“Speaking of speculation, is there any actual EVIDENCE of carrying fully automatic weapons (such as AK-47s and the like) or RPGs????? Are the usual lamestream media suspects keeping this from us because they secretly support the Second Amendment? Are the federales keeping this from us because they don’t want to hurt the feelings of the grieving families. Have the feds indicated an intent to prosecute on firearms violations? No, No, No, and No! Things that make you go: Hmmmmmm!”
I don’t recall saying anything about them having full-auto weapons or RPGs.
I haven’t heard *anything* about what the Feds intend to prosecute them on. It’s ALL speculation on EVERYONE’s part at this point.
“Isn’t the story here that he came round the sharp turn, and drove into a snowbank to PREVENT hitting the officer? How is THAT assault. No evidence of any knowledge that the officer was standing in in the roadway UNTIL the deceased took the sharp turn and then he immediately drove into a snow bank to AVOID hitting the officer. What was he supposed to do? Go airborne? Use a transporter beam? This was certainly not battery (actual hitting) and was not even a minimal assault (threatening intentionally). That was being surprised by Law Enforcement in the Third Degree. Not a crime or even a civil cause of action.”
Did he plow into the snow to avoid the apex of the roadblock, or to try to go off-road around the roadblock? I did see a cop jump out of the way...I thought at first he’d been hit, but apparently not.
“Legal authorities are not a different and superior species of human being. The badge is NOT a license to kill. They are not 007 whatever they may imagine.”
They are required to apprehend criminals/suspects, some of whom don’t want to come along quietly. This sometimes puts them in situations where they have to use their weapons.
“Were those in Finicum’s vehicle occupying the nature center or ANYTHING OTHER THAN A MOTOR VEHICLE on a public highway at the time when this atrocious incident occurred? No.”
Were they violating any traffic laws? Is that how citizens are pulled over on Oregon roads? No. They were being pulled because of the occupation of the wildlife refuge. If somebody is wanted for bank robbery, but they drive carefully, does that mean the cops aren’t going to pull them over?
“We ought to care a LOT MORE about our constitution and its bill of rights rather than what the Feds THINK (if they think) they are doing. Unless you don’t mind waking up in a police state.”
I concur. My original intent was to criticize Mr. Finicum’s thought process where he believed he was going to be allowed to drive between point A and point B unmolested.
[Snip]
Now you’re just being ridiculous.
And for the record, I am not, nor have I ever been a “Fed.”
I was a Federal Employee for some time, but I didn’t have anything to do with law enforcement.
It does not bring the curtain down if someone is merely charged. Many are charged and fewer are convicted and those charged but whose charges are dismissed or who are found guilty are, as to the "crime" in question, forever after not guilty in the contemplation of our law or, in popular parlance, "innocent." The shooter guaranteed that Mr. Finicum will be forever innocent because one ore more police or agents killed him rather than charge him. The feds or the state of Oregon won't be prosecuting him now. Death seems a complete defense to any potential charge, at least here on Earth.
Apprehend "SUSPECTS" is one thing. Taser and then shoot to kill is another. We don't have anything like all the evidence but, in any criminal prosecution, the ENTIRE burden is on the government to PROVE guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. They have not and, as to Mr. Finicum, they never will, at least not in criminal court. In civil court, the burden would be much less (preponderance of the evidence, more rather than less likely) and would be on the widow and children but discovery in such a matter may prove to be a litigation killer that, if guilty, the government CANNOT STAND TO ENDURE.
By analogy, back in my distant past when I practiced law before retiring, I represented 1130 people who were initially CHARGED (indeed, overcharged) with felonies no less serious than those claimed against the folks in Oregon. My clients were charged (for what was misdemeanor criminal trespass) with felony "burglary" for flooding into abortion mills early on killing days, entering the killing rooms, breaking eggs into the suction machines, forcing them to be sent to qualified repair personnel off premises which was at worst misdemeanor criminal mischief claimed to be felony "criminal mischief" and they resisted being dragged from the mills which is actually a misdemeanor of resisting arrest but was charged as "Assaulting a Police Officer." No one struck an officer in any way. The "assault" was simply that the arrestee would not walk and had to be dragged. It boiled down to a bunch of often brutal police who were just pissed off that they were having to work up a sweat.
Of 1130 people arrested over the years in Connecticut for these incidents (often 100 or more at a time), NONE were convicted of felonies. Yet, apparently according to your standard of apprehending felons, the cops could have shot and killed them with some imagined justification, including nuns, priests, ministers, old folks, a lawyer or two, students otherwise blameless and holy and some who were disabled. Seven or so were convicted of misdemeanors and sent to a country club jail for ten days at Mansfield which had no guards, no warden, no authorities whatsoever and completely unlocked gates on the one night when I visited them.
1100 had all charges dismissed. Of those, a few were acquitted at trial. Two pled guilty to misdemeanors and paid minimal fines (like $10 or so) to get court paperwork to PROVE to their descendants and families that they had been arrested saving babies. The rest (20-23 or so) were found guilty of infractions which are the equivalent of a parking ticket and refused to pay any fine imposed or cooperate in any way. Anyone sentenced to probation after trial refused to sign the papers or co-operate and dared the courts to jail them for unpaid fines. None were jailed. Many did a week or two in jails immediately after arrest. They generally refused to seek bonds unless for family emergencies and figured that each incident (using Planned Barrenhod's figures) saved about 15-20 babies from abortion altogether and each got the chance to live 70 or 75 years in exchange for the minimal sacrifice of time by those who saved them. In economics, that's a better deal than The Donald ever drove.
Apparently, again, since they were mostly charged but not convicted at the scene of the "felonies" of saving babies, you would feel free to approve the police shooting and even killing with felonies (the boogieman will getcha if ya don't watch out!) suspected. Have I got that right?
I have no idea what you do for a living or have ever done. I certainly did not accuse you of being a federale.