The FBI’s story is that Lavoy Finicum was reaching for a gun and that is why he was shot. All we have heard in the main stream media and on social media is whether or not the shooting was justified because he was going for a gun. We can argue that point all day, without getting anywhere because there is not “indisputable video evidence” for either side. The fact is, it doesn’t matter! While we bicker over whether or not the shooting was justified, we are all missing the bigger picture here.
Why was there a roadblock set up in the first place? Why was there such a display of force for something that had been peaceful up to this point? When we contrast this protest with the riots in Ferguson or Baltimore, why were they handled so differently? The answer to all these questions are the same; the Federal Government was trying to send a message. This protest wasn’t minorities against white cops and police brutality. It was The People versus the Federal Government. This group was traveling to speak to a crowd in another city to spread their message of, abuse of government power. They were exercising their rights to free speech and to peaceably assemble. Last time I checked, those rights are still guaranteed by the constitution. Nonetheless, the FBI told them not to go, and when they decided to go anyway, there were roadblocks and armed federal agents to prevent them from getting there.
The Federal Government’s message was loud and clear: “we are not afraid to kill those who stand up against our usurpation’s of power.” The FBI never intended for this to end peacefully or there wouldn’t have been a roadblock set up in the first place. Is it any coincidence that the only evidence we have of what actually happened is low quality video from a drone that poses more questions than it answers? Why is there not more media coverage on what happened? Can you imagine if this was a young black man shot by the cops? There would be riots in the streets, with 24/7 media coverage. There is no coverage however, because it does not fit the narrative of whites vs blacks. It doesn’t divide the people against each other. Instead, this is a story that should unite the people together to question the unconstitutional actions of our government.
h/t Matt Bracken
So how are they a felon? The land was being held illegally by the federal government.
Actually I am not joking. READ the Constitution. Particularly Article 1, section 8, clause 17. NOWHERE, I REPEAT, NOWHERE does it state a wildlife refuge. Just out of curiosity, do you believe in the Constitution?
You cannot be a felon until you are convicted in a court of law after a trial. Being armed is not a crime. An ambush is not a roadblock.
Your conjectures outlined in your second paragraph are your opinions. I would put money down that Mr. Finicum did not draw a weapon. However, even if he had, he would not be convicted: he has the right to protect his life (even from law enforcement). Now if you can even why a right-handed man who uses a 45 in a holster would put a 9 mm in his left coat pocket, I would be willing to listen. I do not believe any sentient person would do that after being fired upon by law enforcement at the first checkpoint for no reason.
It appears that your chains are weighing heavily on your shoulders. I believe drinking Kool-Aid helps relieve the pressure.
Why do we have to go to court? The law is already written and in place. If you really believed in the Constitution you would admit the federal government is illegally hold this land. So why are you here?
As David said, drink the koolaid.
From an earlier “GoneWithTheWind” comment:
I have always believed that federal, state and local government should not be able to own any land AND should have to pay taxes on property just as you and I do. But seriously do you think that will ever happen?
At this point, I can only conclude that your purpose on this site is to incite people. I regret having to ban you from future comments.