Good thing Finicum isn't talking. Nobody is saying the shooting wasn't justified. Just that two shots got discharged and they weren't reported for some stupid ass reason. Didn't want to admit he missed or something. Or didn't want to deal with all the paperwork that probably comes with discharging.
The Kooks are Back
- Thread starter SGaynor
- Start date
Not to me. He said they would have to shoot him. That's the only thing that guy said that made any damn sense to me.
I tend to agree with him.
http://katu.com/news/local/jailhouse-interview-ammon-bundy-says-governments-story-is-unraveling
http://katu.com/news/local/jailhouse-interview-ammon-bundy-says-governments-story-is-unraveling
I have no reason to take over a gift shop.
This case is going to be interesting. I think the Feds/state will lose and it's going to cost the tax payers a lot of money. This case is a pretty big deal and it would not surprise me if some of the talking points of this case make it to the supreme court.
Nonetheless, as more developments become available to the public it's increasingly clear the shooting was not exactly justified. I'm still on the fence about that one, but the autopsy report in conjunction with the filed police report have me scratching my head.
Ya I think it will play out in the courts. If it's true they fired on a moving vehicle I think the feds have a problem even if there were no kids in the vehicle. I do think that whoever didn't report his shots fired was an idiot. If it taints this case, which it already has, he's really screwed. At first I wasn't ready to pass judgement on these guys either. But as time ran on it became pretty clear to me they are just a bunch of disgruntled loosers who hooked up with a couple guys who THOUGHT they had a good argument and cause. At least half of them are just a bunch of thugs looking for somebody to push around.
But how would you have expected this to end? I figured a lot more than one of them was going to get shot and killed.I kind of think they could have ended this with a bean bag out of a 12 gauge. Finican wasn't the hard ass he made himself out to be.If he got hit with a bean bag in that situation no way he kept digging for that gun. He would have shit himself.But I also think you make a guy stand behind a badge and protect and serve you gotta let him make the decision at that time.
But how would you have expected this to end? I figured a lot more than one of them was going to get shot and killed.I kind of think they could have ended this with a bean bag out of a 12 gauge. Finican wasn't the hard ass he made himself out to be.If he got hit with a bean bag in that situation no way he kept digging for that gun. He would have shit himself.But I also think you make a guy stand behind a badge and protect and serve you gotta let him make the decision at that time.
The videos I've seen are not clear enough to show if LaVoy did actually go for a gun. I see the motion in the video that could possibly be LaVoy reaching for a gun, but was that before or after the taser was deployed? How do we know it was not a mussel spasm? Long-shot, sure, but nothing surprises me anymore with this case.
So you taser a man who's hands are in the air, shoot him three times in the back killing him, and continue firing on a vehicle with three other occupants. Seems a bit ridiculous.
But whats the law here? LaVoy said he was going to drive to the Sheriff because that's where he felt safe. He said this several times directly to the officers. Cell phones did not work in the area, as shown in the video(s) so he could not call dispatch to let them know that's what he was doing. Yet, as he drove off he was fired upon. Not only that, but then they set up a road block.
In just about every instructional video/column/class directed towards women who get pulled over in a questionable place, or if they just feel uncomfortable, they are told to drive to the nearest police station or otherwise an area where they feel more safe. Why was LaVoy not allowed to do this? Was he wanted? Was there a warrant out for his arrest or for someone elses arrest in the truck? I do not know the answer to that question, but if there in fact was a warrant does that justify firing on the vehicle as it moved away?
Going to be interesting.
Whats going to be more interesting is the fight over the land.
So you taser a man who's hands are in the air, shoot him three times in the back killing him, and continue firing on a vehicle with three other occupants. Seems a bit ridiculous.
But whats the law here? LaVoy said he was going to drive to the Sheriff because that's where he felt safe. He said this several times directly to the officers. Cell phones did not work in the area, as shown in the video(s) so he could not call dispatch to let them know that's what he was doing. Yet, as he drove off he was fired upon. Not only that, but then they set up a road block.
In just about every instructional video/column/class directed towards women who get pulled over in a questionable place, or if they just feel uncomfortable, they are told to drive to the nearest police station or otherwise an area where they feel more safe. Why was LaVoy not allowed to do this? Was he wanted? Was there a warrant out for his arrest or for someone elses arrest in the truck? I do not know the answer to that question, but if there in fact was a warrant does that justify firing on the vehicle as it moved away?
Going to be interesting.
Whats going to be more interesting is the fight over the land.
I saw a video shot from the air. It was longer than a half hour. Shows the first stop then when he started moving again. From that video it sure looked like he reached for something, then did it again. The second time he went digging in his coat is when he got shot. I think had he not done that he would still be alive.
As for the warrants I think yes he had one. For armed take over of a gift shop. And the land I really don't understand that argument. I could see turning it over to local counties or the state. But at one point they demanded it get turned over to ranchers. What about you and me? If there giving away federal land don't you want yours?
As for the warrants I think yes he had one. For armed take over of a gift shop. And the land I really don't understand that argument. I could see turning it over to local counties or the state. But at one point they demanded it get turned over to ranchers. What about you and me? If there giving away federal land don't you want yours?
Few problems with this.
1) The Feds are not giving away land;
2) The Bundy's were not asking for land or taking land.
First of all I do not understand why our Federal government, much less our State government, wants to be in the real estate business. I don't get it. Sure, we need military bases. But I do not agree with the Shenandoah National Park land grab from the 1930's, and I don't understand why the Feds want to control all this land in Nevada, Oregon, Washington, etc... This is nothing new and it's only getting worse. The EPA is telling us what we can and cannot do on our own private property; our government is utilizing reverse mortgages on homes; recreation in our Nation Forests is being limited year-by-year. So I don't get the objective here.
But where the Bundy's come in is interesting to me. The Bundy's, and many, many more just like them, have been ranchers for years-and-years in this area of the country. They lease the land from the Federal government to raise their livestock. They work the ground like it was theirs - plant cover crops, prescribed fire, build fences....everything you and I would do if we owned livestock. It's been this way for longer than you or I were ever thought of.
But then the government starts micro-managing these ranchers. Regulations go well beyond reasonable practices.
So the government is regulating these ranchers out of business in the name of saving the XYZ bush and ABC bird. The same people who impose these regulations, naturally, are not ranchers and are not interested in working with ranchers. It's the same people we call "tree huggers" on the east coast who complain there are no deer in the woods but are dead set on not creating habitat because it might endanger a tree frog during a prescribed burn. Yet, they'll wreck a forest with bull dozers to put out a fire started by lighting strike so the fire does not damage old growth forests that are causing the lack of wildlife problem in the first place. So I can understand the frustration people like the Bundy's must be facing because the people in Washington D.C. just do not get it.
Never mind the rumors that people elected into our government will benefit for kicking the ranchers out.
A few quotes to consider that make it interesting to me:
1) The Feds are not giving away land;
2) The Bundy's were not asking for land or taking land.
First of all I do not understand why our Federal government, much less our State government, wants to be in the real estate business. I don't get it. Sure, we need military bases. But I do not agree with the Shenandoah National Park land grab from the 1930's, and I don't understand why the Feds want to control all this land in Nevada, Oregon, Washington, etc... This is nothing new and it's only getting worse. The EPA is telling us what we can and cannot do on our own private property; our government is utilizing reverse mortgages on homes; recreation in our Nation Forests is being limited year-by-year. So I don't get the objective here.
But where the Bundy's come in is interesting to me. The Bundy's, and many, many more just like them, have been ranchers for years-and-years in this area of the country. They lease the land from the Federal government to raise their livestock. They work the ground like it was theirs - plant cover crops, prescribed fire, build fences....everything you and I would do if we owned livestock. It's been this way for longer than you or I were ever thought of.
But then the government starts micro-managing these ranchers. Regulations go well beyond reasonable practices.
So the government is regulating these ranchers out of business in the name of saving the XYZ bush and ABC bird. The same people who impose these regulations, naturally, are not ranchers and are not interested in working with ranchers. It's the same people we call "tree huggers" on the east coast who complain there are no deer in the woods but are dead set on not creating habitat because it might endanger a tree frog during a prescribed burn. Yet, they'll wreck a forest with bull dozers to put out a fire started by lighting strike so the fire does not damage old growth forests that are causing the lack of wildlife problem in the first place. So I can understand the frustration people like the Bundy's must be facing because the people in Washington D.C. just do not get it.
Never mind the rumors that people elected into our government will benefit for kicking the ranchers out.
A few quotes to consider that make it interesting to me:
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/KUzLRe1iPi8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Dan,you bring up a lot of good arguments and I'm just not used to you getting this far into a discussion without telling me I'm retarded or need somebody to read this shit for me because I don't understand. I have to admit that KrisAnne Hall makes some good arguments and that has kind of made me interested in this and before I wasn't.
I have in my area people who have access to public funds and buy up properties in the name of conservation. I live in the area where the glaciers kind of stopped and the land was either changed by the water running off the melting glaciers or pushed around by the advancing and pulling back of those glaciers as the seasons changed. It's also some of the best farm land in the world. So the battles rage around here over conservation vs feeding the masses. But the Federal Government isn't involved in any of this, it's all the county. The state level is also not involved accept for some state parks that I have never heard anyone contest. So it kind of makes me think that out west being the last areas developed and populated there is just that much of a vacuum that has yet to be filled with people and the demand for that land. Is this the kind of struggle that went on here in the 1800's ? Don't know, but I do know that the state line between Illinois and Wisconsin is 3 miles north of my little po-dunk town of Hebron Illinois. When the state line was moved in 1810 the people in my area where so upset and divided that a big part of this town was moved north to stay in Wisconsin. That's a big damn commitment to move your house to stay in the state of Wisconsin.To me it's just strange,but those people felt violated enough to move there Building.
I have in my area people who have access to public funds and buy up properties in the name of conservation. I live in the area where the glaciers kind of stopped and the land was either changed by the water running off the melting glaciers or pushed around by the advancing and pulling back of those glaciers as the seasons changed. It's also some of the best farm land in the world. So the battles rage around here over conservation vs feeding the masses. But the Federal Government isn't involved in any of this, it's all the county. The state level is also not involved accept for some state parks that I have never heard anyone contest. So it kind of makes me think that out west being the last areas developed and populated there is just that much of a vacuum that has yet to be filled with people and the demand for that land. Is this the kind of struggle that went on here in the 1800's ? Don't know, but I do know that the state line between Illinois and Wisconsin is 3 miles north of my little po-dunk town of Hebron Illinois. When the state line was moved in 1810 the people in my area where so upset and divided that a big part of this town was moved north to stay in Wisconsin. That's a big damn commitment to move your house to stay in the state of Wisconsin.To me it's just strange,but those people felt violated enough to move there Building.
Here's a synched video of what's going on outside and what's going on inside the truck.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZZ8BFuZoF0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZZ8BFuZoF0
I don't know if KrisAnne is correct in her statements or not. But it sure sounds good.
I have a basic understanding of the Constitution. But I gave up trying to guess what the courts were/are thinking. Something as simple and well known as the 2nd amendment for example - at least four of the current Justices interpret this amendment differently than I do.
But it does seem a bit a bit fucked up that the DEQ, EPA, BLM, etc...all work for the same people are the Judges. It's conflicting. Maybe this is why Trump is doing so well.
I have a basic understanding of the Constitution. But I gave up trying to guess what the courts were/are thinking. Something as simple and well known as the 2nd amendment for example - at least four of the current Justices interpret this amendment differently than I do.
But it does seem a bit a bit fucked up that the DEQ, EPA, BLM, etc...all work for the same people are the Judges. It's conflicting. Maybe this is why Trump is doing so well.
