Oregon protest leader Ammon Bundy is arrested, says source

a reply to: diggindirt

... They were peaceful because they put themselves in a position to carefully vet those joining them, to keep the violent provocateurs out, ...

Which they apparently failed to do, at last in Finicum's case.

to be in a spot where actual negotiation would have been possible had the government wanted to actually follow the law ...

Really? So it would be okay to take over a post office, or a federal court house, etc. to set up your base of operations?? No, had they wanted to set up a base of operations which would invite discussion they would have done something a little less provocative than seize a government building, occupied or not.

Please tell me if you will, how a bunch of idiots advocating "spitting on the Constitution, stomping on the Constitution" and all the other silly charges, could draw crowds like they've done in such small populations.

Easy...MSM media coverage (twisted as it may be, but coverage none the less). Can you not see that the media loves a fight...it sells advertising, increases ratings and gets viewership. They don't care about the merits of the cause, only conflict and gore-porn which viewers are drawn to like bugs to a light. Don Henley of the rock group The Eagles wrote a perfect song about this in 1982. It was called Dirty Laundry.

I make my living off the evening news
Just give me something
Something I can use
People love it when you lose
They love dirty laundry
…
We got the bubble headed
Bleached blonde
Comes on at five
She can tell you 'bout the plane crash
With a gleam in her eye
It's interesting when people die
Give us dirty laundry
…
Dirty little secrets
Dirty little lies
We got our dirty little fingers
In everybody's pie
We love to cut you down to size
We love dirty laundry

- Don Henley / Dan Kortchmar, 1982

The media doesn't care who's right and who's wrong, they only want to get you to tune in. Whatever the event which might make that happen...they're ON IT!

This country has roughly 300,000,000 occupants; that 300 of them would show up should come as no surprise. Look at how many people showed up for Occupy Wall Street! Heck, 80% of those people didn't even have any idea what the cause was even about, they just showed up to fight something...anything. In a crowd of 1,000,000 people you can always find at least 1 who will show up for an underwater basket weaving protest...probably more like 500.

a reply to: diggindirt

What I see here is a WHOLE BUNCH of words. I applaud your sense of patriotism; you're mad as hell, and you're not going to take it anymore!. Okay, but talk is cheap.

You see, people talk ad-nauseum on the internet about all which is wrong with government (Wall Street, or whatever), but that's all they do. Seldom do they offer solutions, and even rarer still do they illustrate what they personally are doing about any of the things which anger them so. No, what they're trying to do is fire someone ELSE up enough to do their bidding for them! Notice any similarities????

As I have noted, I am a cattle rancher. Oddly, the one thing we agree on is the fact there are injustices being perpetrated by the federal government, but the likes of Bundy and Finicum do not represent my issues. And, I'm not signing up with them (by proxy or otherwise) to do my bidding just for the sake of a fight...any fight. Unlike many, I actually DO get involved, I DO participate, but I choose my battles carefully. The causes I get involved with are specific, have a specific problem identified and a reasonable solution offered. They are NOT wide-ranging, "I'm just pissed off at the government and I'm going to drive to some protest just 'cuz", type involvements. They are NOT unrealistic, "The federal government just needs to be abolished at all levels...and THEN we'll talk.", type solutions. All people like this do is make it harder for people who really are trying to find REAL solutions to REAL problems. And, in reality, all these people do is feed the never-ending MSM machine the material they just LOVE to put on the 6 o'clock news.

In your parting shot, you implored me to see your signature which says..

"I'm tired of public servants who seek to be my Master"

So, I ask you...what are YOU actually DOING about it...aside from complaining?



Edit...There's a term someone told me many moons ago which stuck with me. The term is "Jail House Lawyer". The spirit of the expression was, ironically enough, used to describe a guy I once knew who decided he shouldn't have to pay his federal income taxes. Oh sure, he was all about the Constitution and he talked like he knew every federal and state statute like the back of his hand. As a much younger man myself, his words seemed impressive. However, for all the quoting he could do of the Constitution, laws and statutes, he could only quote those which served his cause and was blind to all those which did not. My father lamented aloud one day wondering how much traction he'd get with his cause being a "Jail House Lawyer" from behind bars. The man eventually did wind up going to prison for federal tax evasion. He was in his 60's at the time (I was in my teens), the year was 1976...and I never heard from him again. Whatever valid points he may have had were silenced by his sabre rattling. Guess that didn't work out so well.

Food for thought.

I realize that I have allowed myself to be goaded into being reactive rather than simply stating the facts.

To be specific, I do not in any way, shape, form or fashion believe that any level of Government from the Federal, State, Country or City is infallible and I certainly do not believe they are above question. Government is made up of people and people have agendas. Factions within governments also have agendas. To my mind, as I've pointed out before, however, the real dangers to our civil liberties go in a reverse order of importance to what so many arm-chair activists contend ... the City Police or the County Sheriff's officer are a lot more likely to interfere with my life on a daily basis, and are a lot more subject to internal corruption not to mention coercion and bullying of the populace.

And just on a statistical basis, the State Government is be less likely to interfere with a persons's life, and the Federal would be the least invasive ... generally speaking. I know this is not true in every specific case. Yet, I see arguments repeatedly to shift power totally away from the national government (which has been in many instances the last advocate against blatant civil rights violations by local and State governments) to locals creating essentially little satraps such as we saw in the 1950s and 1960s particularly in the South (I may be more sensitive to this as a Georgian.)

I also agree with the poster above that stated that the Media (any media that has a profit motive) cannot be fully "trusted." They mean to sell air time and advertising. They do whatever they have to do to accomplish that.

That said, in clarification, I stand behind the multiple claims have made here, substantiated with facts each time I made them.

LaVoy Finicum, a 54-year-old Arizona rancher and one of the group’s leaders, says the siege will continue until the federal government cedes control of the 187,000-acre refuge to Harney County.

“It needs to be very clear that these buildings will never, ever return to the federal government,” says Finicum, who wears a cowboy hat and a Colt .45 pistol holstered on his hip.

The Washington Post

Does that sound like the comment of a "peaceful protester" or a person who views themselves as above the laws of the land?

Why do the supporters of these outlaws continue to misrepresent the facts by claiming that "the Feds assassinated Finicum"?

The felonious Finicum was stopped by SWAT ... which is part of the Oregon State Police.

Oregon SWAT

This fact is beyond clear ... from multiple reports from multiple sources:

The law enforcement source told CNN that FBI agents and state police ordered Finicum to surrender when he emerged from his truck, which both McConnell and Sharp said was still running and possibly still in gear.

“Finicum reached down toward his waistband where he had a gun,” CNN reported, citing unspecified and unnamed authorities.

SWAT officers opened fire at that point, killing Finicum and wounding Ryan Bundy on the arm, the authorities said.

Bundy was riding in the back seat with Sharp and 59-year-old Shawna Cox.

RAWStory

And another source:

Finicum attempted to veer off the main road and drove into a snowbank, CNN reports. When he exited the vehicle, FBI and state police ordered him to surrender. However, according to authorities, Finicum instead reached for his waistband, which held a gun. A SWAT team opened fire, killing Finicum. Ryan Bundy, brother of group leader Ammon Bundy, was hit in the arm.

Law enforcement says that the shooting was caught on camera by the SWAT team and that the FBI and Oregon police officials are contemplating releasing the footage, partially to combat claims that Finicum was killed while trying to surrender. Finicum attempted to veer off the main road and drove into a snowbank, CNN reports. When he exited the vehicle, FBI and state police ordered him to surrender. However, according to authorities, Finicum instead reached for his waistband, which held a gun. A SWAT team opened fire, killing Finicum. Ryan Bundy, brother of group leader Ammon Bundy, was hit in the arm.

Law enforcement says that the shooting was caught on camera by the SWAT team and that the FBI and Oregon police officials are contemplating releasing the footage, partially to combat claims that Finicum was killed while trying to surrender.

From www.theroot.com

And another ...

Members of a SWAT team on Highway 395 reportedly opened fire after a high-speed getaway attempt and a reach for the waistband, CNN reported.

LaVoy Finicum was killed in the confrontation. Ryan Bundy was also shot, but was treated and released from the hospital.

KOIN - Channel 6 Website

... and another ...

But Finicum, with police in hot pursuit, attempted to leave the main road and drove into a snow bank. When he emerged from the vehicle, FBI and state police ordered him to surrender. That's when, authorities say, Finicum reached down toward his waistband where he had a gun.

The SWAT team opened fire. Finicum was killed. Ryan Bundy suffered a light wound on his arm.

The shooting was captured on camera by the SWAT team.

CNN.com

and dozens of others ... including "independent, outlaw-friendly, websites and blogs ..."


So ... why the false narrative that Finicum was "executed by the Feds"?

Are the Bundys going to argue now that the State of Oregon has no right to govern in Oregon ... that Governor Brown and the State Police had no jurisdiction ... merely because these miscreants say so?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Why do the supporters of these outlaws continue to misrepresent the facts by claiming that "the Feds assassinated Finicum"?

There's inflammatory language/inflammatory descriptive words being used on both sides of the fence which doesn't help matters.

originally posted by: tweetie

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Why do the supporters of these outlaws continue to misrepresent the facts by claiming that "the Feds assassinated Finicum"?

There's inflammatory language/inflammatory descriptive words being used on both sides of the fence which doesn't help matters.

Fair enough. I would observe that in some cases, perhaps things need inflaming. Perhaps the majority of Americans need to stop being nice and ignoring the acts of scofflaws, outlaws and outright traitors! WHEREVER THEY ARE FOUND.

But as to your note ... what about factual language?

The Feds didn't kill anyone. Period.

Anyone who says so is fronting for a false narrative.

Makes one wonder what else these folks are lying about, either intentionally or unintentionally ... and why they are doing so.

Messed up.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: tweetie

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Why do the supporters of these outlaws continue to misrepresent the facts by claiming that "the Feds assassinated Finicum"?

There's inflammatory language/inflammatory descriptive words being used on both sides of the fence which doesn't help matters.

Fair enough. I would observe that in some cases, perhaps things need inflaming. Perhaps the majority of Americans need to stop being nice and ignoring the acts of scofflaws, outlaws and outright traitors! WHEREVER THEY ARE FOUND.

But as to your note ... what about factual language?

The Feds didn't kill anyone. Period.

Anyone who says so is fronting for a false narrative.

Makes one wonder what else these folks are lying about, either intentionally or unintentionally ... and why they are doing so.

What factual word would you use? I don't use the word murder or assassination to describe how LaVoy died based upon my observations of what occurred before (since right before he arrived at the refuge) and up to and during the shooting. I've used the term killed. He was killed. You're saying that's wrong. Oh! You've called it a suicide by cop before. Is that your factual phrase to describe LaVoy's death? That's a new phrase made popular by another event which doesn't need naming at this time. I don't care for that term because it has baggage I don't want to infer if I use it. Words have power. Our words have power. What's the best, non-emotional term?

I think I'm off topic. Sorry!

a reply to: Gryphon66

The law enforcement source told CNN that FBI agents and state police ordered Finicum to surrender when he emerged from his truck

I don't understand what is clear about being told to "surrender." Did they use the actual word "surrender?" Was he supposed to wave a white flag? Put his arms up? Get on his knees? Lay on the ground? Was everyone yelling the same command? Could there have been conflicting demands being given? (Not uncommon) Perhaps even "drop your weapon." Are we sure he could even hear/distinguish commands -- whether because of many speaking at once, or wind, or engine noise from the plane overhead? Maybe the women screaming? Maybe his hearing was temporarily impaired due to the airbag going off? (Not to mention a barrage of gunfire...)

The same was said about the initial stop, that they were told to "surrender." What exactly does that mean? I'm assuming that the LEOs didn't tell them to get out of the car, because then LaVoy wouldn't have had to ask them to let the women out. So what exactly were they supposed to do? What exactly were they ordered to do?

But Finicum, with police in hot pursuit, attempted to leave the main road and drove into a snow bank.

As I understand it, he didn't just "attempt" to leave the main road, he did leave the main road. Having said that, I'm pretty sure he didn't have time to come to a stop after rounding the bend, so those who put the roadblock in that spot gave him two choices -- hit the roadblock head on or swerve to the side. They put a lot of lives in danger, including the OSP officers manning the roadblock. None of this was appropriate or necessary.

...why the false narrative that Finicum was "executed by the Feds"?

Indirectly because they put Finicum in an absolute no win situation which cost him his life. The FBI agent said they had to kill him because of "proximity." Not because he brandished a weapon... not because he was an actual lethal threat to any of the officers in "proximity" to him... Not because he was a lethal threat to any bypassers or civilians... but because of "proximity." Well, they created that situation.

And directly, well, we'll have to wait for the audio, and the vehicle, to know for sure.

a reply to: tweetie

Oops I thought you were making a general statement so I answered generally.

If you were critiquing my word choice (just come out and say it next time) regarding suicide by cop ... That's the term for what happened. Lavoy Finicum told us (several times if I'm not mistaken) that he would not surrender. When faced with the fact of arrest he acted in the ways (and he knew this very well) that would force LEOs to stop him with the appropriate level of force.

I'm not referring to any other situation when I use the term.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: tweetie

Oops I thought you were making a general statement so I answered generally.

If you were critiquing my word choice (just come out and say it next time) regarding suicide by cop ... That's the term for what happened. Lavoy Finicum told us (several times if I'm not mistaken) that he would not surrender. When faced with the fact of arrest he acted in the ways (and he knew this very well) that would force LEOs to stop him with the appropriate level of force.

I'm not referring to any other situation when I use the term.

I was making a general statement. I'm trying to find a more neutral word or term for the moment of his death that is not inflaming to others, no matter how they view what happened.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Here's a scholarly article published in the Denver University Law Review by Jared A. Goldstein of Brown University The Tea Party's Constitution. This is the best resource for understanding the background of Skousen himself, his ridiculous theories about the Constitution which these folks recapitiulate, etc.

I did not know this! Explains a lot. From the source....

Skousen's narrative re The Constitution embodies

(1) the identification of a set of fundamental values that adherents believe are under attack or have been abandoned

(2)the belief that these fundamental values originated in a mythic era and are embodied in a sacred text or tradition

(3) the perception that the current attack on the group’s fundamental values represents an existential crisis for the community of believers

(4) a commitment to restoring the fundamental values as the movement’s central goal

(5) a Manichean world view that pits supporters of the fundamental principles against demonized enemies.

These elements can readily be seen in Skousen’s work....

And in any religiously fundamentalist group!

To the Bundys etal it is WAY MORE THAN a disagreement with the BLM.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Perhaps the majority of Americans need to stop being nice and ignoring the acts of scofflaws, outlaws and outright traitors! WHEREVER THEY ARE FOUND.

What used to be seen as irrational extremist views when I was growing up in the 1950-1970s became increasingly acceptable by 1980 and has exploded the last 8 years. Entwine the irrational religious Skousen ideas with the reactionary Koch politics and little wonder the country has been in an Era of Fundamentalism.

Starting with direct mail in the 1970s and exploding with internet usage, citizens confuse amount and easy repetition of irrational information with fact. Opinion, belief, paranoia and insecurity are substituted for reasonableness and rationality. Without such promotion, the Bundy tragedy might never have been, and real problems could have been resolved.

We need a new narrative. And a new slogan: Make America Rational Again.

a reply to: Boadicea

My purpose in providing the quotes that you drew out was to establish through the mouths of several witnesses the fact that Finicum was shot by Oregon SWAT ... NOT the FBI.

That clears up any and all jurisdictional issues (as if there were any.)

a reply to: desert

The connections between the Bundys (and what they are trying to do), Skousen (and his works), Glenn Beck's influence on the rise of the Tea Party (and subsequent near-takeover of the Republican Party) and an interesting cultural artifact called "the White Horse prophecy" are nothing short of profound.

As you see more and more of the connections here, I will bet you say "Oooohhhh ... I see! ... so that's why they said that" more than once.

Honestly, since I discovered these conenctions a few days ago ... this whole movement became much, much more comprehensible to me.

originally posted by: desert

We need a new narrative. And a new slogan: Make America Rational Again.

Sign me up!

The willingness of many to believe anything read on the internet as gospel, as long as it melds with their world view, has led to a whole new level of crazy. Fact finding, recognizing bias in source material, and critical thinking seem to be relics of the past.

a reply to: Gryphon66
Oh, hell, Gryph, I kept saying "Holy cow!".... well, to be honest, it was more like "Holy Cow Pie!".... This Bundy Bunkum just has to stop!

I'm tired of living in The Fundamentalist Era in American history. Apparently American churches don't speak out forcefully enough about MSIA or PSIA or CSIA....Mormon State In America or Protestant State In America or Christian State In America.... who want to... or in the case of the Bundys actually take over to.... spread their fundamentalism and "save" America.

I think of that saying, The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. I respectfully disagree with you re the GOP and a "near takeover". The GOP HAS BEEN takenover, and the "good men and women" in that party allowed it to happen.

The Bundys and their supporters are mutineers in this Ship of State. If Americans continue to support fundamentalism/far right extremism and the evil in men's hearts that would keep us apart and not united, then the mutineers will have sailed the ship to a place where we really, really do not want to go.

a reply to: Olivine

Yes because only you know what's rational and bias!

Wait...

a reply to: onequestion

I guess I should have added reading comprehension to that list of disappearing skills, lol.

OneQuestion, I never said I was the only person with them, just that they seem to be lacking more and more these days. Sheesh.

In other news, the protest against the protesters is ongoing in Burns, OR on the the steps of the county courthouse.

Cliven Bundy is at it again.
He sent a certified letter to the sheriff that "we the people" will continue to occupy the refuge.
Bundy Ranch facebook
Does he not realize that "We the People" already own the refuge?
Fastest information updates from Harney county? the twitter

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Boadicea

My purpose in providing the quotes that you drew out was to establish through the mouths of several witnesses the fact that Finicum was shot by Oregon SWAT ... NOT the FBI.

That clears up any and all jurisdictional issues (as if there were any.)

Got an official link where the authorities release who actually shot him? I'm having trouble finding a source that actually says who shot him, only that he was killed after FBI and Oregon state police made a "traffic stop" so a link with the FBI or Oregon state police spokesperson taking responsibility would be great.