Fogbow

ZinWhit wrote: ↑Thu Aug 12, 2021 1:36 pmThere was no probable cause for the stop

Other than the NMWR occupation?

Um.. they had illegally occupied a federal wildlife agency and had, with weapons, prevent government employees from accessing their workplace and doing their work. How is that not probable cause? Finicum then gunned it and nearly hit the feds further up the road. Again, that is more than enough probable cause and, as they were always shown with weapons, enough suspicion to think they were armed.

AS for the "cover-up". I don't believe the actual shooting was the problem at all. They screwed up in lying about whether or not the agent shot at the speeding truck. I don't know why they did that stupidity unless it was to let the state officers take the blame as they figured it would look better if the shooting came from a state LEO and not a fed. Still, stupid.

Unfortunately, the prosecutors lost the case by bringing in too much complexity, especially in an area that could be hit with jury nullification easier.

An ongoing crime for 24 days with no perimeter where the principles were freely traveling to recruit.

The idea that after 24 days no warrants were requested or issued is as illustrative of professional negligence as the lack of a perimeter to exercise probable cause for their crime (which at the time and still believe was Seditious Conspiracy, something LE apologists MacNab/Pitcavage rejected.)

If you care, here's a link to a piece. I wrote,

"I met LaVoy Finicum in Cedar City, Utah yesterday (1/13/16) when I thought he was in Oregon engaged in an armed occupation of a federal facility at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon.

How could this be?"

<Snip>

"We know the militants now travel freely outside of the armed camp whose base is an illegally occupied federal building. They have illegally accessed government files and computers. They have torn down fences with government equipment. For almost two weeks, we’ve been watching them go into Burns to get dildos and other snacks.

Wouldn’t you think that arrest warrants would have been sought and issued by federal authorities and that they would be taken into custody? Wouldn’t you think that as they are traveling around town they would be apprehended? Certainly this is not the way to starve them out.

From a policing standpoint, how would a person or movement of color be treated? Do you think that if a Black, Indigenous People, or Muslim militant group were to engage in an armed takeover of a National Wildlife Refuge or other federal structure that an instigating member would be allowed to travel 20 hours home through multiple states to give a radio interview to proselytize and visit family? I don’t think so, my serendipitous meeting with LaVoy surely indicating further inconsistency of application of law and enforcement concerning the militants of the Malheur standoff.

In any case, Federal law enforcement either didn’t know Finicum left the refuge or they allowed him to travel from Oregon to southern Utah. Neither a good scenario or a satisfactory answer, and the media damn well better have some serious questions to pose to the FBI."

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1a1S ... p=drivesdk

ZinWhit wrote: ↑Thu Aug 12, 2021 3:39 pmWouldn’t you think that arrest warrants would have been sought and issued by federal authorities and that they would be taken into custody?

Regardless of what I think, the actual test is whether the officers had sufficient information to have probable cause to effectuate an arrest following the commission of a crime, i.e., the occupation.

Perhaps we can agree on what I stated earlier.

"LE screwed up like at Bunkerville, letting things fester, then Keystone copped the affair - with professional negligence."

Utter nonsense. They refused to stop and fled. Nice try, but... they got what they deserved.

ZinWhit wrote: ↑Thu Aug 12, 2021 4:22 pm Perhaps we can agree on what I stated earlier.

"LE screwed up like at Bunkerville, letting things fester, then Keystone copped the affair - with professional negligence."

Law enforcement officers aren't subject to claims of "professional negligence," like attorneys or doctors.

Did the officers have probable cause to believe Finicum had committed a crime? Yes; the occupation. Was the use of force justified? Yes; failure to comply with orders, movement consistent with reaching for a gun. End of lawsuit.

OPB article about it.
https://www.opb.org/article/2021/08/12/ ... t-finicum/

bob wrote: ↑Thu Aug 12, 2021 5:06 pm
Did the officers have probable cause to believe Finicum had committed a crime? Yes; the occupation.

Yet, these principles traveled freely for three weeks, continuing to commit a crime.

It's racist bullshit, indicative of LEO and prosecutors.

I guess I can take solace they had egg on their faces, somewhat held to account.

ZinWhit wrote: ↑Thu Aug 12, 2021 6:47 pm

bob wrote: ↑Thu Aug 12, 2021 5:06 pm
Did the officers have probable cause to believe Finicum had committed a crime? Yes; the occupation.

Yet, these principles traveled freely for three weeks, continuing to commit a crime.

Not relevant to whether the officers involved in the shooting had probable cause.

ZinWhit wrote: ↑Thu Aug 12, 2021 6:47 pm

bob wrote: ↑Thu Aug 12, 2021 5:06 pm
Did the officers have probable cause to believe Finicum had committed a crime? Yes; the occupation.

Yet, these principles traveled freely for three weeks, continuing to commit a crime.

It's racist bullshit, indicative of LEO and prosecutors.

I guess I can take solace they had egg on their faces, somewhat held to account.

Their choice to start with limited restrictions on the occupation was a strategic choice, I assume to prevent a standoff like Ruby Ridge, Waco, or the Bundy place. Feds are still a bit skittish about creating another Waco (despite whether their actions may have been right or wrong). It is not that there was not a probable cause but that they felt early on, that they might be able to resolve this without a complete standoff or actual armed engagement. The blockade stop was a strategic decision to seize an opportunity presented to them with the leadership of the occupation outside of their safe perimeter. The timing of that did basically destroy the bulk of the occupation. Most everyone else scattered leaving only the remaining 4 who did not know what else to do.

IMO, using the road stop to cut the head off of the occupation was a good move. The FBI had basically let the occupiers think they were safe as they had been able to travel before. It was actually a good setup and if Finicum had not been an idiot and just gotten out there, he would be walking free with Ammon today, probably.

The feds did screw up on evidence at Bunkerville and paid the price of losing the case because of it.

IIRC they planned to stop them along a route they knew they were going to travel, in order to get them separated from the larger group and avoid an even bigger standoff. If "Mr. 2nd Amendment" had put his little phallic toy on the dashboard and exited the car when told, he's still be with us to bitch about how his rights were violated.

But, he's not a sheep, he's a free (now cooled to room temperature) man and knows how to lead the way!

Fucked around and found out, good riddance.

If only he'd complied.

Some of the dismissals were cuz of bad lawyering by Philpoot. Didn't serve Bretzing, didn't timely name the OSP troopers in the lawsuit etc. There was a long discussion in the Judge's opinion about the OSP troopers - the Magistrate Judge had recommended that those claims be allowed. The Presiding Judge disagreed. BTW Philpoot had a disciplinary hearing today in Utah. I assume (but am not sure) that it was about the Koerber/Moo/JP process serving shenanigans in a separate civil case.

Yet, these principles traveled freely for three weeks, continuing to commit a crime.

All that means is the police allowed them to wander about. That does not mean they didn't have cause to arrest them back then.

You are basically making the logical leap that, because God does not strike you dead with a lightning bolt right now, he both lacks the ability, and worse that he agrees with you.

Personally I think they should have sealed the place up and arrested everyone that left the compound. If they want a siege, lets do a siege.

Bony and Clyde did roam the country side for a while until they got the Finicum treatment ....

I see some (vague?) parallels between Finicum and Rittenhouse. Both appear to have allowed their delusions to put them in a situation they could not cope with. The obvious difference being who died. Both due to the carrying of firearms causing fatal incidents that should never have happened.

If I were a lawyer advising Jeanette (and beyond the race overtone of LE response).

* Jeanette went to Malheur 1/6/16 with a delegation to get LaVoy out (that included his brother, Guy). Unfortunately, that delegation double crossed her (MacFarlane and SOR) and LaVoy stayed.

* The Feds had a duty to secure the compound/site. If this were a bank, court house, or other facility, the area would have been secured. Instead, it never was . Jeanette never demanded one, weakness in her case.

* The feds let the principles roam for 24 days, the only arrest Mendenbach for driving a federal vehicle in Burns while others drove federal vehicles in the compound and still others left to recruit and plea to the LDS Church - one group with an ethically questionable journo testing if there was a FBI perimeter (imagine if that journo wasn't along; would this first traveling group have been arrested?).

* Had a permiter been in place, nobody would have left and everyone who left would have been arrested. Everyone would have explicitly been given such notice and there would never have been a stop.

* Instead, as stated, the feds were derelict in their duty to secure their facility, relying on a local Sheriff and later OSP with FBI - all of whom choose (by FBI pressure) to not wear body cams in the era of body cams during the stop, illustrating intent to cover from public view (only a shitty drone?).

It bugs me greatly that Malheur was so badly bungled. Further, that journalists were so deferential to LE, others assisting for professional glory, all feckless in demanding even FBI pressers. None ever asked about the lack of a perimeter.

While LaVoy made bad choices and should have complied in the stop, the feds negligence contributed to his form of death, as the scenario might have played much differently had they been starving come March.

For what it's worth.

The Feds had a duty to secure the compound/site

Uhhhhh, no.

I mean, believe whatever you want, but your beliefs about the law have no basis in actual law.

I believe ACAB.

ZinWhit wrote: ↑Fri Aug 13, 2021 1:16 pm I believe ACAB.

That may be great for you, but also has no bearing on the legal issues in this lawsuit.

Uninformed wrote: ↑Fri Aug 13, 2021 6:03 am I see some (vague?) parallels between Finicum and Rittenhouse. Both appear to have allowed their delusions to put them in a situation they could not cope with. The obvious difference being who died. Both due to the carrying of firearms causing fatal incidents that should never have happened.

A big difference that jumps out at me is that LaVoy was old enough to know better. Rittenhouse was a minor who was horribly failed by all the nutjob adults in his life starting with his mother that eventually led to him cosplaying a field medic in the middle of something he had no business being in with an assault rifle.

ZinWhit wrote: ↑Fri Aug 13, 2021 1:16 pm I believe ACAB.

They certainly screwed this up in some ways, but the way I read your basic premise, if a cop let a speeder go on by without a ticket once (or twice, or a dozen times), then that would mean speeding was legal now and that person could never be stopped for speeding because he got away with it before? Which just doesn't make any sense to me. It seems analogous to the But I Got Away With It Before defense, which really isn't much of a defense IMO.

Respectfully, and I appreciate you opinions and takes on this and other subjects. BTW.

Thank you.

IMV, a stationary compound is different than a moving vehicle and multiple roads with drivers, certainly an armed takeover of a federal facility a greater magnitude of crime than speeding.

ETA, intended for Raison de etrezona

Point taken.
My “justification” for that obvious difference is that any sane or reasonable person should have realised Finicum was obviously cosplaying whatever he thought a wild west hero was. I remember him spending the freezing cold night sitting in a rocking chair under a tarpaulin in the middle of the Refuge access road armed with his Winchester under lever (and probably his Colt .45 revolver and Ruger 9mm). He was indeed of an age when he must be held responsible for his actions but I feel those around him during the occupation share some responsibility for his unnecessary demise.