Tom,
I clearly stated that I was unable to view the video that your posting
referred to. The Oregonian website showed it as "unavailable" when I
tried to view it, several times. So I based my remarks on the assumption
that your description and Les Zaitz's description of what could be seen
in the video were faithful.
My first main point is that the person who allegedly fired the
projectile that struck the window, as Finicum was rapidly exiting the
vehicle, would most likely not have been able to see the position of
Finicum's hands.
If you consider the viewing angle implied by the reconstructed
trajectory of that projectile, it is prejudicial to state it the way you
did:
"How about that bit where the post-event investigators have now
found that an FBI HRT (hostage rescue team) member had shot at
Finicum as he was emerging, hands up, from the vehicle."
as this phrasing implies that the shooter knowingly fired at a man who
had his hands up to surrender. The shooter most likely could not have
seen this.
Point of view matters, if we're to judge the conduct of someone in a
fast-unfolding scene. In the much more sedate world of birding, we'd be
annoyed if someone wrote: "As I watched the Bluetail from behind, it
began to preen its rusty-gray breast feathers."
As a side note, the word "alleged" is 100% appropriate here. No, the
Deschutes County sheriff didn't use that word, as he was the one making
the allegations. For the rest of us, it remains an allegation.
This is not "shilly-shallying," it comes from a core principle of our
legal system, innocence until guilt is proven. Sometimes we may forget
to use that word "alleged" -- I certainly have at times -- but no one
should be criticized for remembering to use it.
My second main point is that the act of shooting involves a finite
amount of time, so that also should be considered. In all likelihood,
the decision to shoot would have been made at least three tenths of a
second before the moment of impact, and based on that officer's
observations of the preceding second or two. For assessing the alleged
shooter's decision, what you see happening on the video at the moment of
impact is less relevant than what was happening a second or two before.
My third main point is that it seems unlikely that the impact of this
this particular projectile was the main cause for Finicum to
(apparently) whirl around and reach for his gun several seconds later,
after he ran up into the snow. This is based on reading the police
reports which state that an OSP officer had already fired three lethal,
heavier-caliber rounds at the vehicle before it came to a halt -- if I
remember right, two of them were aimed at the windshield on the
driver's side (so basically, OSP had already fired at Finicum) and one
aimed at the engine.
Again relying on others' descriptions of the video, it seems that
Finicum wouldn't have seen the projectile strike the widow behind him if
he was already out the door and raising his hands. Several other types
of non-lethal munitions were also being deployed (flash-bangs to
disorient the suspects, "sponge-tips" to "port" windows, etc., and none
of the OSP officers mentioned hearing that particular gunshot. So this
was just one of many shots that were being fired.
So those were my main points. Moving onto some of the incidental
things/style points that seemed to trouble you in my response:
My reference to basketball was simply to illustrate how much can happen
in a fraction of a second. I could have instead referred to a statement
by one of the OSP officers who was involved in the shooting, to the
effect that from the time you see someone begin to reach for a gun,
there is no longer enough time to wait to see if they really do, and
then react by pulling the trigger yourself.
But I'm guessing that many BOO readers will have never fired a gun,
while most will have watched a few basketball games (especially in this
month). Three-tenths of a second is generally considered the minimum
amount of time within which an elite-level player who has trained for
this kind of circumstance can catch an in-bound pass and "reflexively"
shoot before the buzzer goes off.
You write that the decision to shoot may not have been a "good"
decision but an "understandable" one. So to fire recklessly perhaps
"blindly"?
Also, this isn't basketball or youthful screw ups--so "no harm, no
foul" seems a pretty bizarre way to characterize this misconduct.
But there is much that we still don't know at this stage.
this should be fully investigated, and if
proven, the FBI agent involved should lose his/her badge. If
that same agent perjured him/herself, then that should be
prosecuted.
