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

I think this comment belongs here as well, due to the general nature of the discussion that has evolved. I just wanted to write a more general reply here to clarify my overall position in regards to the issues we've been dicussing so far.

Regarding law enforcement, I honestly have no particular dislike for LEO's. I've lived in areas where the majority of LEO's in the area were corrupt and had little respect for individual rights. I have in more recent years had the good fortune to reside in an area where the opposite has been true, at least in my sujective experience of this region. Sure, I've been shaken down a few times here, but nothing like the treatment I experienced in the other region. There is corruption here, but it is actually prosecuted, whereas the other region was largely corrupt and highly antagonistic of any attempts at addressing the corruption that existed there. I've seen both sides of that issue: that many LEO's are very responsible and even handed in their approach, but that there is also a nasty side to the culture of policing that exists within the culture as a whole, and is more or less prevalent in the differring regions of our great nation, depending on where you are.

Driving a taxi on the graveyard shift I think helped me to develop a slight rapport and camraderie with the local LEO's, as well as a vague understanding of some of the issues that these men and women have to deal with on a day to day basis. After all, I had to prowl the sketchy apartment complexes and ghettoes that they themselves would be apprehensive about entering, on a nightly basis, just to earn my pay. I took my life in my hands every time I got behind the wheel, and with much less of a support system than those LEO's enjoyed. You really never know who's going to get in your car next(and no, no plexiglass divider). I like to think, then, that there was at least a little bit of unspoken mutual respect that existed between us, due to our similar and risky occupations.

Sometimes I needed their help, and was glad to have it. Other times they asked for mine, and I was happy to oblige. I wrote this to provide context for my commentary, so that you folks know that I am not approaching this discussion as some kind of cop hater, though I have directly experienced how unpleasant life can be when law enforcement activities are conducted poorly.

As a proud Libertarian I tend to an anti-establishment point of view due to my philosophical beliefs. I dislike an overabundance of bureaucracy, but I have a healthy respect for the law and the rule of law. I strongly defend the constitution and the founding fathers' philosophies because they're so beautiful, and beacuse I believe they are the best philosophy of government that there is, but I have no desire to see the rule of law break down in this great nation.

That's a little more context for my point of view. Some deeper thoughts then.

There seems to be an impasse on reconciling the natural common law philosophy of government and the statist philosophy of government that is at the core of the debate we're having. We're all dancing around it without codifying it. Anyhow, both groups it seems will cling strongly to their beliefs(I know I will) but I think this is one of the underlying currents in the debate we're having now that until reconciled will continue to be a dividing factor to our nation, weakening us as a people. The best answer of course in my opinion would be for you statists to convert over to common law.


The culture of policing...Heavy handed government action from federal, state, and local levels is nothing new in this country and is a problem that needs to be reconciled, if we want to move forward as a nation. I can dig out stories all day long about trigger happy cops and I could probably do that for five years without running out of material. Taking all the guns away isn't a realistic option, and wouldn't really fix it anyway. What's the answer here, then? What's the magic rule that we need to create or method to institute to curb this issue, whether you think this incident was one or not? Sensitivity training? Stricter laws governing initiation of force? More/other training? What? This is not a slam on cops! There's a problem here. How do we fix it?

I think part of the policing culture issue also involves the impasse on philosophy of government that I referenced above.

As to insurrections...They will occur in lockstep with the creeping government reach of authority, or at least we can hope that they do. The peoples right to become unruly is a counterbalance to the natural tendency for government to become overbearing. Let us hope that our leaders take notice, and adjust their behavior accordingly (I personally have my doubts about that), so that things never have to truly get ugly here. If we go there, we all lose, and we'll be lucky if we still have a constitutional republic when we get done. Those ranchers got involved because of personal serious events that occurred in their lives urging them to that point, which I think was as it should be. They took action in a manner which I personally found to be admirable. Not a shot fired, not a soul killed or injured(except poor Mr. Finicum). Got the attention of the governing bodies that they had been aggrieved with. They did their civic duty, though not in the way you or I would normally think of it. That's my opinion, anyhow.

a reply to: TheBadCabbie
I'm not really that familiar with the mining industry but overall, smaller companies of all sorts have been edged out by international corporations. Some have been gobbled up, some just got out of the business.
I am a bit more familiar with oil/gas leases as my Beloved's family owns the mineral rights to property that his grandmother homesteaded in South Dakota. Oil was discovered there back in the late '70s and for many years it was a small but welcome extra source of income for the family.
Since the woman who homesteaded there with her infant son, (my Beloved's father) was a teacher, we thought it only right that the income was used to help our children and other relatives with their college expenses. Sadly, the new regulations laid upon the oil industry by the Clinton and Bush administrations put the small company that held our leases out of business.
It was the changing of a few words in the regulations. I'm going from memory but it was along the lines of changing a clause that read, "immediate danger of mechanical failure" to "potential danger of mechanical failure" which allowed the EPA to close any wells that had mechanical pumps older than 10 years. In one county alone 27 wells were closed down despite the fact that none of them had ever had a failure.
Actually, my screen name refers to the fact that I'm an avid gardener and a retired archaeologist. When I was working as a contract archaeologist, I did several contracts for coal companies when strip mining was profitable.
It seems that all small, independent operations, from farming and ranching, to mining, to banking and health care are being driven out of business or gobbled up by multinational corporations. It bothers me to no end.

originally posted by: TheBadCabbie


Respectfully, however, I am skeptical that they will serve to refute my original argument, that Finicum did not have a death wish. Mainstream media distorted the facts.

I'm open to seeing some smoking gun argument, factual article or report, or video that documents or shows him dancing around like a lunatic, raving about how he's gonna kill em all, or something like that. At his point, though, I doubt it exists.

You seem confused?

Yes...LaVoy Finicum clearly did have a death wish, or more accurately was adamant that he would choose death before prison.

No...This does not mean he was "raving about how he's gonna kill em all"..nor that he would want to??

You have tried to rhetorically equate the two in hopes that no one would be intelligent enough to tell the difference between someone eager to murder or kill people vs. someone who was very clear they would choose death before going to prison?

As far as evidence.
He repeatedly told his fellow militia members he would not surrender under any circumstances.
This attracted attention from reporters seeking flashy headlines..
He gave an telivised interview where he acknowledged being aware that there was a Felony Warrant for his arrest and he reiterated that he would not spend a single night of his life in a concrete box.
Despite being well aware that he had a felony warrant out for his arrest and having several weeks of opportunity to negotiate a surrender, he made no effort to do so.
When he was first pulled over, he never even bothered to put his truck into park.
His first words he shouted to police at that first stop?
"just shoot me"...according to the women militia supporters in the car with him.
He then fled the police..
Nearly rammed a second roadblock, slammed into a snowbank...immediately leapt out of the car with a 9mm pistol stuffed in his left inside pocket
And then again began shouting "Just shoot me"..
And repeatedly reached across to where his gun was..
Admittedly that reaching was either poor fumbling with adrenaline going, perhaps accustomed to his holster vs. the 9mm he stuffed in his interior pocket or perhaps he was just repeating the movement of going for the gun to encourage the police to shoot.
Either way...it was suicide by cop...and interviews, actions, video and public recounting by Victoria and Shawna about what he shouted at stop 1 and 2, his actions...words...all show the same thing.

You can begin with a premise that there was a conspiracy to kill LaVoy Finicum and that somehow that was necessary or desirable for the police...and then deny any evidence to the contrary..

People do that with things they "want" to believe all the time...

But it is a little silly to invite people to present evidence to the contrary, but refuse to acknowledge any of it..

And then retreat to silly statements like the burden of proof hasn't been met that he "wanted to kill em all"...He never wanted to kill anyone, he wanted the cops to shoot him...he actually said so...repeatedly at both stops. He actually had to go to great lengths to get them to do what he asked them to do the minute he was first pulled over.."just shoot me"

originally posted by: Indigo5

As far as evidence.
He repeatedly told his fellow militia members he would not surrender under any circumstances.
This attracted attention from reporters seeking flashy headlines..
He gave an telivised interview where he acknowledged being aware that there was a Felony Warrant for his arrest and he reiterated that he would not spend a single night of his life in a concrete box.

Who? When? Where? Show me that interview. Show me that direct quote, in print. A direct quote, not a paraphrase. It doesn't exist. There's quite a bit of evidence to the contrary, in fact. I have yet to see him directly quoted as saying anything of the sort. He said he 'had no intention of spending any of his days in a concrete box'. Who in their right mind does? Then a few seconds later he says 'but I will not spend it in a box', with 'it' referring to his days. That does not equate to having a death wish, that does not equate to being resolved to die before being taken into custody.

Let me tell you something. I have no intention of spending my days in a concrete box. I want to spend my days under the open sky. I'm not going to spend them in a box. The cause of liberty is very dear to me, and honestly I think when you consider the cause of the liberty of an entire nation, that is a cause that is bigger than any one man's life. I am a gun owner. Do I have a death wish, then, in your opinion?

If you come after me with a gang of your fellows and shoot at me, I will probably try to evade you...if you then trap me, I may try to surrender...does this, then, mean that I have a death wish?

I just watched the MSNBC interview (the one posted in the OP) again to make sure I wasn't misquoting the man. The interviewer asks him at 2:49 "So better dead than in a cell?" to which Mr Finicum replies "Absolutely! Dude, would you want to be in a cell? Nobody wants to live their life in a cell." Who does, really? That is what you would call putting words in somebody's mouth. Later in that same interview (6:06) the interviewer says "There are people watching this who would say to themselves you're a terrorist, you've occupied land that's not your own, and uh, and you've got a death wish. There's a gun over your lap and you're asking for it." To which Mr. Finicum replies "I have no death wish. I love life. I have twenty grandkids..."

This is from an interview that consisted entirely of the reporter asking leading questions and attempting to put words into Mr. Finicum's mouth, seeking nothing more than to portray Mr. Finicum as a man with a death wish. The same interview where Mr. Finicum clearly said that he did not have a death wish. A classic example of mainstream media distorting the facts. Mr. Finicum did not have a death wish.

I think it is you who is confused, and apparently a tool of the mainstream media, as you can't seem to sort a man's actual words out from the words that reporters put into his mouth. You should learn to discriminate between factual reporting and obvious sensationalized reporting. It would help you to understand current events a little better.

originally posted by: TheBadCabbie

I have a death wish

See? It's just that simple. Take me out of context and you could easily make that claim. To anyone paying attention though, who takes my comments in their proper context, that was obviously not the meaning I meant to convey when I wrote those words.

a reply to: Indigo5

I think it is you who is confused, and apparently a tool of the mainstream media, as you can't seem to sort a man's actual words out from the words that reporters put into his mouth. You should learn to discriminate between factual reporting and obvious sensationalized reporting. It would help you to understand current events a little better.

Maybe I got a little carried away here. While I meant what I said, in that I think you are being indiscriminate and allowing yourself to be misled by the media, and I obviously feel passionate about this topic, there was no need for me to be rude about it. I apologize, that was poor form on my part.

Seriously, though, Indigo 5, look at the context in which this man's words are framed! Then later in the same interview, he clearly states that he has no death wish. It's a stretch to say that he had a death wish, it's a stretch to say that he 'vowed never to be taken alive' as some headlines have stated, and I'd have to see better evidence than that to believe it.

a reply to: TheBadCabbie
I live in Oregon and I know for a fact our news and newspapers are filled with stories about how these militia at hte refuge are bad. They show stories about how people want them out of there. It goes on and on. Just before Finicum was shot the Oregon governor told the US government to act. And I don't mean have a picnic, but arrest the militia. So people here know hte government isn't going to give ground to the Bundy's or the militia, given what's in the news. So they intuitively know there's only one way for it to end... either in prison or dead.

It's clear Finicum wanted to die, but only if you assume the government wouldn't budge in negotiating with them. If you assume everybody at the refuge was just a criminal then NO negotiating will happen. This means, almost certainly, Finicum was saying "I have a death wish."

I think hte best argument against the Bundy's and the militia I've yet seen is the fact the refuge was paid for with tax dollars. This means it's owned by the public. The persons involved trespassed and robbed publicly owned land without permission. How is that any different than trespassing on private land? The Bundies and the militia should have stayed on their own land and protested there instead. Less legal problems.

But I undestand your arguments about context. I love Finicum because of the videos I watched. I know he's a much deeper person than some people think. They just don't know. It makes me feel terrible. He had a big family and was a rancher in every word. (And "big" is an udnerstatement. He had 11 children and fostered 50. The foster children grew up on his ranch, doing jobs and listening to him talk about the founding fathers.) He followed hte constitution. He was trying to repel what he felt was an overbearing federal government. He started by not paying the taxes to the BLM. Followed by joining Bundy at the refuge and taking a leading role in procedures. On the day he died his daughter was playing a basketball game and his wife was watching, apparently in communication with Shawna.

But I don't love his actions on that day. Two things are undeniable, given the evidence. First, at the first stop, he didn't listen to the authorities and shut the engine off and surrender as he was told. Second, he exited the vehicle and lowered his arms, forcing law enforcement to shoot.

He was a very headstrong man. At the first stop he shouted they were going to the sheriff. Shawna Cox said he was determined to not be stopped. Apparently one of them got shot at when they put their hands outside. Maybe that got him angry. BUT I think it was Ryan Payne who left the vehicle and tried to negotiate. This was AFTER the first shot, so it should have been clear the authorities weren't just trying to kill them. The woman ALMOST left the vehicle, but because of hte laser sights and the earlier shot and Finicum's shouting, they didn't. Ryan got left behind and was arrested. Finicum sped off. It's mostly Finicum's fault. Shawna claims laser sights were everywhere and also on Finicum's head and Finicum knew it. He shouted "Shoot me" I think. The laser sights are no excuse for his actions. This is not a guy I would want to have to arrest.

What's intereesting is I don't recall Shawna saying there were shots BEFORE the truck smashed into the snow at the second stop. But Victoria, in her first interview, says the shots stopped when the truck hit the snow. They resumed when Finicum exited with his hands up. Victoria also said there were bullet holes in the windshield in front of Finicum when he exited. I wonder if those shots came from the second stop when officers feared they were going to be rammed? Or maybe Vicoria is wrong.

EDIT: I think the tarp man video has some context. The media exploited it to portray him as unstable. HE had just learned about a FBI warrant out for him and 4 others who had joined the militia at the refuge. His plan was to be under the tarp away from the others, so if the authorities came they wouldn't have to look for him, "..kicking in doors." The tarp of course is to stay warm. It's very cold at night. You can see the snow.

The video I think is dated January 5th.

a reply to: TheBadCabbie

Again you are confusing two different things..

LaVoy did not have a "Death Wish"...otherwise he would have killed himself long before ..

He did however make it clear that he would die before being arrested.

originally posted by: jonnywhite
a reply to: TheBadCabbie
It's clear Finicum wasn't going to go down, IF you assume the government wouldn't budge in negotiating with them. If you assume everybody at the refuge was just a criminal then NO negotiating will happen. this means, almost certainly, Finicum was saying "I have a death wish."

The message he sent through his actions perhaps, or more accurately was portrayed by the media as sending through his actions. My point is that he never actually said that, as the media portrayed. He actually said the opposite on many occasions, as I've referenced.

I live in Oregon and I know for a fact our news and newspapers are filled with stories about how these militia at hte refuge are bad. They show stories about how people want them out of there. It goes on and on. So people here know hte government isn't going to give ground to the Bundy's or the militia, given what's in the news. So they intuitively know when it's clear Finicum is perhaps in his last big fight of his life there's only one way for it to end... either in a concrete box or dead.

Mostly media propoganda, as far as I can tell. That's part of the reason I started this thread. Thanks for writing a reasonable reply, by the way. I am open to seeing legitimate dirt on Finicum, and am curious on legitimate dirt on the other guys as well. Please link any appropriate articles from local sources. I'd like to see them.

I think hte best argument against the Bundy's and the militia I've yet seen is the fact the refuge was paid for with tax dollars. This means it's owned by the public. The persons involved trespassed onto publicly owned land without permission. How is that any different than trespassing on private land? The Bundies and the militia should have stayed on their own land and protested there instead. Less legal problems.

I thought it was well executed by the insurrectionists, though. Not a shot fired, no one injured or killed, remote location...

But I undestand your arguments about context. I love Finicum because of the videos I watched. I know he's a much deeper person than some people think. They just don't know. But I don't love his actions on that day. Two things are undeniable. He didn't listen to the authorities and shut the engine off and surrender at the first stop. Second, he exited the vehicle and lowered his arms, forcing law enforcement to shoot.

He was a very headstrong man. At the first stop he shouted they were going to the sheriff. Shawna Cox said he was determined to not be stopped. Apparently one of them got shot at when they put their hands outside. Maybe that got him angry. BUT I think it was Ryan Payne who left the vehicle and tried to negotiate. This was AFTER the first shot, so it should have been clear the authorities weren't just trying to kill them. The woman ALMOST left the vehicle, but because of hte laser sights and the earlier shot and Finicum's shouting, they didn't. Ryan got left behind and was arrested. Finicum sped off. It's mostly Finicum's fault. Shawna Claims laser sights were everywhere and also on Finicum's head and Finicum knew it. The problem is he was already resisting arrest and he can't use the laser sights as an excuse to resist.

I'll paste over my arguments from other threads to respond to the last two paragraphs in my next post here, as that would be the best response.

You make valid points, jonnywhite. I truly am seeking and attempting to promote clarity. I didn't make this thread to thump my chest or anything like that. I'd like to hear more local views and opinions. I do not have a local context from here in the midwest. I haven't seen any articles on these guys terrorizing the locals, for instance. Was that the case? What else can you add from a local perspective to bring more information to the table? Thanks again for the well thought out response.

a reply to: jonnywhite

If they actually shot at him at the first stop, then I think most people would have had a personal apocolyptic moment. For you at that point, the rule of law has broken down, and you really have no reasonable expectation that the authorities expect to return anything other than a body to the government facility. At that point, it's a "the man's tryin' to gun me down" type scenario, so anyone with the cojones is going to try and do just about whatever he can to protect himself and those he cares about. If that is actually how it went down, I think he could have shot all those cops and in an actual fair court, might have even been acquitted of the charges. You have no reasonable expectation of the rule of law prevailing in that type of situation.

Even if that's not true(if he wasn't shot at at the first stop), they were on their way to a meeting that was orchestrating a process that would have led to a peaceful resolution. He probably could've plowed that roadblock in his truck and kept rolling if he wanted to be mean. Instead he swerved to the side, knowing he would get stuck, and stepped out of the vehicle(his only hard cover close enough at hand to be of any use in a firefight) with his hands held away from his body and clearly visible to all of the guys with the guns(and probably yelling), and got shot to death. He was perhaps a threat to the authorities within their minds, but nothing more, in my speculative opinion. The authorities got the ol' itchy trigger finger like they tend to do, or it was a calculated hit for whatever reason.

If he'd gotten mean enough, he might've survived the roadblock, and possibly even escaped. I would imagine fully escaping and evading would have been very unlikely, if the authorities had chosen their terrain well enough for the ambush; but it would still have been a possibility, however unlikely. If anything, his desire for a peaceful resolution is what cost him his life, in my opinion.

originally posted by: Indigo5
a reply to: TheBadCabbie

Again you are confusing two different things..

LaVoy did not have a "Death Wish"...otherwise he would have killed himself long before ..

He did however make it clear that he would die before being arrested.

Okay, now we're getting down to it. Disagree, though. He did not "make it clear", as you say. In fact, he specifically said that he had no death wish in numerous interviews, and that nobody was going to use their guns. He actually envisioned a peaceful solution to this situation coming about, or at least the possibility of one, in my opinion. Wishful or delusional thinking on his part? Perhaps...it really didn't have to end this way for him, though it did. I think he could've been brought in peacefully, had a different approach been taken by the authorities.

I saw a photo that is supposed to be the truck that Lavoy Finicum was driving when he was shot, partially covered by blue tarps.
It was on a Facebook page. I did an internet search, but didn't come up with any hits other than that.
Here is a link to the FB page of Modern American Revolution: Facebook
Scroll down through the posts to see the photo.

a reply to: butcherguy

Good find! It says in the comments section a citizen took a picture of it at a fuel stop in Bend, OR which is where it's been reported it was towed to that day. It's not 100% that is the truck but it fits the description of it being towed covered in blue tarps and was sitting in the impound yard. It could be a hit.

originally posted by: tweetie
a reply to: butcherguy

Good find! It says in the comments section a citizen took a picture of it at a fuel stop in Bend, OR which is where it's been reported it was towed to that day. It's not 100% that is the truck but it fits the description of it being towed covered in blue tarps and was sitting in the impound yard. It could be a hit.

Someone also mentioned in the comments that there was a photo (supposedly) posted somewhere on the internet of the truck with no tarps and that it was riddled with bullets... and the photo had been taken down... never to be seen again. Also a mention of blood on the doorframe of the truck, meaning he was wounded before he exited the vehicle. Could be a whole lot of BS, who knows?

a reply to: butcherguy
We can't go on unsubstantiated information. Nor can we go on gut feelings. We can only go on the evidence available. No matter how I love the MAN named Finicum--the husband, the father, the rancher, the constitutionalist, the well spoken serene confidence he shows in many of the videos--I still cannot like his actions on that day. It's tempting to believe the conspiracy theories. You know? The ones that claim they were shot at unsolicited and harassed (to produce the desired effect which may or may not have occurred) and some skunks in the FBI planted a gun on Finicum. I can't believe that because I won't let myself unless there's evidence supporting it. You know even good people make mistakes. I think Finicum made mistakes. And many of us are letting our emotions manipulate us.

It's good to know who Finicum was and admire it, but don't let it cloud your judgement. I believe that's what's happening.

HOWEVER, it's possible the police and FBI made some mistakes of their own. Maybe that will come out in investigation. So it's not like we should sit back and say it's done. It's not. More evidence will come out. But don't expect anything. The facts will be what they will be.

And also this whole thing isn't done yet. Cliven is still out there and there're many faithful. Some of it's rational and some of it's not. I don't know where it will go. Even Ammon recently spoke out, despite his earlier comments warning everybody to stand down and leave.

a reply to: TheBadCabbie
What else can I add? Nothing really. I said what I can say. The news is heavily slanted against the Bundy's and the refuge takeover. I imagine it's like that in the rest of the country. I don't agree with mcuh of it because I think the ranchers are feeling the pain of the BLM. I do agree they shouldn't have seized the refuge. It was disrespecting the law too much.

I don't know if you re-read my post, but I was editing it and your quotes were old. Do you know anything about the shots which MAY have occurred between the time Ryan Bundy put his arms out at the first stop and was shot at and the time the truck crashed into the snow bank at the second stop? Victoria says there were shots and they stopped when the truck hit the snow. I do not remember Shawna reporting shots while they were on the way to the second stop. And as I said, Victoria also claimed there were bullet hole(s?) in the windshield in front of Finicum when he exited with his hands up.

If the authorities were at anytime breaking the rules of engagement then this can all eventually be used in court against them. I think I've also read the second stop being a trap might also be negligent?

But whether or not the authorities were shooting doesn't negate the fact Finicum disobeyed the order to shut off his engine and everybody put their hands out the windows. And Ryan Payne left the vehicle after the (claimed) first shot was fired and missed Ryan Bundy. It should have been clear the authorities weren't there to gun down everyone, since they did not gun down Ryan Payne, instead they arrested him. Essentially Finicum had his chance to end it peacefully but he chose to resist arrest. And that's what I conclude unless further evidence comes out to the contrary.

EDIT: Again, don't bring up evidence which can't be confirmed or isn't reliable. Saying Finicum sped off because he knew they were being shot at and he was trying to protect everyone in the vehicle is doing exactly that. Resisting arrest is not a peaceful course either, even if his intention was to reach the sheriff in the neighboring county. What good would that do, except put all those lives in danger?

originally posted by: jonnywhite
a reply to: TheBadCabbie

EDIT: Again, don't bring up evidence which can't be confirmed or isn't reliable. Saying Finicum sped off because he knew they were being shot at and he was trying to protect everyone in the vehicle is doing exactly that. Resisting arrest is not a peaceful course either, even if his intention was to reach the sheriff in the neighboring county. What good would that do, except put all those lives in danger?

No, no, I won't. Notice also that my earlier reply to you was framed in the context of hypotheticals(the one about whether he was shot at at the first stop). Fact is, I don't know. If that was the case, though, I can't blame him for driving off. If not, well I'd tend to agree that he should have kept his cool, and that his action there may have led to the triggerhappiness that occurred down the road. Eyewitness testimony does make that claim, at least I remember hearing it in Sharp's first recorded account. I agree, though, that this is all speculation on my part. I have to say that I have my doubts that the whole truth will ever be revealed from the official end, honestly. I think the Waco massacre, and the obfuscation that accompanied it, is a good example of how much the government thinks that we the people need to know about their dirty deeds.

I can say for sure that I did not see a gun in his hand when he fell to the ground. Exiting the vehicle does not equate to charging LEO's. I can also say that Mr. Finicum did not have a death wish, in my opinion. At least, his statements in the interviews he gave did not really support that notion. The press distorted the facts in this regard, in my opinion.

No good actual dirt at the local level, eh? Figures, and tends to support the point I was trying to make with this thread. I have yet to see articles detailing the occupiers doing anything to hurt or mess with the locals, except for the stuff about the guys who were later revealed to be FBI agents.

I want Pot and Pizza too David... unfortunately we can't expect to get everything we want.

originally posted by: Southern Guardian
I want Pot and Pizza too David... unfortunately we can't expect to get everything we want.

Pot and pizza are great, I agree, but neither has anything to do with the fact that Finicum did not have a death wish. Mainstream media distorted the facts.

a reply to: TheBadCabbie

I just saw this. Nevada Assemblyman John Moore says LaVoy was ambushed and murdered. (This is not over from the looks of it.)

The Oregonian