Shooting involving law enforcement are important, but these are special
circumstances indeed. When a criminal repeatedly tells the public, police
and those around him that he will NOT be taken alive it could very well be
argued that either of the witness scenarios will corroborate a justified
action by the officers here. Both stories suggest that Finicum was
approaching police, either with hands up and walking or with hands in
waistband and running. Either way, is he trusted to approach law
enforcement armed when he has repeatedly suggested that only violence will
come from his attempted arrest? What is a scenario here where law
enforcement were clearly out of bounds in how they handled the situation?
On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 11:18 AM, John Smith <lesizmore86@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Margaret Stephens writes: "To me this is not a major issue."
I find this, what, lack of curiosity? as to the circumstances of this
lethal event, um, remarkable.
I am not really too concerned about Finicum himself. I didn't know him
and from what I've read and heard of his life he doesn't come off as
someone I would in any way admire or respect. Some people in social and
broadcast media have talked about him having an affect of soft-spoken
cordiality. Good grief. Let's dispense with that right off: recall for a
moment the names of those ever so soft-spoken,even genial, criminals Paul
Wolfowitz and Richard Perle, the sophistic ideological architects and chief
apologists for the Iraq war. Case closed. So, soft-spoken, kinda good guy
in his own way? please.
In the matter of this specific cause, his actions as a leading member of
a group of armed thugs were utterly and ongoingly despicable.
So is it clear, then, that I hold no brief for the guy?
Now, law enforcement may have carried this out in a way that was
un-improvable, hopefully that will be borne out. But the actual
circumstances, these days, in the context of shootings involving law
enforcement are somehow unimportant? Hmmmm.
Tom
On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 10:10 AM, Margaret Stephens <mlstep@xxxxxxx>
wrote:
To me this is not a major issue. Except that the militias will use this
as an organizing tool.
I am really very saddened that a life was lost (even though I oppose
everything he stood for) but the man put himself in the position of harm.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 10:00:10 -0800
Subject: [boo] The Matter of How LaVoy Finicum Met his End...much more
evidence needed......
From: lesizmore86@xxxxxxxxx
To: boo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Don't know about others but what I'm hearing/reading about the
circumstances seems to be split into two mutually exclusive and somewhat
self-serving narratives.
One version, propounded by some people who were/are passionately pissed
(and I number myself among them, but am not among the antecedent "some" on
this one aspect of Finicum's demise) at the armed takeover of a beloved or,
at the least, highly-valued refuge, a symbol of what Government does well,
is asserting that Finicum,who was habitually armed (with a sidearm),
deliberately charged Law Enforcment and was killed by gunfire for this
putative overt aggression. It's entirely reasonable to assume that LE was
not going to be taking Any chances with a person with an avowed intent to
die before losing his "freedom". To bolster this narrative, people CITE ONE
SUPPOSED EYE WITNESS.--Mark McConnell, the driver of one of the two
vehicles involved in the who posted two videos yesterday, Wed. 1/27/16. NB,
he, in his own words, is NOT an eye witness: " I didn't see it. I'm not
going to speculate on it". He recounts talking to Shawna Cox and Ryan Payne
for his version and talks about how their narrative, to him, changes. So in
the video, McConnell gives a plausible and perhaps persuasive account of
how the arrests of people in HIS vehicle took place.
And so this is the crux of the biscuit (tip o' the pin to F. Zappa) and
this is where the two narratives become self serving. ...
because McConnell describes how Finicum jumped back into his truck, which
was ahead of him on the road, and drives a further +/- mile on and meets
another roadblock. ...So can people agree that McConnell is telling the
truth about this and really can't see a mile up a winding road through a
forest? I would hope.
Enter the other narrative: That Finicum was gunned down with hands up,
basically murdered by LE.
In support of this, people are citing the audio Youtube account,
approximately 8 minutes in length, where some unknown (to me) is
purportedly interviewing Victoria Sharp who, supposedly, was in the very
vehicle that L. Finicum was driving to that second roadblock. I've listened
to that interview -by-phone and, for me, am in No Way blithely accepting
her account on how it went down.
BUT, I am not out of hand dismissing it either.
It comes down to the tonal and circumstantial quality of the audio. Sharp
is either an Extremely glib and gifted extemporaneous liar, complete with
admirably faked asides, interruptions, all polished and posted inside of 15
hours of the events, or maybe, perhaps....there is some there there?
Me, I want to know a lot more before I get on any bandwagon. Would love ,
for instance, to see the "after" picture of that truck---is it indeed
riddled with bullet holes. Would like to know the results of a coroner's/
forensic report. Hell, would love to see a video of this last act if it
exists.
Non-conspiracy theorists, I would hope by now, should know that "the
facts" and accounts from any source, this early on in the game, have a way
of changing or transmogrifying, examples abound.
My stance right now: dispassionate skepticism.
