Leaving a secure location to travel on unsecured roads, one has to expect to be interdicted, assurances to the contrary notwithstanding. The gov’t is allowed to lie to you; they will.
Once you’ve initiated a confrontation/violence (running the traffic stop), your options are limited.
Of course they put a roadblock on a blind curve. The idea is to put the driver into a situation where he MUST stop.
I’m sure the command once he was out of the vehicle was “put your hands up and DON’T MOVE!” just like the cop told the Ferguson thug. Doing anything different is going to end badly. This includes being shot in the back if it looks like you’re going for a weapon.
Tasers are not reliable against heavy clothing.
The police can manipulate the circumstances so that they hold all the cards and your choice is to surrender or die. None of this should surprise anyone.
Flame on.
I think many involved in this discussion are being diverted from thinking critically about the bigger picture: What actually happened and why?
When you consider what the arrested people were actually charged with — conspiracy to impede or injure officer — you can see that the Feds had to reach pretty far to create a justification for their actions against people who acted on deeply held Constitutional beliefs, and the State of Oregon didn’t have anything plausible either.
US Code Title 18 Section 372
If two or more persons in any State, Territory, Possession, or District conspire to prevent, by force, intimidation, or threat, any person from accepting or holding any office, trust, or place of confidence under the United States, or from discharging any duties thereof, or to induce by like means any officer of the United States to leave the place, where his duties as an officer are required to be performed, or to injure him in his person or property on account of his lawful discharge of the duties of his office, or while engaged in the lawful discharge thereof, or to injure his property so as to molest, interrupt, hinder, or impede him in the discharge of his official duties, each of such persons shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six years, or both.
Really? What has been most accurately described as a “sit-in”, conducted by people who declared openly that they would only legally defend themselves if attacked are guilty of what, exactly? Pretty weak sauce. But it gives the media idiots something to parrot when the talk is about “armed militants” arrested “on felony charges”.
Think, people. The particular actors and actions will be overly scrutinized and debated until everyone has opinions about the details but have lost sight of the bigger issues. And who or what, exactly, benefits from that outcome?
[[Leaving a secure location to travel on unsecured roads, one has to expect to be interdicted]]
True, but one should not expect to be shot at while stopped-
[[Once you’ve initiated a confrontation/violence (running the traffic stop), your options are limited.]]
Again- according ot the eyewitness In the car- it was the police that initiated the violence