I feel compelled by the laws of physics to report this since I’ve mentioned it a few times before. As CNN reports, libertarian Ammon Bundy and several of his loony minions were captured and arrested by police yesterday in Oregon. As you may recall, they’d been occupying the federal Malheur Wildlife Refuge in protest at the arrest of two men for setting fire to federal lands (also in Oregon) to facilitate grazing.
Bundy made the mistake of driving out of the property, which exposed him to arrest, for there’s no way the feds are going to assault the 20-odd men still holed up in the refuge’s buildings. On the road, however, they’re fair game.
Bundy and several fellow occupiers were pulled over Tuesday on Highway 395, a law enforcement official said. According to The Oregonian, they were headed to the city of John Day, where they planned to participate in a community meeting set up by local residents.
Everyone obeyed orders to surrender except two people: LaVoy Finicum and Bundy’s brother, Ryan Bundy, the official told CNN.
Shots were fired, but it’s unclear who fired first, the source said. Ryan Bundy was wounded, and Finicum died.
Well, I feel sorry for Finicum’s wife and family, but if ever a man brought his death on himself, it was LaVoy Finicum, for he declared that they’d never take him alive:
Earlier this month, the father of 11 told CNN he doesn’t want to die — but would never go behind bars.
“I’m just not going to prison,” Finicum said. “Look at the stars. There’s no way I’m going to sit in a concrete cell where I can’t see the stars and roll out my bedroll on the ground. That’s just not going to happen. I want to be able to get up in the morning and throw my saddle on my horse and go check on my cows. It’s OK. I’ve lived a good life. God’s been gracious to me.”
Finicum has eleven children. Although the Bundy Ranch Facebook page says this. . .
. . . I wonder if his kids feel the same way. They lost a dad over a stupid demonstration of petulance about arson. Some “patriot”!
Five people were arrested on the road, and another three elsewhere: two in Arizona and one in the nearby town of Burns.
Now there are conflicting reports about whether Finicum fired on the police or (as the protestors claim) had his hands up when he was shot. If the latter is the case, it’s reprehensible, and I’ll report on that when I find out. But I’d guess, given his statement, that he was armed and “made a move.”
Sounds like suicide by cop.
+ 1
I’d not bat an eye if the fellow was already dying of something.
People are spreading the 100% false meme on Facebook that Finicum was shot three times after he surrendered. According to eyewitness accounts (eyewitnesses who were part of the militia group) he was shot when he charged at law enforcement. This deranged criminal got what he deserved and I have zero sympathy for him.
+1
+ 2
I do hope there’s a confirming video.
One flew over the Cracker Barrel.
Cracker Barrel has mighty fine pancakes, honest to goodness maple syrup. I order an additional pancake and an additional bottle of syrup, and order eggs to eat to give the syrup time to soak in. 😉
As to “who shot first?” I wouldn’t of course condone anyone being cooperative being shot.
But when you are part of an armed resistance and have already declared your desire to go out fighting rather than be arrested…you’ve pretty much made a case for itchy trigger fingers on anyone about to arrest you.
I was about to make the same comment.
Agreed! The cops had every right to be nervous.
But of course facts like those are meaningless to the types who believe cops are power hungry, trigger happy maniacs. All they’ll see it as is a case of the cops having license to do what they wanted to do anyway.
Well, I see in the NY Times today that the feds want the local sheriffs to return the (quasi-)military gear. I wonder if the sheriff in E. Oregon has already done that? If so, I bet his subordinates thought that peachy keen. Are the bad guys similarly turning in their stuff? What are the current “carrots” prompting one to consider a law enforcement career? Do they include a compulsion to interact with nutbags?
‘Our appeal is to Heaven’ is a declaration of open rebellion.
Hmm.
How can he support 11 children when he has time to take a nice long vacation at a wildlife refuge? I hope not through government handouts….
His main income was from state payments for foster parenting. As I understand it, those kids were removed from his home after this Oregon fiasco began.
Ah, so this is THAT guy. Are the 11 all foster children, or are some his own? And did he never take to heart that “personal responsibility” meme we always hear right-wingers banging on about?
Finicum and his wife have fostered over 50 children, through Catholic Charities, which, of course, receives funding from the state. He used these children as unpaid labor on his ranch. The 2010 tax returns from Catholic Charities show payments of $115,000 to Finicum. Since then payments have increased significantly, but CC no longer itemizes specific payments.
It just gets stupider & stupider. State-supported child slave labor.
Was he a catholic, or a mormon, like the Bundys?
When I lived in Cedar City, UT and worked for the government, we dealt a lot with the fundamentalist polygamist mormons from Colorado City, AZ. They had construction firms and were often the low bid on government contracts. They could low bid because all the employees were family members. No doubt, once they had been paid, the money went back to the patriarch of the family.
Who would Jesus scam?
He has a Mormon-sounding name. But who knows?
And over half of Catholic Charities’ budget is funds from the White House Faith Based Initiative.
Budget $3.83B
Faith Based Initiative (US Tax Payer) Revenue $2B
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Charities_USA
I read somewhere that he barely broke even on those cattle he wanted to see so badly from horseback. Probably wouldn’t even do that well without all the ‘character-building’ ranch labor of his fosters.
I’ve read somewhere that Ammon Bundy had 13 siblings. Is there a tendency and if so, how do you explain it?
Mormons.
Not just Mormons. Many other Christian sects promote keeping the wife pregnant as much as possible. If your stomach is up to it check out Quiverfull.
Funny how these people can’t do math – they make no connection between human reproduction rates and the fact that the open range is getting more and more closed in.
Is it me or do those people who bang on about liberty have a narrow version of liberty in mind? For what it’s worth, the liberty not to feel threatened by gun wielding lunatics is one I hold dear. Luckily, in the UK where I live, that’s one the laws uphold too.
“Freedom for wolves is death to lambs”
Exactly.
I interact with gun nuts – inevitably American – and I bring their skewed concept of “freedom” up frequently. They constantly talk in the most paranoid terms about having guns at home to protect themselves, and packing guns wherever they go in order to feel safer.
Whereas I live in a society that does not have a gun culture, and hence I am FREE from the worry that everyone else is packing a gun, and that I have to be weary of being another victim of gun violence.
But the NRA, and other aspects of American culture, has apparently done such a perfect job of associating “guns” with “freedom” that it seems impossible for gun nuts to escape this association. They really see my life, walking around unarmed, as the more pitiable “unfree” (and irresponsible and unmanly) way to live!
It’s like watching the effects of some strange virus in a country and no one will take the medicine.
You are quite right regarding the association between gun ownership and freedom. This belief is an offshoot of the mythology of American individualism that has been a strong theme throughout American history. This mythology tells the story that American freedom and democracy grew out of the actions of individuals, such as the pioneers who settled the West, who did great things building the country without the aid of government. And guns were necessary to keep the bad guys from killing you or stealing your land. Although there is a kernel of truth to this tale, the fact is that government laws and regulations were necessary for the West to be settled.
Growing up on the frontier, Abraham Lincoln understood that a society will degenerate into anarchy without government to maintain order. He also was an advocate for the federal government to involve itself in the building of internal improvements (today we would call that infrastructure). This included government support for the creation of roads, bridges, railroads, and canals. Because of these beliefs he was for most of his political life a member of the Whig party until it collapsed in the early 1850s. His political idol was Henry Clay, probably the most important Whig politician in American history, who advocated for what he called the “American System,” a comprehensive program for internal improvements. When he was president and the South had few representatives in Congress, Lincoln was able to pass many acts that involved government intervention in the economy. It is ironic that Lincoln, perhaps the most revered person in American history, is despised by many libertarians and small government Republicans. They truly loathe him. Conversely, it can be argued that Lincoln foreshadowed the New Deal Democrats of the 1930s and later.
What all this adds up is that the version of American history peddled by people of the Bundy ilk has as much historical validity as the creation stories of the fundamentalists. This could be, of course, that the same people tell both fairy tales.
I agree – the original Republican party of Lincoln certainly believed in government involvement to get things done for all and spending federal money to accomplish things. It should also always be noted that he was almost purely a war time president and therefore, believed in using extra presidential power to accomplish things. Things like suspension of habeas corpus & Emancipation come to mind.
I blame Gunsmoke, Bonanza, and The Rifleman.
I blame Ronald Raygun, because I can.
Hey now! It’s Ronnie Ray-gun!
Zap
For some people growing up in the 1950s and 1960s, they may have been influenced by such shows and other westerns, the heyday for that genre. They may very well have gotten the impression that “real men” settle their differences with guns and didn’t depend on anyone else to help them.
It is curious that in the three shows you mention, the main characters were either a lawman (Matt Dillon in Gunsmoke) or very friendly with the local sheriff (Ben Cartwright in Bonanza and Lucas McCain in the Rifleman). In these shows, the heroes used their guns to uphold the law, not to defy it. They acted in concert with local law enforcement because they realized that law enforcement was critical to taming the Wild West. Bundy and his ilk missed this point.
They should be compelled to watch “The Man Who Shot Liberty Valence” and “The Shootist”- two of the three movies John Wayne made that seriously question the classic Wayne ethos.
Yeah, if anything these clowns are closer to Paladin, the mercenary Richard Boone played in “Have Gun – Will Travel” (except waaay less cool).
Purty good, that thar movie starring both Richard Boone and John Wayne.
Someone should take a cue from Dan Barker and start a Freedom From Guns Foundation.
(I’m currently a member of Moms Against Gun Violence, which apparently accepts males as members.)
Shouting fire in a crowded theatre is generally not regarded as free speech, but apparently these folks thinking setting fire IS free speech!!
“They constantly talk in the most paranoid terms about having guns at home to protect themselves”
I’m 56 years old, and I’ve never felt the need to have a gun, nor been in a situation where it would have benefitted me to have one.
I suspect, though I’m not 100% certain, based on the numbers I’ve seen, that unless you are a gangbanger, or drug dealer you are more at risk of being shot accidently, or purposely, by a legal gun, owned, or operated by a previously “law abiding” citizen.
‘Gangbanger’?
That must have a different connotation from the meaning I’m familiar with.
(I won’t make any bad puns about shooting off weapons…)
cr
Know what you’re saying about the change in meaning, but it’s been changed for a long time, now. So much so that it no longer sounds wrong to me, like it did when the change started.
Well, to me it only has the one (somewhat suspect) meaning. I’ve never heard it in any other context.
cr
I can’t imagine what connotation it could have other than being a member of a gang.
After a few sips of coffee it now occurs to me the connotation you had in mind, but I don’t really ever recall ever hearing the word use as an adjective.
In British terminology ‘gang bang’ is a well-known term that means group sex, and that is the *only* (and quite unambiguous) meaning of the word that I have ever come across.
Any other British readers care to comment?
(What does it mean in ‘murican anyway? ‘Gangster’?)
cr
I live on 20 acres in a rural part of Michigan between Kalamazoo and Battle Creek. The roads are gravel and when we first moved here, 30 years ago, no other houses were visible from our house in the summer when the leaves were on the trees.
Back then I was a stay-at-home mother with my young kids, and was aware that I was often the only adult home in the area, given that the local farmers had to have day jobs to get by, and the other capitalist/hippie types like us (live in the country but one or more adult makes a living with a regular job in the city) were all at work. Back then I wasn’t too worried about this, but a decade or two later the meth craze hit. It is especially bad amongst both the rural and the urban poor, and these folks do a lot of B & E to support their habit.
When there’ve been strange people at the door or in the driveway, and I’ve known one of my hunter neighbors was at home, I’ve certainly called him before I’ve called the police, because they can get here faster. I still can’t handle the idea of a gun in the house myself even though there’ve been times it might have been a good idea. I have dogs instead–dogs who are actually cupcakes, but I hope their “announcements” (“we have guests! bark bark bark”) serve as some deterrent…
One morning last year I was asleep when I did hear one of the dogs go off. Unfortunately he’s 13 and never has been terribly macho; while the other is 16 and deaf. Anyway, I told my self it must be a UPS or FedEx truck in the driveway and tried to go back to sleep. Then there were footsteps on the linoleum in the hall bathroom right behind where I was sleeping. I told myself my husband was still home. But by this time I wasn’t drifting off again like I’m usually so talented at. The more I listened the more I realized it wasn’t my husband.
There’s no other way out of my bedroom that wouldn’t have created a huge racket and taken time (opening windows that haven’t been cracked in ages…). Me being me, my cell phone was in my purse on the opposite side of the house. My bedroom door was closed but it doesn’t lock, and by this time I’d heard the intruder move first to my daughter’s old room, then to my son’s (both doors of which had been open). I knew it was only a matter of time before s/he (of course I was thinking he–sexism?) turned to the master bedroom…
Deciding that confrontation was better than sitting and waiting, I crept to the door, listened for a few more seconds, flung the door open as loudly as I could, then stood in the doorway in my pink nightgown trying to look as menacing and glowering as I could…
A young thin white man wearing gloves and clutching something in his hands charged out of my son’s room and we looked at each other, maybe a yard apart. To my everlasting relief he said OMG and headed straight to the front door, opened it & walked out, got in his car which was parked half-way up the driveway facing the house, backed down the driveway and into the street, and drove backwards up the road and out of sight (Michigan does not require front license plates).
So that was a bit unsettling. But I can be glad he wasn’t high at the time and apparently not interested in anything beyond robbery.
(The house had been completely locked up. Turned out he’d busted through one of the basement windows–the small, high ones you have where the earth outside covers most of the basement wall–slithered through, come up the stairs from the basement.)
I don’t know if a gun would have been helpful or not, but I think with the right training I might have at least had some recourse against an immediate intruder had he been high and intent on something beyond robbery…
Anecdotally yours,
Diane
Had you had a gun, Diane, you might have shot and killed the intruder when he startled you from a yard away while coming out of your son’s old room. You would certainly been within your rights to do so, and been held legally blameless.
Something tells me, nonetheless, that taking a life like that would have been a grave burden upon you. As it turns out, you weren’t actually in mortal danger, and the young man lived to … to do whatever it was that he lived to do. Count your blessings. (And think about investing in some nonlethal protection, maybe pepper spray — or at least a dog still spry enough to issue a bark.) 🙂
The vast majority of armed confrontations end without shots being fired. (True for police as well.) And one must leave room for the possibility that “whatever it was that he lived to do” might have included some very nasty business indeed.
Note that I am NOT even vaguely suggesting that the civilian has a duty to subdue and arrest a criminal. (The courts don’t even take the position that police have such a duty.)
My daughter bought me some pepper spray right away! I keep it on my night stand. And for a while I made it a point to bring my phone to the bedroom at night… And put the chain on the basement door–originally installed 30 years ago to keep my toddler from opening the door and falling down the stairs. Now I’m forgetting to do both of those last two most of the time…
Yep, I feel a lot more comfortable with an alert dog around, that’s for sure. But I really can’t bring myself to go that route as long as my two geriatrics are still puttering along. I do think the younger one puts up enough of a clamor to make someone still outside think twice. Sadly, he’s losing his hearing too, though.
That’s very frightening. Hard to say what would have been better–having a gun might have led him to shoot back (if he had one) and both of you might have ended up dead. Then again, if he had been high and intent on harm, you might have been able to protect yourself.
I’m glad it went as well as it did…
You & me, both! 😉
Turned out the guy was presumed to be part of a known gang from an area not too far away, and since I was the only victim who’d seen a perp, a couple of detectives would stop by now and then to show me a bunch of mug shots. They surprised me by showing up just last month, in fact! At this point I’d be quite leery of saying I was confident of any ID, but they’ve never shown up with a pic that looked at all like him, anyway.
Brought me to another conundrum to think about; had I had my phone, should I have taken a picture? I decided that would have been a good way to get my phone stolen, though I could probably have gotten a shot of the car as he backed away.
And of course I could have said I’d called the cops and they were on their way, even if I hadn’t/couldn’t have. Monday morning quarterbacking…
A very tense experience Diane! I am happy to hear that it worked out as well as it did. I don’t play cards with woman anyway, I was scarred for life by my sister against whom I never, ever won a single card game, but remind me never to play poker with you.
😀 That’s funny!
And thanks, darrelle.
Interesting. The gun dilemma – If you got ’em, smoke em.
I would think the decision to own one for protection should depend on your specific circumstances. If you work in a 7-11 or a liquor store in a low rent district it might be a no-brainer. Living in meth country? Who knows?
In your case, I would think an additional dog – maybe a Doberman or a German Sheppard would give you enough margin.
Yes, I think you’re probably right. And there’s nothing like a good excuse to add a dog to one’s family. 🙂
But I really can’t bring myself to do that while the old pack is still hanging in there. The 16-year-old has become a special-needs girl, as her senses dim. And they both need to get frequent exercise and take their share of pills–they both get arthritis meds, the older one gets incontinence pills (what a blessing–ahem–those are!).
Interestingly enough, the latter are ephedrine-based and would appeal to junkies if they knew about them.
Well, according to something I read from one of these gun nuts, here in the UK we “cower in our homes” – presumably because we are terrified that the Bad Guyz are going to break into our houses and we don’t have gunz with which to defend ourselves.
I sometimes wonder whether these rednecks have ever visited other countries; but then, ‘Murrika!, so what could they possibly learn from other countries if they did?
Exactly. When I’m on forums with predominantly American gun nuts, when I describe walking in my city without fear of being shot, not packing a gun, not even owning one at home, I’m greeted with incredulity. I’m called “naive” and “irresponsible” for not having guns. They are so insular in their thinking and experience, it seems they just can’t imagine another way things could be.
Well, the US violent crime rate is something like five to ten times Europe’s. So some of the defensiveness may be justified. Of course BOTH rates are very low compared to crime rates from third world countries or even our own countries from a century ago – your rates just fell further than ours. Now we can argue about which of “gun ownership” and “higher crime rate” is the chicken and which is the egg. But in all honesty its probably something of a feedback loop rather than a clear linear cause-effect relationship from one to the other.
Eric,
I’m in Toronto and though gun violence isn’t unknown here, I’ve never known anyone who lives in such fear as to buy a gun.
Certainly some of the fear shown by gun owners can be justified, and that’s part of the point about living in a gun-ridden culture. They are so marinated in gun culture they still presume even someone from another country, one without a similar gun culture or gun crime statistics, still ought to be buying guns.
They can’t seem to imagine it would or should be any other way than “everyone ought to have and exercise the right to own guns.”
“When I’m on forums with predominantly American gun nuts, when I describe walking in my city without fear of being shot, not packing a gun, not even owning one at home, I’m greeted with incredulity.”
Those people don’t even have a rational view of their own country. I would say the same about most areas of most cities in America. Living in Alabama I’m more concerned with being shot in my own neighborhood by some drunken irresponsible redneck. If I ever owned a gun it would be to protect me from them.
I remember a comment John Cleese made about an incident in ‘A Fish Called Wanda’ where the psychotic Otto gets cut off in traffic or something and pulls out his Luger and bangs off several shots. Cleese noted that British audiences thought this was so insanely over-the-top they all laughed, but US audiences couldn’t see anything unusual to laugh at.
I thought Cleese was exaggerating but – following the discussions I’ve read here – maybe not.
cr
Their idea of liberty is a two-year-old’s idea of liberty. They must be allowed to do as they please, but others must be restricted so as not to prevent them from doing as they please. To a toddler, taking turns just means it’s always that toddler’s turn.
They don’t actually want to do say with government, they want to be the government.
say = away
I’m off to find out if there’s a way to disavow autocorrect.
godfuckingblessit disable
Although I would also like to disavow it.
“Disavow” is funnier!
There are two people on here whose auto-defects I really look forward to–beef’s and Diana’s. 😀
“Liberty” does not mean occupying someone else’s property even if you disagree with their ownership.
Why would they shoot one peaceful guy and not the others. The lies that these kind of people tell don’t even make any sense. This nut job probably pulled a gun and was shot, deservedly so.
“Why would they shoot one peaceful guy and not the others. ”
That was my first thought, but realistically, I could come up with several ways in which is was plausible.
I hope the FBI has a video of the incident and releases it immediately. I also fervently hope that such a video supports the FBI’s actions, i.e., it didn’t shoot first.
Of course, the right-wing loons will go nuts (or to be more precise, even nuttier, if that is possible) over the incident. I’m sure the FBI knew that its apprehension of the thugs may precipitate other actions. But, it had no choice. Such lawlessness cannot be tolerated.
They can have NASA make a video for them. NASA has a lot of experience with that 😉
“I also fervently hope that such a video supports the FBI’s actions, i.e., it didn’t shoot first.”
It currently looks like the FBI did in fact shoot first. This could still be understandable, given that the group was known to be armed, but the way this is playing out today in the news looks very suspicious to me. Please listen to the only eyewitness who has described what happened. I linked to it below. Her account is chilling, no matter how much these guys deserved it. I do not see any mention of it on mainstream news or even in these comments. (Maybe it has been debunked, I don’t really know, but if it has not been debunked, it is odd how nobody mentions it.) Look, even rats deserve humane treatment, and the public deserves and should demand honesty in their law enforcement officials.
Admittedly, maybe I am more biased than most commenters here by the FBI’s history of lying and framing and worse. Read the FBI’s dossier on MLK for instance. One of my late friends, Judi Bari, was once a victim of the FBI’s framing activities:
http://www.judibari.org/Who-bombed-Judi-Bari.html
http://www.judibari.org/updateMay97.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judi_Bari
I heard all sides of that case since I also spent a week in the jungle guiding the Oakland DA who was involved in the case. After our week together he decided not to press charges against Judi, contrary to the FBI’s wishes.
Judi was posthumously awarded a 4.4 million dollar court settlement against the FBI and the Oakland Police Dept.
eyewitness account? From who and how was she a witness, and how did her account get out?
Victoria Sharp, whose account I posted here five hours ago. She was in the car with Finicum and survived. I see now that the media have finally also found her account, so it looks like now we will get to the bottom of this.
One of the first clues that something is wrong with the mainstream account is the misleading reporting of second-hand testimony by people who were not in the Finicum car, portrayed in false headlines as if they were real eyewitnesses. Some of those same outlets are now correcting themselves.
Let’s return to this discussion in a few days and see whose BS-detectors are best.
I think that Finicum probably did charge the police and they killed him, justifiably. But I bet the “shootout” narrative is false, and many more than three shots were fired.
Do you suppose he fancied himself a martyr (to be remembered in ages to come)?
Oh yes, this is probably his dream come true. So sad that law enforcement officials gave him his wish. This will just breed more of these kinds of thugs.
I’m a bit concerned, you seem to be attacking the “main stream media” here and saying that the “main stream media” are supporting you in another post.
That’s because the media are now fixing their mistakes and misleading headlines and taking into account the new information. See for example:
https://www.rawstory.com/2016/01/update-new-details-emerge-about-lavoy-finicums-death-hes-like-just-shoot-me-and-they-did/
hmmmm, now where did the insistence that we wait and see? Conspiracy theorists are always moving the goal posts.
I am deeply ashamed that I don’t remember hearing about this case. I clearly remember realizing back in the day that the FBI was about as corrupt an agency as possible from all the disgusting evidence that arose out of the MLK era and the antiwar protesters’ era. (Bari was only 12 days older than I, per your wiki link, so where was my head at the time?!)
So it’s all too easy for me to still expect the worst of them, though the eternal optimist buried somewhere inside likes to think the end of the Hoover era had to have resulted in at least some reforms…
Turns out I do retain a knee-jerk reaction to believe the worst of the eye-witness versions, esp. in light of recent exposés of law enforcement brutality. You are correct–let’s wait a few days and see where things stand. At this point I’m less than optimistic.
I sincerely hope that there will be physical evidence contradicting the worst of the eyewitness charges. It pisses me off that the FBI might have unnecessarily made a martyr of this guy. I hope reporters ask to see the car today. There is no reason for the authorities to deny that request, and it would confirm or debunk the essential parts of Victoria’s testimony. I partly blame the media for not investigating vigorously. Once a false narrative gets out, the genie is hard to put back in the bottle.
LaVoy Finicum, you couldn’t make up that name, could you?
Slartibartfast might disagree.
LaVoy is French and Finicum as an altered form of the Irish Finnegan.
It still sounds stranger than the sister of one of my clients, MacKenzie Bellomo. (Scottish first name and Italian surname.)
I dig those collision-of-cultures names. One of my poker buddies, Fernando O’Brien, was born of a Peruvian mother and an Irish-American father. I think “Chili Palmer” is a pretty cool name for a fictional loanshark, too.
And of course, there’s the Chilean independence leader Bernardo O’Higgins (1778–1842)
Quite a lot of names like that in ex-colonial countries around the world.
There are long-established families in the Cook Islands with surnames like ‘George’ or ‘Henry’ or ‘William’. Indicating a British ancestor somewhere in the family tree.
cr
Why do these patriots keep giving their kids pseudo-French names?
Doubly ironic given the spasm of anti-Frenchness a few years back when France refused to join Dubya’s crusade, of course. I guess LaVoy was stuck with the name by then.
(What does it mean? Nothing in French, I think. ‘La voie’ means ‘the way’, which sounds vaguely Biblical).
cr
I’m put in mind of how people have a tendency to see the world revolving around them. A kind of solipsistic narrative. People often see themselves as a hero on the stage of life living out a dramatic destiny. I suppose its a way of giving life meaning. I suspect we all start life that way to some extent. I remember a line in, I think, John Updike – “…he still thought of himself in the third person”. A left-over from adolescence. Too bad Finicom never grew up.
Well said. It’s hard to imagine the government is out to get you if you don’t see yourself at the center of things.
LaVoy Finicum, was interviewed on a radio program in person in Cedar City, Utah (a 20-hour drive from the refuge), on January 13 and was later interviewed in Cedar City in person by Chris Zinda, a writer for CounterPunch. See his report at .
A video account by Bundy’s driver, Mark McConnell, describes how Finicum was killed. Seems convincing enough to me.
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/01/eyewitnesses-knock-down-conspiracy-theories-about-lavoy-finicum-dying-with-his-hands-up/
The main spreader of the “shot with his hands up” story is the subject of a mock-fest here not too long ago, Michele Fiore.
GOP, party choice of domestic terrorists. They should be proud.
They are apparently trying a remake of the Michael Brown story, but I am not buying it.
Ah, thanks for making that connection!
Note that neither of the two guys making those videos was actually in Finicum’s car, and they did not see what happened.
The only thing I can find from someone in the Finicum car is this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y92PvMFL0Eg&feature=youtu.be
She sounds sincere but certainly capable of motivated misremembering. Maybe she is lying, but it doesn’t sound like it. I would not be surprised to learn that the FBI and police are lying,too.
While much of it is subject to interpretation, there are enormous discrepancies between the early accounts and this eyewitness regarding the number of shots fired: 3 (early media reports) vs Very many, w/bullet-riddled car (eyewitness inside the car).
If the eyewitness is lying, I imagine the police will release videos. If no videos come out of this, then we can be pretty sure law enforcement is lying.
Of course I have no way of verifying that the person talking in the video is really an eyewitness…caveat emptor.
So now, I guess, everyone is presumed guilty until proven otherwise.
Bob, sometimes absence of evidence is itself evidence. If law enforcement is telling the truth, we’d see the Finicum car on display immediately to show the limited number of bullet holes. Or we’d see the videos. Law enforcement has all the physical evidence anyone could want. If they don’t show it, this adds weight to the only eyewitness we have heard.
Let’s see what comes out in the next day or two.
Or maybe law enforcement doesn’t want to be in the media frenzy, reality show, instant gratification mode.
Sorry, but getting the truth out is the best way to prevent a media frenzy. Even if they made some mistakes, the best way to put an end to this is to tell the truth. Maybe “hey, we were nervous and we had every reason to nervous. He made a suspicious move and we did shot him because we feared for our lives.” End of story. Anyone would understand that.
The FBI didn’t address it at the news conference today, but according to NBC news , quoting a law enforcement official, when the second car fled, after being stopped, and ran into a snowbank, Finicum jumped out of that vehicle “brandishing a firearm.” It doesn’t sound unlikely.
If that’s the case, the shooting is totally understandable. Did NBC address the contrary claims of the only eyewitness who has spoken so far? She says he did not have a gun in his hand though he was probably armed with a side-arm (and it would be completely fair of the police to assume that he had a side-arm, even if he didn’t have one).
But she says the police or FBI shot more than a hundred rounds into the car while she was in it.
“she says the police or FBI shot more than a hundred rounds into the car while she was in it.”
One hundred rounds into the car and the only one killed was outside the car? That sounds like a bit of a stretch.
tomh, agreed, that is odd. But one guy in the car was indeed injured. She claims they were at an angle. Another thing that was odd was what she said about the windows. But it is easy enough for authorities to debunk the story. Show the car.
It’s hard for me to give much credence to her story. According to her recording she was in the back seat and dropped to the floor – I don’t know how she could have seen Finicum outside the vehicle from there. She claims the car was shot at and gassed for five to ten minutes after Finicum was shot – if that were true, she wouldn’t be here to tell about it. And her history doesn’t inspire confidence. She drove 1500 miles from Kansas, to bring her seven kids to sing for the Bundy gang. “We’re here to sing for the Lord,” Sharp told the appreciative Oregon militants.
All in all, I think some corroboration is needed.
Anyway, tomh, thanks for listening to it first. Would you agree that at least she sounds sincere, even if her account may be distorted by adrenaline and emotional involvement?
I didn’t mean to give the wrong impression. The eyewitness was 18 year old Victoria, one of the seven children her mother brought to the refuge.
“She drove 1500 miles from Kansas, to bring her seven kids to sing for the Bundy gang.”
Tomh, your link referred to Odalis Sharp but this was Victoria Sharp. She is 18 years old. She is one of the daughters of Odalis. She got a call from her mom during the interview. And the fact that she was not a dyed-in-the-wool anti-fed fanatic like the rest of the gang in that car increases her credibility. I can imagine she may have overestimated shots or misinterpreted some of the things she saw, but she sounded sincere and is the only one so far who has sounded that way. Hell, she’d just witnessed a double shooting, and she sounded like it.
tomh, sorry, I didn’t see your last comment where you addressed this.
Do you have the slightest idea on how an investigation works, Lou? It seems that as other have said, you simply want to spread nonsense and then when the story comes out and you are wrong, you just try to forget you said anything at all. Rather like Fox News.
That’s a bit unfair. At the moment we have no alleged eyewitness testimony about the shooting except the one I linked to. Her account does dovetail reasonably well with some parts of the accounts of the people in the other car (the car that was stopped without incident). Yes, this girl is biased. Yes, she could be lying or confused. Yes, we should wait a bit before judging. And yes, the police had every right to be jittery when stopping these armed thugs.
But the stories coming out so far are a bit odd. Right from the start, the term “shootout” was used by the media. Yet I haven’t seen claims that any of these guys shot back. Maybe I am wrong and they did shoot back. I admit I have limited access to your media from here in Ecuador. Do you know that they did shoot back? If they didn’t, would you agree that it was misleading to call it a shootout?
What about this girl’s claims? Did you listen to her before you wrote your comment attacking me? I don’t know if they are true, but they should be addressed or debunked.
As I’ve explained in a comment awaiting moderation, I admit to being somewhat biased against the FBI because of past experiences.
Again, do you know how do to an investigation or are you going to continue whining that the police should immediately be able to show you what ever you demand?
nice try to move the goalposts.
@ clubschadenfreude
How is characterizing Lou’s posts as “whining” helpful to the discussion here? Can you cite a post of his in which you think he is “whining?” I think he’s posting inconvenient testimony that needs to be taken into account.
A long investigation is not necessary to establish the broad outlines of what happened, especially when there were dozens of authorities continuously present and watching the whole thing. Police press conferences often give basic information about the events of a crime. The car is a simple piece of evidence they could show to debunk the eyewitness.
“It seems that as other have said, you simply want to spread nonsense and then when the story comes out and you are wrong, you just try to forget you said anything at all.”
clubschadenfreude, the “nonsense” I’ve been talking about all day is finally getting picked up by the mainstream media tonight. Let’s see what comes of it.
really, what “mainstream media”, Lou? A simple cut and paste should be quite easy to do.
clubs.., a simple search on “VIctoria Sharp eyewitness Finicum” will help you.
Has anybody else listened to this girl’s account? Any opinions?
She sounds sincere to me. It sounds as if some of her claims may be wildly exaggerated, but if even just a few parts of her story are accurate, the FBI needs to come out with some convincing counter evidence.
The internet abhors an information vacuum, and the FBI, of all groups, should know this. By not releasing information which contradicts the “shot while surrendering” narrative (assuming it exists), they allow Bundy sympathizers to dominate the conversation. This is a high profile case, and the FBI should make sure they do EVERYTHING by the book.
Yep. When will they ever learn?
“The internet abhors an information vacuum . . . .”
Which is to say that many human primates are chronically impatient. Is the FBI to be beholden to that?
The FBI may be conforming to the Disney Davy Crockett’s point of view: “Be sure you’re right, then go ahead.”
Thank you for taking the time to listen to it, Diane. That was my impression too.
I’d like to think that, what with all that has happened before, the E. Oregon law enforcement agencies would take care to sufficiently cover their hindquarters in an audio/video way, especially dealing with human primates predisposed to spinning the situation any bloody way.
In law enforcement’s favor are several facts: 1) The thugs are known to be armed and to carry those arms on their persons; 2) They have threatened violence and promised bloodshed; 3) The driver of the car carrying LeVoy acted aggressively by attempting to speed away when pulled over; 4) law enforcement has been exceedingly patient with an armed group occupying buildings they don’t own.
Me too, and I certainly hope you’re correct.
Right-wingers’s brains must be throbbing as they try to reconcile their support for the squatters with their support of the idea that law-enforcement officers are allowed to kill with impunity.
Nah. That conundrum won’t even occur to them. Law enforcement officers are allowed to kill dark people with impunity. This is totally different.
Just congenially curious – would you suggest that the best strategy for a policeman sitting in his car – dealing with an obstreperous, oppositionally defiant, cursing adolescent male primate refusing to obey lawful orders to keep his distance – is to jump out of his car and run away, keeping his revolver holstered?
Or even better, just don’t become a policeman in the first place?
I’ve said nothing about what police should do, only about what people’s reactions are/will be. There are many situations that call for many different responses. Shooting the person may be one of them.
I’m only saying that the people who will go bonkers over this shooting will NOT experience the slightest bit of cognitive dissonance that they have not gone bonkers over any of the unarmed black men shot by police (not commenting on whether those situations were justified). The reason they will not experience any dissonance is that they mostly are happy with a shoot-first law enforcement when the suspects are dark, not so much when they are white. They simply do not experience the situations as in any way similar because they see the perps as like them vs not like them.
If you’re not complaining about this shooting, then I’m in no way talking about you.
Oh, and mostly it’s just a flippant joke with a kernel of truth.
I expect though that the killing, however justified, will inspire a retaliation from someone.
Armed delusional people are always dangerous. All of these people had been brain washed into believing the constitution allowed them to do these things, act this way. Any one of them by themselves would not do any of this but when you get a group of delusional thinkers together, watch out. Then arm them with all the guns and ammo and this is the expected outcome. At least 3 or 4 or the people running for president in the republican party could just as easily be one of these guys. Cruz certainly could be their leader.
Sorry, that should be 3 or 4 of the people.
Cruz has one TV Commercial with him hanging out with the boys from Duck Dynasty. They are all armed and dressed in their cammo outfits and have shoe polish or whatever they use these days to rub all over their faces. Convince me this guy is not mentally defective.
He knows his base …
What’s next now that the fascists have their Crispus Attucks – or more appropriately their Horst Wessel?
Finicum gave up on his family. I hope his children can see that he was never going to be a happy in this world. Sad that people lead such delusional lives and affect others as well.
“As CNN reports, libertarian Ammon Bundy…”
Jerry, this is a slander upon libertarians.
No, CNN didn’t. At least not on the linked page, nor in the embedded video. Any more than it reported upon “democratic socialist Ammon Bundy,” or “space alien Ammon Bundy,” or “Moscow Phil trombonist Ammon Bundy.”
Yes, I know that at least you wrote “libertarians” with a small “l,” but what is the factual basis for calling him that? If reports I’ve read are correct, Bundy is a registered Republican. (His father Cliven is a member of the Independent American Party.) Sometimes I wonder if anyone on this page has ever even MET a libertarian. I may not be the only libertarian on this page, but I’m pretty sure that I’m the only one who was a registered LP member for 35 years. The point being that I actually DO know a lot of libertarians, and I haven’t met one yet that wants anything to do with these clowns.
This says it pretty well: http://rare.us/story/dont-call-the-bundys-libertarians/
I’ve met a libertarian couple. They live alone, got their own water, not sure if they had electricity (that was twenty years ago) and saw no need for paved roads. And yes, they would think that Bundy is not one of them.
I don’t get it. The article notes, as apparently many others, that they behave like a libertarian.
The difference is claimed to be that Bundy is “opportunistic”. That is not in evidence since he had a long standing beef. And even so, when did opportunism stop to be individual’s choice as they hanker to some politic or another?
But yes, his father, the source of the inflammation seems to be a more outright libertarian. “The Southern Poverty Law Center has described Bundy’s views as closely aligned with those of the Posse Comitatus organization, and it has also asserted that such self-described “patriot” groups were focused on secession, nullification, state sovereignty and the principles of the Tenther movement.[25][26]
In May 2014, Bundy changed his political affiliation from the Republican party to the Independent American Party.[27]” [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_standoff ; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenther_movement#Libertarianism ; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_American_Party ; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolibertarianism ]
So the title of that piece – “Don’t call the Bundys libertarians” – seems to be an outright overreach. The Bundys are a lot of things, professed libertarians among them.
And besides overreach, an attempt to use the No True Scotsman fallacy.
“The article notes, as apparently many others…”
Really? I don’t know what happens when you click on the link, but it takes me to http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/26/us/oregon-wildlife-refuge-siege-arrests/index.html. The word “libertarian” appears nowhere on that page. Nor, unless I missed it, is the word used in the video.
As for the “Many others,” I can’t speculate. Maybe they’re also ignorant about libertarianism.
“But yes, his father, the source of the inflammation seems to be a more outright libertarian.”
Just what, pray tell, in the ensuing description by the SPLC do you find applying to libertarians? There are any number of “patriot” or “constitutionalist” parties, most of whom want as little to do with libertarians as libertarians want to do with them. And I think that you misunderstand the “No True Scotsman” fallacy. You would want to start with some evidence that Bundy IS a libertarian. You can’t just assume it because it’s convenient for your argument.
For some reason, people seem fond of conflating libertarianism with all sorts of non-libertarian worldviews; those of tea-partiers and even Objectivists come to mind. Which tells me nothing about libertarians, but plenty about people who say such things.
Do not libertarians consider central governments to be bad/undesirable?
To the extent that a consensus can be identified, I think that for most libertarians, the question is less one of whether the government is “central” than it is one of whether the function in question is a legitimate government function in the first place.
Libertarians don’t tend to be big “states’ rights” advocates, because they recognize that states and local governments can be every bit as adept at trampling rights as the feds are. Just look at the idiot War on Some Drugs. I don’t see ANY libertarians celebrating the yahoo adventures of state and local “law” enforcement.
On the other hand, I don’t see libertarians whining about ATC just because it’s handled by the feds.
Of course, there may be a greater diversity of viewpoints among even “Big L” Libertarian Party members than in other parties. Take abortion. Most libertarians are pro-choice, but people like l4l.org speak for a more significant minority than you would find in the Dems. Or look at immigration. The “official” LP position is for open borders, but I’m not alone among libertarians in thinking that that might not be the wisest policy.
But it’s precisely that diversity that makes me leery of making grand pronouncements about what libertarianism IS; I’m more comfortable with what it AIN’T, and it definitely ain’t Ammon Bundy and his shit-for-brains compadres.
Of course, maybe I’m the wrong guy to ask. I left the LP and joined the GOP in 2008, just to vote for Ron Paul in the primary. I abandoned my plan to go back because of the obscenity of the Bob Barr candidacy. And there’s a good chance that I’ll switch to the Dems this year, to vote for Sanders in the primary. You might be surprised by how much support Sanders has among libertarians…
“You might be surprised by how much support Sanders has among libertarians”
I’m sure you’re right about that!
OK, could you please provide the laundry list of typical Libertarian (or libertarian) policy planks? (I know ~nothing about Libertarians – except the Pauls and (seemingly) Ayn Rand, none of which impress me favorably.)
I’m genuinely curious about what Libertarians are in favor of. I suppose I could go to Wikipedia; but I’m curious about your opinion.
Cheers.
What I mostly recall is when Ron Paul last ran for President, at a rally, a reporter asked him what should be done with a terminally ill young man who shows up at a hospital without health insurance of means to pay. Paul, hemmed and hawed and basically wouldn’t answer.
One of his supporters at the rally filled in the blank, shouting from the crowd: “let him die!”
This did not impress me.
Everything I’ve read about the Koch brothers usually includes some mention of their self-described libertarian views on regulation and environmental issues. Problem is that their free range exploitation runs smack into (and often over) the health and safety of the rest of us. Much like the Bundy clan it seems to not so much about freedom as it is about taking whatever they want, when and where they want it. That doesn’t create a viable social contract as far as I can tell. Ironically it’s quite possible that libertarianism can survive in this country only because of the absolute minimum that our nation asks of the average individual.
The Bundys and their cohorts are not, so far as I know, members of the Libertarian Party. Nor do they seem to be Reason-magazine-style libertarians. And I have my doubts whether there’s a one of them could give us a cogent breakdown of Austrian-school economics.
But, as I’m sure you know Bruno, “libertarianism” — like socialism and a lot of other “isms” — covers a lot of ground, so much so as to be without precise meaning. There are, after all, left-libertarians, right-libertarians, and anarcho-capitalist libertarians among others. (And I don’t think you can so easily disassociate Objectivism from libertarianism inasmuch as its founder, Ayn Rand, remains a touchstone for many self-styled libertarians.)
There also certainly exists a libertarian wing of the GOP, especially among western Republicans. This is the wing whither sprang, for example, Barry Goldwater and William H. Rehnquist. Some of the Bundys’ views, especially as they relate to public land use, reflect (albeit in their most extreme form) those of this distinctly western branch of libertarianism.
Given how amorphous the term “libertarianism” is — and given that the Bundys fall outside anything that might be construed as its mainstream — it may be a bit misleading (or at least subject to misconstrual) to plop the unqualified modifier “libertarian” in front of Ammon Bundy’s name. But it’s hardly false or inaccurate.
Ken, I think that your analysis is eminently reasonable. Of course libertarianism can be seen as a “big tent” philosophy, wide enough to cover a spectrum from anarcho-capitalism to those who only object to the most egregious excesses of government.
Also true that many self-described libertarians have bought into Ayn Rand. I’m not sure how, as the one time I tried to read one of her books (I don’t recall which one, and it doesn’t matter), I got about six pages in before I was seized by an uncontrollable urge to rip out my eyes with knitting needles. But ask an Objectivist–I mean a true-believing randroid– what they think of libertarians…in my experience, they loathe them, apparently for failing to recognize the superiority of Objectivists as the Master Race, who should be begged to make all of the correct decisions for everyone.
But I would be dismayed if the tent were big enough to hold an Ammon Bundy, even recognizing that his views are only the “most extreme form” of a recognizable outgrowth of libertarianism. And in any case I stand by my original criticism: Bundy doesn’t call himself a libertarian (at least I haven’t heard that he does), and even if he did, CNN did not report that he is one or claimed to be one.
I think that if more people actually read a bit of Reason magazine, there might be less of an impulse to use “libertarian” as an all-purpose epithet.
Just curious – is there a standard libertarian point of view on military service? Who do libertarians expect to join the military to potentially go in harm’s way on behalf of (the interests of) others? Surely totally doing away with the military is not an option, eh?
OK, besides being WAY off topic, now you’re just trolling, right? Not to mention being too lazy to do your own research. Did you miss where I said that I was leery of making grand pronouncements about “what libertarians believe”?
Here…it took me about 4 seconds to find this: lp.org/platform. Or you could try googling “position of libertarian party on proper role of military.”
We have 4.5% of the world’s population and 40% of its military spending. Right now, today, our military maintains an active presence in 147 countries. Are you completely unfamiliar with Dwight Eisenhower’s “Cross of Iron” speech? What legitimate role for our military do you possibly foresee that can’t be fulfilled by a volunteer military?
” What legitimate role for our military do you possibly foresee that can’t be fulfilled by a volunteer military?”
Is that what you meant to say? We do have a volunteer military.
Yes, that is exactly what I meant to say. Why would libertarians be against someone volunteering? The libertarian issue is what legitimate business the military has.
“What legitimate role for our military do you possibly foresee that can’t be fulfilled by a volunteer military?”
Well, that’s certainly a straightforward answer.
Forget what if any general libertarian position may exist on the matter – can’t you simply state your personal opinion about who you yourself expect ought to so VOLUNTEER (just has you’ve felt free of your own volition to otherwise hold forth here on matters libertarian)?
Jeebus, Filippo, make up your mind. If you wanted my personal opinion, then why did you ASK for the “standard libertarian point of view,” which you could have looked up for yourself in less time than it took you to ask?
OK, you want my personal opinion now? It should be pretty obvious. Those who want to volunteer should volunteer (no different than Habitat for Humanity, or Médecins sans Frontières, or the local soup kitchen), but the proper rôle of the military should be SO circumscribed that we’d need damned few volunteers.
And the whole concept that people actually ARE “volunteering” has to be looked at in context. For starters, we need to end the idiot War on Some Drugs, and seriously dial back the completely racist police/prosecutor/prison complex that has decimated minority communities, funneling them into untenable positions where “volunteering” can be the only option.
There–you have everything I have to say about my personal opinion. And it’s STILL hopelessly off-topic.
” . . . but the proper rôle of the military should be SO circumscribed that we’d need damned few volunteers.”
Fine. No one is more obligated than anyone else to volunteer. But you do expect SOMEONE to volunteer, do you not?
Really, Filippo, is there another language that you’d be more comfortable with? Because I don’t seem to be able to communicate the simplest thoughts to you in this one.
Yes, I expect that the “someone” who would be volunteering would be the VOLUNTEERS. Exactly like the system that we have now.
Any more questions? Save them for someone who has time and the inclination. That would NOT be me.
Clearly stated, thanks.
So Ammon choose to not go out in a blaze of glory. He was content to let one of his followers do it for him.
In my head I can’t help but paraphrase GC Scott in his most famous role – you don’t win an ideological war by dying for your cause…
HAN SHOT FIRST!!!
😉
US 395, the mother road of eastern Oregon.
Live dumb, die dumb.
Sub
LaVoy Finicum’s book:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B014901Q8Q/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?ie=UTF8&btkr=1
OMG!
Sounds like a definite must-miss.
Yes…I’ll put it on my list. Right after I watch “Battlefield Earth.”
😀
Now, fer shore, thar is “Amuricuhn Exceptionalism.”
No sympathy, he was shot by a “good guy with a gun.”
Finicum reminds me of a violent version of “Harry Truman”. Not President Harry S Truman, but the one buried beneath Mount Saint Helens ash.
Each willingly chose their own way to die. Finicum was just hoping to kill somebody before he died. He died a failure.
Good riddance to bad rubbish.
Sorry for the cop. I’m sure (s)he is getting a deep appreciation of the demonology of paperwork.
To go back to a frequent theme on this site: to call these people dumb is just shorthand for “These people do not have free will, and their genetic make up, upbringing and other environmental stimuli cause them to behave in this dumb way.”.
Then the question becomes: which factors exactly cause this behaviour (to join a militia and have a paranoid view of the government), and what can we do about it?
and sub
For anyone who hasn’t seen it yet, this is the FBI posting of video and transcript
of the arrest and shooting. The video comes with a graphic violence warning. It seems clear that Finicum was reaching into his jacket, (where he had a loaded 9mm handgun), when he was shot.
Thanks for that!
Wish there had been sound, so as to get a feeling for how much shooting there was. I also find it strange that there’s no mention of Ryan Bundy’s being shot.
I doubt Ryan Bundy was shot. He may have been injured from the explosion of the flash bang grenade or the pepper spray like gas canister, both being fired into the vehicle after Finicum was down. There certainly weren’t any hundred rounds fired into the car as claimed by Victoria Sharp, who also said Finicum was kneeling in the snow with his hands up when he was shot.
Plausible hypothesis!
I would still have thought that RB would have been mentioned somewhere in the FBI transcript, though, esp. since there’s possible misinformation out about his wound.
Yes, from what I can tell, the feds/OSP seemed to be exercising restraint, and Finecum looked almost like a suicide-by-cop.
I think it’s quite possible that Victoria may have honestly thought she saw and heard what she described, though. After all there were times when LF did have his hands up; and perhaps the bang grenades/ gas canisters sounded like shooting to her at the time. It must have been chaos mixed with mortal fear for her.
Thanks again for the post. BTW, one can also enlarge the screen with control/scroll, if anyone wants to go that route.
Well the grenades did make quite spectacular flashes in the video (I think the British Army would have called them ‘thunderflashes’). And as their aim was to scare the daylights out of the occupants, they seem to have worked quite well, at least on Victoria.
cr
@Diane G.
In looking at the early news reports, the ones I see, say Ryan Bundy was “injured,” went to the hospital, released and arrested. The only place I see “shot,” was in Cliven Bundy’s press release, who said Ammon called him from the back seat of the car, and that Finicum was murdered and Ryan was shot. Some news outlets may have used that, but I’m not going to look for them.
Thanks for the clarification!
I am glad for the video, and I see that the FBI’s actions were reasonable. I also see that Victoria’s testimony was broadly accurate, making allowances for her being scared and misinterpreting pepper-gas projectiles and flash-bang things as ordinary shooting. Her account was more accurate than the earlier claims about a shoot-out or about F brandishing a firearm.
Tomh, you are confusing Victoria’s account with Bundy’s; she did not say F was on his knees, she said “He was just walking, with his hands in the air, I swear to God, and they shot him dead and after he was down on the ground, shot him three more times”
Then she said that the vehicle was again “bombarded with bullets” as well as tear gas rounds. The FBI confirms that pepper spray projectiles (essentially tear gas) were deployed then (an earlier commenter here doubted that claim), along with flash-bang things which would surely have sounded like shots to anyone in the car. In addition Dave Hannibal, a local, confirms that the passenger-side window was shot out as Victoria said.
I am satisfied and relieved that the FBI has been transparent in this incident. I am also content with my earlier interpretation of the event based on all accounts, including Victoria’s, and which allowed for possible errors of perception and interpretation. I said above:
“I think that Finicum probably did charge the police and they killed him, justifiably. But I bet the “shootout” narrative is false, and many more than three shots were fired.”
@Lou Jost
You’re right about the kneeling. I’m easily confused.
If you have a problem with switching the video to fullscreen on the FBI site, (I did), you can watch it on the Bend Bulletin site.
“It seems that as other have said, you simply want to spread nonsense and then when the story comes out and you are wrong, you just try to forget you said anything at all.”
-clubschadenfreude
The story has come out, so I want to leave this final comment for you, clubschadenfreude. In the end, my suspicions about the FBI were wrong, thankfully. But the initial accounts (some of which were sourced to law enforcement) were in fact false. The “nonsense” I posted was closer to the truth than the news reports at the time, in spite of much scoffing on the part of commenters. For example, tomh said “She [the eyewitness I quoted] claims the car was shot at and gassed for five to ten minutes after Finicum was shot – if that were true, she wouldn’t be here to tell about it.” But the FBI now admits they shot car with many “less-lethal projectiles” (that was the FBI’s term for them), gassing it repeatedly, and you can see this on the video.
I resent your accusation that I just wanted to spread nonsense. I was only advocating for accuracy and for a consideration of all available evidence.
It’s wonderful to see that you two are reaching an agreement. Let’s get down to the pub and have a few to celebrate.
Sorry… I’ll let it rest now.