Domestic Right Wing Terrorists!

[patric]

...the (Confederate) flag debate is seriously getting in the way of more pressing issues. As long as our debate focuses on the stars and bars, we are not talking about the nine Americans who were shot to death in their own church by another American (in this case a white supremacist vowing to start a race war by way of his efforts).

We are not talking about the divided society we live in and the effects our lack of unity has on so many lives affected by poverty, injustice, and the lack of equal opportunities in housing, employment, and education.

We are not talking about why guns so easily find their way into the hands of so many and why these guns are used to commit such violent acts against others.

We are not talking about the support, encouragement, and the ready role models that can be had by a young person susceptible to racist propaganda.

It's unfortunate that the debate over the flag has shifted our focus away from the Charleston church massacre, an event that revealed a truth we are less inclined to discuss, and that is the fact that we are not one society, but many.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jan-millsapps-phd/symbol-or-solution_b_7649762.html

[patric]

On Friday, Ammon Bundy met briefly with a federal agent as authorities attempt to resolve the three-week old standoff over federal land policies, but Bundy left because the agent wouldn't talk with him in front of the media.

On Thursday, Bundy went to the airport in Burns, where the FBI has set up a staging area, and spoke to an FBI negotiator over the phone. They agreed to speak again Friday, but Bundy left the airport shortly after he arrived because the FBI agent he spoke with said federal authorities wanted any conversation to be private.


Because...ambushes work better when they are in secret?

[AquaMan]

Wait. When Bundy wanted privacy that was ok. But when the FBI wants privacy that implies an ambush? Nevermind, I just re-read your post and see that the FBI didn't want media involved. Still, a potential ambush is a stretch.

There is no question these guys have broken laws. There is no reason to expect that they can demand media be present at their negotiations or arrests. The only reason they can even request such is the political heat this is designed to engender. If I took over government property for my own agenda without significant political interests backing me, why would I expect to get preferential treatment?

[swake]

On Friday, Ammon Bundy met briefly with a federal agent as authorities attempt to resolve the three-week old standoff over federal land policies, but Bundy left because the agent wouldn't talk with him in front of the media.

On Thursday, Bundy went to the airport in Burns, where the FBI has set up a staging area, and spoke to an FBI negotiator over the phone. They agreed to speak again Friday, but Bundy left the airport shortly after he arrived because the FBI agent he spoke with said federal authorities wanted any conversation to be private.


Because...ambushes work better when they are in secret?

Because Bundy wanted to use the media to try to drum up support. The FBI wasn't having it. Good for them.

[dbacksfan 2.0]

I think they are fans of Alex Jones.............

NSFW LANGUAGE! You need to turn it down some to avoid the distortion. This from their YouTube channel I believe......

http://video-embed.oregonlive.com/services/player/bcpid1949055967001?bctid=4724520579001&bckey=AQ~~,AAAAPLpuSqE~,a1DdoZJH5WQo4iWaJj1w_CktvJfhQVVG#incart_maj-story-1

[cannon_fodder]

Had they played their cards right, this could have gone on for a very long time. But they continued to overplay their hands: they stated willingness to shoot federal or police authorities "if they had to," they stated their willingness to die for the cause, they readily displayed weapons as a constant, they significantly altered the facility by taking down fences, making new roads, handling artifacts, using government equipment, and they thought they could come and go as they saw fit. Had they "occupied" the site, kept their mouth shut about the use of deadly force, stayed put, and not altered the premises... the pressure on the FBI to get this over with would have been far far lesser.

I'm often very skeptical of police shootings. But when the victim is a person who has made repeated statements about his willingness to use deadly force against authorities and was heavily armed, I think I have to default to the authorities on this one until evidence suggests otherwise. The fact that one armed militant was killed and not the lot of 'em seems to indicate restraint. Looking forward to the whole story though.

How long did they think they could continue this before it went bad? What was the end game? Uncle Sam couldn't back down again...

[dbacksfan 2.0]

They did offer to leave if Chris Christie would Sumo Wrestle one of them.

http://www.oregonlive.com/geek/2016/01/watch_oregon_militant_challeng.html#incart_river_index_topics

http://topics.oregonlive.com/tag/showdown%20in%20burns/

In most of the interviews of local farmers and ranchers in the area on TV and radio, the vast majority said they wanted Bundy and the militants to leave as the were not doing them an favors. Most farmers and ranchers have had a good relationship with the Fed's and the Burns Paiute Tribe. The tribe also wanted them gone.

The Burns Paiute Tribe has added its name to the chorus of voices growing impatient with the federal government's low-profile response to the armed occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.

In a letter dated Friday to U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch, the tribe demanded that law enforcement officials stop allowing Arizona businessman Ammon Bundy and his supporters free passage to and from the federal bird sanctuary.

The tribe also told the government that it is obligated under its treaty with the Northern Paiutes to inflict punishment for "any crime or injury...perpetrated by any white man upon the Indians."

"The land on which the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge is located is in the heart of our tribe's ancestral territory," wrote Charlotte Roderique, chair of the tribe. "This is sacred place to the Burns Paiute Tribe. The refuge and the refuge buildings hold invaluable, irreplaceable and endangered aspects of the tribe's cultural heritage."

One of the buildings currently occupied by the militants, Roderique added, "holds over 4,000 tribal artifacts, site records, maps and confidential documents related to the tribe's cultural resources."

http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/01/burns_paiute_tribe_to_the_feds.html#incart_river_index_topics

This became a Bundy vs The US the minute Dwight Hammond Jr. and his son, Steven D. Hammond, reported to prison to finish their sentence, and said the want nothing to do with Bundy.

http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2014/02/harney_county_rancher_and_son.html

[patric]

Because Bundy wanted to use the media to try to drum up support. The FBI wasn't having it. Good for them.

I think the rationale was to have a neutral third party -- the press -- present to curtail any shenanigans. Assuming that still possible today when you have TV personalities that play softball in exchange for exclusive ride-alongs.

The whole affair seemed a desperate move that was doomed from the start; when anyone with a gun and camo could embed themselves was a recipe for disaster.  As for the fatal "traffic stop" its going to be hard to say who was wearing the white hat, unless there is a quick release of dashcam video (that hasnt spent a couple of weeks at LucasFilm being "enhanced").  Whether the spokesman that was shot "charged" at agents or was killed on his knees with his hands in the air depends on whether you believe the shooters or the ones shot.

[swake]

The video is here, he clearly has his hands up when he gets out but
then reaches for his gun and gets shot.

http://gawker.com/fbi-releases-aerial-video-of-oregon-militant-lavoy-fini-1755849657

[patric]

The video is here, he clearly has his hands up when he gets out but
then reaches for his gun and gets shot.

http://gawker.com/fbi-releases-aerial-video-of-oregon-militant-lavoy-fini-1755849657

I saw the heavily-redacted aerial video, and the FBI's narration seems to be just one possible interpretation for what that video shows. 
The claim he was "charging" at police was not supported by the video.  The spokesman had his hands in the air, but gestured with them several times until a man came out of the bushes behind him and apparently fired.  While he bled out, they fired flash-bangs and pepper gas at the passengers who couldn't open their doors (they were in a snow bank).

Cant make excuses for anybody, however, because two wrongs dont make a right.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAGxDWKrjPQ

[swake]

I saw the heavily-redacted aerial video, and the FBI's narration seems to be just one possible interpretation for what that video shows. 
The claim he was "charging" at police was not supported by the video.  The spokesman had his hands in the air, but gestured with them several times until a man came out of the bushes behind him and apparently fired.  While he bled out, they fired flash-bangs and pepper gas at the passengers who couldn't open their doors (they were in a snow bank).

Cant make excuses for anybody, however, because two wrongs dont make a right.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAGxDWKrjPQ

See the video I saw shows him reaching twice into his pocket, where police said he had a loaded 9mm. So he did have a gun and he did reach for it and he had already stated his personal unwillingness to be taken alive.

These yahoos terrorists are lucky more of them didn't get shot. The police kill way too many people in this country, but this isn't a case where the police were in the wrong.

[cannon_fodder]

Watched the full video, watched the relevant portion many times.

When this happens to someone I sympathize with I always say context is important, and it is important to see who escalates the situation and the posture of each party. It is only fair to do the same here.

In this instance, there is a stolen government SUV full of men armed with assault rifles and multiple handguns who have explicitly said they would kill law enforcement officials if they tried to intervene and that they are willing to die before being taken alive. A cautious traffic stop is initiated and the men are told given instructions on how to surrender. They plan for a few minutes and decide to take off instead of comply (either not noticing that there has been no traffic on the road or otherwise not realizing there was a blockade up ahead, or not caring) and lead the law enforcement officials on a short chase.

They then run directly at the barricade, swerving feet from making contact, and hit an agent when they swerve into a snow bank. No one shoots at the vehicle as it approaches the blockade. One man immediately gets out with his arms up and walks away from the vehicle. Saying he "charged" law enforcement is not accurate.

The guy is confronted by 2 officers that he faces, according to statements they are instructing him to keep his hands up and to drop to his knees. Instead, he reaches inside his coat repeatedly. It is not clear if he was shot, and thus turned around, or if he simply refused to comply and turned around still reaching in his coat... but when he turns and reaches in his coat again the agent approaches from out of the woods and shoots him (again?). The fact that he was later found to have a loaded 9mm in the area he was reaching for is irrelevant to the decision to shoot (the decision was made without that knowledge, hence, confirming or denying it doesn't justify or excuse the action).

The remaining men stay in the truck. The passenger side of the vehicle buried in snow, the two right side doors are free (one already having been used). Flash bangs are thrown in front of the truck. The men do not exit and more flash bangs are thrown. After ~5 minutes the people start exiting the truck with their coats off and their hands held up. None are shot. The other car that was stopped did not run, did not reach for a weapon, and none were shot.

Known armed men with previous statements that they would kill law enforcement officials run from police and attempt to run a blockade, then exit the vehicle with their hands in the air before reaching inside their jacket... and is shot.  Hard to be critical with those facts. Had they opened fire and peppered the entire truck as it approached the barricade, or opened up on it after guy #1 was shot, lets the criticism begin. But what were they supposed to do?

This was not a situation where someone might have been armed. This was not a situation where the police were not sure of the mens' intentions. This was not a situation where the police escalated a confrontation (other than legally, and cautiously attempting to effectuate a stop). The closet recent incident I know of is the guy down in Muskogee, where he was at a church threatening to shoot his girlfriend, then ran from the police, dropped his gun, and tried to pick it up... the cop had no choice. And that is far more tentative to me than this fact pattern.

And yes, the first video linked is edited... but it edits out ~4 minutes of the men sitting in the SUV not complying before they decided to floor it. Then it cuts out before the others sat in the SUV for 5 minutes after the shooting and started surrendering. The edited out portion did not alter the analysis IMO.

Lets list the crimes!

They are officially charged with conspiracy to impede a federal officer, an obscure charge that basically means they stopped the Fish and Wildlife employees from working at the bird sanctuary. But these idiots will demand their right to a full indictment, and charges will be added:

Trespass to Federal property
Vandalism
Destruction of government property (the fence)
Destruction of Artifacts (if their road indeed went over the burial grounds like the tribe suggests)
Illegally accessing government computers
Interference with commerce
Grand Theft Auto (took and utilized vehicles without permission)
Larceny (used facility supplies without permission)
Breaking and Entering (into the facility)
Assault with a deadly weapon (striking a federal officer with the car)
Threatening federal officers
Feloniously pointing a firearm
Evading arrest
Possession of a Firearm while in the commission of a felony
Terrorism ("an offense that is calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct" 18 USC 2332B)
Conspiracy to commit terrorism
Felony Murder (they can be charged for murder because their friends was shot by the FBI)
Levying war against the United States (Treason)


And I'm not a creative prosecutor!  Some of those charges are BS, but if the fed was interested in really snapping down - the guys own social media, live streaming, blogging, and press tours condemn them on most of those charges. None of them will ever legally own a firearm again and will likely (should) spend years in prison.

BUT BUT BUT, the flag has gold trim on it and I'm a sovereign citizen! Get the popcorn ready, the fun is just starting.

[heironymouspasparagus]

CF,

Looked to me like that motion into the coat actually put a gun in his hand.  Deserved what he got.  And the rest of them should never be allowed firearms again.  Or very much time outside of prison for the next couple of decades.  The defense wouldn't want me on the jury after seeing that video....

[patric]

Get the popcorn ready, the fun is just starting.

Probably true.  Interesting sidenote that the feds are using a law from the start of the Civil War to charge the occupiers.

The 154-year-old law under which Ammon Bundy and others were arrested this week was created to deal with a nation torn apart by war.
http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/01/charge_against_refuge_occupier.html

[Vashta Nerada]

A cautious traffic stop is initiated and the men are told given instructions on how to surrender. They plan for a few minutes and decide to take off instead of comply (either not noticing that there has been no traffic on the road or otherwise not realizing there was a blockade up ahead, or not caring) and lead the law enforcement officials on a short chase.

They then run directly at the barricade, swerving feet from making contact, and hit an agent when they swerve into a snow bank. No one shoots at the vehicle as it approaches the blockade. One man immediately gets out with his arms up and walks away from the vehicle. Saying he "charged" law enforcement is not accurate.

The guy is confronted by 2 officers that he faces, according to statements they are instructing him to keep his hands up and to drop to his knees. Instead, he reaches inside his coat repeatedly. It is not clear if he was shot, and thus turned around, or if he simply refused to comply and turned around still reaching in his coat... but when he turns and reaches in his coat again the agent approaches from out of the woods and shoots him (again?). The fact that he was later found to have a loaded 9mm in the area he was reaching for is irrelevant to the decision to shoot (the decision was made without that knowledge, hence, confirming or denying it doesn't justify or excuse the action).

The remaining men stay in the truck. The passenger side of the vehicle buried in snow, the two right side doors are free (one already having been used). Flash bangs are thrown in front of the truck. The men do not exit and more flash bangs are thrown. After ~5 minutes the people start exiting the truck with their coats off and their hands held up. None are shot. The other car that was stopped did not run, did not reach for a weapon, and none were shot.

Known armed men with previous statements that they would kill law enforcement officials run from police and attempt to run a blockade, then exit the vehicle with their hands in the air before reaching inside their jacket... and is shot.  Hard to be critical with those facts. Had they opened fire and peppered the entire truck as it approached the barricade, or opened up on it after guy #1 was shot, lets the criticism begin.

There is some debate he lowered his hands because he had just been shot.  Others say he is sturggling to gain his balance in deep snow after just being in a collision with a large snow bank.
The video shows one cop maneuvered himself directly in the path of the truck as it approached the roadblock, which would happen if the officer was firing or about to fire.

An "enhanced" version of the video circulating online appeared to show Finicum being shot before he lowered his arms, many argued. They criticized the FBI for releasing such grainy video, and for failing to release audio.
http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/01/oregon_standoff_video_of_lavoy.html



As four armed anti-government protesters held their ground at a U.S. wildlife refuge in Oregon on Friday, the family of a protester killed by police said he seemed to have been shot in the back with his hands up, although authorities said he was reaching for a gun.

"LaVoy was not 'charging' anyone. He appears to have been shot in the back, with his hands in the air," the family of the Arizona rancher said in a statement through their attorney.

The grainy footage shows Finicum raising his hands and then turning and flailing his arms. He then lowers his arms to his body and is shot by Oregon State Police troopers, the FBI said.

The dead rancher's relatives said the video seems to show him gesturing, or trying to keep his balance in the snow.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-oregon-militia-fbi-idUSKCN0V71T7



Authorities say Fincicum was failing to surrender and that's why he was shot, but a witness who has come forward on social media says that's not what she saw.

"He got out of the car and he had his hands in the air and he's like, 'Just shoot me then, just shoot me,' and they did, they shot him dead," said Victoria Sharp.
Sharp said she was in the vehicle with Finicum when he was shot. Finicum family attorney, Todd Macfarlane, said the witness accounts contradict what law enforcement is saying.
"This wasn't some kind of routine traffic stop; this was a planned ambush with over 40 vehicles"
http://fox13now.com/2016/01/27/attorney-for-family-of-man-killed-in-oregon-standoff-says-stop-preceding-gunfire-was-an-ambush/

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/27/us/oregon-siege-traffic-stop/

Michele Fiore, a Republican assemblywoman in Nevada who is close to the occupiers, though, tweeted that Finicum was "murdered with his hands up."
According to Fiore, Bundy told his wife that Finicum was cooperating with officials with his hands up when he was shot three times.
"LaVoy's hands were in the air and he was shot in the face. Ammon Bundy reported there were six witnesses," according to a Facebook message posted by the group LaVoy Finicum's Stand For Freedom.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/oregon-militia-spokesman-allegedly-killed-raid/story?id=36547400