Search found 24 matches

by VMI77
Tue Feb 02, 2016 11:30 am
Forum: Off-Topic
Topic: Militia standoff going on right now in Oregon!
Replies: 191
Views: 13426

Re: Militia standoff going on right now in Oregon!

Detailed analysis by the weaponsman: http://weaponsman.com/?p=29146

He's generally pretty objective about incidents like this and I agree with his analysis about 100%. Some excerpts:
1. We have said several times before, when Officer Friendly decides you’re going downtown, you’re going downtown. Further resistance at that point is not only futile, it just means you’re going downtown with a few lumps at best, or at the worst, going downtown to the morgue instead of the jail — as Finicum does.

2. Without the audio, we can’t be sure who fired first. It could be any of three men in the video, or someone off screen.

3. We can’t be sure whether Finicum drew or moved to draw first, or whether he did that in reaction to being shot at or shot.
His hands were up at first, they went down it seems to keep his balance, and that seems to be when the officers lit him up, but we can’t be sure. (To the officers, at the time, this may have looked like he was going for a gun. In the overhead video it doesn’t look like that, but the guys on the scene didn’t have eyes on the overhead video, they had eyes on Finicum a mere three or four yards away.

4. We don’t know if Finicum fired, but it seems unlikely. Whether he took shots before he attempted to draw, once he starts he’s clearly taking hits.
We don’t know how many agents or officers fired, and how many shots. For reasons known only to the FBI, they’re sitting on that information. (most likely working out whether it’s better to bury it for good, or if it will be released, how to spin it. One of their concerns here will be the criminal cases against the truck passengers, and the jury pool. The jury pool’s probably not much of a concern, because they’ve set it up that the jurors will be predominantly from metro Portland).

5. It appears that two or three agents or officers engaged Finicum: one with a pistol who had been on the flank, one with a shoulder weapon who had come up onto the snow, and possibly one who was at the fender of one of the roadblock trucks. Others may have fired as well, but these three are the closest.

6. The left-handed officer who had been on the flank and fired down the hill fired directly towards his own guys. This may have caused the guys at the truck to think Finicum was engaging them, and they were taking incoming. (Well, they were taking incoming, albeit from their own guy. Which they might or might not have noticed).

There are some lessons learned here:

1. If you provoke an armed encounter with the authorities, you’re going to get an armed encounter with the authorities. They can’t and won’t back down; they understand that any loss of face risks a collapse in the social order, so they will meet such a challenge every time.
2. Cue the late Bobby Fuller: LaVoy Finicum fought the law, and the law won. Regardless of who did what, he’s still dead, and there were many times he could have made a decision that would not have left him dead, regardless of what the FBI did or intended. (Except for the occasional sociopath who slips through, and contrary to what a lot of Bundy supporters seem to think about them, Special Agents are not fangs-out hoping to kill anybody).
3. The FBI, and most agencies, need more post-shooting transparency. Don’t believe us? Mental exercise: this shootout happens in Chicago or NYFC, and LaVoy and his crew are black gangbangers. What would The Reverends be saying by now? How would the Post and the Times be covering it? In this case, the Bureau lucks out: the national media sympathize with the FBI because the criminals are the media’s favorite boogeymen. Ask Wilson Goode what the media does when the criminal movement (in his case, MOVE) are minority members and your cops whack ’em.
4. Absence of information (and media fabrications to fill the 24-hour news cycle in this absence) is the fertilizer that makes conspiracy theories grow. Conspiracy theories lead to people’s estrangement from ordinary society. Estrangement leads to “compounds” and standoffs. If you’re The Law®. you should want to disincentivize that process of estrangement and incentivize normal, rational paths of dispute resolution.
5. Administrative law is increasingly looking lawless, with its administrative “courts” a rubber stamp, not a normal, rational path of dispute resolution.
People in the East (ourselves included) have little appreciation for the degree to which the people of the rural West find themselves at odds with the managers of Federal agencies like the BLM and the EPA. Those agencies have eastern, urban, even Luddite values, values that are foreign and inimical to the agricultural and extractive industries on which so many Western livelihoods depend. The agencies’ managers, based always in the Imperial City of Washington and fully socialized to Washington values, radiate contempt for their de facto serfs.
by VMI77
Sun Jan 31, 2016 1:32 pm
Forum: Off-Topic
Topic: Militia standoff going on right now in Oregon!
Replies: 191
Views: 13426

Re: Militia standoff going on right now in Oregon!

Javier730 wrote:
VMI77 wrote:Javier says not having a criminal record doesn't mean you can't be a criminal.
Here is what I said. It is highlighted in red.
VMI77 wrote:When you start saying you know it's obvious what someone was thinking by watching a video where he doesn't even speak you're far into the realm of speculation.
You can tell what a person is more than likely thinking based on their actions. Is it obvious he was thinking about stopping or fleeing? You said yourself even if he could get away where would he go and that he would be caught eventually. So why flee? Why even drive up to the road block? It obvious to me that he did not intend to stop and that he intended to get through.
VMI77 wrote:If they were really that concerned about him speeding up into the road block they could have put up a warning sign and a speed strip to take out his tires well before he was a threat to the road block.
Warning signs at this point would be as effective as "No Guns Allowed" signs are to criminals and spike strips are dangerous. Here is what the FBI says on them.
https://leb.fbi.gov/2012/september/bull ... ike-strips
VMI77 wrote:Based on the same information I come to the opposite conclusion. He was a family man in his 50s with no criminal record.You're assuming either than he didn't know the odds are slim to none or that he was stupid. I assume he was at least as well informed as I am. Since I know there is no percentage in running a road block I wouldn't do it. And for that reason I don't think it likely that is what he was trying to do either.
You dont have to have a criminal record to commit a crime. Before being arrested for committing a crime, first time offenders dont have criminal records. I be willing to bet most mass gunmen did not have criminal records before they committed their crimes.
I am assuming he didnt know the odds were not in favor of getting through. He must have known the odds of him getting away were slim, yet he still tried. So even if he did know about the slim chance of getting through the road block, just like fleeing, I believe he still tried. I see no evidence of him being fired on.
The only reason I said that you didn't have to have a criminal record to commit a crime was because you said Finicum was a family man with no criminal record. I understood that as you saying he would not break the law because that.

I am in no way in support of police killing people just because the they are armed like you tried to get across by putting what I said a sentence before mentioning the man killed by police at the Costco.
VMI77 wrote:And as far as being armed is concerned...all of us here are likely to be armed. Javier says not having a criminal record doesn't mean you can't be a criminal. The police in Vegas shot a guy coming out of a Costco store who was a West Point grad and concealed carrier. The "he was armed" justification can be used against all of us, and the antis would love for just that to happen, and for any of us carrying a gun to be killed by the police. They're celebrating Funicum's death. They'll celebrate any of us being killed whether we deserve it or not.
Your bringing up a man being killed by police and making it seem like I'm okay with it. It is very insulting. Thats like me saying, "VMI77 says you can not commit a crime or be stupid if you do not have a criminal record. Adam Lanza killed 26 people in Sandy Hook Elementary. 20 of them were children. Adam Lanza did not have a criminal record." Doing that is not cool...

I stand by this remark: "Javier says not having a criminal record doesn't mean you can't be a criminal." In fact, you used nearly the same words with the same meaning in a different order when you said: "You don't have to be a criminal to commit a crime."

I don't know how anyone can read the entirely of what I wrote and conclude something as ridiculous as that I said having no criminal record means a person will never break the law. Nor do I see how it can be interpreted as me saying that you support police killing people just because they are armed. Reread what I wrote....you even quoted some of it....it was a caution against letting our enemies use the notion that merely being armed is a justification for being shot. I'm addressing how the antis want just that to happen and celebrate it when it does.

When you slay me though is when you say it's insulting, and would be like you attributing to me the remark that someone cannot commit a crime or be stupid if they don't have a criminal record, after you actually just uttered nearly that very remark in the same response:
Javier730 wrote: "The only reason I said that you didn't have to have a criminal record to commit a crime was because you said Finicum was a family man with no criminal record. I understood that as you saying he would not break the law because that."
So, since you did actually say that to me are you now saying you were trying to be insulting? I didn't take it as an insult.

I sometimes fail to make myself clear and say something that can reasonably be interpreted in a way I didn't intend. I don't think that's the case here. I made several comments along the same lines so there is plenty of context. Clearly, as I just pointed out, your reading of my remarks is a little haphazard when you are able to posit something as a hypothetical insult you could have made to me and that something turns out to be something you actually said.
by VMI77
Fri Jan 29, 2016 8:35 pm
Forum: Off-Topic
Topic: Militia standoff going on right now in Oregon!
Replies: 191
Views: 13426

Re: Militia standoff going on right now in Oregon!

k
Javier730 wrote:
VMI77 wrote:
Warning signs are like no guns allowed signs? False analogy/strawman. The point of the warning sign in this case would be to give someone a chance to comply before their vehicle is damaged and potentially, before it is necessary to employ lethal force. A no guns sign is to keep out those of us with LTCs under threat of being charged with a Class C misdemeanor if we're caught. There is no immediate consequence to ignoring the sign for anyone.
The "No Guns Allowed" signs I was talking about are the gunbuster signs, not the 30.06 and/or 30.07 signs. Criminals dont care about a gunbuster sign. He ignored the police sirens and you think he would stop for a warning sign? If the SUV with flashing police lights and several LEOs pointing the weapons at him didnt let him know their vehicle was going to be damaged and that lethal force was going to be used, no darn sign would.
VMI77 wrote:Your link didn't work so I don't know what the dangerous claim is based on. Spike strips are dangerous? Yet the police use them. You mean more dangerous than shooting someone multiple times? To who? I though you said the objective was to protect the police at the road block? TXDOT manages to put up warning signs when they're doing road work so I can stop before I run over a flagman. Warning: Spike Strips ahead, slow down and be prepared to stop. One mile later: Warning, Spike Strips, Stop Your Vehicle.
Here it is again: https://leb.fbi.gov/2012/september/bull ... ike-strips

Im sure those "Warning, Spike Strips, Stop Your Vehicle" signs is just what this guy needed to see to get him to stop. :roll:
VMI77 wrote:You don't have to be a criminal to commit a crime. That's exactly what the left says about us concealed carriers who've had a background check. So should I assume you're a potential criminal based on the concept that literally anyone might at some time commit a crime no matter what they've done in the past? That's a strawman. My reference to his lack of a criminal record was in support of him not being stupid. I equated him to ME, and I'm not stupid enough to run a road block so I give him the benefit of the doubt. Your assumption is that he is stupid, based on nothing more than a conclusion you've drawn based on an inconclusive video.
I see his vehicle stopped by police. I see the police not firing their weapons for about 7 minutes. I say they arent firing based on the fact that he is not fleeing from gunfire for those 7 minutes. 7 minutes is enough time for the police to give the order for him to get out and surrender, enough time for him to comply and enough time for him to be taken into custody for whatever he is being detained or arrested for. To take off for any reason other than being fired at, which of course there is no evidence to support that, would be a very stupid decision.
I think your missing the point. The spike strips would be to force a stop after he ignored the signs. The signs are to warn what will happen if the vehicle continues. It's like dropping leaflets and giving ISIS drivers a chance to get out of their vehicle before an airstrike...a final attempt to avoid killing someone. They could have arrested him at any time as they had let all these guys travel freely for days if not weeks. They chose to make a show of force instead. Just like the BATF did at Waco.

And as far as being armed is concerned...all of us here are likely to be armed. Javier says not having a criminal record doesn't mean you can't be a criminal. The police in Vegas shot a guy coming out of a Costco store who was a West Point grad and concealed carrier. The "he was armed" justification can be used against all of us, and the antis would love for just that to happen, and for any of us carrying a gun to be killed by the police. They're celebrating Funicum's death. They'll celebrate any of us being killed whether we deserve it or not.

If this guy had been some thug with a long criminal record robbing a liquor store the left would be decrying his murder and asking why the police didn't just shoot him in the leg. And yes, my sympathies would be different....I'm less sympathetic to the fate of documented thugs. You don't have to do anything morally wrong in this country to be labeled a criminal or enemy of the state.

This government already makes criminals arbitrarily of those who deposit or withdrawn certain sums of money from their own bank accounts. The law has already made thousands if not hundreds of thousands of us criminals in states like NY. If Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders is elected president the law will seek to make criminals out of most of us. We all may have to confront the choice of being obedient or being criminals in the eyes of the state.

Mr. Funicum could have avoided all this and he'd still be alive. I don't dispute that fact. People on this forum have said they will not obey a law that confiscates weapons they possess. Maybe we won't be confronted with that choice and maybe we will. Personally, I don't think we're at the point where armed civil disobedience is practical or justified.

OTOH, the government hasn't trampled over me personally. I think these guys in Oregon were premature in the manner of their opposition and chose the wrong time and the wrong hill and the wrong battle. But we all know why the 2nd amendment is in the constitution and it's not for hunting. Though I think their actions are premature, that people are starting to resist may prevent worse things from happening to the rest of us, so I'm not ready to dismiss people like Mr. Funicum as mere criminals.

The ruling class in this country is not populated by our friends, it's populated by our enemies, and the enemies of God and humanity in general. I think we're facing the last opportunity for peaceful change. If Hillary or Bernie is elected president our opportunity for peaceful change will be limited to the resolve of the individual states. I fear hard decisions are ahead for us all.
by VMI77
Fri Jan 29, 2016 5:07 pm
Forum: Off-Topic
Topic: Militia standoff going on right now in Oregon!
Replies: 191
Views: 13426

Re: Militia standoff going on right now in Oregon!

Javier730 wrote:
VMI77 wrote:When you start saying you know it's obvious what someone was thinking by watching a video where he doesn't even speak you're far into the realm of speculation.
You can tell what a person is more than likely thinking based on their actions. Is it obvious he was thinking about stopping or fleeing? You said yourself even if he could get away where would he go and that he would be caught eventually. So why flee? Why even drive up to the road block? It obvious to me that he did not intend to stop and that he intended to get through.
VMI77 wrote:If they were really that concerned about him speeding up into the road block they could have put up a warning sign and a speed strip to take out his tires well before he was a threat to the road block.
Warning signs at this point would be as effective as "No Guns Allowed" signs are to criminals and spike strips are dangerous. Here is what the FBI says on them.
https://leb.fbi.gov/2012/september/bull ... ike-strips
VMI77 wrote:Based on the same information I come to the opposite conclusion. He was a family man in his 50s with no criminal record.You're assuming either than he didn't know the odds are slim to none or that he was stupid. I assume he was at least as well informed as I am. Since I know there is no percentage in running a road block I wouldn't do it. And for that reason I don't think it likely that is what he was trying to do either.
You dont have to have a criminal record to commit a crime. Before being arrested for committing a crime, first time offenders dont have criminal records. I be willing to bet most mass gunmen did not have criminal records before they committed their crimes.
I am assuming he didnt know the odds were not in favor of getting through. He didnt know the odds of him getting away were slim, yet he still tried. I see no evidence of him being fired on.
Beat me to it.

Wow, what a bunch of strawmen and red herrings. We're just going to have to disagree, especially if you're going to tell me you "know" what someone is thinking based only on what you see them do. I find that flabbergasting.

Warning signs are like no guns allowed signs? False analogy/strawman. The point of the warning sign in this case would be to give someone a chance to comply before their vehicle is damaged and potentially, before it is necessary to employ lethal force. A no guns sign is to keep out those of us with LTCs under threat of being charged with a Class C misdemeanor if we're caught. There is no immediate consequence to ignoring the sign for anyone.

Your link didn't work so I don't know what the dangerous claim is based on. Spike strips are dangerous? Yet the police use them. You mean more dangerous than shooting someone multiple times? To who? I though you said the objective was to protect the police at the road block? TXDOT manages to put up warning signs when they're doing road work so I can stop before I run over a flagman. Warning: Spike Strips ahead, slow down and be prepared to stop. One mile later: Warning, Spike Strips, Stop Your Vehicle.

You don't have to be a criminal to commit a crime. That's exactly what the left says about us concealed carriers who've had a background check. So should I assume you're a potential criminal based on the concept that literally anyone might at some time commit a crime no matter what they've done in the past? That's a strawman. My reference to his lack of a criminal record was in support of him not being stupid. I equated him to ME, and I'm not stupid enough to run a road block so I give him the benefit of the doubt. Your assumption is that he is stupid, based on nothing more than a conclusion you've drawn based on an inconclusive video.
by VMI77
Fri Jan 29, 2016 4:50 pm
Forum: Off-Topic
Topic: Militia standoff going on right now in Oregon!
Replies: 191
Views: 13426

Re: Militia standoff going on right now in Oregon!

mojo84 wrote:Enlarged slow motion video. http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-stando ... e_vid.html
Let's see some video from the ground and photos of the vehicle.
by VMI77
Fri Jan 29, 2016 3:51 pm
Forum: Off-Topic
Topic: Militia standoff going on right now in Oregon!
Replies: 191
Views: 13426

Re: Militia standoff going on right now in Oregon!

Let's make sure we understand our government's priorities: http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2014/ ... ands-list/
The Obama administration appears to have a terrorist “hands off” list that permits individuals with extremist ties to enter the country, according to internal Department of Homeland Security (DHS) documents obtained by a United States Senator.
It gets better. The DHS emails also reveal that this particular terrorism suspect has actually taken legal action against the U.S., presumably because authorities violated the hands off policy. The subject “has sued CBP twice in the past and that he’s one of the several hands off passengers nationwide,” according to the DHS emails obtained by Senator Grassley’s office. The documents go on to say that the terrorist’s records were removed and that the DHS Secretary (at the time Janet Napolitano) was involved in the matter.
by VMI77
Fri Jan 29, 2016 2:53 pm
Forum: Off-Topic
Topic: Militia standoff going on right now in Oregon!
Replies: 191
Views: 13426

Re: Militia standoff going on right now in Oregon!

VMI77 wrote:
Javier730 wrote:
VMI77 wrote:
Javier730 wrote:
Soccerdad1995 wrote:
Javier730 wrote:
parabelum wrote:As he approaches the blockade, Mr. Finicum clearly swerves to the left to avoid colliding with the patrol units.
His brake pedal would of worked better at avoiding the collision.
The road looked a bit icy.

The vehicles not being in the road would have worked even better at avoiding a collision.
VMI77 wrote:
Javier730 wrote:
parabelum wrote:As he approaches the blockade, Mr. Finicum clearly swerves to the left to avoid colliding with the patrol units.
His brake pedal would of worked better at avoiding the collision.
Oh come on....they were ambushed...they set up the roadblock around a curve, in conditions of ice and snow. Brakes often don't work too well in those conditions.
I can see him take the last bend on the road and I appears he noticed the vehicles on the road at about 9:01. That is when you can see his brake lights come on. He taps his brakes a few times between 9:01-9:05. He then rides the brake from 9:12 and on as he hits the snow. If the road was a bit too icy for his brakes to work, he had plenty of time to pull into the snow and it didnt have to be right in front of the road block.

Yes its true there would be no collision had there not been vehicles blocking the road, but the fact is there was vehicles on the road and those vehicles were legally placed there by LEOs. Not trying to get through police who are obviously blocking the road would have been the best choice. I dont believe he intended on stopping. I believe he was going to avoid the road block and try to get away.

Have you ever driven on ice and snow in a place where there is a lot of it? I used to live in the NE....you have a very unrealistic view of how easy it is to control a vehicle going as fast as that one under those conditions.

I'm maybe a little more concerned with morality than legality. Lot's of things are legal that are wrong and being legal doesn't make them right. They could have put that roadblock up anywhere and they CHOSE to place it around a curve in conditions of ice and snow.

Your contention that he intended to avoid the road block and get away tells me you've never driven in deep snow. There is no way he could have avoided that roadblock without getting bogged down in deep snow. Even if his truck could have made it through the snow it would have been at something like a walking pace. But even if he did...so what? Get away to where? So they arrest him ten minutes later and have something else to charge him with. What's your point?
There you go. Who drives that fast under those conditions? Someone trying to get away from the police maybe? I still dont believe he did not have control of the vehicle. He could of slowed down. He taps his brakes at 9:01 and it takes him 17 seconds to reach the road block. That is plenty of time to slow down or pull into the snow to stop the vehicle and it didnt have to be right next to the road block. He obviously thought he was gonna make it through.
How fast was he going? It looked speedy to me but for all we know he was driving under the speed limit. When you start saying you know it's obvious what someone was thinking by watching a video where he doesn't even speak you're far into the realm of speculation. Lot's had to be going on during that 17 seconds, probably including processing the exhortations of the other vehicle occupants as well as deciding what to do and drive the vehicle.
Javier730 wrote:Putting up a road block in a straight shot would be more dangerous. It gives the driver time to build up speed to try and crash through the road block increasing the danger. Putting the road block about 20 seconds from the curve made sure the driver slowed down a bit, which would reduce the chances of a LEO getting hit.
No one was going to crash through the vehicles used in that road block. And if he'd continued into the vehicles they would have lit him up. If they were really that concerned about him speeding up into the road block they could have put up a warning sign and a speed strip to take out his tires well before he was a threat to the road block. As parabelum pointed out, we warn terrorists so they can get out of their trucks before we hit them with an airstrike.
Javier730 wrote:Tell that to everyone else who chooses to evade law enforcement in their vehicles. They believe they can get away. The dont understand the chances of getting away are very slim. This guy didnt either.
Based on the same information I come to the opposite conclusion. He was a family man in his 50s with no criminal record.You're assuming either than he didn't know the odds are slim to none or that he was stupid. I assume he was at least as well informed as I am. Since I know there is no percentage in running a road block I wouldn't do it. And for that reason I don't think it likely that is what he was trying to do either.
Javier730 wrote:Watch the beginning of the video. What does a person not trying to get away do? They comply. They dont drive away at high speeds in icy conditions. Funny how its said he was not trying to get away when he clearly drove off. To say the road block caused the collision is ridiculous. He should of been at the same spot he was in at 1:10-8:14, in his vehicle waiting for the officers instructions.

Yes its tragic, but he caused his own death.
I don't know where you're getting that he said he was not trying to get away. The female in the car said they were fleeing being shot at. Seems to me that is an admission they were trying to get away until they encountered the road block. I've also read that they were attempting to contact a Constitutional sheriff and didn't want to deal with the feds.

But yes, in the longer view he caused his own death, way before he ever got shot. The protest, they way they handled the protest, were part of it, foolishly believing and trusting the feds and going where they were headed was another part of it. And as long as all of us are sufficiently obedient to authority we probably won't be shot.

Personally, I wouldn't do what he did, or for the reason he did it, and especially not now. I suppose most of us have lines that cannot be crossed. However, we should consider the fact that WE are the greatest enemies of the Obama administration and liberals in general. They don't consider this death tragic; they're celebrating it. At some point those who consider us enemies may pass a law confiscating our firearms. The antis are already saying they want our blood. If that happens, then all of us will be subject to the same kind of action by the federal government, and if we're good little boys and girls maybe they'll leave us alone...or maybe they won't.

You say there is evidence Mr. Funicum was not inclined to "comply." Is there a point at which you will ever not be inclined to comply? I think he died on the wrong hill in the wrong battle. However, I'm not at all quick to condemn someone for declining to comply with out unconstitutional, lawless, overreaching federal government.
by VMI77
Fri Jan 29, 2016 2:26 pm
Forum: Off-Topic
Topic: Militia standoff going on right now in Oregon!
Replies: 191
Views: 13426

Re: Militia standoff going on right now in Oregon!

Javier730 wrote:
VMI77 wrote:
Javier730 wrote:
Soccerdad1995 wrote:
Javier730 wrote:
parabelum wrote:As he approaches the blockade, Mr. Finicum clearly swerves to the left to avoid colliding with the patrol units.
His brake pedal would of worked better at avoiding the collision.
The road looked a bit icy.

The vehicles not being in the road would have worked even better at avoiding a collision.
VMI77 wrote:
Javier730 wrote:
parabelum wrote:As he approaches the blockade, Mr. Finicum clearly swerves to the left to avoid colliding with the patrol units.
His brake pedal would of worked better at avoiding the collision.
Oh come on....they were ambushed...they set up the roadblock around a curve, in conditions of ice and snow. Brakes often don't work too well in those conditions.
I can see him take the last bend on the road and I appears he noticed the vehicles on the road at about 9:01. That is when you can see his brake lights come on. He taps his brakes a few times between 9:01-9:05. He then rides the brake from 9:12 and on as he hits the snow. If the road was a bit too icy for his brakes to work, he had plenty of time to pull into the snow and it didnt have to be right in front of the road block.

Yes its true there would be no collision had there not been vehicles blocking the road, but the fact is there was vehicles on the road and those vehicles were legally placed there by LEOs. Not trying to get through police who are obviously blocking the road would have been the best choice. I dont believe he intended on stopping. I believe he was going to avoid the road block and try to get away.

Have you ever driven on ice and snow in a place where there is a lot of it? I used to live in the NE....you have a very unrealistic view of how easy it is to control a vehicle going as fast as that one under those conditions.

I'm maybe a little more concerned with morality than legality. Lot's of things are legal that are wrong and being legal doesn't make them right. They could have put that roadblock up anywhere and they CHOSE to place it around a curve in conditions of ice and snow.

Your contention that he intended to avoid the road block and get away tells me you've never driven in deep snow. There is no way he could have avoided that roadblock without getting bogged down in deep snow. Even if his truck could have made it through the snow it would have been at something like a walking pace. But even if he did...so what? Get away to where? So they arrest him ten minutes later and have something else to charge him with. What's your point?
There you go. Who drives that fast under those conditions? Someone trying to get away from the police maybe? I still dont believe he did not have control of the vehicle. He could of slowed down. He taps his brakes at 9:01 and it takes him 17 seconds to reach the road block. That is plenty of time to slow down or pull into the snow to stop the vehicle and it didnt have to be right next to the road block. He obviously thought he was gonna make it through.

Putting up a road block in a straight shot would be more dangerous. It gives the driver time to build up speed to try and crash through the road block increasing the danger. Putting the road block about 20 seconds from the curve made sure the driver slowed down a bit, which would reduce the chances of a LEO getting hit.

Tell that to everyone else who chooses to evade law enforcement in their vehicles. They believe they can get away. The dont understand the chances of getting away are very slim. This guy didnt either.

Watch the beginning of the video. What does a person not trying to get away do? They comply. They dont drive away at high speeds in icy conditions. Funny how its said he was not trying to get away when he clearly drove off. To say the road block caused the collision is ridiculous. He should of been at the same spot he was in at 1:10-8:14, in his vehicle waiting for the officers instructions.

Yes its tragic, but he caused his own death.
by VMI77
Fri Jan 29, 2016 1:32 pm
Forum: Off-Topic
Topic: Militia standoff going on right now in Oregon!
Replies: 191
Views: 13426

Re: Militia standoff going on right now in Oregon!

mojo84 wrote:
VMI77 wrote:
mojo84 wrote:
VMI77 wrote:
mojo84 wrote:
VMI77 wrote:
Javier730 wrote:
Soccerdad1995 wrote:
Javier730 wrote:
parabelum wrote:As he approaches the blockade, Mr. Finicum clearly swerves to the left to avoid colliding with the patrol units.
His brake pedal would of worked better at avoiding the collision.
The road looked a bit icy.

The vehicles not being in the road would have worked even better at avoiding a collision.
VMI77 wrote:
Javier730 wrote:
parabelum wrote:As he approaches the blockade, Mr. Finicum clearly swerves to the left to avoid colliding with the patrol units.
His brake pedal would of worked better at avoiding the collision.
Oh come on....they were ambushed...they set up the roadblock around a curve, in conditions of ice and snow. Brakes often don't work too well in those conditions.
I can see him take the last bend on the road and I appears he noticed the vehicles on the road at about 9:01. That is when you can see his brake lights come on. He taps his brakes a few times between 9:01-9:05. He then rides the brake from 9:12 and on as he hits the snow. If the road was a bit too icy for his brakes to work, he had plenty of time to pull into the snow and it didnt have to be right in front of the road block.

Yes its true there would be no collision had there not been vehicles blocking the road, but the fact is there was vehicles on the road and those vehicles were legally placed there by LEOs. Not trying to get through police who are obviously blocking the road would have been the best choice. I dont believe he intended on stopping. I believe he was going to avoid the road block and try to get away.

Have you ever driven on ice and snow in a place where there is a lot of it? I used to live in the NE....you have a very unrealistic view of how easy it is to control a vehicle going as fast as that one under those conditions.

I'm maybe a little more concerned with morality than legality. Lot's of things are legal that are wrong and being legal doesn't make them right. They could have put that roadblock up anywhere and they CHOSE to place it around a curve in conditions of ice and snow.

Your contention that he intended to avoid the road block and get away tells me you've never driven in deep snow. There is no way he could have avoided that roadblock without getting bogged down in deep snow. Even if his truck could have made it through the snow it would have been at something like a walking pace. But even if he did...so what? Get away to where? So they arrest him ten minutes later and have something else to charge him with. What's your point?

Maybe they shouldn't have going that fast in the first place. Why were they?
I don't know. I've read that they were fleeing after being shot at previously. I have no idea if that's true or if not, what the reason might be. Frankly, I found their speed in the video a little surprising. Maybe they were just driving the speed limit? I have no idea.

How did Ryan Bundy get shot?
Probably when the cops shot at the vehicle when it was obvious it wasn't going to stop at the road block. I saw that he was shot after I posted my previous comment. At that time I wasn't aware another person was shot. Some consider a vehicle a deadly weapon when operated by a known armed criminal that refuses to stop for a cop or a roadblock.

I suspect even if it could be proven wthout a doubt Finicum was reaching for a gun, you would still claim the shooting was unjustified.
Since that conclusion can't be arrived at based on anything I've said I take it for what it is: an insult and attack on my character.
It is not an attack on your character. I stated my opinion based on you continually stating because the FBI has been caught lying, you do not believe them in this case in spite of what is seen in the video. Many of not most of the time I agree with your comments. In this case you are so ardent and vehement in your position that this is an unjustified shooting and an "ambush", I believe you are not looking at this objectively. I was not trying to attack your character or insult you.

Whether one agrees with the FBI, government or BLM, we have to realize these occupiers have been breaking the law and have made people very aware they are armed and willing to use those arms.
Baloney. It is a personal attack. Fact 1: the FBI, institutionally, has been caught lying. Fact 2: I have not once said the shooting was unjustified and this will be at least the third time I've said we can't determine from this video alone whether the shooting was justified or not.

Apart from those two facts, you said this:
even if it could be proven wthout a doubt Finicum was reaching for a gun, you would still claim the shooting was unjustified
We're on a gun forum where one of the primary conversations is self-defense and what is or is not a legal and justified use of lethal force. You said I'd call it unjustified even if PROVEN WITHOUT A DOUBT FInicum was reaching for a gun. In order to do that I'd essentially have to be a liar and in no case could I do what you say without being intellectually dishonest. There is no other way possible to interpret that except as a personal attack. If we were still living in the 18th century south I'd be forced as a matter honor to call you out and this afternoon you'd be finding a Second and negotiating the time and place of the duel.
by VMI77
Fri Jan 29, 2016 1:21 pm
Forum: Off-Topic
Topic: Militia standoff going on right now in Oregon!
Replies: 191
Views: 13426

Re: Militia standoff going on right now in Oregon!

Soccerdad1995 wrote:
mojo84 wrote:Here is another good article that provides conflicting info.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/co ... -by-police

Like I said previously, it "appears" to me he was reaching for something. I made no definitive conclusions. You appear to be the one that has though.

Based on your comments, I guess all roadblocks of people that have been breaking the law are "ambushes".

There is no one on here harder oncops when are obviously in the wrong than me. I have even been erroneously accused of being anticop. In this instance, we have people that have been breaking the law, wouldn't stop for the cops so a roadblock was set up and it APPEARS the guy was shot after reaching for something on the left side of his body. I believe based on these three things and if one objectively looks at this, it APPEARS the shooting MAY have been justified.

Soccerdad, I fully understand who we are talking about. Do you understand we are talking about armed peoplofficehave been illegally occupying a government office and didn't stop for the police like the other vehicle did? Haven't we discussed on here before that a charging vehicle is a deadly threat. A vehicle not stopping at a road block MAY be justification to shoot.

Have we all become so jaded and cynical we just can't objectively evaluate what we see?
First off, yes it was an ambush. That is a factual statement, and does not imply judgment as to whether the ambush was right or wrong. A roadblock was set-up on an icy road, around a blind corner. And armed agents of the state were lying in wait in the surrounding woods. All similarly situated roadblocks could be described as ambushes. Not all roadblocks are ambushes, and whether the intended target has violated any laws is irrelevant in determining whether something is an ambush.

And second, I am trying to objectively evaluate what I can see from the video, which isn't a whole lot. I cannot objectively determine that the shooting victim was reaching for anything, nor can I objectively determine that he was reaching toward a specific pocket. I can say that whether he actually had a weapon in a given location is less relevant than whether the shooter reasonably believed that he was reaching for a weapon. Unfortunately, there is not enough on that video for me to make a definitive conclusion on whether the shooting was justified.
You obviously see the situation clearly, logically, and objectively. I would add that without knowing exactly when the shots were fired we can't come to a conclusion either. We don't know whether he lost his balance, reached for a gun, or reached for his side after being shot. Furthermore, even if we assume he did reach for a gun we don't know whether that was before being shot....making the shooting justified...or after being shot, making it murder. It's also possible that he lost his balance and knowing that he was armed that movement was mistaken for him reaching for a gun. That might make the shooting itself justified but it doesn't change the fact that there was no reason to stage the road block as an ambush in the first place.
by VMI77
Fri Jan 29, 2016 1:14 pm
Forum: Off-Topic
Topic: Militia standoff going on right now in Oregon!
Replies: 191
Views: 13426

Re: Militia standoff going on right now in Oregon!

parabelum wrote:Think about this paradox, we leaflet ISIS to make sure that not one of their filthy terrorist fuel drivers is killed by our air strike, BUT, a white Patriot is put down like an animal for standing up for his constitutional rights, and tripping up in knee deep snow.

I'm going to take a walk now.
In fairness, I'd guess that most of those here object to warning those truck drivers before an air strike. But as far as our leftist administration goes you're absolutely correct. They care more about foreign terrorists than they do about American citizens, especially if those citizens don't align themselves with the left.
by VMI77
Fri Jan 29, 2016 1:09 pm
Forum: Off-Topic
Topic: Militia standoff going on right now in Oregon!
Replies: 191
Views: 13426

Re: Militia standoff going on right now in Oregon!

mojo84 wrote:
VMI77 wrote:
mojo84 wrote:
VMI77 wrote:
Javier730 wrote:
Soccerdad1995 wrote:
Javier730 wrote:
parabelum wrote:As he approaches the blockade, Mr. Finicum clearly swerves to the left to avoid colliding with the patrol units.
His brake pedal would of worked better at avoiding the collision.
The road looked a bit icy.

The vehicles not being in the road would have worked even better at avoiding a collision.
VMI77 wrote:
Javier730 wrote:
parabelum wrote:As he approaches the blockade, Mr. Finicum clearly swerves to the left to avoid colliding with the patrol units.
His brake pedal would of worked better at avoiding the collision.
Oh come on....they were ambushed...they set up the roadblock around a curve, in conditions of ice and snow. Brakes often don't work too well in those conditions.
I can see him take the last bend on the road and I appears he noticed the vehicles on the road at about 9:01. That is when you can see his brake lights come on. He taps his brakes a few times between 9:01-9:05. He then rides the brake from 9:12 and on as he hits the snow. If the road was a bit too icy for his brakes to work, he had plenty of time to pull into the snow and it didnt have to be right in front of the road block.

Yes its true there would be no collision had there not been vehicles blocking the road, but the fact is there was vehicles on the road and those vehicles were legally placed there by LEOs. Not trying to get through police who are obviously blocking the road would have been the best choice. I dont believe he intended on stopping. I believe he was going to avoid the road block and try to get away.

Have you ever driven on ice and snow in a place where there is a lot of it? I used to live in the NE....you have a very unrealistic view of how easy it is to control a vehicle going as fast as that one under those conditions.

I'm maybe a little more concerned with morality than legality. Lot's of things are legal that are wrong and being legal doesn't make them right. They could have put that roadblock up anywhere and they CHOSE to place it around a curve in conditions of ice and snow.

Your contention that he intended to avoid the road block and get away tells me you've never driven in deep snow. There is no way he could have avoided that roadblock without getting bogged down in deep snow. Even if his truck could have made it through the snow it would have been at something like a walking pace. But even if he did...so what? Get away to where? So they arrest him ten minutes later and have something else to charge him with. What's your point?

Maybe they shouldn't have going that fast in the first place. Why were they?
I don't know. I've read that they were fleeing after being shot at previously. I have no idea if that's true or if not, what the reason might be. Frankly, I found their speed in the video a little surprising. Maybe they were just driving the speed limit? I have no idea.

How did Ryan Bundy get shot?
Probably when the cops shot at the vehicle when it was obvious it wasn't going to stop at the road block. I saw that he was shot after I posted my previous comment. At that time I wasn't aware another person was shot. Some consider a vehicle a deadly weapon when operated by a known armed criminal that refuses to stop for a cop or a roadblock.

I suspect even if it could be proven wthout a doubt Finicum was reaching for a gun, you would still claim the shooting was unjustified.
Since that conclusion can't be arrived at based on anything I've said I take it for what it is: an insult and attack on my character.
by VMI77
Fri Jan 29, 2016 12:55 pm
Forum: Off-Topic
Topic: Militia standoff going on right now in Oregon!
Replies: 191
Views: 13426

Re: Militia standoff going on right now in Oregon!

mojo84 wrote:
VMI77 wrote:
Javier730 wrote:
Soccerdad1995 wrote:
Javier730 wrote:
parabelum wrote:As he approaches the blockade, Mr. Finicum clearly swerves to the left to avoid colliding with the patrol units.
His brake pedal would of worked better at avoiding the collision.
The road looked a bit icy.

The vehicles not being in the road would have worked even better at avoiding a collision.
VMI77 wrote:
Javier730 wrote:
parabelum wrote:As he approaches the blockade, Mr. Finicum clearly swerves to the left to avoid colliding with the patrol units.
His brake pedal would of worked better at avoiding the collision.
Oh come on....they were ambushed...they set up the roadblock around a curve, in conditions of ice and snow. Brakes often don't work too well in those conditions.
I can see him take the last bend on the road and I appears he noticed the vehicles on the road at about 9:01. That is when you can see his brake lights come on. He taps his brakes a few times between 9:01-9:05. He then rides the brake from 9:12 and on as he hits the snow. If the road was a bit too icy for his brakes to work, he had plenty of time to pull into the snow and it didnt have to be right in front of the road block.

Yes its true there would be no collision had there not been vehicles blocking the road, but the fact is there was vehicles on the road and those vehicles were legally placed there by LEOs. Not trying to get through police who are obviously blocking the road would have been the best choice. I dont believe he intended on stopping. I believe he was going to avoid the road block and try to get away.

Have you ever driven on ice and snow in a place where there is a lot of it? I used to live in the NE....you have a very unrealistic view of how easy it is to control a vehicle going as fast as that one under those conditions.

I'm maybe a little more concerned with morality than legality. Lot's of things are legal that are wrong and being legal doesn't make them right. They could have put that roadblock up anywhere and they CHOSE to place it around a curve in conditions of ice and snow.

Your contention that he intended to avoid the road block and get away tells me you've never driven in deep snow. There is no way he could have avoided that roadblock without getting bogged down in deep snow. Even if his truck could have made it through the snow it would have been at something like a walking pace. But even if he did...so what? Get away to where? So they arrest him ten minutes later and have something else to charge him with. What's your point?

Maybe they shouldn't have going that fast in the first place. Why were they?
I don't know. I've read that they were fleeing after being shot at previously. I have no idea if that's true or if not, what the reason might be. Frankly, I found their speed in the video a little surprising. Maybe they were just driving the speed limit? I have no idea.

How did Ryan Bundy get shot?

Return to “Militia standoff going on right now in Oregon!”