You see and read what you want to see and read.

 

I'm not addressing whether or not they shoot, only that when they did (as he's driving toward the barricade) and after he puts his hand in his jacket, then it's justified. I'm not using the FBI's investigation. I'm telling you what justified use-of-force tells us.

 

At 5:28, he's still driving down the center of the double-yellow line. His foot touches the brake less than a second before they shoot. The people at the barricade only see him driving straight and without slowing down. THAT justified that shot. Even though he starts turning (slightly), he's still easily within striking distance of anyone on the left-side of the barricade. 

 

As for the shot immediately after exiting the vehicle, his left arm raises (while straightened) until its fully raised. Who raises their hands that way while also saying "shoot me!" Any reasonable person would immediately think he's raising a gun toward them. When its obvious that he's not shooting, they stop shooting as well.... well, until he puts his hands inside his jacket. He wanted to die and he got his wish.

 

Everything was justified. I'm indifferent with this issue. I understand both sides of the issue, but please continue to exaggerate and make it out to be that everyone that disagrees is pro-federal government lackeys. 

 

Slow motion video proves both hands were up: http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standof...s_und.html

 

They were firing at the vehicle before he exited, which is exactly WHY he exited (to keep fire away from other passengers) and he was targeted while his hands were up (see slow motion vid).  

 

Initially everybody was lead to believe he was "going for a gun" when he was shot, when in reality (as this video proves) he was being shot at already and hit by a bullet, then he reaches down probably because he was shot.  Not because he was reaching for a weapon.  The autopsy shows the spot where he was shot, and GO FIGURE that's where he reaches in the video during the infamous "he's going for a gun" incident.

---

Slow motion video proves both hands were up: http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standof...s_und.html

 

They were firing at the vehicle before he exited, which is exactly WHY he exited (to keep fire away from other passengers) and he was targeted while his hands were up (see slow motion vid).  

 

Initially everybody was lead to believe he was "going for a gun" when he was shot, when in reality (as this video proves) he was being shot at already and hit by a bullet, then he reaches down probably because he was shot.  Not because he was reaching for a weapon.  The autopsy shows the spot where he was shot, and GO FIGURE that's where he reaches in the video during the infamous "he's going for a gun" incident.

 

They were firing at the vehicle because he was driving directly at them!

 

I'm still trying to figure out how you come up with both hands in the air when they shoot at him.  He obviously is reaching down at some point after exiting the truck.  He even says go ahead and shoot me.  You have made it up in your head that the big bad government was going to kill him.  If that is the case, why didn't they just go ahead and kill all of them?

---

They were firing at the vehicle because he was driving directly at them!

 

I'm still trying to figure out how you come up with both hands in the air when they shoot at him.  He obviously is reaching down at some point after exiting the truck.  He even says go ahead and shoot me.  You have made it up in your head that the big bad government was going to kill him.  If that is the case, why didn't they just go ahead and kill all of them?

 

And continued to fire, then he got out with his hands up, all the while under continuous fire.  You obviously did not watch the slow motion video.

 

The autopsy proves he was shot in the exact spot he reaches toward... pretty simple.  It's also no wonder the FBI released a blurry vid with NO SOUND.  The official narrative from the FBI is also ridiculously far off. They just didn't count on the passengers making their own video.

 

I'd be happy to answer your question but the way you asked it makes it seem like you dont really care to hear an answer.

---

http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standof...aj-story-1

 

Bullets have been traced to elite FBI team, but they say they never fired their weapons. Ya ok.  Why lie if it was all justified? Answer is obvious if you watch the video closely.

---

http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standof...aj-story-1

 

Bullets have been traced to elite FBI team, but they say they never fired their weapons. Ya ok.  Why lie if it was all justified? Answer is obvious if you watch the video closely.

 

The two bullets you are talking about hit nothing.  So if they were shot by them they did no damage.  We will see what happened.

 

By the way, state troopers are who killed the guy, not the FBI.

---

The two bullets you are talking about hit nothing.  So if they were shot by them they did no damage.  We will see what happened.

 

By the way, state troopers are who killed the guy, not the FBI.

 

That's only two that they know of, and they lied. Seems suspicious to any normal person.

---

And continued to fire, then he got out with his hands up, all the while under continuous fire.  You obviously did not watch the slow motion video.

 

The autopsy proves he was shot in the exact spot he reaches toward... pretty simple.  It's also no wonder the FBI released a blurry vid with NO SOUND.  The official narrative from the FBI is also ridiculously far off. They just didn't count on the passengers making their own video.

 

I'd be happy to answer your question but the way you asked it makes it seem like you dont really care to hear an answer.

 

Slow motion video of an incident is not the correct way to look at things.

 

Have you ever been shot at?  Ever been attacked?  Ever had to defend yourself against somebody obviously hostile?  Those things don't happen in slow motion and from the comfort of a computer chair.

 

Have you ever actually seen somebody get shot?  Contrary to what you see in the movies, they don't jerk or get blown off their feet, and they don't stay on their feet.  They drop instantly (unless they happen to be drugged up).  The first time that he was shot was when he fell to the ground.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

Slow motion video of an incident is not the correct way to look at things.

 

Have you ever been shot at?  Ever been attacked?  Ever had to defend yourself against somebody obviously hostile?  Those things don't happen in slow motion and from the comfort of a computer chair.

 

Have you ever actually seen somebody get shot?  Contrary to what you see in the movies, they don't jerk or get blown off their feet, and they don't stay on their feet.  They drop instantly (unless they happen to be drugged up).  The first time that he was shot was when he fell to the ground.

 

Oh really? What is the correct way to look at things?  A blurry FBI video with no sound?  You were loving that video at first.  You had no problem drawing incorrect conclusions right after watching that.  Now that new evidence is presented you want to ignore it.  That makes no sense.

 

This family has a legitimate case for wrongful death.  The cell phone video proves that. If you want to continue to ignore the facts presented in the new video, that's your right.

 

FBI Agents lied. That's a fact. Bullets were being shot when his hands were in the air. That's a fact. The rest is up for debate.

 

You're whole idea about how he would have fallen immediately after getting shot the first time is not true at all. That's pure conjecture. I admit him getting shot (causing him to reach for his side) is also speculation, but its also logical speculation considering when the shooting started.  It's also the exact case lawyers will bring on behalf of the family.  So please save the "this isnt the movies" speech.  No kidding.

---

It's also been admitted that the officer walking from the left by the trees was using a taser. This means that the kill shots came from other officers and autopsy proves he was shot in the back, one bullet piercing his heart.

---

It's also been admitted that the officer walking from the left by the trees was using a taser. This means that the kill shots came from other officers and autopsy proves he was shot in the back, one bullet piercing his heart.

 

I don't get your whole argument at all.  A guy breaks several laws, gets out of a vehicle yelling "shoot me", makes a move that can be interpreted as going for a weapon and gets shot by law enforcement.  What part of HE WAS BREAKING THE LAW do you not understand?

 

What happened in real time, not slow motion is the reaction that any law enforcement officer would take.  His demeanor, his words and his actions are what got him killed plain and simple.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

I don't get your whole argument at all. A guy breaks several laws, gets out of a vehicle yelling "shoot me", makes a move that can be interpreted as going for a weapon and gets shot by law enforcement. What part of HE WAS BREAKING THE LAW do you not understand?


What happened in real time, not slow motion is the reaction that any law enforcement officer would take. His demeanor, his words and his actions are what got him killed plain and simple.

It's clear you don't understand that the guy didn't deserve getting killed.


Breaking the law does not warrant execution. This is America.


If you want to just put all the blame on his actions, fine. Yes He should have just got down on the ground right away. Still does not warrant an execution.


The officers were also breaking the law by forming a barricade around a blind corner. That's a fact. Began firing even though the vehicle had no intention of ramming anything. Then they also kept firing while he exited with his hands up. Its obvious they wanted blood. They got it, and any chance of the officer with the taser ending it nonviolently was thwarted by mystery shooters targeting his back.


This was planned. They set up an ambush with officers surrounding the barricade. They wanted to make an example of the "rebels". The message is clear: obey or die.

---

It's clear you don't understand that the guy didn't deserve getting killed.


Breaking the law does not warrant execution. This is America.


If you want to just put all the blame on his actions, fine. Yes He should have just got down on the ground right away. Still does not warrant an execution.


The officers were also breaking the law by forming a barricade around a blind corner. That's a fact. Began firing even though the vehicle had no intention of ramming anything. Then they also kept firing while he exited with his hands up. Its obvious they wanted blood. They got it, and any chance of the officer with the taser ending it nonviolently was thwarted by mystery shooters targeting his back.


This was planned. They set up an ambush with officers surrounding the barricade. They wanted to make an example of the "rebels". The message is clear: obey or die.

 

The most interesting part of this is your stance in other instances of police killings in the past.  I'm pretty sure you were ok with officers protecting themselves in the past, but for some reason this one time you choose to say they are in the wrong.  It's a very interesting take.  So forgive me to think that there's some sort of false narrative you are trying to push on all of us.

---

The most interesting part of this is your stance in other instances of police killings in the past.  I'm pretty sure you were ok with officers protecting themselves in the past, but for some reason this one time you choose to say they are in the wrong.  It's a very interesting take.  So forgive me to think that there's some sort of false narrative you are trying to push on all of us.

 

Hmm, i think you're confusing me with somebody else.  I remember specifically feeling sick about the big guy who got strangled to death by a cop in NY. That video was pretty terrifying and a great example of police brutality.

 

This situation is different because its involving federal agents and orders coming from very high on the totem pole. It's also unique in that the conflict arose from citizens being upset about an abuse of federal authority.

 

This is much bigger than some Joe Cop having a god complex.

---

Hmm, i think you're confusing me with somebody else.  I remember specifically feeling sick about the big guy who got strangled to death by a cop in NY. That video was pretty terrifying and a great example of police brutality.

 

This situation is different because its involving federal agents and orders coming from very high on the totem pole. It's also unique in that the conflict arose from citizens being upset about an abuse of federal authority.

 

This is much bigger than some Joe Cop having a god complex.

 

It's different because in your mind you wanted to make it different.  I saw a guy driving directly at a police road block and run off the road.  Immediately get out of the car and start grabbing for his jacket.  Let's not forget the threats he was making while in the car previously.  You want to somehow make him out to be a choir boy and the law enforcement should sit back and wait to be shot before firing back.  I'm sorry, but they deserve to go home to their families and defend themselves against someone that really doesn't care about them.

---

It's different because in your mind you wanted to make it different.  I saw a guy driving directly at a police road block and run off the road.  Immediately get out of the car and start grabbing for his jacket.  Let's not forget the threats he was making while in the car previously.  You want to somehow make him out to be a choir boy and the law enforcement should sit back and wait to be shot before firing back.  I'm sorry, but they deserve to go home to their families and defend themselves against someone that really doesn't care about them.

 

 

No, it's a fact this is different from a random cop making a traffic stop. That should be obvious for reasons I already stated.

 

Threats?  Those aren't threats he was making.  That's quite a stretch.

 

I never said these guys were innocent.  They were obviously breaking the law to an extent, but they didn't deserve to die.

 

Officers and (federal government for that matter) should be held to the same standard of law as the rest of us.  Nobody is above the law.  If at any point I agreed Finicum posed a threat to their lives, then its justified shooting.  That's not what I see.

 

Finicum never pulled out a gun and there is no undeniable proof that he was reaching for one.  Plus he was being shot at long before that happened.

 

The truck was veering around the roadblock, plus the barricade broke state laws.  They started shooting regardless.

---

One thing that everybody in here constantly overlooks.  At the road block that officer CLEARLY leaps out in front of the truck.  Why did he do this? Seems like an odd thing for somebody to do if they were "in fear of their life".  And the shill FBI narrator for the first blurry muted vid said that Finicum tried to hit this guy.  That's a lie. Another lie.

---

Slow motion video proves both hands were up: http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standof...s_und.html

 

They were firing at the vehicle before he exited, which is exactly WHY he exited (to keep fire away from other passengers) and he was targeted while his hands were up (see slow motion vid).  

 

Initially everybody was lead to believe he was "going for a gun" when he was shot, when in reality (as this video proves) he was being shot at already and hit by a bullet, then he reaches down probably because he was shot.  Not because he was reaching for a weapon.  The autopsy shows the spot where he was shot, and GO FIGURE that's where he reaches in the video during the infamous "he's going for a gun" incident.

 

It didn't happen in slow-motion, did it? He got out and straightened his arms while, admittedly, raising them to the air. You can't take only that fact and assume he's innocent. Before exiting the vehicle, he's yelling to get shot, and that's consistent with people that intentionally do things that will get them shot. He's shot at an then, upon seeing that his hands are up, the officers stop shooting until he puts his hands inside his jacket. The whole time he's wanting to get shot, and I know this because he's telling us.

 

As for shooting at the vehicle before they got out, he's driving thousands of pounds of steel directly toward the barricade. It wasn't until AFTER getting shot at did he turn toward the side of the road. Even then, it appeared as though he wanted to wait until the last moment. He didn't slow down and turn. He wanted to hit that while going fast. Still not in slow-motion.

 

It's clear you don't understand that the guy didn't deserve getting killed.


Breaking the law does not warrant execution. This is America.

 

That's such a stupid thing to say. He wasn't executed from simply committing a crime. He was killed because he did things that would lead any one to believe he was going to hurt them.

 

Hmm, i think you're confusing me with somebody else.  I remember specifically feeling sick about the big guy who got strangled to death by a cop in NY. That video was pretty terrifying and a great example of police brutality.

 

Eric Garner died because of obesity, heart disease, and asthma. None of which would have happened had he not resisted arrest. That's a different argument, however.

---

These Liberal Bundy's always causing riots...  

---

---