You’ve progressed from your annoying defense of the LEO’s with the “perps should have known better” type excuse to blatant misrepresentation of the situation to fit that same narrative.
The driver DID stop his vehicle. The LEO had to jump out of the way because he had previously jumped in front of the braking, swerving vehicle traveling on a HIGHWAY in the first place. It isn’t even a felony evading at that point.
Carrying a firearm during the commission of a felony is, in this case, another diversionary sound bite. If the felony was due to the possession of the weapon in the first place — as you’ve erroneously posted earlier — it cannot also be the basis for the additional charge (”during the commissIon of”). If it wasn’t — as is the car here — then it is only an additional charge at the time of the arrest or arraignment. You can’t have it both ways.
For everyone’s edification, why don’t you explain how the “occupiers” violated the federal statute. Please don’t say that legal possession of a firearm is, in itself, evidence of “intimidation” — else I could certainly posit that anyone could sue any LEO for infringing their rights in any number of situations using the same claim.
That LEO was dumber than dirt, and luckier than the day is long.
If Finicum hadn't saved his life by turning farther into the snow, that dipstick would have been a red greasy smear on the underside of the transmisson.
Why don’t we wait and see what they’re charged with and see how much of it sticks?