Government Agents Murder Protestor

[Xier0]

[YOUTUBE]gjl1hefqqWI[/YOUTUBE]

Skip to 5:40 to see the shooting. The video evidence shows the victim was not facing the police officers or moving towards them whatsoever, which is a direct contradiction to the police testimony that he was charging towards the police (in deep snow), which forced them to shoot in self defense.

Robert Finicum leaves behind 11 children, who no longer have their father.

 

That's fucking despicable.

I recently attended a lecture which was hosted by people who lost their loved ones to police brutality. I'm on my phone right now so I can't fetch the video, but it was the wife of a man that was on the floor not resisting arrest and the police tazered him WHILE HE WAS CUFFED ON THE FLOOR. One of the police officers even took off the victims fucking PANTS. This was all recorded on a phone camera.

This shit needs to stop.

 

Without the audio, it's tough to say. Coming from a background growing up around police, I'm of course a little biased. What's the background story. Was he supposed to be armed and dangerous? If so, he would have likely been told to keep his arms in the air. While turning around to face the cop behind him, he was reaching inside his jacket it seems. In those kinds of situations, you don't have time to think. You have to predict what they are going to do. Hesitate too long and if they pull out a gun, you're gone. Sometimes, it's you or them. And he may have been unarmed, which is the sad thing. But reaching into your jacket while turning to face the cop isn't going to help his case.

 

[Xier0]

Without the audio, it's tough to say.

What, do you have to HEAR the gunshot? You can clearly see that the police shoot him, how is audio required to dispute that?

In those kinds of situations, you don't have time to think. You have to predict what they are going to do. Hesitate too long and if they pull out a gun, you're gone. Sometimes, it's you or them.

"You don't have time to think"? They drew their weapons, approached a man who had his hands up, then shot him in the back. How is that a "You or them" situation?

And he may have been unarmed, which is the sad thing.

Owning a firearm doesn't mean you should be executed. People have the right to bear arms.

While turning around to face the cop behind him

But reaching into your jacket while turning to face the cop isn't going to help his case.

Turning to FACE the cop? He had just turned AWAY from the cops, who he was previously facing with his hands up.

Then they shot him from behind.

 

[Infamous GP]

What an idiot, get on the ground or get shot boy.

 

You never know what the situation was. I'd wait until a little bit more details to come out than to judge it so quickly.

I remember the most recent case of a police brutality on a black young man (I think it was something Brown, the big, tall black guy who was pretty young) and it being totally unwarranted and such things. Time goes by and more things come out. For example: when they discovered he had begun to run at the cop with a weapon, was resisting arrest in the SUV to get out. Much more things come out.

 

[Xier0]

You never know what the situation was. I'd wait until a little bit more details to come out than to judge it so quickly.

The footage shows the entire situation from before the victim was even within sight of the police until his killing.

I remember the most recent case of a police brutality on a black young man (I think it was something Brown, the big, tall black guy who was pretty young) and it being totally unwarranted and such things. Time goes by and more things come out. For example: when they discovered he had begun to run at the cop with a weapon, was resisting arrest in the SUV to get out. Much more things come out.

The Brown incident wasn't caught on film and was determined using forensics, same as the Zimmerman case. Also, in both those cases, Brown was fleeing the scene of a robbery he committed prior to his assault on Darren Wilson, and Zimmerman was being assaulted by Trayvon Martin. A 50 year old man with his hands up in the snow is not committing a crime.

 

Cops always shoot first and ask questions later. They'l be given a award of bravery and congratulated for their fine job. I fucking hate our system with a passion.

 

What, do you have to HEAR the gunshot? You can clearly see that the police shoot him, how is audio required to dispute that?

No, but if the cops were warning him to not move and he started moving and reaching in his pocket, you can see how they might be worried.

"You don't have time to think"? They drew their weapons, approached a man who had his hands up, then shot him in the back. How is that a "You or them" situation?

He clearly brought his hands down towards his jacket. From the quality of the video, again, you can't quite tell whether he was reaching inside or where exactly his hand was going, but it's evident he brought it down from the air.

Owning a firearm doesn't mean you should be executed. People have the right to bear arms.

Up for debate on the "right to bear arms". In either regard, if cops are pointing a weapon at you, telling you not to move, is it really the smartest idea to reach for a weapon in your pocket (supposing you had one)?

Turning to FACE the cop? He had just turned AWAY from the cops, who he was previously facing with his hands up.

Again, without audio, you don't know what they were instructing. They may have told him to get on the ground, to not turn around, etc. The simple act of turning around and reaching down can and will alarm any police officer. They don't know if you're reaching for a gun or not, and in many instances, it's better to be safe than sorry.

Then they shot him from behind.

Again, you don't know the words that were being exchanged. The offer who shot him may have been fearing for the other officer's safety and shot in his stead.

 

All of a sudden people acknowledge the brutality of police officers? I guess when it's about specific type of people, it becomes more evident. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

As most people on the right would say if the story was flipped, he shouldn't have been occupying a federal building with arms. Let's delve into this a bit more. The police are entering an area where they know people are armed, and threats have been made by the "militants" that they will kill all cops, although it was said to be a drunken rant, this is still to be taken seriously. Cops in this country are taught to shoot first and talk later, and if your interpretation appears to be true, this is just proof of that.

Wait.. Is this the same Robert Finicum who has been farming foster children for government pay? The same Robert Finicum who complained that his source of income (not really something you should say if you're fostering children) would be nonexistent since they took the foster kids away from him, and rightfully so? Eh..

I'll wait for more information on this.

 

It's hard to say because I know that police brutality is very prevalent in America in recent years, but the article states that the guy did have a loaded 9mm semiauto pistol in his pocket. It's good that they didn't shoot when he was driving at them and it's good that it seems like it wasn't a shit show with shots. He might've fired out of fright.. and honestly, since he had a gun, it is hard to say the cops are completely in the wrong.

 

[Xier0]

It's hard to say because I know that police brutality is very prevalent in America in recent years, but the article states that the guy did have a loaded 9mm semiauto pistol in his pocket.

He has the right to bear arms. The police were the one who drew their weapons first, then shot him in the back. The victim never drew his weapon whatsoever.

He might've fired out of fright.. and honestly, since he had a gun, it is hard to say the cops are completely in the wrong.

Right to bear arms. If in fact he had used his gun to defend against his assassins, his life would have been saved and his 11 children would have their father still. Unfortunately, he didn't defend himself against the police, and they took the opportunity to shoot him in the back.

 

He has the right to bear arms. The police were the one who drew their weapons first, then shot him in the back. The victim never drew his weapon whatsoever.

So the police are supposed to wait and give him the chance to draw his weapon and fire upon them? I really urge you to think about that one for awhile. A police brutality protester and advocate went through various use of force scenarios (link below). After the experience, his philosophy was changed. When you're in the heat of the moment, you want to protect yourself. His own words after the experience were that its critical that people comply with police commands.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfi3Ndh3n-g

Again, it's silly to think that the police need to wait for a gun to be drawn for them to act upon it. If that was the standard, you'd see far less police officers (as it would be a far more risky job) and more police offer deaths (if the requirement is to have a gun drawn on you).

Put yourself in the position of the officer. You're in an area where you're informed suspects are likely armed. You come across one with his hands up, seeming to obey your commands to not move. Suddenly, he turns around to face the other officer and puts his hands around his jacket. You're proposing you wait for him to grab his gun and shoot at the officer?

Right to bear arms. If in fact he had used his gun to defend against his assassins, his life would have been saved and his 11 children would have their father still. Unfortunately, he didn't defend himself against the police, and they took the opportunity to shoot him in the back.

I'm not saying he would have fired, but circumstances clearly show that he was very capable of firing on the officers. They're preserving their own life. In a situation like that, if you don't listen to the police, that is what is going to happen.

I'd also like to point out that the 2nd amendment isn't clear cut:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

With the preceding "a well regulated militia" makes it unclear whether the right lies in the people, or in an organized group tasked with defending the country.

 

[Xier0]

No, but if the cops were warning him to not move and he started moving and reaching in his pocket, you can see how they might be worried.

So? You can't kill someone because you "Might be worried".

He clearly brought his hands down towards his jacket. From the quality of the video, again, you can't quite tell whether he was reaching inside or where exactly his hand was going, but it's evident he brought it down from the air.

Can't kill someone for putting their hands down.

Up for debate on the "right to bear arms". In either regard, if cops are pointing a weapon at you, telling you not to move, is it really the smartest idea to reach for a weapon in your pocket (supposing you had one)?

You can't just say "it wasn't very smart to get shot", because that is blaming the victim for being shot instead of blaming the killers for shooting.

Again, without audio, you don't know what they were instructing. They may have told him to get on the ground, to not turn around, etc.

If you see a robber blow someone's head off on video because the robber told his victim to get on the ground and not to defend himself, the robber is still guilty, because he is doing the robbing. The victim isn't guilty for not following the robber's orders to surrender.

The simple act of turning around and reaching down can and will alarm any police officer. They don't know if you're reaching for a gun or not, and in many instances, it's better to be safe than sorry.

IT'S BETTER TO BE SAFE THAN SORRY??? BEING "SAFE" IS NOT
SHOOTING SOMEONE WHO DOESN'T HAVE A WEAPON DRAWN.

You can't KILL someone just because they have arms and legs and has the potential at some point to use them. He didn't have a weapon drawn and had already showed the officers his empty hands.

The offer who shot him may have been fearing for the other officer's safety and shot in his stead.

You don't get to kill people whose hands you can't see just because you "fear for your safety". I can't just walk down the road with a pistol and dome everyone who has their hands in the pockets in the cold. If they drew a weapon and pointed it at me, yes, I can defend myself, but not being able to see someone's hands is not grounds to murder someone.

 

[Xier0]

So the police are supposed to wait and give him the chance to draw his weapon and fire upon them?

Yes? People are expected not to kill people who are unarmed. Is this a real question?

Again, it's silly to think that the police need to wait for a gun to be drawn for them to act upon it.

You think it's silly that police have to wait to kill someone until they actually pose a threat to someone's safety?

If that was the standard, you'd see far less police officers (as it would be a far more risky job) and more police offer deaths (if the requirement is to have a gun drawn on you).

Good, fuck police and their bullying. If police were held to the same standards and weren't threatening and killing people with their weapons, that would be great.

Put yourself in the position of the officer. You're in an area where you're informed suspects are likely armed. You come across one with his hands up

"You come across one"

Did you not watch the video? They barricaded the road on both ends and blew out his tires with spike strips. That isn't "You come across one", it was an ambush.

You're proposing you wait for him to grab his gun and shoot at the officer?

You are proposing that he should be killed for not having his hands visible at all times during a police ambush where they blew out his tires and attack him with weapons drawn?

but circumstances clearly show that he was very capable of firing on the officers.

FIRE ON THEM WITH WHAT?? HIS WEAPON WASN'T DRAWN!

They're preserving their own life. In a situation like that, if you don't listen to the police, that is what is going to happen.

Yes, not obeying orders gets you shot in the back. That's sort of the horrible moral situation being discussed

I'd also like to point out that the 2nd amendment isn't clear cut:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

With the preceding "a well regulated militia" makes it unclear whether the right lies in the people, or in an organized group tasked with defending the country.

"A well regulated breakfast, being necessary to the security of a healthy day, the right of the people to keep and eat eggs shall not be infringed"

Who has the right to keep and eat eggs, the well regulated breakfast, or the people? It isn't ambiguous whatsoever, THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

 

This type of shit pisses me off. Police officers should be the ones to risk their lives for the safety of others, not the other way around. If a police officer isn't willing to take that risk, they should consider a new career. Don't tell me that there wouldn't be cops willing to abide by this, fire fighters risk their lives for the safety of others and are happy to do so. I don't understand how police officers can get away with actions that will land anyone else with some serious consequences. How can it be ok for them to kill someone who may or may not have/use a weapon? I thought everyone was innocent until proven guitly. I understand that deadly force is needed once in a great while, but it should only be used as a last resort. The rules of engagement that the military uses seems to be a good policy. The police officers shouldn't be shooting unless they are being shot at.

 

All I can say is a police officer (in this case 2) has the complete right to shoot someone if they are reaching for a weapon when they have been told to keep their hands up. Turns out in this case that he did have a gun in that pocket.

Whether or not you want to buy that story given the bad quality of the video and the word of the FBI is up to you, but yeah.

From what I see in the video you can clearly see him reach into that jacket pocket at least a couple of times in between him holding his hands up.

 

[Xier0]

All I can say is a police officer (in this case 2) has the complete right to shoot someone if they are reaching for a weapon when they have been told to keep their hands up. Turns out in this case that he did have a gun in that pocket.

Whether or not you want to buy that story given the bad quality of the video and the word of the FBI is up to you, but yeah.

From what I see in the video you can clearly see him reach into that jacket pocket at least a couple of times in between him holding his hands up.

Having a gun isn't a crime, it's a right. You can't kill someone because they have a gun. If they are POINTING the gun at you, you can defend yourself, but look who was pointing the guns - the police, not the victim.

 

Having a gun isn't a crime, it's a right. You can't kill someone because they have a gun. If they are POINTING the gun at you, you can defend yourself, but look who was pointing the guns - the police, not the victim.

It all boils down to a matter of preservation. Follow commands by the police and you won't be put in this situation (yes, I know you can cite situations where citizens follow police commands exactly and are still shot. It does happen). But again, let's review:

• Police are in an area that was dictated dangerous, where suspects are likely armed
• The suspect nearly hit the officer preceding the incident (let's not forget that)
• The suspect was likely told to keep their hands in the air and not move
• The suspect turned around and reached in his pocket

Looking at that list, I can guarantee you nearly every police officer would make the decision to shoot, and rightfully so. If the officer waited another second, it's certainly a possible that the officer near the trees would be wounded or even dead. The simple fact of the matter is that it's clear he at some sort of intent to do damage: he didn't listen to police commands and he turned around to reach for what was reasonably presumed a gun. If police have a gun pointed at you and are giving you commands, the only logical thing to do is to follow them, not disobey them and reach in your pockets.

You can go every which way claiming that this is immoral, that police do not have any right, etc. But I really urge you to think in the mindset of an officer in this situation. Try to understand their position. Review the 4 bullet points above, and put yourself in the shoes of an officer. Would you wait for the suspect to draw a gun? If you do, that cuts the amount of time that you have to react before he fires. Chances are that you fire after the suspect does. In that case, now your fellow officer is wounded, and you had the opportunity to stop that.

Also, what state was this in? I could be wrong, but a sizable portion of states do not allow open carry without a permit.

 

Having a gun isn't a crime, it's a right. You can't kill someone because they have a gun. If they are POINTING the gun at you, you can defend yourself, but look who was pointing the guns - the police, not the victim.

Yeah, but if you were in the position of the cops don't you think it is too late if you have a criminal pointing a gun at you before you can shoot? That is why cops are able to do this when there is a threatening action even before a gun is pointed at them.

Sure, the line has been crossed multiple times. To be honest, in this case I don't think it has since he clearly reaches for his gun.