Government Agents Murder Protestor

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.

 

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

-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

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?

Dead from what? His holstered weapon?

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?

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.

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.

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.

Fires what? His weapon was holstered.

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

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

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

 

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.

 

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.

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".

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.

 

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

 

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:



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.

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

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.

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.

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.

 

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.

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

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?

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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

 

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."

 

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

 

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.

 

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"