Replies

Here is a good article, it explains the situation well. http://thelsvoice.blogspot.com/2016/02/lavoy-finicum-and-long-slow-death-of.html?m=1

Excerpt “Congress shall make no law concerning the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

That is the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. The full text. Since 1791 those few words, that one sentence, has been the symbol of individual liberty that has been the hallmark of America.”

The article continues with additional information and concludes with the following,
“What happened at either the first traffic stop or the road block is unclear. By some accounts, police were shooting at LaVoy’s truck during the first stop, leading him to ‘run for his life.’ One passenger in the truck says that as soon as they crashed into the snow bank, law enforcement officers began shooting at the truck. The official story is that upon crashing, LaVoy leapt from his truck and charged at law enforcement officers who had to shoot him. The video released by the FBI contradicts this. It shows LaVoy standing outside his truck with his hands in the air, and trying to keep his hands up as he is shot by no fewer than 3 agents.

By any measure, this was a murder. And it was a murder intended to stop objections to government abuse at the hands of bureaucratic agencies. LaVoy Finicum was a sympathetic, well-spoken, rational and knowledgeable man. He was a threat to the power structure.

I am convinced that he had no idea how greatly he was feared until the first bullet entered his body. I am convinced that he believed that he could make people hear reason and that there was an outcome without blood that was possible. Right up to the end.

I don’t like the crass and ugly threats from ‘militia’ types that I see on line. That type of rhetoric is dangerous and ignorant. And they represent a very small, by their own estimates 3%, of the population.

What concerns me more is the response I get from my friends in government and in general. A US military officer I know has no sympathy. He chose to ‘live by the sword’ and thus chose his fate. Never mind the fact that LaVoy Finicum hurt no one.

An attorney has no sympathy. There is a right way to bring grievances before government. When one goes outside that channel, then killing that person is justified. Never mind the 8th Amendment or the 1st Amendment.

A liberal environmentalist has no sympathy. There was important work to be done on the Refuge and he was keeping them from it. When someone undertakes to obstruct government work, then killing them is okay.

A business executive has no sympathy. The guy was obviously a kook. Someone being a kook makes it okay to kill them.

The general understanding among these people seems to be that, in order for First Amendment rights to be protected, one must be socially acceptable, not speak or act against government, and use those rights only within established channels as dictated by law and tradition. This would be the first time I know of where the exercise of speech, assembly and petition were so narrowly applied.

I want to shake them and shout, “ARE YOU OKAY?!?! YOU THINK THESE GUYS HAD A SERIOUS CHANCE AT RESOLUTION THROUGH A SYSTEM THAT HAD BEEN TRYING TO DESTROY THEM FOR 30 YEARS?!?! WHAT GIVES YOU THAT IDEA? AND WHAT MAKES YOU THINK IT’S OKAY TO KILL SOMEONE WHO DISAGREES WITH GOVERNMENT ACTION?”