Poll: NWFA and the Finicum shooting: where does the membership stand?

[Mark Torrence]

Fair enough. Let's discuss the situation. Whether the protesters should have been armed or not is a matter of perspective. If you're a rural person used to solving your own problems because there really isn't anybody to solve them for you a gun is a tool, like a pocket knife. It's as natural to carry one as it is for a Portlander to carry a cell phone.

On the other hand, the only time city people see a firearm is on a cop show, being used by a criminal to shoot an innocent victim, or a cop to shoot a criminal. Showing up to a protest armed is a bad idea to some, and of no concern to others. Yes, unfortunate statements were made. Whether they were true or not, making those statements about not being taken alive was not smart. Why put a target on your own back, even if that course of action is your resolve?

The fact is that these people were and are being treated as terrorists for political reasons. Mercenary anti-terrorist teams were brought in by either the FBI or the State of Oregon. Is that now going to be the norm? I have a LOT of heartburn with some of the people on both sides of this event, but the government is supposed to know better and behave better. There was NO need for anyone to die.

I agree completely and that was my initial point. I mis-stated earlier as someone else pointed out that they should have gone in without arms. What I meant was without flaunting or making it obvious that they were armed. THAT is I believe the mistake they made. I am most often armed. Pretty much everywhere. Never have I had an issue just because no one else knows. In this case what they don't know won't hurt them but could well make the difference between life and death for them. Discretion is often important! It gave the misbehaving (a nice way to put it) government the opportunity to immediately shift the focus from the actual issue to one that perfectly fit their agenda!
NOW they have US fighting amongst each other about trivial things while they go about their nefarious deeds destroying this country and all it stands for.
As for the shooting that was the point of this discussion having read all the available information including one eyewitness account and both Finicum family statements and seen all the available video footage I must say it certainly looks like the man was summarily executed.

 

[Mark Torrence]

Some "radical nutjob" (you know who you are ) sent me this link....

TAKE THE TIME AND WATCH (or listen to) IT!!!

It isn't about deadbeat ranchers not paying "grazing fees", or "terrorist acts of arson". This spells out the big picture of what's going on.... WAKE UP!

I have seen this before. It really fills in a lot of gaps and I think it's peculiar that in the mid sixties my navy veteran father who fought in WWII said "They should take the UN and push it into the east river"! SO TRUE!

 

[FireArm]

Here's a valid point I don't think anyone brought up that federal checkpoints are not legal within the borders of the United States, the Feds being there shows the fact that we are ruled by a tyrannical government. Even the "border crossings" that are within the US are not legal checkpoints and legally they can't stop and search you, but you have to know and understand how to flex your rights in today's society. Calm persistent demeanor, constantly asking if your free to go? But it's more like Nazi Germany once people give in to federal roadblocks, federal agents then look at people who question their authority as the enemy, Not as free people acting on their born rights.

 

[etrain16]

I agree completely and that was my initial point. I mis-stated earlier as someone else pointed out that they should have gone in without arms. What I meant was without flaunting or making it obvious that they were armed. THAT is I believe the mistake they made. I am most often armed. Pretty much everywhere. Never have I had an issue just because no one else knows. In this case what they don't know won't hurt them but could well make the difference between life and death for them. Discretion is often important! It gave the misbehaving (a nice way to put it) government the opportunity to immediately shift the focus from the actual issue to one that perfectly fit their agenda!
NOW they have US fighting amongst each other about trivial things while they go about their nefarious deeds destroying this country and all it stands for.
As for the shooting that was the point of this discussion having read all the available information including one eyewitness account and both Finicum family statements and seen all the available video footage I must say it certainly looks like the man was summarily executed.

And that's a statement I'm comfortable agreeing with. It really seemed from the outset that you had a problem with them being armed at all. That was where I was taking exception. That said, I'm glad you've stuck around. I, for one, enjoy going toe to toe with people I disagree with. I find it's a good exercise. Sometimes, in the course of working through those discussions, you get more clarity and find you may actually share some common ground. That's why I choose not to use the 'ignore' feature on this site.

Now, as for flaunting their firearms, well, there's some room for discussion there. What is 'flaunting' when it comes to firearms? Does the mere presence of a firearm mean they are flaunting it? Really, it's very similar to the open carry discussion. Is the presence of a revolver or a pistol on someone's hip to be interpreted as threatening in any way? Or does carrying a rifle, strap over your shoulder, rifle on your back, meant to be threatening? I think many, including many here would say either is acceptable in most situations. Where I think many, based on comments I've read on this forum, would say the line is drawn, is when you're carrying a rifle in the 'low ready' position, hand positioned on or near the trigger. It's hard to not take that as a bit more menacing, at least in appearance. I think many hear can remember the photo of the guy walking into the state capitol looking like he was about to shoot up the place.

I haven't seen/watched all the coverage of what happened down there. But what I did see, I don't recall any specific instances of people 'brandishing' a weapon in any kind of a threatening manner. As far as carrying rifles go, I take that in context of where they are - rural Oregon. It's likely not out of the ordinary in such places to see people open carrying pistols, revolvers or long guns.

As to LaVoy, I am finding the more I hear, the more I find myself on the side of him being executed. I'm still willing to hold an open mind on this, but if they have more evidence, i.e. video AND audio, that supports their POV that he was armed and going for his weapon, they'd better darn well make it available sooner rather than later. As far as I'm concerned the drone video puts the burden of proof on the LE's in this particular instance. I am sure they have more, so let's see it and get this argument settled once and for all.

 

[Mark Torrence]

And that's a statement I'm comfortable agreeing with. It really seemed from the outset that you had a problem with them being armed at all. That was where I was taking exception. That said, I'm glad you've stuck around. I, for one, enjoy going toe to toe with people I disagree with. I find it's a good exercise. Sometimes, in the course of working through those discussions, you get more clarity and find you may actually share some common ground. That's why I choose not to use the 'ignore' feature on this site.

Now, as for flaunting their firearms, well, there's some room for discussion there. What is 'flaunting' when it comes to firearms? Does the mere presence of a firearm mean they are flaunting it? Really, it's very similar to the open carry discussion. Is the presence of a revolver or a pistol on someone's hip to be interpreted as threatening in any way? Or does carrying a rifle, strap over your shoulder, rifle on your back, meant to be threatening? I think many, including many here would say either is acceptable in most situations. Where I think many, based on comments I've read on this forum, would say the line is drawn, is when you're carrying a rifle in the 'low ready' position, hand positioned on or near the trigger. It's hard to not take that as a bit more menacing, at least in appearance. I think many hear can remember the photo of the guy walking into the state capitol looking like he was about to shoot up the place.

I haven't seen/watched all the coverage of what happened down there. But what I did see, I don't recall any specific instances of people 'brandishing' a weapon in any kind of a threatening manner. As far as carrying rifles go, I take that in context of where they are - rural Oregon. It's likely not out of the ordinary in such places to see people open carrying pistols, revolvers or long guns.

As to LaVoy, I am finding the more I hear, the more I find myself on the side of him being executed. I'm still willing to hold an open mind on this, but if they have more evidence, i.e. video AND audio, that supports their POV that he was armed and going for his weapon, they'd better darn well make it available sooner rather than later. As far as I'm concerned the drone video puts the burden of proof on the LE's in this particular instance. I am sure they have more, so let's see it and get this argument settled once and for all.

As ZigZagZeke said I think the fluanting issue is very location dependent. You can walk through most stores in Alaska with a gun on your hip AND a rifle slung over your shoulder and no one will say boo. Do that in Portland and see how fast you meet local law enforcement. Or try it in a federal building. But go into those same places with a well concealed firearm and again no one says boo. Unless of course they have metal detectors set up which is happening more and more.
For the first 20 or so times I watched that crappy drone video of Finicum getting out of the vehicle and walking 50 feet with his hands uo then start with the furtive movements I couldn't figure out WHY he would do that. Unless he intended to get shot. Then someone mentioned that maybe he was clutching at wounds he was receiving as he was being shot. Go figure no audio no way to tell. Then if you read the eyewitness account of the woman in the back seat and it all comes together. That is exactly what she said. I work with LEO's a an almost daily basis and give them the benefit of the doubt. However in this case it sure looks bad for them and I truly hope those that committed this atrocity are brought to justice!

 

[Mark Torrence]

A little food for thought!

 

[Boboclown]

What I meant was without flaunting or making it obvious that they were armed.

Fair enough, though the way you word things does need some work. No offense.

Then someone mentioned that maybe he was clutching at wounds he was receiving as he was being shot.

Pretty much. Of course, a lot of anti-gun/anti-freedom media outlet will tell you he was committing suicide by cop. Honestly, its easy to call BS on that. If he was going to commit suicide by cop, he had the opportunity to do so earlier than that.

But go into those same places with a well concealed firearm and again no one says boo.

While that can have some benefits, it can also be a severe disadvantage in this situation where you're a sitting duck. You give them the opportunity to pick you off at a longer distance than you could really defend yourself with using a pistol (while possible, would be more difficult than should have been). Now a pistol may be good out to 20 yards, but some of us can't shoot that far with one. Now if you were referring to disassembling a rifle and putting in a bag that doesn't look like a rifle case, I can agree with that.

I work with LEO's a an almost daily basis and give them the benefit of the doubt.

I used to, but at this point I'm just treating the police the same way I treat people. Wait for evidence to believe who is right, in this case I'm leaning towards that the police were in the wrong. Of course, I'm waiting till further evidence.

 

[ZigZagZeke]

I agree completely and that was my initial point. I mis-stated earlier as someone else pointed out that they should have gone in without arms. What I meant was without flaunting or making it obvious that they were armed. THAT is I believe the mistake they made. I am most often armed. Pretty much everywhere. Never have I had an issue just because no one else knows. In this case what they don't know won't hurt them but could well make the difference between life and death for them. Discretion is often important! It gave the misbehaving (a nice way to put it) government the opportunity to immediately shift the focus from the actual issue to one that perfectly fit their agenda!
NOW they have US fighting amongst each other about trivial things while they go about their nefarious deeds destroying this country and all it stands for.
As for the shooting that was the point of this discussion having read all the available information including one eyewitness account and both Finicum family statements and seen all the available video footage I must say it certainly looks like the man was summarily executed.

Mark, we are now on the same wavelength and I think a lot of the people here will be too. You say you have read one eye witness account. If it was the one by Mark McConnell, who in my mind is a government informer, then you really don't have all of the facts. He wasn't an eyewitness at all. The eyewitness accounts of the two women agree and seem accurate when put up against the videos. You really need to read all three. When McConnell talks about "vehicle #1" and "vehicle #2" being "secured" and the "occupants" being detained he's using vocabulary only a cop would use. He's a liar and probably a traitor.

 

[Mark Torrence]

No I was referring to the statement given by Shawna Cox and now a second given by Victoria Sharp. Both women were in the back seat of the vehicle being driven by Finicum. This is just one source for this same thing. See if the link works!

http://freedomoutpost.com/2016/02/s...im-repeatedly-in-the-snow-while-he-lay-dying/

 

[Mark Torrence]

I agree McConnell was very likely a plant. There were several others during this event that were proven to be FBI plants acting as though they were with the protesters.

 

[ZigZagZeke]

View attachment 276838

A little food for thought!

I did a little checking around, and there is a group called UNODA. However, there seems to be no CWCSG, and the document itself seems to be a fraud, using the document ID and scanner codes from a different document. I don't doubt for a minute that the UN would form such a committee and issue such a letter if they could, but it appears that they really didn't.

<broken link removed>

 

[jluck]

I did a little checking around, and there is a group called UNODA. However, there seems to be no CWCSG, and the document itself seems to be a fraud, using the document ID and scanner codes from a different document. I don't doubt for a minute that the UN would form such a committee and issue such a letter if they could, but it appears that they really didn't.

<broken link removed>

Saving money on tin foil this week?

 

[ZigZagZeke]

Saving money on tin foil this week?

Like I said, I don't doubt for a minute that they would form such a committee and set up such rules if they could.

 

[jluck]

Like I said, I don't doubt for a minute that they would form such a committee and set up such rules if they could.

I agree, But their is not going to be such a blunt letter allowed out in circulation for any average idiot to get. I chuckled a bit when I read it too.

 

[U201491]

Mark, we are now on the same wavelength and I think a lot of the people here will be too. You say you have read one eye witness account. If it was the one by Mark McConnell, who in my mind is a government informer, then you really don't have all of the facts. He wasn't an eyewitness at all. The eyewitness accounts of the two women agree and seem accurate when put up against the videos. You really need to read all three. When McConnell talks about "vehicle #1" and "vehicle #2" being "secured" and the "occupants" being detained he's using vocabulary only a cop would use. He's a liar and probably a traitor.

Yes he is.
He led them into it.
He insisted all of it was done a certain way
and set them up completely.

There is to much evidence to back that up.
Also where is he now? We all know where
everyone else is so where is he.

LINK: Mark McConnell FBI Informant

 

[etrain16]

Saving money on tin foil this week?

How about this link instead - NRA ILA shot this one down too.

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20130816/rumor-control-un-disarmament-memo

I also agree this letter is too over the top and too obvious to be made public, so I questioned it too. But, like others, I absolutely agree the UN is entirely, 100% in support of such action here, and I also believe there are elements of our government, including the current POTUS, who would agree wholeheartedly with it too. And every damn time he opens his mouth to say "no one is coming for your guns", I know he's an all out lying POS.

 

[U201491]

THE WEEK AMERICA DIED

What it all boils down to is the this was a peaceful demonstration and not one act of violence was committed until the LE fired the first shots.
Now the lack of caring from the nation is so loud it is deafening.
These little girls have more patriotism and strength than about 90% of the people in America. The lack of hard response to a Murder / Assassination of an American Citizen that dared to challenge a corrupt government agency. The number of Constitutional violations by the very government that is supposed to uphold it is staggering and not one does a damn thing. Oath keepers crawled into their shells, The III% were no where when it happened. No outcry from the American People and the sick blood lust that the left advocated because he was challenging the people that gave them their freebie tranquilizers and pacifiers.
Over all a pretty damned sad week for America.
The only ones that seem to have any courage now are some little girls that have more heart than most of the adults in this country.

..

 

[Collateral]

I went to the link found above -
http://freedomoutpost.com/2016/02/s...im-repeatedly-in-the-snow-while-he-lay-dying/

In it, the author (Dave Hodges) writes -
"According to (Shawna) Cox...Finicum (was) immediately shot upon exiting the car, several times, and was, again, shot at repeatedly while he lie in the snow dying".

So, as soon as he got out? He didn't walk through twenty feet of knee-deep snow first? And you know this because Shawna Cox saw it happen?

I had thought that because the 'eyewitness accounts' often attributed to Ms. Cox seemed to be in conflict with one another, that she was giving a different story each time time that she told it.
But now it looks like the problem is not with her story, which is mostly the same each time, it is with the people who listen to it (if they bother to) and then reinterpret what she had said in such a way that it can be used to prove that their own version of these events is true. The facts aren't particularly important to these people because they just get in the way.

This is unfortunate because the truth of this whole thing lies in the facts. Not in a story told by some blogger who has their own agenda and tries to shape their perception of the facts to fit it.
If you could separate the facts from the speculation, half-truths, hearsay, rumor, fiction, misunderstandings, red herrings, lies, and then add all of these facts together, you may just find the truth of what happened that day.
But, because some of these facts are held by one law enforcement group or another, who may or may not be inclined to share what they know in any reasonable amount of time, or ever, there may not be quick ending to this story.

 

[Skier]

I did a little checking around, and there is a group called UNODA. However, there seems to be no CWCSG, and the document itself seems to be a fraud, using the document ID and scanner codes from a different document. I don't doubt for a minute that the UN would form such a committee and issue such a letter if they could, but it appears that they really didn't.

<broken link removed>

Yeah, I looked into that doc as well, and it wouldn't surprise me if it were real, but it appears to be a fake... Not that it couldn't be real and been removed from the site after accidentally being leaked, but a little research would seem to indicate it's a fake.

If you'd like to read about what UNODA actually does believe/teach/do, etc, you can read about that office on their official web site:

http://www.un.org/disarmament/

or maybe even better yet, look at their docs:

http://www.un.org/disarmament/education/publications.html

Interestingly enough, the Wayback Machine (i.e. web.archive.org) has tried to crawl the link that was in the QR code at the bottom right of the doc three times, twice in 2013 and once in 2015 and each time it got a redirect (which I think is normal for docs under undocs.org, as I think that site is probably simply a URL shortener), and when redirected where the doc would be, you get "Page cannot be crawled or displayed to robots.txt." so it would seem that maybe they don't want their docs crawled, indexed, or archived...? Not 100% on that, but interesting...

 

[Skier]

How about this link instead - NRA ILA shot this one down too.

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20130816/rumor-control-un-disarmament-memo

I also agree this letter is too over the top and too obvious to be made public, so I questioned it too. But, like others, I absolutely agree the UN is entirely, 100% in support of such action here, and I also believe there are elements of our government, including the current POTUS, who would agree wholeheartedly with it too. And every damn time he opens his mouth to say "no one is coming for your guns", I know he's an all out lying POS.

Agreed, as I saw that article too, but one interesting thing I also noted was that the U.N. spokesman who declared the document a fake gave this as one of the "proofs" that it was fake:

"The document number (A/CN.11/L.72) doesn't conform to our standard system, in any case."

(This doc number can be found at the top left of the doc, though the QR code at the bottom right references A/CN.10/l70).

So, if that doc doesn't conform to their standard system, then why does this extremely similar doc number (same format, different document number digits) workd just fine:

http://undocs.org/a/cn.10/l.70
<redirects to>
http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=a/cn.10/l.70

i.e. A/CN.10/L70 is a valid doc number, but A/CN.11/L72 isn't.? Odd.