The Liberal Gun Club Forum

Oregon park occupier LaVoy Finicum was reportedly shot three times in the back by Oregon state police. FBI agent(s) also fired shots, but did not report it.

"F.B.I. agents from the hostage and rescue team were interviewed by investigators immediately after the shooting and again about 10 days later, but on both occasions they denied having fired any shots. Investigators said they ultimately concluded that two of the shots — one hitting the truck — must have come from one of the F.B.I. agents, whose identity is still unknown to investigators."

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/09/us/or ... .html?_r=0

The actual headline of the quoted N.Y. Times article is Police Shooting of Oregon Occupier Declared Justified, but F.B.I. Faces Inquiry

Here is a video of the news conference. Oregon state police opened fire on Finicum's vehicle as it approached the roadblock. An FBI "operator" or "operators" fired two shots at Finicum as he exited the truck. Those two FBI shots and what occurred after Finicum's shooting are still under investigation. After a very brief standoff, Finicum was shot from behind by two Oregon state police officers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWvvrB6mDwg

http://www.opb.org/news/series/burns-or ... stigation/

Finicum was hit with three bullets in the back, which were all fired by Oregon State Police troopers. Those were justified, investigators said.

Suicide by cop. EOS

I so don't give a fuck about this guy or the other assholes involved. Quit giving them the press they don't deserve.

There is no legal requirement to wait for a threat to face you. A fair gun fight is just plain bad tactics. Too much TV influence. The wild west was not clean, neat , or fair.

dougb wrote:There is no legal requirement to wait for a threat to face you. A fair gun fight is just plain bad tactics. Too much TV influence. The wild west was not clean, neat , or fair.

But this thread is brought to you by the guy who thinks a cop can't shoot someone just for pointing a rifle at him.

SilasSoule wrote:Oregon state police opened fire on Finicum's vehicle as it approached the roadblock.

Yeah, when he tried to run the trooper down.

Neither LaVoy or his truck would have holes in them had he stayed at the first highway stop. I'm guessing the raunchy ranchers need a 'martyr'.

Actually, they opened fire on Finicum's truck as he was approaching the roadblock. It was justified because they felt threatened.

The guy he almost hit was bailing the roadblock because he thought Finicum was going to ram it. If you watch the video you will see that there is no way Finicum could have seen him coming.

Look, how they treat these clowns is how everyone gets treated. He is not the first guy to be fired upon for approaching a roadblock. It sounds like Iraq to me.

Stiff wrote:

dougb wrote:There is no legal requirement to wait for a threat to face you. A fair gun fight is just plain bad tactics. Too much TV influence. The wild west was not clean, neat , or fair.

But this thread is brought to you by the guy who thinks a cop can't shoot someone just for pointing a rifle at him.

Because we can't shoot cops for pointing rifles at us.

One more.

SilasSoule wrote:

Stiff wrote:

dougb wrote:There is no legal requirement to wait for a threat to face you. A fair gun fight is just plain bad tactics. Too much TV influence. The wild west was not clean, neat , or fair.

But this thread is brought to you by the guy who thinks a cop can't shoot someone just for pointing a rifle at him.

Because we can't shoot cops for pointing rifles at us.

We can't write prescriptions, even though doctors can do it.
We can't represent others in court, even though lawyers can do it.

I can go on forever.

SilasSoule wrote:Because we can't shoot cops for pointing rifles at us.

Well, you CAN, but you will get into lots of trouble for it.

Certain persons are designated as law enforcement officers, given responsibilities well in excess of those born by the average person, and special authority to carry out those responsibilities. You know, like judges can send people to prison? That's all there is to it.

[Cue Silas yeahbutwhuddabouting]

Admit it, Silas, you're just jealous of the uniforms and guns and cars with sirens.

SilasSoule wrote:Actually, they opened fire on Finicum's truck as he was approaching the roadblock. It was justified because they felt threatened.

The guy he almost hit was bailing the roadblock because he thought Finicum was going to ram it. If you watch the video you will see that there is no way Finicum could have seen him coming.

Look, how they treat these clowns is how everyone gets treated. He is not the first guy to be fired upon for approaching a roadblock. It sounds like Iraq to me.

Armed people in a truck, documented for threatening the legal government, approaching a legal road block at speed. Yes, it does sound like Iraq. Terrorists attack road blocks frequently, killing the guards. Bend it any way you want. Finicum was in the wrong. If he had stopped, raised his hands or just kept them on the steering wheel, he would still be alive. In jail, but alive.
He was actively involved in an insurrection. He took up arms against the rest of us, ignoring constitutional procedures, and decided his view of the law took precedence over every body else. He announced his willingness to use a gun. He endangered law enforcement personnel . He died. His choice. Sorry for his family, but he was an adult and responsible for his own decisions. He made some bad choices. If the cops had intended to just shoot him down, there would not have been a helicopter taking pictures of the event.

Actually, what got him killed was making furtive hand motions. The cops never saw a gun, because it was in his pocket. Many people "reaching for their waistband", reaching behind their backs, concealing their hands or holding cell phones have also been shot.

Are folks here arguing that it's ok for cops to point guns at unarmed "suspects" aka citizens, in the same way that doctors write prescriptions? Or to shoot people they suspect MIGHT have a firearm?

A court found this officer guilty of first and second-degree assault, misconduct in office and the use of a firearm in the commission of a crime of violence. Apparently touching the barrel of the gun to the citizens forehead was the big no-no? Because just pointing them at people is usually no problem.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3FFaJLcKXE

News story here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mar ... e9d1c46cda

Unless the alleged perp is standing naked in front of the cop, hands raised, and slowly turning around, how is a cop to know the alleged perp is unarmed? (surprisingly, this does happen) Depending on being able to outdraw the alleged perp is just a recipe for death. The cop is not there to play "fair" and has no intent of giving the alleged perp a chance to shoot. It's not a game. It's not a TV show.. He will assume you have a weapon until it is proven that you don't.

If you act like you have a gun, you will be treated like you do. Read the law. Reasonable cause to believe. If you carry yourself and are intent on waiting until an attacker points his gun at you, best get a prepaid funeral plan. You will lose.

The cops are allowed to do this because we pay them to get between us and danger, we expect them to go down the dark alley and deal with the dangerous person, and for some reason most cops prefer to not get shot at work.

reasonable person
Definition from Nolo’s Plain-English Law Dictionary

A legal standard used in negligence (personal injury) cases. The hypothetical reasonable person behaves in a way that is legally appropriate. Those who do not meet this standard -- that is, they do not behave at least as a reasonable person would -- are considered negligent and may be held liable for damages caused by their actions.

The cops standard is what would the reasonable cop do. The reasonable cop assumes any body may be armed and acts accordingly, because the reasonable cop has been trained this way based on lots of experiences by lots of cops over a lot of years. Pointing a gun at an alleged perp stops a lot of problems from escalating and keeps a lot of cops alive. Hitting a perp with a gun is battery, a crime by its self.

dougb wrote:It's not a game. It's not a TV show.

^^^THIS is Silas's and the rest of his ilk's problem - Their world view is based on TV, movies, and literature that more often than not use an omniscient third person's point of view to build dramatic effect as they tell the tale.

It's how most of us gain pseudo-knowledge of everything that lies outside of our own immediate experience, and if you don't deliberately train yourself NOT to think that way, you wander through the world actually believing that the cowboy could know about the rattlesnake, or the doctor could know about the exotic virus, or the driver could know about the insecure load on the truck three cars ahead, or the teenagers could know about the monster lurking around the corner, or the cops could know whether or not the person they're confronting is armed (and with what).

Wake up, Silas, and get real.

Actually, what got him killed was making furtive hand motions. The cops never saw a gun, because it was in his pocket.

Sorry man, I have no sympathy for Finicum in this case. The entire "militia" group was known to be armed, they drove off from their previous stop, and he jumped out of the car making hand gestures towards his waistband. Are there situations of police abuse of power? Absolutely. Hitching a wagon up to this incident is a losing case IMO- and it then overshadows incidents where there are real issues instead of manufactured ones.

This whole thing is still wait and see, I'm interested in what the FBI is going to do with the 2 feds they are investigating and why it was covered up. Some think that this was an illegal ambush which is hogwash, if that was the case they would all be dead instead of just one. It's unfortunate that the man died and could end up with martyr status but at least he was the only one.

dougb wrote: The cops standard is what would the reasonable cop do. The reasonable cop assumes any body may be armed and acts accordingly, because the reasonable cop has been trained this way based on lots of experiences by lots of cops over a lot of years. Pointing a gun at an alleged perp stops a lot of problems from escalating and keeps a lot of cops alive. Hitting a perp with a gun is battery, a crime by its self.

This is exactly the problem. It is not reasonable to assume that all "suspects" are armed and dangerous. Because most of them aren't. Cops have a right to go home safe after work, but citizens do too. A lot more citizens are not making it home alive than cops.

SilasSoule wrote:

dougb wrote: The cops standard is what would the reasonable cop do. The reasonable cop assumes any body may be armed and acts accordingly, because the reasonable cop has been trained this way based on lots of experiences by lots of cops over a lot of years. Pointing a gun at an alleged perp stops a lot of problems from escalating and keeps a lot of cops alive. Hitting a perp with a gun is battery, a crime by its self.

This is exactly the problem. It is not reasonable to assume that all "suspects" are armed and dangerous. Because most of them aren't. Cops have a right to go home safe after work, but citizens do too. A lot more citizens are not making it home alive than cops.

If I was a cop, I don't know that I would agree with that because cops do get shot at and killed even during traffic stops. It seems to me that most cops don't pull their guns in most situations. Do I believe there are bad cops out there, and bad department cultures, and over-aggressive tactics and militarization to the detriment of the policed? You bet. But there are a lot of good cops, too; If I were a cop, I would appreciate some sensitivity to the inherently dangerous and frequent pain-in-the-ass aspects of my job to go along with the legitimate criticism.

One this is for sure, in my opinion: This is an odd case on which to base an argument of excessive police force.

I've met a few cops while they were at work. Always polite, always alert. Notice how they approach the car. Usually the pistol is holstered and the approach is in a way to obstruct a shot made by the driver. If there are two cops, one will stop behind the car, gun holstered, and observe from a good shooting position. The cop has no idea from the get go that the average stop is friendly or a drug runner high on meth. If they are pointing a gun at you, they have decided for some reason that the threat level has increased. Notice that there are few pictures made of peaceful routine stops. No blood. Stops involving guns are few and far between. Pointing at a few pictures of cops with weapons deployed is a poor argument and ignores the fact that most cops never fire their gun in anger for their entire career.
One of my brothers is a retired LEO. Did everything. Patrol, detectives, K-9, Swat team leader. The only thing he ever shot in the line of duty was an injured raccoon, and then only because it took his tire iron away from him.

I'm done. Talking to a wall.

SilasSoule wrote:

dougb wrote: The cops standard is what would the reasonable cop do. The reasonable cop assumes any body may be armed and acts accordingly, because the reasonable cop has been trained this way based on lots of experiences by lots of cops over a lot of years. Pointing a gun at an alleged perp stops a lot of problems from escalating and keeps a lot of cops alive. Hitting a perp with a gun is battery, a crime by its self.

This is exactly the problem. It is not reasonable to assume that all "suspects" are armed and dangerous. Because most of them aren't. Cops have a right to go home safe after work, but citizens do too. A lot more citizens are not making it home alive than cops.

For this particular case, Finnicum was part of a heavily armed group forcibly occupying a federal facility. Just a moment before he was shot his car was close to running over the officers. To assume that he wasn't armed would be immensely stupid.

Do you have stats to back up this assertion that a lot more non-criminal citizens aren't making it home than cops? No, Alex Jones' site doesn't count as fact.

Stiff wrote:
Do you have stats to back up this assertion that a lot more non-criminal citizens aren't making it home than cops? No, Alex Jones' site doesn't count as fact.

Since the government doesn't keep stats on this kind of trivial information, we have a range of estimates for citizens killed by police in 2015:

"... the Washington Post cites 975, while the Guardian puts the tally at 1,125 — the website killedbypolice.net found that police have killed 1,186 people in 2015..."

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/1 ... lice-2015/

Police killed by citizens is much better tracked for some reason. According to this group, 124 officers were killed in 2015, 42 of which were firearm related:

http://www.nleomf.org/facts/research-bulletins/

Just because you are a suspect doesn't mean you are a criminal - judges or juries decide that, not police officers.