Government Agents Murder Protestor

[Xier0]

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?

Was the victim pointing a gun at them? The police were pointing guns at the victim, who never produced a weapon.

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.

Did the police reach for their weapons? They did. They reached for their weapons, drew them, and shot the victim in the back.

Did the victim reach for his weapon? No. His weapon was still holstered on his body.

If the victim did in fact draw his weapon, he could have defended himself from his assassins.

 

[Xier0]

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:

Already covered this point. A victim has no obligation to follow the orders of his attackers.

• 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

-No crime committed
-The officers blew out his car tires with spike strips, and the driver AVOIDED hitting them
-The victim doesn't have to follow the commands of his attacker
-No crime committed

Looking at that list, I can guarantee you nearly every police officer would make the decision to shoot, and rightfully so.

Every police officer is in the right to ambush people with spike traps and shoot them in the back when they get out of their vehicle?

If the officer waited another second, it's certainly a possible that the officer near the trees would be wounded or even dead.

Dead from what? His holstered weapon?

The simple fact of the matter is that it's clear he at some sort of intent to do damage

Putting his hands up is intent to do damage? If he wanted to do damage, wouldn't he have exited his car with one of his rifles, or drawn his weapon instead of getting out and putting his hands up?

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 don't have to listen to gunmen threatening to shoot you. If he had in fact drawn his weapon, he could have defended himself against his assassins.

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.

So, if I was a bloodthirsty officer and laid out a trap for this car, then when I damage & wreck the car, I draw my weapon and immediately threaten the car passenger who came out voluntarily with his hands up, when he turns around, I shoot him in the back, then flashbang the other occupants of the vehicle.

Yeah. I feel great in the officer's boots.

Would you wait for the suspect to draw a gun?

Do I assume everyone is about to kill me, and kill everyone first, just to make sure? No. If someone did draw a gun on me, would I be justified in then killing them? Yes.

If you do, that cuts the amount of time that you have to react before he fires.

Fires what? His weapon was holstered.

Chances are that you fire after the suspect does.

Fires what? The victim didn't have his weapon drawn.

In that case, now your fellow officer is wounded, and you had the opportunity to stop that.

There weren't any officers wounded, because the victim never attempted to wound them.

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

No, actually, people have the right to keep and bear arms.

 

[Xier0]

Let's reverse the roles for you as well:

If the militia had made the roadblock, and the policeman gets out of his car with his hands up, and the militia approach with their guns already drawn. When the police officer puts his hands down and turns around, the militiamen shoot him in the back, and flashbang the other officers in the car, would you say that the militia was right in shooting the officer, since they knew the officer was armed, and if they can't see his hands at all times, they have to kill him just to make sure they are safe?

No. You would say that the militia shouldn't have ambushed & drawn their weapons on the police victim, and that not seeing the policeman's hands is not a good enough reason to kill him, even if you know he owns a gun.

 

• 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

-No crime committed
-The officers blew out his car tires with spike strips, and the driver AVOIDED hitting them
-The victim doesn't have to follow the commands of his attacker
-No crime committed

I don't get the purpose in you saying it's not a crime. Does committing a crime mean shooting the offender is warranted? If I steal a bag of chips from a store and run, does that warrant an officer shooting me? It's not about if a crime is being committed, it's about the use of deadly force, and if it's permitted in this case.

The use of deadly force is often granted to law enforcement officers when the person or people in question are believed to be an immediate danger to people around them. The use of deadly force is also authorized when a person poses a significant threat to a law enforcement officer, usually when the officer is at risk of serious bodily injury or death.

If the suspect was told to keep their hands in the air and not move, ignores that command, then reaches for something in their pocket, whether or not that gives the police officer the right to use deadly force is really up in the air considering there was a gun in the militants pocket. You can make the argument that a person turning their back is no longer a threat, but again, being that he probably reached for the gun, it changes things. Both parties here are at fault. As most on the right would say, "all of this could have been avoided if the suspect complied with the officer".

Let's reverse the roles for you as well:

If the militia had made the roadblock, and the policeman gets out of his car with his hands up, and the militia approach with their guns already drawn. When the police officer puts his hands down and turns around, the militiamen shoot him in the back, and flashbang the other officers in the car, would you say that the militia was right in shooting the officer, since they knew the officer was armed, and if they can't see his hands at all times, they have to kill him just to make sure they are safe?

No. You would say that the militia shouldn't have ambushed & drawn their weapons on the police victim, and that not seeing the policeman's hands is not a good enough reason to kill him, even if you know he owns a gun.

You'd have to make the argument of a threat being posed. The officer allegedly saw the suspect reach for his pocket. I wouldn't constitute that being the same as not knowing where a suspects hands are at.

 

Was the victim pointing a gun at them? The police were pointing guns at the victim, who never produced a weapon.



Did the police reach for their weapons? They did. They reached for their weapons, drew them, and shot the victim in the back.

Did the victim reach for his weapon? No. His weapon was still holstered on his body.

If the victim did in fact draw his weapon, he could have defended himself from his assassins.

Victim? What? Just in this 8 min video he a. runs from the police during a traffic stop b. evades a road block by almost running into an officer c. reaches for his weapon when he is supposed to keep his hands up. This isn't even considering the fact that they have been occupying federal buildings for multiple weeks and are known to be carrying weapons.

I mean honestly are you expecting the cops to come out with pepper spray or something

 

[Xier0]

I don't get the purpose in you saying it's not a crime. Does committing a crime mean shooting the offender is warranted? If I steal a bag of chips from a store and run, does that warrant an officer shooting me? It's not about if a crime is being committed, it's about the use of deadly force, and if it's permitted in this case.

Excellent point. Let's compare this to the guy who got shot in the back 8 times by police for not paying his child support:

[YOUTUBE]JCh8HhZ3Bww[/YOUTUBE]

In this case, there actually was a physical battle between the victim and the officer, and the use of deadly force. The officer was indicted for murder, and rightfully so.

In the Finicum murder, there wasn't even a physical battle in which the officers could say that they felt they were in genuine danger at some point, since the victim hadn't struck them at all, and never showed a weapon.

If the suspect was told to keep their hands in the air and not move, ignores that command, then reaches for something in their pocket

He doesn't have to obey to the commands of his assailants. Look who initiated the attack.

Whether or not that gives the police officer the right to use deadly force is really up in the air considering there was a gun in the militants pocket.

He has the right to bear arms, having a gun is not a reason to kill someone. SOMEONE ACTUALLY HAS TO POSE A THREAT TO YOU BEFORE YOU CAN BE JUSTIFIED IN KILLING THEM.

You can't justify killing someone on the grounds that they have arms and legs, and thus the potential to be a threat.

You can make the argument that a person turning their back is no longer a threat, but again, being that he probably reached for the gun, it changes things.

He never drew his gun though, so it doesn't change anything. You can't justify killing someone on the grounds that they have arms and legs, and thus the potential to be a threat.

You'd have to make the argument of a threat being posed. The officer allegedly saw the suspect reach for his pocket. I wouldn't constitute that being the same as not knowing where a suspects hands are at.

Putting your hands in your pockets does not constitute a threat. Not being able to see someone's hands is not a threat.

The use of deadly force is justified only if there is a genuine threat of death or serious bodily injury. The U.S. Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit Court of appeals have ruled as follows:

“The reasonableness of [officers’] actions depends both on whether the officers were in danger at the precise moment that they used force and on whether [the officers’] own reckless or deliberate conduct during the seizure unreasonably created the need to use such force.”

"[W]here an officer intentionally or recklessly provokes a violent confrontation . . . he may be held liable for his otherwise defensive use of deadly force.” Although officers may claim self-defense, they may still be liable for using excessive force if their reckless and unconstitutional actions create the need to use excessive force.

 

[Xier0]

Victim? What? Just in this 8 min video he a. runs from the police during a traffic stop b. evades a road block by almost running into an officer

So he isn't a victim because he tried to run away from the people trying to murder him? And if you saw the video, you would see that the officers set up a roadblock right in the middle of the road, and the driver deliberately actually avoids hitting them and causing injury. The militia didn't set up the roadblock and attack police, it was the other way around.

c. reaches for his weapon when he is supposed to keep his hands up.

He never drew his weapon. He doesn't have to keep his hands up, he is a free man.

This isn't even considering the fact that they have been occupying federal buildings for multiple weeks and are known to be carrying weapons.

Right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Did you forget the police were known to be carrying weapons as well, and in fact, drew them against the victim and shot him, while the victim never drew his weapon?

I mean honestly are you expecting the cops to come out with pepper spray or something

No, I don't expect them to ambush and kill people in the wilderness in order to enforce land monopolies. I don't expect them to use pepper spray in ambushes in the wilderness to enforce land monopolies. What a false dichotomy.

 

Xier0 the type of dude to say all this, but would never be a cop and put himself in their shoes. If he did, he'd be dead by now

It would be better that he sacrifices his life in something that he believes in than to kill an innocent person out of fear.

 

[Shall Skill]

It would be better that he sacrifices his life in something that he believes in than to kill an innocent person out of fear.

how do you know theyre innocent

 

[Xier0]

how do you know theyre innocent

People are innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proof lies on the accuser, for example, that's why we require proof of a scam taking place in order to ban someone for scamming.

 

[Shall Skill]

People are innocent until proven guilty.

sure, but the dude has a warrant out for his arrest and is running from the cops. cmon man hes guilty of at least evading arrest

im just saying the real world doesnt operate on a bunch of rules and as much as we wish it could - it can't. if you want to go out there and do what these guys do, but your way, then do it. you'll be dead real soon my dude

 

[Xier0]

sure, but the dude has a warrant out for his arrest and is running from the cops. cmon man hes guilty of at least evading arrest

Okay, where is the warrant and what is he being arrested for? He has no criminal record.

im just saying the real world doesnt operate on a bunch of rules and as much as we wish it could - it can't. if you want to go out there and do what these guys do, but your way, then do it. you'll be dead real soon my dude

I think it's reasonable to live by the rule "Don't shoot innocent people in the back."

 

[HotColdRush]

Yeah nothing new . Not like anything is going to happen to the police

 

Okay, where is the warrant and what is he being arrested for? He has no criminal record.



I think it's reasonable to live by the rule "Don't shoot innocent people in the back."

Your argument seems to be the same thing...repeating that they are "innocent"

This is what they were arrested for:

"All eight people arrested face a federal felony charge of conspiracy to impede officers of the United States from discharging their official duties through the use of force, intimidation or threats, the FBI and Oregon State Police said."
from: http://ktla.com/2016/01/26/oregon-protest-leader-ammon-bundy-arrested-shots-fired/

Whether or not you agree or disagree with their cause doesn't change the fact that they were occupying federal buildings. Even they recognize that what they are doing is against the law. Some of the last ones remaining are demanding that they be pardoned before they leave...which is honestly pretty laughable.

Also, evading arrest is a crime, which the driver did when he fled the scene when they were pulling him over.

 

[Shall Skill]

Okay, where is the warrant and what is he being arrested for? He has no criminal record.



I think it's reasonable to live by the rule "Don't shoot innocent people in the back."

I misread actually, I guess he just thought he had a warrant at one point

"One night during the standoff, Finicum decided to make a stand by sitting down. After hearing a rumor that there was a warrant for his arrest, Finicum declared himself willing to be arrested and took up a position at the mouth of the camp’s entrance, sitting on the ground and under a tarp, as if were a blanket"