BREAKING: Ammon Bundy Arrested, One Killed, in Confrontation with Police

The Oregon standoff is over, with one unnamed fatality.

WaPo‘s Sarah Kaplan

Six people involved in the armed occupation of a Central Ore. wildlife refuge were arrested after a traffic stop during which shots were fired. Another unnamed individual was killed during the confrontation, the FBI and Oregon State Police announced Tuesday.

CNN:

Federal authorities arrested Ammon Bundy, the leader of a group of protesters occupying a federal wildlife refuge in Oregon, during a traffic stop Tuesday, a law enforcement official told CNN.

Up to eight of Bundy’s followers were detained, the source said.

Shots were fired after authorities made the stop, according to the source. It’s not clear who fired first.

The group of protesters has occupied the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge since January 2 to protest federal land policies.

Bundy, son of controversial Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, and others started out protesting the sentencing of Dwight Hammond and his son Steven, ranchers convicted of arson on federal lands in Oregon.

Oregon’s KATU2:

One person is dead and several others, including Oregon occupation leader Ammon Bundy, were detained following a confrontation with the FBI and state police Tuesday night.

It all began with a traffic stop while Bundy and some of his followers were en route to a community meeting in John Day, about 70 miles away.

Shots were fired after FBI agents, Oregon State troopers and other law enforcement agencies made the stop.

 Ammon Bundy, Ryan Bundy, Brian Cavalier, Shawna Cox and Ryan W. Payne were arrested during the stop.

They’re all facing federal felony charges of conspiracy to impede officers of the US from discharging their official duties through the use of force, intimidation or threats.

One person, who was the subject of a federal probable cause arrest died. It’s unclear who fired first.

The arrests come on the heels of the 25th day of the refuge occupation.

More details as they become known. But the Bundys did zero harm to US sovereignty while the government managed to avoid another Ruby Ridge or Waco situation. That’s a good outcome.

FILED UNDER: Government, Law and the Courts, Quick Takes
James Joyner
About James Joyner
James Joyner is a Security Studies professor at Marine Corps University's Command and Staff College and a nonresident senior fellow at the Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security at the Atlantic Council. He's a former Army officer and Desert Storm vet. Views expressed here are his own. Follow James on Twitter @DrJJoyner.

Comments

  1. CSK says:

    Bend Hospital, where someone was airlifted, in on lockdown.

  2. ernieyeball says:

    …a group of protesters occupying a federal wildlife refuge in Oregon,..

    These citizens are armed insurrectionists. I got no use for them.
    Fvck ’em, fvck ’em and feed ’em beans.
    And if they don’t like that, take away the beans.

  3. CSK says:

    The dead person is Lavoy Finicum, who was apparently one of the group spokesmen.

  4. ernieyeball says:

    The Oregon standoff is over,..
    Not quite. From the BBC:

    The self-proclaimed militia led by Mr Bundy occupied the refuge earlier this month in support of two local ranchers.
    Other members of the group were reportedly still at the refuge, where the FBI was setting up a perimeter.
    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-35416516

  5. Ron Beasley says:

    @ernieyeball:I suspect it will be over soon. When you cut off the head or heads of the snake the rest will soon be fleeing.

  6. ernieyeball says:
  7. de stijl says:

    Imagine for a second that the refuge was being occupied by Black Panthers or MOVE (remember MOVE from Philly in the ’70s?).

    All Holy Hell would be breaking loose. Fox News would be on it 24/7. The world as we know it would be ending.

    But because it’s a bunch of white militiamen, it’s a second or third tier story.

  8. ernieyeball says:

    @de stijl:..militiamen…

    These are not “militiamen”. A Constitutional militia is under the authority of the Governor of the State or the Commander in Chief when called up.
    These people are enemies of the United States Constituion.

    To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;…
    USCon Article I Section 8

  9. gVOR08 says:

    Finicum was in the news recently. Arizona removed several foster children from Finicum’s ranch.

    Catholic Charities paid the family $115,343 to foster children in 2009. … “That was my main source of income,” Finicum said. “My ranch, well, the cows just cover the costs of the ranch. If this means rice and beans for the next few years, so be it. We’re going to stay the course.”

    It could be Finicum and his wife were good Christians trying to do their best for children in unfortunate circumstances. It could be something else. Or both.

  10. KM says:

    They were never going to come peaceably – that’s been evident from Day 1. It was their way or the highway and it looks like the highway won this one.

    Now watch claims that idiot was “murdered” by the overzealous government surface in the nutjob crowd. That they were “lured into a trap” , were “provoked” and had to “defend themselves”. They will not say Bundy’s crew were thugs for shooting at law enforcement finally doing their jobs. They will not say they were criminals being properly apprehended and should have complied with the arrest like the peaceful protester they claimed to be. Lavoy will be seen as a martyr to the cause, not a destructive insurrectionist who abandoned his adopted kids for a month to go play solider in a different state.

  11. C. Clavin says:

    Takers. Freeloaders. Entitled white men who think the world owes them something because they were lucky enough to born white men in the United States.
    Throw away the key.

  12. gVOR08 says:

    @C. Clavin: Who was it described this “protest” as white privilege performance art.

    I’m waiting for a more complete account, but it seems safe to conclude that if not entirely rational people run around with guns, bad things are likely to happen.

  13. Scott says:

    The reason this group was not immediately dealt with was because of right wing political correctness.

    But the Bundys did zero harm to US sovereignty while the government managed to avoid another Ruby Ridge or Waco situation. That’s a good outcome.

    I disagree with this. It has always been true that you shouldn’t negotiate with terrorists. That was violated in this case. This will make the next incident more likely and more politically acceptable. Similarly with Cliven Bundy. Why the Government has not moved to take action against Bundy for non-payment of fees is beyond me.

  14. KM says:

    @Scott:

    While I understand and agree with James’ ultimate point (the concept of US legal authority remains as before), I do agree the US’s image and integrity have been violated to a degree that’s frankly damaging.

    I mean, look at us here at OTB – look at how much disgust and displeasure at the failure to act you’ve seen on the site for the last month. Multiply that by Yahoo, Slate, Vox. Multiple that by RedState, National Review, etc (angry but maybe for a diff cause). For whatever reason, the government took a hit here where they were seen as ineffective (by strategy or by stranglehold) that has done them no favors to the general public. I understand a massacre was avoided but bloodshed was inevitable as we saw. They allowed travel when they shouldn’t have, allowed resupply when they shouldn’t have, and basically ran a crap siege.

    People are PISSED. This could have been over WEEKS ago. This looks like the law finally decided to get their act together, not the culmination of a grand plan. The public is wondering WTF took so long and the future insurrectionists are looking at this going, “Hmmm so we’ll get a couple of weeks and unimpeded freedom before they act. We can work with this”. This crap happened because Daddy was allowed to run armed and wild so Junior decided to insert himself into a situation for his own advantage. Now with two precedents, emboldened jerks will start their own takeovers for petty causes, content to know Ruby Ridge will shield them from harm while they threaten and destroy.

  15. anjin-san says:

    I do agree the US’s image and integrity have been violated to a degree that’s frankly damaging.

    I’m inclined to agree. This episode, along with the earlier one in Nevada, has been damaging to the rule of law.

  16. An Interested Party says:

    I disagree with this. It has always been true that you shouldn’t negotiate with terrorists. That was violated in this case. This will make the next incident more likely and more politically acceptable.

    Indeed…I wonder if those who feel so sanguine about this incident would feel the same way if the next time something like this happens it is perpetrated by the Environmental Liberation Front or some similar group…

  17. James Pearce says:

    I kind of watched this unfold in real-time on Twitter. After sundown, a police presence was noticed at the local hospital. Roadblocks started to appear. Seems like no one “alerted the media” because CNN was still talking about Trump even after the shootout.

    I suspect that keeping the media in the dark was part of the strategy. The last thing the feds wanted was the Bundys “going downnnn…in a blaze of glory*” live on TV. Go in at night, whisper-quiet, and let everyone know after the fact. Textbook.

    * Apologies to Jon Bon Jovi.

  18. C. Clavin says:

    @Scott:

    It has always been true that you shouldn’t negotiate with terrorists.

    IMO…that’s a myth. We always negotiate with terrorists. Hell, Reagan sold them arms.
    Not negotiating with terrorists is a bumper sticker that is more fiction than fact.

  19. C. Clavin says:

    apparently the free-loading revolutionary wannabes are doubling down on the insanity…issuing a call to arms…waco and ruby ridge may not be out of the question yet…lots of talk of martyrdom.

  20. bookdragon says:

    @C. Clavin: Seems like the PPN decided not to answer the call – probably payback for Bundy telling them they weren’t wanted earlier.

    The reports say that all the children have left the compound, so at this point all the Feds have to do is shut off the heat and electricity and wait these idiots out. They’ve gotten complacent about being able to come and go and probably haven’t bothered with conserving their supplies. So, let it be a contest between freezing them out or starving them out.

  21. Davebo says:

    @KM:

    Now watch claims that idiot was “murdered” by the overzealous government surface in the nutjob crowd.

    Already happening. And not just from random nutters but elected politicians. Though it’s often hard to tell the two apart.

  22. KM says:

    @KM:

    Now watch claims that idiot was “murdered” by the overzealous government surface in the nutjob crowd.

    Already. Infowars has Lavoy’s daughter is claiming on FB her father was singled out and murdered with his hands up. Ignoring police statements that say he was one of two that refused to. Unbelievable.

  23. gVOR08 says:

    Please gawd someone had the sense to get dashcam or bodycam video of the stop and it shows a justifiable shooting.

  24. Just 'nutha ig'rant cracker says:

    @Scott: Because guys like James believe that [white] protesters defying the law “do no harm to the sovereignty of the nation.”

  25. ernieyeball says:

    Bundy Bends Over
    Tough Guy turns into a pussy.

    Speaking through his attorney, Bundy appealed to the handful of people still holed up in the remote area to end their siege.

    “To those remaining at the refuge, I love you. Let us take this fight from here,” said a statement issued via Bundy’s attorney Michael Arnold.
    http://news.yahoo.com/arrested-oregon-protest-leader-tells-occupiers-home-attorney-003420116.html

  26. motopilot says:

    @gVOR08:

    Who was it described this “protest” as white privilege performance art.

    I believe it was Josh Marshall, over at Talking Points Memo.

  27. Barry says:

    @An Interested Party: “Indeed…I wonder if those who feel so sanguine about this incident would feel the same way if the next time something like this happens it is perpetrated by the Environmental Liberation Front or some similar group…”

    They’d have been forcibly removed immediately. Do you think that we are ignorant?

  28. gVOR08 says:

    @motopilot: Thank you.

  29. ernieyeball says:

    “We never wanted bloodshed, we verbalized that many times,”
    Ammon Bundy

    His lackeys:

    “If they stop you from getting here, kill them!”
    http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2016/01/27/oregon-shoot-out-fall-out-community-wants-remaining-militants-gone-163216

  30. ernieyeball says:

    Volunteers of America
    Thank You Paul Kantner. 1941-2016 RIP
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SboRijhWFDU

  31. Matt says:

    There’s full unedited video of the event on the FBI’s youtube page.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAGxDWKrjPQ

  32. gVOR08 says:

    Much as I hated letting these people sit there for weeks, it looks like the patient law enforcement response has worked pretty well. One guy pretty much committed suicide by cop. Otherwise it looks like it’s winding down peacefully. A sad, tiny remnant, squatting there getting colder.

  33. KM says:

    @Matt:

    Thanks for the link!

    Let’s see:

    – They flee the scene of the stop at 33.50
    – They crash into the snowbank at 34.49 to avoid the roadblock. Fleeing for over a minute.
    – Shooting takes place around 35.04. He’s standing up, definitely not on his knees. He exits the vehicle and does go towards the approaching police. He’s waving his arms around and it his arms/hands went to his waist for a second. Kindly blurry but hands were definitely not up in a surrender position at all times. He was not moving slowly, not holding still or getting down like they were undoubtedly informing him to do. If he was surrendering/cooperating, he was doing a poor version of it so I could see how law enforcement would feel his gestures were potentially hostile.

    All in all, this looks like something we’ve seen millions of times before. A “thug” ran from police attempting to arrest him for his crimes, and in evading the police, sealed his own fate. Lavoy Finicum was shot resisting arrest after fleeing from police. He was not shot in the back, shot with his hands up (they were down at the time), on his knees or any of the bull being peddled. Honestly, if he was anyone but the angry white Repub crowd, this would have been written off immediately as “what happens when you don’t comply”. Sharp and the others are full of crap to spread the story they’re telling.

  34. KM says:

    @James:

    Please release my comment from moderation. Unsure what caused it to be caught unless it was my rundown of the video.

  35. MarkedMan says:

    A couple of observations from the video:
    – the insurrectionist who has been telling the world that Fincum was down on his knees with his hands up in the air when he was shot was obviously lying or deluded. But The true believers will be spouting her version for the next twenty years
    – Everyone is saying the driver plowed into the snow bank trying to go around. Maybe, although anyone who has ever driven in deep snow knows that would never work. Once the snow touches the undercarriage it simply lifts your tires off the ground and you have no traction. It appears equally likely that he was deliberately aiming for the officer who dives out of the way at the last second. From the video I thought he was actually hit, but there was no report of an injured officer.

  36. Jenos Idanian says:

    No surprise here: the general tone of the comments here about the death of a man is “too bad it too long” and “too bad it was only one guy.”

    A complete turnaround from the Ferguson and Baltimore riots.

    And in that video, I see two things that, to me, look like the cops did wrong in that takedown.

  37. gVOR08 says:

    @Jenos Idanian: I don’t see a single comment here that can fairly be read that way. Maybe other OTB threads and other sites. This thread, you have a quote?

    And what two things?

  38. Jenos Idanian says:

    @gVOR08: Go back and read the first comment from ernieeyeball, the first comment from t, and the comment from KM from Wednesday at 10:28. That’st the message, partly blatant, partly in dog-whistles.

    And the two mistakes, in my opinion?

    1) The roadblock looks like it was set up very poorly. It seems it was too close to a bend, meaning that the suspects didn’t have time to react safely — and nearly ran over one cop who should NOT have been in such a vulnerable position.

    2) The cop who shot the guy in the back looks like he broke the 3rd Law of Gun Safety — “Always be sure of your target and what is behind it.” There were other officers past the suspect; had his shot/shots either missed or gone through the suspect, he could have hit another officer.

    The second could be considered a subset of #1, part of the “poor setup for the stop,” but to me it’s important enough to merit its own consideration.

    There’s one possibility going around that the cops in front of the shot guy were ordering him to drop his gun, and he was complying when the cop behind him shot him. I don’t think that’s likely, but I do give it a “possible” rating. And if so, it reinforces again that the stop was poorly set up.

  39. Jenos Idanian says:

    Go back and read the first comment from ernieeyeball, the first comment from t, and the comment from KM from Wednesday at 10:28. That’st the message, partly blatant, partly in dog-whistles.

    And the two mistakes, in my opinion?

    1) The roadblock looks like it was set up very poorly. It seems it was too close to a bend, meaning that the suspects didn’t have time to react safely — and nearly ran over one cop who should NOT have been in such a vulnerable position.

    2) The cop who shot the guy in the back looks like he broke the 3rd Law of Gun Safety — “Always be sure of your target and what is behind it.” There were other officers past the suspect; had his shot/shots either missed or gone through the suspect, he could have hit another officer.

    The second could be considered a subset of #1, part of the “poor setup for the stop,” but to me it’s important enough to merit its own consideration.

    There’s one possibility going around that the cops in front of the shot guy were ordering him to drop his gun, and he was complying when the cop behind him shot him. I don’t think that’s likely, but I do give it a “possible” rating. And if so, it reinforces again that the stop was poorly set up.

  40. Jenos Idanian says:

    My response has been held up twice.

  41. MarkedMan says:

    I can’t speak for others but I support the police when they shoot an armed suspect who is behaving in a manner that could pose an imminent threat. He had made verbal threats while carrying a gun. He threatenined to fight to the death with law enforcement. After making these threats he reached under his coat rather than complying. The law enforcement agents were behaving in a professional and competent manner. So yes, I think this is different than most of the cases we’ve been discussing here.

  42. ernieyeball says:

    @Genos Indiana:..Go back and read the first comment from ernieeyeball,..

    Please spell my name correctly.
    If you can’t get that right, how can anyone be expected to take you seriously.

  43. ernieyeball says:
  44. gVOR08 says:

    @ernieyeball:
    These citizens are armed insurrectionists. I got no use for them.
    Fvck ’em, fvck ’em and feed ’em beans.
    And if they don’t like that, take away the beans.

    @t:
    He died as he lived.
    dildos tightly grasped in his hands.

    I think your reading into these stuff that isn’t there.

    And I didn’t copy anything from the lengthy @KM: comment, as I’m failing to see what you might think amounted to

    the death of a man is “too bad it too long” and “too bad it was only one guy.”

    @Jenos Idanian:

    Your two criticisms of the stop, even if valid, are tactical details appropriate to a debrief by the OSP. No legal relevance nor relevance to this thread.

  45. Jenos Idanian says:

    @ernieyeball: Sorry for the extra “e.” My apologies; I though you were a little E-deficient, but I guess you’ve been eating your green leafy vegetables.

  46. Jenos Idanian says:

    @gVOR08: I said I saw two things that I thought the police did wrong, and why I thought they were wrong. It was in response to the comments that were talking about how wonderful the police’s work was in this case.

    As far as a “good shooting,” I’d call it about even with the Michael Brown shooting in Ferguson. But without the politically-expedient lies and the all-too-eager mob inciters and the rioting.

  47. Grewgills says:

    Jenos, firstly, I find it interesting that out of all of the police shootings that we’ve discussed here over the past year that this is the only one where you find the police to be the ones primarily at fault.
    Secondly, what video did you watch? The bend was long and gradual. The driver had plenty of time to stop safely if that was what he wanted to do. He instead chose to try to drive around the road block through a snow bank. You are correct that the officer standing on that snow bank should have realized that the driver could be that big of an idiot and should have taken a safer position.
    Finally, in the video I watched it isn’t entirely clear which of the two officers shot him from the video, but when he went down he was sideways to both of them. It appeared that Finicum was turning towards the officer that shot him with his hand moving inside his jacket. These men had previously issued death threats against any agents that tried to stop them and he did look like he was reaching for a gun.
    Again, it is interesting that you find more fault with the police here than with police facing an obviously unarmed man a similar distance away. One can only wonder what different circumstances are causing this change in tone.
    I have two guesses, but what I am favoring as the primary one is, I think, different than what most here would guess.

  48. ernieyeball says:

    @Grewgills:..One can only wonder what different circumstances are causing this change in tone.

    Why the difference is obvious. Can’t you tell?

    http://music-selections.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/star-trek-bele-lokai.jpg

  49. Jenos Idanian says:

    @Grewgills: firstly, I find it interesting that out of all of the police shootings that we’ve discussed here over the past year that this is the only one where you find the police to be the ones primarily at fault.

    I didn’t say that the cops were primarily at fault, I said that I thought they did two things wrong, and why I thought so. I also said that it was, in my opinion, a “good shooting.”

    Maybe I’m more used to driving in winter than you, especially on rural roads with high snowdrifts, but I thought that the roadblock came up on the suspects too quickly for them to do anything other than ram or go off the road — but it was a shaky camera from a helicopter, so I could be mistaken on that one.

    My perception is that he was shot from behind, but if he was shot from the front, the same criticism holds true — but in reverse. The cop I think shot him was in the line of fire. The cops should have been more careful to avoid letting the suspect get directly (or almost directly) between officers, as that sets up the danger.

    I didn’t say it was a bad shooting. I even said it was, most likely, a “good” shooting. My criticisms are of the execution (if you’ll pardon the term), not the shooting itself. And in both cases, the criticism is based on what I think are police officers being unnecessarily endangered — one was nearly run over, and another could have been shot by a fellow cop.

    But if you wanna go racial, then we can play that. Was there any defense of Michael Brown that was NOT based on his race, and the race of the cop?

  50. Jenos Idanian says:

    I am getting so peeved with the moderation algorithm…

  51. Grewgills says:

    @ernieyeball:
    Honestly, in the case of Jenos I don’t think that is the primary reason.

  52. gVOR08 says:

    @Grewgills: OK. ??

  53. KM says:

    @Jenos:

    Go back and read the first comment from ernieeyeball, the first comment from t, and the comment from KM from Wednesday at 10:28. That’st the message, partly blatant, partly in dog-whistles.

    the death of a man is “too bad it too long”

    Please actually read what I wrote. This whole situation went on too damn long, nearly a month. These men should have been arrested long ago – if they had been, LaVoy would be alive right now. Food for thought….

  54. KM says:

    @Jenos:

    As far as a “good shooting,” I’d call it about even with the Michael Brown shooting in Ferguson.

    So if the two are “about even”, does that mean that both clean shoots or are they both police screw-ups? What makes them only “about even” instead of “even”?

  55. Grewgills says:

    It is a shame that Finicum was left bleeding in the snow for over 10 minutes. I don’t know if that time would make a difference to his survival, but I wish the effort were made. I can understand the agents on the scene fearing for their safety with the remaining armed terrorists in the truck maybe 20′ away from his body. It doesn’t appear that there was a safe way for them to get him timely medical treatment. If the other terrorists had surrendered more quickly…

  56. Grewgills says:

    @Jenos Idanian:

    I’d call it about even with the Michael Brown shooting in Ferguson.

    Given your defense of the Ferguson shooting, I take it then that you mean this was clean, completely legally justified shooting, and any criticism of the shooting is unjustified agitprop.

    But without the politically-expedient lies and the all-too-eager mob inciters and the rioting.

    The politically expedient lying has begun. I guess you missed it. There have already been claims that Finicum was on his knees with his hands up in surrender position when he was shot. There is also the claim that he was shot in the back. We’re only a couple days in, I’m sure there will be more to come.

  57. Grewgills says:

    @gVOR08:
    To be charitable, I think is primary reason for these (and most of his comments) is that he likes to be contrary and argue against the majority opinion here regardless of his personal beliefs on any given topic.

  58. gVOR08 says:

    @Grewgills: I think you and @ernieyeball: are each about half right.

  59. Matt says:

    @Jenos Idanian: That was not around a bend. The roadblock was easily visible enough that Lavoy could of made a gentle stop with plenty of road left. The setup was done basically perfect and the whole operation was done by the text book. If your heroes hadn’t ran away from a lawful stop then the roadblock wouldn’t of even been needed. Not to mention that Lavoy reached two times into his jacket where his gun was. If you watch closely it looks like he reaches three times but it’s hard to tell if the first one was really a reach or not. So I’m only counting the two blatantly obvious reaches. A black man in any number of areas would of been shot by the first reach.

    Don’t try to talk that bullcrap about you having more experience driving in snow then me. I spent 30 years driving through blizzards and ice storms in rural areas (lived on a farm for 15 years). My home town peaked at about 5000 people. I also delivered pizzas in this weather for 11. That road was magnificently cleared compared to what I’m used to driving on.

  60. Jenos Idanian says:

    @KM: Please actually read what I wrote. This whole situation went on too damn long, nearly a month. These men should have been arrested long ago – if they had been, LaVoy would be alive right now. Food for thought….

    I’m gonna get a little pedantic here. When the authorities come to arrest you, you can either submit or resist. If you resist, the authorities can legally use force, up to and including killing you, like what happened in this case.

    Why do you think that, if the authorities had acted sooner, it would have played out any differently? Do you really think the guy might have surrendered peacefully a couple of weeks ago? What might have changed that made his death now more likely than two weeks ago?

  61. Jenos Idanian says:

    @Grewgills: Yes, I think it was a justified shooting. If that wasn’t clear, let me make it clear now.

    But as far as saying “criticism of the shooting is unjustified agitprop” is too far. I have my criticisms of it, but they are based on how it was conducted. In my opinion, based on that video, the officers who set up the roadblock, the officer nearly run down, and the officer who took the shot could use a little remedial training about minimizing their risks. The officer nearly run down should have been behind cover a little better, and the cop who took the shot put at least one other officer at risk.

    You’ve quibbled with the setup part, but do you think the two officers I mention are above criticism for their conduct?

  62. Jenos Idanian says:

    DANN the moderation algorithm!

    Yes, I believe it was a clean shooting. I thought I made that clear. No, I don’t think that it was totally above criticism, and I think that two of the officers could use a little remedial training. And the officer who arranged the block might, as well. For all the reasons I gave.

  63. ernieyeball says:

    “Before we leave, every single one of the people involved in this operation should be pardoned,” occupier David Fry said in a feed posted to YouTube just before noon Friday.
    http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/01/as_oregon_standoff_drags_on_ee.html#incart_maj-story-1

    Well Trickey Dick was pardoned by President Ford. Nixon had not even been charged with anything at the time. I guess these White, Christian Domestic Terrorists are entitled to the same privilege.

  64. Jenos Idanian says:

    @ernieyeball: Whoa, what a scoop! This guy doesn’t think he did anything wrong! That changes everything!

    Where do you get these amazing revelations?

    Maybe if he made a big enough donation to the Clinton Foundation, Hillary will pardon him. After all, Bill sold a few pardons on his way out of the White House…

  65. Grewgills says:

    @Jenos Idanian:

    I also said that it was, in my opinion, a “good shooting.”

    The closest you came to saying that before being called on it was

    As far as a “good shooting,” I’d call it about even with the Michael Brown shooting in Ferguson.

    I guess you expected us to divine from that that you felt it was a “good shooting”. For future reference, that isn’t near so clear as you apparently believe it is.
    Also that comment was delayed for some reason and didn’t appear until after I made my comment you are responding to here.

    Maybe I’m more used to driving in winter than you, especially on rural roads with high snowdrifts, but I thought that the roadblock came up on the suspects too quickly for them to do anything other than ram or go off the road

    The road was remarkably clear. Early on in the unedited video they came to a complete stop in less distance than they had after the turn. The driver didn’t attempt to slow down at all. It appears that if anything he sped up attempting to have momentum deliver him through the drift. It was a stupid move and one any reasonable person should know would not work. The officer was clearly visible, even from the helicopter. The driver should be charged for that action in addition to everything else.

    But if you wanna go racial, then we can play that.

    If you read what I wrote above, you will see that I don’t ascribe race as your primary motive. I think your motive here and in many cases is simply that you want to be contrary and argue with the left of center commenters here. You will sometimes make racist arguments, but I attribute that more to you wanting to be contrarian here than to racial animus. I could be wrong though.

  66. Jenos Idanian says:

    @Grewgills: I think, on the block’s placement, we’re looking at different things. You’re looking at the road, I’m looking at the embankments. But as noted, it’s a side point.

    For reference, I went back to this site’s first article on the Ferguson shooting, and there most of The Usual Suspects were already basing their arguments on the cop acting in bad faith. True, they couched their comments in conditionals, but it was all one way — they said maybe it was racism, but didn’t say maybe it wasn’t.

    Every report I’ve seen basically has stated that he was suspect of “walking while black.”

    They are also refusing to release the autopsy report. Apparently it is embarrassing when you get caught shooting an unarmed teen 7 times in the back.

    I would have the police not shoot an 18 year old dead for no good reason. How about they try that?

    So if a police officer murders somebody, all they should have to do is apologize? Wow, you have a strange idea of justice.

    Although walking while black is not necessarily a crime, jaywalking while black is generally a capital offense. According to the guy with Brown (full version of interview excerpted above) they were walking in the street; a policeman told them to “Get the f*** on the sidewalk” and, well, they failed to comply with sufficient deference. Hence death. Makes perfect sense.

    So now we know when some people think deadly force by police is justified — when it’s against right-wingers.

    This shooting was justified, the Ferguson shooting was justified. In both cases, the cops involved made mistakes, but in neither case did those mistakes affect the justification for the shootings.

  67. KM says:

    @Jenos:

    Why do you think that, if the authorities had acted sooner, it would have played out any differently? Do you really think the guy might have surrendered peacefully a couple of weeks ago? What might have changed that made his death now more likely than two weeks ago?

    A good point. No, I’m fairly sure it would have played out the same because they clearly were not willing to be arrested or surrender, based on their own words and actions. There may have been a point early one when they weren’t so dug into their bullshit that they could have been talked out but once the public disdain and mockery for their failures started, they had to see this through to keep what’s left of their pride intact (see the livefeed on the ones still there for examples of this thinking). Therefore, the onus is on them – they chose their path and were committed to resistance.

    The accusations being made against the police and FBI in this case are essentially boiling down to a South Parkian “They said they were willing to die for the cause but you killed him! You killed LaVoy, you bastards!” As you pointed out, the when didn’t really matter so much – they wanted to go out fighting. While I wish it hadn’t gone down this way, nothing I’ve seen on the video leads to the conclusion that the police acted inappropriately.

  68. Jenos Idanian says:

    @KM: It looks like we agree, by and large. My drawing the parallel to Ferguson is because in both cases, I believe the officers in question did make mistakes in judgment — but those errors did not make enough of a difference to make those “bad” shootings. In both cases, the officers should be given a little remedial training so they don’t make such mistakes again, but not face any disciplinary action (let alone criminal charges) for the shootings.

    You are not one of those whose noses I want to rub into the dirt over their initial comments on Ferguson.

  69. WR says:

    @Jenos Idanian: “You are not one of those whose noses I want to rub into the dirt over their initial comments on Ferguson.”

    It’s hard to run anyone’s nose in the dirt when you live your entire life wallowing in mud.

  70. Jenos Idanian says:

    @WR: That doesn’t even make sense. Not even by your normal standards. It’s like you don’t realize that “mud” is just wet dirt.

    If you actually wanted to make an insult out of that, you should have used “muck.” That term has a scatological implication that would have both excluded the dirt element and made it even more insulting.

    I feel like Steve Martin in the dartboard scene in Cyrano.

  71. Renee Wright says:

    @de stijl: I suggest you research why those men were there!

  72. slimslowslider says:

    @Renee Wright:

    who? the police?