Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 11

Thread: Your tax dollars at work, video

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    131

    Default Your tax dollars at work, video

    Cut down and pinned down
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0XrOLxkb0I

    Cover up: legislating away the public's right to know
    http://katu.com/news/local/oregon-ho...killed-finicum

    It went exactly as planned
    http://www.wnd.com/2016/03/set-up-as...bi-kill-shots/

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Monument, CO
    Posts
    286

    Default Re: Your tax dollars at work, video

    The real problem I see here is that this case should have been brought before a grand jury to determine if it was in fact a justified shooting vs murder.
    It is getting harder and harder to trust the government at large to answer that question these days. Particularly with contentious issues such as these.

    Was Finicum a "mentally ill" person who needed treatment or a dangerous individual who the government viewed as needing killing?
    I read a passage of another article, stating that a handgun (9mm semiauto, looked like a ruger) was found in his pocket.
    This does not sound like he was attempting to injure or kill someone as required as a state justification for the use of deadly force.
    A grand jury is the correct way to go to untangle this incident from government coverup possibilities.
    Additionally FBI types had some irregularities in their story about rounds fired.
    Could this have been part of "setup" to make it appear that he was violent. When he was attempting to get away.
    Getting away is not part of the state justification for the use of deadly force.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Seattle + Central Cascades
    Posts
    11

    Default Re: Your tax dollars at work, video

    He did not act like a man that wasn't trying to get shot. Exiting the vehicle immediately instead of waiting for instruction. If he wanted to live, he did a lot of things wrong.

    It doesn't help that he said prior to this event that he would rather be shot than taken into custody...

    Anyway, they got pulled over by the state police, and then fled. Going to meet with the sheriff is not an excuse for disobeying state police orders. This group was acting as if they were above the law, and he paid for this arrogance.

    I question any police use of force, and shooting him down there looked like unnecessary use of deadly force, but I wasn't there. The video looks to me like the first shot was fired from behind him by that agent standing in the trees, which was highly suspicious to me but probably has an explanation.

    That said, I generally find it harder to question this use of force when the suspect involved is acting like an idiot, is armed, is fleeing the police, putting other innocents at risk by his arrogance, and talking about dying by gunshot in the first place.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    131

    Default Re: Your tax dollars at work, video

    CoGun;

    All good points. It'll take lots of pushing by a darned good attorney or team of attorneys for the state of Oregon to present this to a grand jury. As it is now, the governor and the MSM say the shooting was justified. The state's claim of justification was no doubt swayed by media coverage calling the occupiers "extremists" and "terrorists". That was enough to brainwash the state of Oregon into thinking whatever the FBI or LE did to the occupiers was "justified". Even to the point of a controlled ambush. And that's exactly what it was. The FBI knows and plays that game darned well.

    They're experts at provocation in order to commit murder. They know exactly how to create conditions that provoke and escalate instead of calm and de-escalate. To cause their targeted victims to panic and in their panic act in ways the FBI can later point to and say "See that! Right there, on the video! That's why I shot him! He made that furtive move right there! I was in fear for my life! I gotta family, ya know. I wanna go home alive to my family at night, ya know!"

    What citizen sheep will ever disagree with an FBI agent wanting to "go home to my kids at night", or find fault with an FBI agent for using deadly force against a "terrorist" or "extremist", even if said terrorist/extremist is an American citizen with all the vested rights said citizenship confers on them?

    The FBI knew where Lavoy Finicum was going. He told them more than 10 times in the beginning of the video "I'm going to see the sheriff" and he INVITED THE FBI to meet him there. But meeting ANY of the occupiers and simply ARRESTING them was NOT WHAT THE FBI WANTED TO DO. They wanted to PROVOKE the occupiers in order to have an EXCUSE TO SHOOT THEM DOWN. In COLD BLOOD.

    It was a planned hit. And FBI profilers might've decided Lavoy Fimicum would be the PERFECT TARGET because he was the most EASILY PROVOKED of the occupiers. They no doubt knew and by then read his book "Only By Blood And Suffering". They knew he was the defacto spokesman for the occupiers. They knew exactly what buttons to push to get him going. Knowing ALL THAT it's entirely possible that while Finicum was talking to the FBI in the start of the video, telling them he was going to see the sheriff, the FBI was busy getting the road block in place; knowing full well that Finicum would come upon it. They already KNEW he was agitated at the start of his journey to see the sheriff. And they may well have been COUNTING ON HIS BEING MORE AGITATED by the road block...and then doing something, ANYTHING, they could kill him for and then claim it was justified. And they knew public opinion was more against the occupiers than with them, and hence, more with the FBI than with the occupiers. The FBI may well have thought they could get away with murder. After all, they get away with murder all the time. What's one more dead "right wing extremist" mean to them?

    AFTER THE DEED was done, the FBI kept firing intermittently for 4 or 5 minutes while the others in Finicum's vehicle were still inside. Those occupants clearly yelled over and over to the FBI "STOP!" but the rounds kept coming. WHO WERE THOSE ROUNDS AIMED AT? Finicum? An internet article claimed the family's coroner found 9 bullet holes in Finicum. If the FBI wasn't shooting at Finicum, WHO WERE THEY SHOOTING AT?

    My use of caps isn't to "yell" at you CoGun....or anyone else. I'm just expressing frustration with the situation being dismissed so quickly as a justified shooting, when the in car video raises serious questions about the legality of it all. Has the country really come to this? What happened here is little different than the ambush and murders of Clyde Barrow and Bonnie Parker in the 40's. Their murders heralded the start of criminal rights, so to speak. In the decades after, American LE stopped just shooting criminals on sight. That all went up in flames and smoke in a tiny Texas town named Waco in 1993; when the BATF (Burn All Tots First) launched a full scale frontal assault on a private communal residence just to serve a warrant on one member of that residence, David Koresh.

    Ever since the Waco killers got away with murder the government become ever more bold in their wanton and indiscriminate murder of its citizens. They do it with a smug smirk. And they do it with an in your face "FU, do something about" attitude that both outrages and enrages one's sense of right and wrong.

    ANY inquiry has to start with the question: "Why did the FBI decide to set up a roadblock instead of posting themselves inside the sheriffs' office and peaceably arresting the protesters?" the ROAD BLOCK is where it all began and ended. And it's where the inquiry should begin. There was NO GOOD reason for a road block. It was a deliberate escalation and provocation with the sole intent to display and if necessary use deadly force; with a secondary purpose of 'showing America that LE will not be f----d with'." THOSE are the reasons for the roadblock. The FBI had long before then stopped seeking a peaceful settlement. Instead, they sought a means of provocation in order to commit murder and then call it "justified".
    Last edited by 84FLH; 03-09-2016 at 09:26 PM.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    131

    Default Re: Your tax dollars at work, video

    Quote Originally Posted by napeequa55 View Post
    He did not act like a man that wasn't trying to get shot. Exiting the vehicle immediately instead of waiting for instruction. If he wanted to live, he did a lot of things wrong.

    It doesn't help that he said prior to this event that he would rather be shot than taken into custody...

    Anyway, they got pulled over by the state police, and then fled. Going to meet with the sheriff is not an excuse for disobeying state police orders. This group was acting as if they were above the law, and he paid for this arrogance.

    I question any police use of force, and shooting him down there looked like unnecessary use of deadly force, but I wasn't there. The video looks to me like the first shot was fired from behind him by that agent standing in the trees, which was highly suspicious to me but probably has an explanation.

    That said, I generally find it harder to question this use of force when the suspect involved is acting like an idiot, is armed, is fleeing the police, putting other innocents at risk by his arrogance, and talking about dying by gunshot in the first place.
    "Acting like an idiot" isn't lawful justification to shoot someone.

    "Fleeing the police" isn't reason to shoot a suspect, so say the courts.

    Finicum put nobody in his vehicle at risk. Everyone was there at their own initiative.

    Saying you'd rather be shot than taken into custody doesn't give a cop or any other idiot with a badge reason to shoot you.

    Cops are supposed to (key phrase) go by same rules as you and I regarding deadly force, use it only when they're in "imminent danger of loss of life or grave bodily damage". They were in no such danger when they murdered Lavoy Finicum.

    Finicum was shot three times in the back. One round to base of neck, one round to shoulder, one to lower body. His "reaching" for his side may've been him reacting to getting shot.

    Despite being backshot, coroner said shooting was "justified".

    The cops wanted to shoot someone, anyone. They put up a roadblock for one and only one reason; to provoke a confrontation and then shoot someone after they'd provoked that person to "do something" they (FBI) could later point to as justification for murder. That's why they had shooters inside the treeline. I repeat, that's why they had shooters in the tree line. That fact alone (shooters in the woods) shows the FBI knew in advance the roadblock could turn deadly. Instead of taking a less confrontational approach the FBI charged ahead and fully embraced the confrontational method. The FBI put all the pieces (vehicles in roadblock formation) and persons (shooters in woods) in place to provoke a confrontation and then murder the provoked suspect; whoever it turned out to be.

    This all goes to show the FBI had long ago given up on a peaceful solution. Instead of a peaceful resolution, which was coming about on it's own, the FBI deliberately escalated the situation to a paramilitary ambush, in a rush to shed blood and thus, once again "prove" to Americans that the FBI is king and ruler and will not be F'd with by the American serfs.

    The more a bully gets away with, the more people he bullies. Only thing a bully understands is force. To stop a bully you've got to bring more force against him that he brings against you. Today's paramilitary police are the bullies. Not until the shoe's on the other foot will things change.
    Last edited by 84FLH; 03-09-2016 at 09:57 PM.

  6. #6

    Default Re: Your tax dollars at work, video

    We should probably start a white lives matter movement.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Seattle + Central Cascades
    Posts
    11

    Default Re: Your tax dollars at work, video

    Quote Originally Posted by 84FLH View Post
    "Acting like an idiot" isn't lawful justification to shoot someone.

    "Fleeing the police" isn't reason to shoot a suspect, so say the courts.

    Finicum put nobody in his vehicle at risk. Everyone was there at their own initiative.

    Saying you'd rather be shot than taken into custody doesn't give a cop or any other idiot with a badge reason to shoot you.

    Cops are supposed to (key phrase) go by same rules as you and I regarding deadly force, use it only when they're in "imminent danger of loss of life or grave bodily damage". They were in no such danger when they murdered Lavoy Finicum.
    I would say plowing into a snowbank at 35-40 mph and nearly hitting the FBI agent standing there qualifies as endangering his passengers as well as the agent standing there.

    Again - he was acting as if he was above the law by disobeying police orders when he was pulled over.

    Under normal circumstances the police are going to pursue you when you flee after getting pulled over. So I don't know why you're so blown away by that response. A road block is perhaps an escalated measure here, but these people were wanted on state and federal charges so that's probably within reason.

    I understand you thought this man stood for some purpose you believe in, that doesn't make it okay that he put peoples lives in danger for his personal agenda.

    He wanted to become a martyr - he acted accordingly - and he got what he asked for.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    131

    Default Re: Your tax dollars at work, video

    Quote Originally Posted by napeequa55 View Post
    "He was acting as if he was above the law by fleeing"
    That's your justification for murder? Wow! If "acting above the law" is justification for execution then 90% of Congress and the judiciary should be executed. Pay attention. Courts have ruled that fleeing alone isn't justification for shooting a suspect.


    Quote Originally Posted by napeequa55 View Post
    "Put his passengers at risk"
    Again, that's your justification for murder? Not even Elliot Ness could've got away with shooting a suspect for "putting his passengers at risk". You obviously don't know anything about how the law is supposed to work.


    Quote Originally Posted by napeequa55 View Post
    "Nearly hitting the FBI agent standing there"
    The agent purposely moved into the approach zone of the vehicle. You apparently know nothing about how cops work. They deliberately stand in the approach zone in order to justify shooting the vehicle occupant/driver by claiming they were in fear of their lives.


    Quote Originally Posted by napeequa55 View Post
    "Roadblock was perhaps an escalated measure"
    To call the roadblock "perhaps" an "escalated" measure is to say the march to Bataan was perhaps a bit too optimistic in it's attempt. The roadblock was a planned ambush. The purpose of an ambush is to surprise and kill the enemy by by physically positioning your assets in a certain format that forms a killing zone, and allowing the enemy to enter the KZ before unloading on him. The FBI positioned their assets (vehicles and shooters) in a certain format and fired at the approaching vehicle before it even had a chance to stop. Finicum exited his vehicle into the kill zone. He pulled no weapon, made no threats, had his hands in the air, and was shot 3x in the back.

    And you approve this.


    Quote Originally Posted by napeequa55 View Post
    I understand you thought this man stood for some purpose you believe in....
    You don't understand jack about what I think. Don't dare think you do. Your ignorance is astounding. If you'd read my previous postings on this issue you'd see what I believe is that the rule of law no longer exists. The constitution is and has been dead a long time. LE has become a paramilitary force accountable to no government body. America is a police state where "the law" and "law enforcement" means you do what the cops say or they shoot you. Then they lie about being in fear of their lives and get away with your murder. That, in the vernacular nutshell, is the reality in America. What rock are you under that you don't know what's going on?

    I remember a better America. Sadly, one you never knew and never will.


    Quote Originally Posted by napeequa55 View Post
    "He wanted to become a martyr...and he got what he asked for"
    You have no idea whatsoever what Robert Lavoy Finicum wanted. To claim he wanted to be murdered shows astounding arrogance and ignorance. He was shot 3x in the back when he was out of the car. He wasn't reaching for a weapon. Wasn't uttering threats. Wasn't doing anything to threaten LE. What he DID do was defy their "authority" over him. For THAT he was shot down like a rabid dog.

    What do you know about the grievances of Finicum and western ranchers and their decades long harassment by BLM? 40 years ago BLM tried to buy the Bundy ranch and when Bundy didn't sell they began a 30 year pattern of harassment and illegal activities on his property. What do you know about the uranium near Bundy's ranch? What do you know about he State Dept under Hillary Clinton authorizing a Russian mining outfit to acquire rights to 20% of the USA output of uranium? What do you know about Nevada rancher Wayne Huge's 20 year harassment by BLM and the resultant court decision that BLM was wrong on all counts?

    Your belief is the man "got what he deserved". What arrogance, ignorance, and absolute stupidity on your part. The murdered man did nothing to warrant being shot in the back. That you think his murder was justified shows what side you'd take if it all fell apart. That you sympathize with the murderers shows you're the type of guy who always joins the crowd and never stands against the crowd. You'd be with Petain in Vichy and Quisling in Norway.


    Attitudes and beliefs like yours contribute to, perpetrate, encourage, and allow the problem of paramilitary police state in America to grow exponentially, while individual liberty shrinks with every cold blooded murder done by criminals with a badge and gun. Here are your positions in this case and it can be assumed in general with regard to LE operations:

    - You approve of and support police brutality.

    - You approve of murdering a "fleeing" man.

    - You approve of murdering someone who "endangers his passengers".

    - You approve of shooting someone in the back.

    - You slander the murdered victim by claiming he wanted to be murdered to become a martyr.


    Thanks for sharing your beliefs. It's always good to know what side of right or wrong a man stands on.
    Last edited by 84FLH; 03-10-2016 at 08:43 PM. Reason: Punctuation, spacing

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    131

    Default Re: Your tax dollars at work, video

    Article written 5 or 6 months before the Malheur occupation. BLM's heavy handed intimidation likened to "Gestapo" tactics by US Representatives. Note that BLM has it's own police force, e.g. "law authority". Then there's this comment in the article:

    Rep. Chris Stewart, R-Utah, said photos of heavily armed government agents crouched behind utility vehicles during the Bundy standoff in southern Nevada looked like they were taken in Afghanistan or Iraq rather than the American West. "I have observed more and more the level of militarization occurring within many federal agencies, and I mean almost every federal agency," he said, according to the Las Vegas Review-Journal.
    ************************************************** *****************************

    https://www.ksl.com/?nid=157&sid=30863586

    Federal Land Managers Criticized At House Hearing

    By The Associated Press | Posted Jul 25th, 2014 @ 4:52pm


    LAS VEGAS (AP) Republican elected officials criticized the U.S. Bureau of Land Management's handling of the armed April standoff with Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, blaming tensions on heavy-handed actions by the agency's law enforcement officials.


    The leaders attending the House subcommittee hearing Thursday in Washington said local authorities should have handled the situation. They also said federal land managers should not be allowed to carry guns.


    Bundy and his states' rights supporters, including self-proclaimed militia members, thwarted the bureau's attempt to remove his cattle from public land.


    The bureau says Bundy owes over $1 million in fees and penalties for trespassing on federal property without a permit for more than 20 years. Bundy refuses to acknowledge federal authority on public lands.


    Elko County Commissioner Grant Gerber and Garfield County, Utah, Commissioner Leland Pollock were among local officials who accused the bureau of resorting to threats, intimidation and bullying in its dealings with ranchers and others.


    "Right or wrong, some equate BLM's law enforcement operations to the Gestapo of the World War II era," Pollock said in written testimony to the House Natural Resource Committee's Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulations, according to The Salt Lake Tribune.


    Gerber accused the bureau's Battle Mountain District manager, Doug Furtado, of threatening and bullying ranchers by cutting back on their grazing rights. Furtado has said the drought is prompting the actions.


    "And the BLM is very reluctant to investigate stories of abuse," Gerber said.


    Rep. Chris Stewart, R-Utah, said photos of heavily armed government agents crouched behind utility vehicles during the Bundy standoff in southern Nevada looked like they were taken in Afghanistan or Iraq rather than the American West. "I have observed more and more the level of militarization occurring within many federal agencies, and I mean almost every federal agency," he said, according to the Las Vegas Review-Journal.


    Rep. Tom McClintock, R-Calif., said the bureau should have turned the Bundy matter over to the county sheriff.


    "Whether Bundy was right or wrong, was the BLM's response reasonable? Anyone watching that unfolding fiasco can answer it was completely insane," he said.


    Rep. Raul Grijalva of Arizona, the lone Democrat to participate in the hearing, said it was difficult to determine the truth because bureau officials were not invited to testify. There were two sides to the Bundy roundup, he added.


    "We saw some isolated pictures of heavy-handed law enforcement, but there were also very graphic pictures of militia folks supporting Bundy on the highway, pointing weapons at U.S. marshals," he said.


    Bureau spokesman Jeff Krauss, in a statement, defended the agency.


    "The bureau disagrees with the many vague and inaccurate claims that were made at today's hearing regarding the BLM's collaboration with local entities," he said. "Cooperation with all stakeholders is critical to carrying out the BLM's mission and finding common ground in balancing the many uses of the public lands.


    "In doing so, across the bureau we routinely enter into contracts, agreements and partnerships with a variety of entities, including local law enforcement, ranchers and members of the public ... to protect public health and safety and improve resource conditions on public lands across the West."
    Last edited by 84FLH; 03-11-2016 at 05:00 PM.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    131

    Default Re: Your tax dollars at work, video

    Utah state Rep. Jason Chaffetz proposes legislation to strip BLM and Forest Service of weapons. Wants to know why BLM is seeking to add submachine guns to BLM arsenal.

    ************************************************** **************************

    https://www.ksl.com/?sid=38810837&ni...service-agents

    Chaffetz wants to take guns away from 'Rambo' BLM, Forest Service agents
    By Amy Joi O'Donoghue | Posted Mar 8th, 2016 @ 6:38pm


    SALT LAKE CITY Law enforcement agents with the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service are too "Rambo" to Rep. Jason Chaffetz's liking, so he wants to take away their guns and authority. "These agents are more Rambo and less Andy Griffith than I would like," he told the Deseret News Tuesday.


    Chafftez, R-Utah, said he plans to introduce a bill next week to strip those two agencies of their law enforcement authority and instead set up a system of block grants to states with a lot of federal lands within their borders to augment local law enforcement response. "Let's not kid ourselves. The blood pressure is running high, especially in southern Utah, and I don't want anyone to get killed," Chaffetz said, adding his bill has the endorsement of his Utah colleagues in the House.


    Chaffetz said he also wants to issue subpoenas to the "out of control" federal agencies to learn why they want to purchase submachine guns. He said he has had repeated meetings and sent letters to the BLM's national director, Neil Kornze, with no satisfactory response to his questions.


    "I want to know what kind of arsenal they have. I'm met with blank stares," he said. "They're wholly unresponsive. They don't feel compelled to answer our letters."


    He said the BLM abruptly canceled its contracts with local county sheriff's offices in Utah and relationships have diminished in a significant way. He met with local sheriffs Tuesday to discuss his proposal, with a couple of the men predicting that the congressman's legislation will receive support.


    "I think it will have some support among sheriffs and probably widespread support among rural sheriffs," said Kane County Sheriff Tracy Glover. Glover said he enjoys productive relationships with federal law enforcement, but agents' duplication of local sheriff's deputy duties has been a long-standing concern. Chaffetz said generally there has been a continued decrease in the level of cooperation from federal agents.


    "The BLM is refusing to do any business in Utah," he said, referencing canceled contracts. Yet if someone is lost or injured in a national forest or BLM-managed land, it is local deputies who respond and spend the resources, he said. Chaffetz said it makes more sense to have elected county sheriffs with public accountability in charge of law enforcement functions in their own geographic areas. "If it is really serious, you're going to call the FBI anyway," he said.


    Glover said his county is 4,000 square miles and his agency has a lot less turnover than federal counterparts. "Lastly, I think we are closest to the people. We're the elected officials. We get the reports, we get the phone calls, we get the communication from our local residents," he said. Garfield County Sheriff Danny Perkins added there have been instances of federal law enforcement activity that have unfolded in his county unbeknownst to his deputies. "We have had situations in my county where we have not been contacted and we should have been, and as a result, there were other crimes that were not taken care of when we had deputies in the area," he said. "It is not like we don't patrol these areas. It's not like we are not there. And when crimes are not addressed, that is bothersome to me."


    The increasing militarization of certain federal agencies has caused political angst and rural pushback in Utah and other parts of the West, especially as public lands issues have become more heated.


    In 2014, Rep. Chris Stewart, R-Utah, announced efforts to defund law enforcement functions of agencies that include the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of Education. Stewart said the armed teams of federal agencies are doing more harm than good and are unnecessary.


    Both Chaffetz and Stewart say potentially volatile situations that merit law enforcement response are best left to the area's local sheriff's offices or police who are familiar with the topography and residents. If tensions continue to escalate such as the armed ranchers' occupation of a federal wildlife refuge in Oregon earlier this year the FBI should be called in.


    Perkins added that his office has cooperative relationships with other federal agencies, such as the Drug Enforcement Administration. "I have our local DEA agents on speed dial and they are there to help us and respect us," he said. "But it makes more sense to have local law enforcement in a county under the directive of the sheriff."

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •