Posted on 01/27/2016 5:55:49 AM PST by xzins
Four days after taking the Malheur Wildlife Refuge in Harney County, Oregon, LaVoy Finicum, a 55-year-old Arizona rancher told NBC News that he'd rather die than spend his days in prison.
"There are things more important than your life and freedom is one of them," he said in early January as he sat huddled in a blue tarp outside of the wildlife refuge keeping watch with his gun in his lap. "I'm prepared to defend freedom."
Finicum told NBC that night that he was staying outside to ensure that the FBI could find him if they came to arrest him.
Finicum was shot and killed Tuesday night when law enforcement stopped two cars carrying standoff leaders on their way from the refuge to a meeting in Grant County. Ryan Bundy, another militiaman, was shot and transported to the hospital, but did not suffer any life-threatening injuries, according to The Oregonian.
Before Finicum's death was even confirmed, supporters rushed to portray him on social media as a martyr who, according to unverified accounts, had his hands up and was unarmed when he was shot. Law enforcement sources told CNN that Finicum and Ryan Bundy were the only two leaders who did not surrender during the confrontation.
Finicum had taken a strong interest in land disputes with the federal government after he stood at Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy's side during his confrontation with the Bureau of Land Management in 2014. After returning home to Arizona, Finicum – a Mormon father with 11 children– made a decision. He was no longer going to write a check to the federal government for his grazing fees.
At the refuge, Finicum became a spokesman for the militiamen, fielding questions from press and helping plan events like one Saturday where ranchers were invited to come to the commandeered refuge to sign "declarations of emancipation" from the federal government, documents asserting they would no longer pay grazing fees. According to the Oregonian, Finicum had incurred about $12,000 in fees with the BLM.
In a video posting just hours before his death, Finicum described why the militiamen were still holding onto the refuge after more than three weeks and after local officials and community members had asked them to go. Finicum said that the occupation was intended to push back on the federal government's overreach.
"They do not want to let go of this," Finicum said. "They do not intend on loosing here and we do not intend on giving it back to them."
But Finicum's participation in the standoff had taken a toll. Back home in Arizona, child services had removed four foster children from his family's care, a move Finicum characterized as retribution. Oregon Public Broadcasting had reported that Finicum made most of his income from fostering.
Before Oregon, Finicum kept a website One Cowboy's Stand For Freedom where he documented his beliefs, his family and his ranch.
Finicum writes on the website that "he has drawn a line in the sand and that line is the Constitution in its original intent."
He also had written a cowboy thriller about the chaos of the American West after an electromagnetic pulse collapses the country's infrastructure called "Only By Blood and Suffering." The novel traced a family as each grown child navigated the new world and fights back against the overreach of the federal government.
I have been checking the Facebook pages of Bundy Ranch and Lavoy Finnicum. Both pages say Victoria Sharp was in the vehicle with Lavoy Finnicum and that he was shot multiple times with his hands in the air. The FBI riddled the vehicle with bullets and shot this man with his hands up!!!!
Listen to her testimony here, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wA18O_6dgw&feature=youtu.be&app=desktop
An easy call to make by someone who wasn't within a thousand miles of the shooting. Finicum was a rancher who was making a stand against the BLM in Arizona, a father with 11 kids. He doesn't sound suicidal to me.
I'll tell you the guy didn't speak very well and how does any news show know someone is actually WHO they say they are BEFORE they put them on the air? I would hope ANY FBI agent - former or not - would at least speak coherently.
Pretty typical talking head, for Fox and most of the other media outlets.
“Terrorists target civilians “
There were civilian tories targeted by mobs, but not the military.
Early IRA attacks were limited to the gov, but they failed miserably in allowing things to spill into the civilian realm, such as pub bombings. They also went after those who they considered to be informants. Note there were civilian militias on the loyalist side in Ireland too.
Other attacks were bombs at gov buildings, with notice called in, to clear civilians and hit the RUC who would show up to deal with it. The biggest screw up in that type of attack was the Omagh bombing in the late 90s.
Regardless, I only bring up the IRA as an example of separating “forces” as a mode of defense. I’m not saying the ranchers should use ALL IRA tactics.
This is using modern thinking to apply to the past where people did not think the same. Not worth doing.
“if you are in an echo chamber such talk may motive / inspire you but outside of the echo chamber such talk sounds delusional.”
“delusional”?
The only way to perceive it as delusional is to look at it
from an elitist or supremest perspective. With a
“let them eat cake” attitude. But in the end if that attitude
and perspective would have had any ground to stand on there
never would have been a “shot heard around the world”.
Nathan Hale would have said “what a waist of time” of
course “ “I only regret that I have but one life to lose for my country.” would have been the delirious rants of
a mad man. No?
Sad.
OK, one more time - I am talking about people who are not inside the “echo chamber”. If you don’t get that then this conversation is pointless - you are clearly inside the echo chamber ans thus the protestors speak to you but the target for protests should always be the rest of society.
So, you can’t answer the question? The point was not how successful they were or could have been. The point was that you labelled them (by saying they should have chosen non-violent protest) violent. They were not. Might they have suffered a loss of support because they were armed? Maybe. Personally, I have doubts about whether they picked the right fight, the right time or the right place. Showing up legally bearing weapons doesn’t bother me. It was an important message of willingness to pay a high price for their cause, not unlike the Minutemen.
“Not worth doing”
So you’re saying it’s a BAD idea to have your actual leaders involved in the mechanics?
Have to disagree with you there.
Even in the “modern sense” we don’t have the president enter combat. We also have diplomats, who are purposely not given specific military information.
In the smaller scope/scale of the “revolutionary”, which applies to the ranchers, it was foolish to send their “big boys” out of the area where they had protection.
Now we have a situation where those remaining in the protected area may not be as tempered in their dealings w/the feds and hence may get more violent.
I only used the IRA as a specific, long term example of a particular tactic. Not liking or disagreeing with the group doesn’t change the adequacy of the strategy.
By the way, the military STILL studies successful warfare tactics of the past. Just because people thought differently, doesn’t mean they didn’t have anything worthy of study or modern application.
I know you are focused on the marketing and I agree with that.
It’s just not the only thing...
------------------------------
I am saying those people had no idea how to sell their protest on TV to gain sympathy to a wider audience. Their tactics only appeal to people like you who are already sympathetic and as shocking as this may sound to you - they are an extremely small number.
My bad...I meant to say it is NOT confirmed.
All we have is people talking about a supposed cell phone call made by Ammon Bundy to his wife while he was sitting in the back of a law enforcement vehicle.
“OK, one more time”
Now I see what you mean. That’s scarey. Honestly I don’t
know how I interpreted the way I did. Thanks for hanging in
there and not ripping my head off.
Right, I get that and agree. It doesn’t make my position incorrect. Mine is just a separate point.
Even if they HAD a sympathetic general public, their cause is OVER when the heads are lobbed off. This is a reality of power that needs to be dealt with, just as important as the reality of public perception of it.
So any such future endeavor by the ranchers or similar group should take all of that into account (and quite a bit more actually, but that’s a separate subject).
Agreed.
Labeling them as anarchists just displays your own misunderstanding of them and what they stand for. Plain and simple.
They are not anarchists in the least. They are constitutionalists who took an oath to the country and the constitution and who take it seriously and look to it to help define the law.
They feel that things have gotten intolerable from a constitutional standpoint and are standing up and protesting. They may not be doing so in the way you would like, but they are certainly the furthest thing from anarchists. They do not seek anarchy in the least.
Well said and spot on.
Great point.
Mark McConnell sounds like a psyop.
= = =
Not saying he is, but commenting on your “sounds like” ...
Some of his words, acronyms, phrasing, style of speech, organization of events as he related them, stuck out as I listened to the video.
I did think, Is this guy a plant? He did “sound like” a cop.
-------
Ghandi brought the British empire down in India and the Brits were more bloody minded than the current American jack booted thugs. Everyone thinks the Brits ar elike we see in Doctor Who or those romance comedies - but the Brits were bloody bastards. The Brits massacred hundreds of peaceful protestors - The Jallianwala Bagh massacre - in 1919. That is not that long ago.
No one wants to be massacred and I am not advocating that obviously but it takes guts to not fight back and take casualties. The modren American govt is no where near as bloody as the Brits were.
I had suggested an all women protest. Armed to protect themselves against rapists since they are in the middle of nowhere etc - don't put it in terms of armed to kill police officers or federals - but armed nontheless. Get some cute mom babe to be the spokesperson. Make the story sympathetic - make converts.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.