Finicum did not have a death wish. Mainstream media distorted the facts.

originally posted by: fartsmeller46

He stopped at the 1st stop and everyone put their hands up.That's when Ryan Bundy was shot in the shoulder, so they took off.I have a excellent breakdown of this shooting for you here

Watch this then respond.This man was shot in the face 9 times. The 9mm they say they found on him has a serial# o a gun reported stolen 2 years ago. Do you honestly think this god fearing patriot with no criminal record,11 biological kids and 30 adopted kids,would posses a stolen handgun?Let alone bring one to a standoff with the feds? Everyone else said everybody left their weapons behind. That gun was planted. Watch the video.

Since i can't play this video here(hmm) here's the link.WATCH IT! www.youtube.com...

I think I fixed it for you. Thanks for posting that! That's the best analysis I've seen so far.

a reply to: TheBadCabbie

finicum would still be alive if he'd stopped at roadblock A.
finicum would still be alive if he'd stopped at roadblock B.
finicum would still be alive if he'd stayed in the vehicle and calmly followed orders like the others.
finicum would still be alive if he'd kept his hands in the air.

if this idiot didn't intend to die he deserves a Darwin award.

originally posted by: LordSnow21
a reply to: TheBadCabbie

finicum would still be alive if he'd stopped at roadblock A.

The eyewitnesses say he was shot at there.

finicum would still be alive if he'd stopped at roadblock B.

He did. He even avoided hitting the police cars and the officers.

finicum would still be alive if he'd stayed in the vehicle and calmly followed orders like the others.
finicum would still be alive if he'd kept his hands in the air.

He was obviously trying to surrender, in my opinion.

if this idiot didn't intend to die he deserves a Darwin award.

Guess everyone's entitled to their opinion. The civil disobediance these men and women engaged in was undoubtedly very dangerous. I think they stood for liberty, though, which is admirable in my opinion. The authorities took Mr. Finicum's life for it, but it didn't have to end that way.

a reply to: TheBadCabbie

Anytime you use violence to protest you can't expect the outcome to go well.

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: TheBadCabbie

Anytime you use violence to protest you can't expect the outcome to go well.

Wait, where were they violent, exactly? I haven't seen that news report yet.

So, Xcathdra made this post here in this thread:
Breaking: Lavoy Finicum Tased By OSP Implicates Murder By The Feds

originally posted by: Xcathdra
Those claiming Finicum was misrepresented by the media in terms of what he said. Lets hear itdirectly from the horses mouth.

I replied by posting the original video from which the spin job had been created in this post.

It's the MSNBC interview. Yes, his words were actually spun worse than they were in the original interview. I think this provides a good example of the way the media really misrepresented the facts surrounding the actual story of the way that this act of civil disobediance played out, and helps to support the point I am arguing with this thread.

a reply to: NotTooHappy

Have you seen a high def video the rest of us haven't?

I cant see if anything is in his hands, I saw his hands up... they came down and almost immediately started back up when he was gunned down.

As far as I can see he had nothing in his hands...

originally posted by: LordSnow21

if this idiot didn't intend to die he deserves a Darwin award.

You got that very wrong.... The Darwin award goes to the Keystone Kops
especially the one who tries to kill himself by jumping in front of a moving truck and the others who where caught in the crossfire, shooting a man with his hands up... Those are your murdering idiots.

originally posted by: TheBadCabbie
a reply to: Sublimecraft

Agreed. I am troubled by the needless loss of life when a peaceful resolution seemed to be in the works. .

A "peaceful resolution" was not in the works. They had been there for weeks, they were making demands that were beyond unreasonable, the situation was causing problems outside the refuge that could easily have escalated into violence and the state of Oregon was demanding that something be done. As long as they were allowed to come and go as they pleased there was no end in sight.

originally posted by: DelMarvel

originally posted by: TheBadCabbie
a reply to: Sublimecraft

Agreed. I am troubled by the needless loss of life when a peaceful resolution seemed to be in the works. .

A "peaceful resolution" was not in the works. They had been there for weeks, they were making demands that were beyond unreasonable, the situation was causing problems outside the refuge that could easily have escalated into violence and the state of Oregon was demanding that something be done. As long as they were allowed to come and go as they pleased there was no end in sight.

Disagree. They were working toward an actual redress of grieveances, which would have been a peaceful solution and would've provided actual benefit to the people of Harney and other counties in the state of Oregon. It was upsetting the status quo, I'll grant you that, and would have cost some wealthy people a lot of money, so it seems.

The violence that you speculate of would've had to involve initiation of force by the government. Their disobediance was civil and peaceful, though armed. It was called a standoff and not a massacre, or an invasion, for a reason. Standoff was the most damning language that could actually honestly be used, and so it was.

originally posted by: TheBadCabbie

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: TheBadCabbie

Anytime you use violence to protest you can't expect the outcome to go well.

Wait, where were they violent, exactly? I haven't seen that news report yet.

So you think taking up arms and taking over a federal building is what exactly?? You realize what they did is no different than walking into a federal bank with guns then announce your there in protest. When you use threats and intimidation that is a form of violence.

originally posted by: TheBadCabbie

originally posted by: DelMarvel

originally posted by: TheBadCabbie
a reply to: Sublimecraft

Agreed. I am troubled by the needless loss of life when a peaceful resolution seemed to be in the works. .

A "peaceful resolution" was not in the works. They had been there for weeks, they were making demands that were beyond unreasonable, the situation was causing problems outside the refuge that could easily have escalated into violence and the state of Oregon was demanding that something be done. As long as they were allowed to come and go as they pleased there was no end in sight.

Disagree. They were working toward an actual redress of grieveances, which would have been a peaceful solution and would've provided actual benefit to the people of Harney and other counties in the state of Oregon.

Oh..puhleese...They disagreed with the government putting two arsonists in jail (who torched federal land and lied about it...and threatened their own family member - nephew - who testified that it was deliberate arson and that they tried to cover it up)...Started with a poaching expedition on federal land, butchered the deer on site and lit up the area on fire to cover up the evidence....according to the nephew who helped them start the fire..

So they seized federal property with an armed force and occupied it...

And were given weeks to surrender and whine to the news cameras about their purported "Grievances" while waving guns around and talking tough...

If this was a bunch of Americans with darker skin following the Islamic faith who decided a heavily armed seizure and occupation of federal property was a good way to voice their "Grievances"....that place would have been raided in 5 minutes with no survivors and Militias would be cheering.

If any errors were made by the feds, it was letting these idiots play Rambo for as long as they did...

a reply to: Monkeyguns

EXACTLY!

originally posted by: Monkeyguns
Maybe If he had done what was asked from him

This just in: Do as your told or you'll be killed.

This message brought to you by Monkeyguns.

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: TheBadCabbie

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: TheBadCabbie

Anytime you use violence to protest you can't expect the outcome to go well.

Wait, where were they violent, exactly? I haven't seen that news report yet.

So you think taking up arms and taking over a federal building is what exactly?? You realize what they did is no different than walking into a federal bank with guns then announce your there in protest. When you use threats and intimidation that is a form of violence.

I'm still waiting for you to produce documentation that shows reports of violent action by the occupiers of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. Though armed, they did not initiate lethal force. The government did.

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: TheBadCabbie

originally posted by: DelMarvel

originally posted by: TheBadCabbie
a reply to: Sublimecraft

Agreed. I am troubled by the needless loss of life when a peaceful resolution seemed to be in the works. .

A "peaceful resolution" was not in the works. They had been there for weeks, they were making demands that were beyond unreasonable, the situation was causing problems outside the refuge that could easily have escalated into violence and the state of Oregon was demanding that something be done. As long as they were allowed to come and go as they pleased there was no end in sight.

Disagree. They were working toward an actual redress of grieveances, which would have been a peaceful solution and would've provided actual benefit to the people of Harney and other counties in the state of Oregon.

Oh..puhleese...They disagreed with the government putting two arsonists in jail (who torched federal land and lied about it...and threatened their own family member - nephew - who testified that it was deliberate arson and that they tried to cover it up)...Started with a poaching expedition on federal land, butchered the deer on site and lit up the area on fire to cover up the evidence....according to the nephew who helped them start the fire..

So they seized federal property with an armed force and occupied it...

And were given weeks to surrender and whine to the news cameras about their purported "Grievances" while waving guns around and talking tough...

If this was a bunch of Americans with darker skin following the Islamic faith who decided a heavily armed seizure and occupation of federal property was a good way to voice their "Grievances"....that place would have been raided in 5 minutes with no survivors and Militias would be cheering.

If any errors were made by the feds, it was letting these idiots play Rambo for as long as they did...

If this is the sum total of your depth of knowledge of the underlying issues surrounding the recent events in Oregon, I can honestly say you are truly ignorant of the deeper issues surrounding and underlying this event. You should browse around the board, maybe read up a bit. There's a lot more to this story than how you attempted to sum it up in the above post. Alternatively, you may choose to remain ignorant, if you wish, though I would advise against it, because it's ignorant.

originally posted by: TheBadCabbie

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: TheBadCabbie

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: TheBadCabbie

Anytime you use violence to protest you can't expect the outcome to go well.

Wait, where were they violent, exactly? I haven't seen that news report yet.

I agree something looks afoul when a man has his hands up and is said to be going to the Sheriff to discuss the end of this. So you think taking up arms and taking over a federal building is what exactly?? You realize what they did is no different than walking into a federal bank with guns then announce your there in protest. When you use threats and intimidation that is a form of violence.

I'm still waiting for you to produce documentation that shows reports of violent action by the occupiers of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. Though armed, they did not initiate lethal force. The government did.

But black lives matter burned down Baltimore and Ferguson and how was that handled compared to this?
Did they even indict the step dad in Missouri of the kid who died while assaulting the LEO for "lets burn this ... down" ? I see a major double standard here, one that is puzzling that you defenders of this action are seemingly ignorant or willingly to ignore as I can't tell which it is.

originally posted by: TheBadCabbie

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: TheBadCabbie

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: TheBadCabbie

Anytime you use violence to protest you can't expect the outcome to go well.

Wait, where were they violent, exactly? I haven't seen that news report yet.

So you think taking up arms and taking over a federal building is what exactly?? You realize what they did is no different than walking into a federal bank with guns then announce your there in protest. When you use threats and intimidation that is a form of violence.

I'm still waiting for you to produce documentation that shows reports of violent action by the occupiers of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. Though armed, they did not initiate lethal force. The government did.

Tell you what get your guns walk into a federal building and take it over. Make sure you gave a will first because most people know this is a method of threats and intimidation and a violent act. Apparently your world you regularly threaten people so for you this isn't violent fortunately the law says itherwise. This isn't the old west where you can intimidate someone with your peacemaker.

a reply to: dragonridr

You don't have any documentation to produce, do you?

originally posted by: TheBadCabbie
a reply to: dragonridr

You don't have any documentation to produce, do you?

Sure I do its called the indictments look them up.

Oy amazes me that people think they had the right to come into a county make demands even though the locals wanted them to leave. They were causing problems in the town and residents even feared the type of people their call to arms would attract to their community. The locals didn't mind the support for the twnchers however they definitely didn't agree using violence and intimidation to do so.

Here's something you probably didn't see here they are kicking the occupiers out of a town meeting they tried to interrupt. They tell them to shut up and leave even start throwing things at them to get them to go.





Here's something I don't think many people knew its a vice news report. Pay attention to the rancher they interview he explains that the county couldn't manage the land owned by he federal government. He explains the services they provide the county then explains the county can't manage the land. This group made demands the locals didn't even want. They don't want the land they are happy letting the government manage it. This group created a false narrative to push their cause this had nothing to do with the locals.