They did kill him. Has ANYONE said that the cops didn’t kill him? They didn’t MURDER him. Huge, huge, chasm of a difference between those two words.
In answer to your other points, I’ll just ask this - what happened when the cops finally stopped? The occupants of the vehicle got out and surrendered peacefully, right? Do you think that, back at the first stop, if Mr. Finicum had decided that he wanted to live to fight another day, he could have surrendered, along with the rest? Or do you think they were going to “murder” him no matter what that day?
He'd already been shot at by unidentified armed men. He was going to seek a REAL law enforcement official - not some camoed thugs in the forest.
But we've already explained to you many times what was going on. You don't seem to want to acknowledge that Finicum had been shot at.
True, but these two words are being used interchangeably all over this thread. I was only trying to clarify.
For brevity's sake, I'm jumping to your last point.
Or do you think they were going to “murder” him no matter what that day?
Even though I agree that the police seemed to be using non-lethal techniques (mostly), I'm still of a mind to believe that snipers up on the hill had other orders.
Finicum and the others are exposing what our leaders are doing with large tracts of land and they don't take too kindly to that.
My other half (I'm of two minds one might say) says that they didn't really want him dead because that would make the government look bad in the public's eye. That half also says that the only reason we are being allowed to see these videos is because it supports their case that they TRIED not to kill anyone.
I understood your point from the beginning. I'm still saying that the WHY of this is the only thing that matters.
There had to be a problem for there to be a protest. Why is the problem not relevant to the protest ?