, however.