TexasCHLforum.com

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.

Unfortunately, there is not enough on that video for me to make a definitive conclusion on whether the shooting was justified.

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.

even if it could be proven wthout a doubt Finicum was reaching for a gun, you would still claim the shooting was unjustified

mojo84 wrote:Soccerdad, agree with this statement of yours.

Unfortunately, there is not enough on that video for me to make a definitive conclusion on whether the shooting was justified.

I would also add there isn't enough to objectively make a definitive conclusion it wasn't.

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

mojo84 wrote:Soccerdad, agree with this statement of yours.

Unfortunately, there is not enough on that video for me to make a definitive conclusion on whether the shooting was justified.

I would also add there isn't enough to objectively make a definitive conclusion it wasn't.

Which is exactly what I said.

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?

mojo84 wrote:Finicum was a rancher from Arizona as best I can tell. I have no idea how familiar he was with driving in the snow or whether he knew what effect the snow would have on the progress of his truck. It's apparent from previous actions he was not inclined to comply.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.