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.
I promise that I was mocking the part about the RPGs; perhaps I’m not as good a writer as I believe.
I salute you for your defense of those who protect the innocent unborn. You might be the one lawyer I do not dislike. And you are right, Mr. Finicum will remain innocent; that may protect his family from some of the lawyers I do dislike.
As for shooting people. I would speculate that the biggest factor in Mr. Finicum being shot was his not standing still as presumably ordered. Cops are jumpy on a good day and after a three-week standoff, a high-speed chase and subsequent crash, all bets are off.
I’m a big fan of non-lethal weapons, particularly bean-bag shotgun rounds and, failing that, properly medicated “dedicated shooters.”
The other mistake Mr. Finicum might have made was believing that our Gov’t was still interested in following the Constitution.