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

[etrain16]

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.

Honestly, I can't give an answer to that. What I will say is what I stated above - I do believe that the U.N. would be in 100% in favor of what the letter suggests, and I believe our POTUS and others in our government would agree.

That said, I think it is just about impossible that they would say as much in any memo that could be potentially leaked. These people are masters of covert, back-door deals. They simply don't put stuff like this in print. They don't want you to know they're coming for your guns - even though we all know they are.

 

[U201491]

Honestly, I can't give an answer to that. What I will say is what I stated above - I do believe that the U.N. would be in 100% in favor of what the letter suggests, and I believe our POTUS and others in our government would agree.

That said, I think it is just about impossible that they would say as much in any memo that could be potentially leaked. These people are masters of covert, back-door deals. They simply don't put stuff like this in print. They don't want you to know they're coming for your guns - even though we all know they are.

Simply put, the agenda is there and real.

 

[Boboclown]

Honestly, I can't give an answer to that. What I will say is what I stated above - I do believe that the U.N. would be in 100% in favor of what the letter suggests, and I believe our POTUS and others in our government would agree.

That said, I think it is just about impossible that they would say as much in any memo that could be potentially leaked. These people are masters of covert, back-door deals. They simply don't put stuff like this in print. They don't want you to know they're coming for your guns - even though we all know they are.

What guns? I ain't got no guns. I just lost them all in the lake. But I don't believe the U.N would agree with it. I know the U.N would agree with it. Blue helmets are enemies, not friends.

 

[ZigZagZeke]

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.

Snopes found that the QR code and document number belonged to a different document which proved to be a generic meeting agenda sheet. The agenda sheet was obviously doctored to produce the fake document.

 

[ZigZagZeke]

Snopes found that the QR code and document number belonged to a different document which proved to be a generic meeting agenda sheet. The agenda sheet was obviously doctored to produce the fake document.

This stuff from the UN is not a fantasy. Yes, this one document is a fake, but we know their agenda. Even the Agenda 21 stuff is for real and it's being acted upon. I was on the planning commission in Damascus, Oregon. It wasn't just coincidence that the comprehensive plan presented by the professional planners and city staff to the residents as a done deal was Agenda 21 Smart Growth right down the line, from mixed use to stream buffers, from "walkability" to high density housing. A few years ago one of the sitting Clackamas County commissioners was on the board of an organization promoting the Agenda 21 check list, and Clackamas County was a dues paying member of that organization! That is why the Damascus comprehensive plan has failed every time when put before the voters.

 

[Hal Jordan]

Another new member here. My vote in the poll was "Finicum brought it on himself. It appears most likely to have been a good shoot." I want more information before coming to a final conclusion, though. Apparently more information won't be coming for a few weeks, but it's on the way. Here's a recent Oregonian article:

LaVoy Finicum shooting: What happened when

 

[jluck]

Another new member here. My vote in the poll was "Finicum brought it on himself. It appears most likely to have been a good shoot." I want more information before coming to a final conclusion, though. Apparently more information won't be coming for a few weeks, but it's on the way. Here's a recent Oregonian article:

LaVoy Finicum shooting: What happened when

Scary how any people HERE support a government assassination when facts are missing rather than siding with our modern day freedom fighters or the innocent until proven guilty. It shows your modern day governments agenda is working.

I don't believe blowing a traffic stop or reaching downward constitutes being shot in the face. Flank snipers hiding in the trees..., Road bock when a "suspect" (remember that due process thingy) is voluntarily going to meet with officials... Too many "holes" in the story for me to support the Feds to kill when other options were available.

FBI does not stand for Judge, Jury and Executioner.

 

[Hal Jordan]

If there's ever a question about how an event occurred, I will always "side" with law enforcement first, rather than accepting the stories concocted by bloggers and conspiracy theorists who did not see it happen. Bloggers have a vested interest in making up outlandish stories to drive Internet traffic to their websites, which gives them increased advertising revenue. They face no consequences if they are found to be lying. They don't even have to offer a retraction. They just go on to manufacture another fantastic story about another event. Law enforcement, on the other hand, is always supposed to be trusted and truthful. If they are caught lying, they lose their credibility and their jobs. They can even go to jail, and a cop in jail is not a good thing to be.

Here's a little background information on what might be a different perspective on this event. I spent 20 years with the Sheriff's Posse in Maricopa County, Arizona. I went through the Firearms Academy in 1996 to become a "Qualified Armed Posseman," which meant that I carried a gun while on duty. It's the same training that any police officer or deputy Sheriff has to go through. You are also required to do an annual requalification at the range and pass with a certain score, and you have to go through an annual video "judgmental shooting" evaluation where you are given three scenarios and you react just as you would out on the street, including justifying your action (or inaction). If you shoot someone you shouldn't have, or don't shoot someone you should have, then you fail the test and you can't carry the gun.

Contrary to the beliefs of some people, police officers are not all jack-booted thugs thirsting to put a bullet into some random citizen. Almost all of them are intelligent, caring individuals who would step between you and a bad guy to save your life. But there do come times when they have to shoot, and there are very narrow circumstances when they are allowed to do so. The Supreme Court case that is drilled into every new officer is Tennessee v. Garner. In 1984, a Memphis police officer shot at a fleeing burglar who he was reasonably sure was unarmed, something that was legal under state law at the time. The 15 year old burglar, in possession of ten dollars and a purse that he stole from a home, was hit in the back of the head and died later that night. The Supreme Court invalidated the Tennessee law, holding that the use of deadly force was considered a seizure under the Fourth Amendment. They said that "A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead." But they also said this: "Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force. Thus, if the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon or there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm, deadly force may be used if necessary to prevent escape, and if, where feasible, some warning has been given." So there has to be a threat to you or someone else before you can use deadly force. Every cop has this in mind when the situation starts to go bad.

Before this detail started, the agencies would have held a briefing with everyone who was involved. They would have had an action plan listing all of the vehicles and personnel who were going to participate. They would have had a drawing or aerial photo of the highway showing the location where the vehicles would be stopped and the location of the roadblock. They would have gone over who was assigned to what position. And they would have talked about the reason for the detail and what they could expect from the vehicle occupants. They would have expected everyone in every vehicle to be armed, so this would be a high risk "felony stop." And they certainly would have shared what they knew about the occupiers, along with photos of the leaders who were expected to be present. This part of the briefing would have talked about everyone who might be there, their physical characteristics, and how they could be expected to respond, i.e., known to be hostile to police, or prior felony convictions for assault with a deadly weapon, etc. Surely they would have discussed Lavoy Finicum, showing a photo of him armed as he preferred, with one pistol on his right hip and a second pistol in a shoulder holster under his left arm. Part of his background information would have been the statements he made about not wanting to go to jail, and how he would rather die than spend the rest of his life in a concrete box. He said "There are things more important than your life and freedom is one of them." They may even have had a copy of his book, Only by Blood and Suffering: Regaining Lost Freedom. In that post-apocalyptic novel, "The heroes of the story refuse to surrender their guns, and consequently are able to kill the neighbors and government agents who come to take their supplies by force." The book review on Buzzfeed, published on January 10 when Finicum was still alive, is a chilling prediction of Finicum's last act.

Probably the harshest criticism is saved for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. The main villain, Zachary Williams, is a DHS agent who conscripts an army of convicted felons and spearheads a plan to turn the region around southern Utah and northern Arizona into a kind of fascist kingdom.

In the final pages of the story Williams nearly wins; Bonham is wounded, surrounded, without a rifle, and Williams talks about "taking your head." At the last second, however, Bonham pulls out his revolver and kills Williams and several other agents.

"The bullet took Zachary Williams between the eyes," Bonham narrates, adding a few lines later that "The bodies of my enemies lay before me, not a twitch coming from them. Holding the old revolver in my hand, I could not help but spin it around my finger once before sliding it back into the holster."​

Here's another part of the review that shows Finicum's mindset.

"Without the right and control of property there was no freedom," the protagonist Jake Bonham thinks at one point. "Here I would live free or die. I would not be the first in my family to die in a last stand for freedom."

Bonham shoots plenty of people throughout the book, including a handful of DHS agents and a cannibal. One lengthy chapter, "The Long Valley War," tells the story of a brutal battle in which Bonham faces, and fires, a hail of bullets.

"I did not cease to fire and the skill that was developed over a lifetime of shooting at game on the run paid off," Bonham thinks. "Men were dropping and I was on my second magazine but they were closing fast as they kept repeating the four-second charges."​

And finally, you almost have to wonder if Lavoy Finicum saw himself as a real life Jake Bonham.

Later, in Orderville - a town located on the back side of Zion National Park - the community holds a meeting to discuss resources and a divide between the armed ranchers and everyone else. It's reminiscent of the meeting held in Oregon last week where residents mostly called for the occupiers to leave. In the novel, however, it ends with Jake Bonham taking over the gathering.

"It was against federal, state, county and city laws to carry a firearm but I walked in carrying my AR-15," Bonham narrates. "As usual, I had my great grandfather's cold revolver strapped to my hip."​

While it is certainly not a crime to write bad fiction, the story of the heroic armed ranchers gunning down the evil government agents could very well have been a part of the briefing, to indicate Finicum's attitude toward police.

So on the day of the detail, everything seems to be going well until Finicum decides to run. Instead of surrendering when he sees the roadblock, he accelerates and tries to go around it. After he crashes, he jumps out of the truck rather than staying in the driver's seat like anyone else would have done. The Oregon State Police officers would have been shouting at him to keep his hands up, while also having to keep an eye on the truck in case Finicum's exit was a ruse to draw attention away from the other armed occupants. Instead of keeping his hands up like anyone else would have done while looking down the muzzles of several guns, he is stumbling around, waving his hands. At the end, he turns away from the camera in the airplane (not a "drone"), and appears to pull his jacket open with his left hand while reaching inside with his right hand. We can't really see exactly what happened, but the officer coming out of the trees took action and Finicum fell to the ground.

This is the point where I want some answers, and where my actions might have differed. Even if a guy sees himself as a rancher Rambo, heroically killing the evil government agents, merely reaching into his jacket would not be a threat to me. If his hand comes out holding a "Pocket Constitution" or a Bible, and I shoot him, then I'm the lawbreaker and I get sent to prison. That hand is not a threat to me until it comes out holding a weapon. By the time I see the weapon it could already be too late for me, but I have to wait. If the officer in the trees did see a weapon in his hand, then he could have been in fear for his life from the deadly threat, and that's all I need to validate my "good shoot" vote. Until that time, I stand by my vote that it "appears to be" a good shoot.

Finicum was so deathly afraid of going to prison that he decided to run from the police instead of surrendering peacefully. But when he did run, he made that decision not only for himself but also for the innocent occupants of his truck, placing them all in danger. And when his truck crashed and he realized that he was about to go to jail, he jumped out and started telling the officers to shoot him. That is what we call "suicide by cop." To me, Lavoy Finicum may have been a patriot, but he was no hero.

 

[Boboclown]

You know what helps you not side with the law enforcement? When the entire police of your city is shut down for corruption, and still has some corruption even after being reformed.

I'm not saying I assume all police are corrupt, but I'm not actually choosing a side either until further evidence.

 

[Hal Jordan]

Fair enough! Some people are corrupt, and cops are people, so therefore some cops are corrupt. In a few weeks we should know the rest of the story.

 

[jluck]

If there's ever a question about how an event occurred, I will always "side" with law enforcement first, rather than accepting the stories concocted by bloggers and conspiracy theorists who did not see it happen. Bloggers have a vested interest in making up outlandish stories to drive Internet traffic to their websites, which gives them increased advertising revenue. They face no consequences if they are found to be lying. They don't even have to offer a retraction. They just go on to manufacture another fantastic story about another event. Law enforcement, on the other hand, is always supposed to be trusted and truthful. If they are caught lying, they lose their credibility and their jobs. They can even go to jail, and a cop in jail is not a good thing to be.

Here's a little background information on what might be a different perspective on this event. I spent 20 years with the Sheriff's Posse in Maricopa County, Arizona. I went through the Firearms Academy in 1996 to become a "Qualified Armed Posseman," which meant that I carried a gun while on duty. It's the same training that any police officer or deputy Sheriff has to go through. You are also required to do an annual requalification at the range and pass with a certain score, and you have to go through an annual video "judgmental shooting" evaluation where you are given three scenarios and you react just as you would out on the street, including justifying your action (or inaction). If you shoot someone you shouldn't have, or don't shoot someone you should have, then you fail the test and you can't carry the gun.

Contrary to the beliefs of some people, police officers are not all jack-booted thugs thirsting to put a bullet into some random citizen. Almost all of them are intelligent, caring individuals who would step between you and a bad guy to save your life. But there do come times when they have to shoot, and there are very narrow circumstances when they are allowed to do so. The Supreme Court case that is drilled into every new officer is Tennessee v. Garner. In 1984, a Memphis police officer shot at a fleeing burglar who he was reasonably sure was unarmed, something that was legal under state law at the time. The 15 year old burglar, in possession of ten dollars and a purse that he stole from a home, was hit in the back of the head and died later that night. The Supreme Court invalidated the Tennessee law, holding that the use of deadly force was considered a seizure under the Fourth Amendment. They said that "A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead." But they also said this: "Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force. Thus, if the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon or there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm, deadly force may be used if necessary to prevent escape, and if, where feasible, some warning has been given." So there has to be a threat to you or someone else before you can use deadly force. Every cop has this in mind when the situation starts to go bad.

Before this detail started, the agencies would have held a briefing with everyone who was involved. They would have had an action plan listing all of the vehicles and personnel who were going to participate. They would have had a drawing or aerial photo of the highway showing the location where the vehicles would be stopped and the location of the roadblock. They would have gone over who was assigned to what position. And they would have talked about the reason for the detail and what they could expect from the vehicle occupants. They would have expected everyone in every vehicle to be armed, so this would be a high risk "felony stop." And they certainly would have shared what they knew about the occupiers, along with photos of the leaders who were expected to be present. This part of the briefing would have talked about everyone who might be there, their physical characteristics, and how they could be expected to respond, i.e., known to be hostile to police, or prior felony convictions for assault with a deadly weapon, etc. Surely they would have discussed Lavoy Finicum, showing a photo of him armed as he preferred, with one pistol on his right hip and a second pistol in a shoulder holster under his left arm. Part of his background information would have been the statements he made about not wanting to go to jail, and how he would rather die than spend the rest of his life in a concrete box. He said "There are things more important than your life and freedom is one of them." They may even have had a copy of his book, Only by Blood and Suffering: Regaining Lost Freedom. In that post-apocalyptic novel, "The heroes of the story refuse to surrender their guns, and consequently are able to kill the neighbors and government agents who come to take their supplies by force." The book review on Buzzfeed, published on January 10 when Finicum was still alive, is a chilling prediction of Finicum's last act.

Probably the harshest criticism is saved for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. The main villain, Zachary Williams, is a DHS agent who conscripts an army of convicted felons and spearheads a plan to turn the region around southern Utah and northern Arizona into a kind of fascist kingdom.

In the final pages of the story Williams nearly wins; Bonham is wounded, surrounded, without a rifle, and Williams talks about "taking your head." At the last second, however, Bonham pulls out his revolver and kills Williams and several other agents.

"The bullet took Zachary Williams between the eyes," Bonham narrates, adding a few lines later that "The bodies of my enemies lay before me, not a twitch coming from them. Holding the old revolver in my hand, I could not help but spin it around my finger once before sliding it back into the holster."​

Here's another part of the review that shows Finicum's mindset.

"Without the right and control of property there was no freedom," the protagonist Jake Bonham thinks at one point. "Here I would live free or die. I would not be the first in my family to die in a last stand for freedom."

Bonham shoots plenty of people throughout the book, including a handful of DHS agents and a cannibal. One lengthy chapter, "The Long Valley War," tells the story of a brutal battle in which Bonham faces, and fires, a hail of bullets.

"I did not cease to fire and the skill that was developed over a lifetime of shooting at game on the run paid off," Bonham thinks. "Men were dropping and I was on my second magazine but they were closing fast as they kept repeating the four-second charges."​

And finally, you almost have to wonder if Lavoy Finicum saw himself as a real life Jake Bonham.

Later, in Orderville - a town located on the back side of Zion National Park - the community holds a meeting to discuss resources and a divide between the armed ranchers and everyone else. It's reminiscent of the meeting held in Oregon last week where residents mostly called for the occupiers to leave. In the novel, however, it ends with Jake Bonham taking over the gathering.

"It was against federal, state, county and city laws to carry a firearm but I walked in carrying my AR-15," Bonham narrates. "As usual, I had my great grandfather's cold revolver strapped to my hip."​

While it is certainly not a crime to write bad fiction, the story of the heroic armed ranchers gunning down the evil government agents could very well have been a part of the briefing, to indicate Finicum's attitude toward police.

So on the day of the detail, everything seems to be going well until Finicum decides to run. Instead of surrendering when he sees the roadblock, he accelerates and tries to go around it. After he crashes, he jumps out of the truck rather than staying in the driver's seat like anyone else would have done. The Oregon State Police officers would have been shouting at him to keep his hands up, while also having to keep an eye on the truck in case Finicum's exit was a ruse to draw attention away from the other armed occupants. Instead of keeping his hands up like anyone else would have done while looking down the muzzles of several guns, he is stumbling around, waving his hands. At the end, he turns away from the camera in the airplane (not a "drone"), and appears to pull his jacket open with his left hand while reaching inside with his right hand. We can't really see exactly what happened, but the officer coming out of the trees took action and Finicum fell to the ground.

This is the point where I want some answers, and where my actions might have differed. Even if a guy sees himself as a rancher Rambo, heroically killing the evil government agents, merely reaching into his jacket would not be a threat to me. If his hand comes out holding a "Pocket Constitution" or a Bible, and I shoot him, then I'm the lawbreaker and I get sent to prison. That hand is not a threat to me until it comes out holding a weapon. By the time I see the weapon it could already be too late for me, but I have to wait. If the officer in the trees did see a weapon in his hand, then he could have been in fear for his life from the deadly threat, and that's all I need to validate my "good shoot" vote. Until that time, I stand by my vote that it "appears to be" a good shoot.

Finicum was so deathly afraid of going to prison that he decided to run from the police instead of surrendering peacefully. But when he did run, he made that decision not only for himself but also for the innocent occupants of his truck, placing them all in danger. And when his truck crashed and he realized that he was about to go to jail, he jumped out and started telling the officers to shoot him. That is what we call "suicide by cop." To me, Lavoy Finicum may have been a patriot, but he was no hero.

Fair enough (I didn't read it all) but I won't give LEO the freedom to murder and then look for reasons to support their actions. This has nothing to do with conspiracy theories as much as most would like it to. It's about evidence not released for reasonable doubt to be found or not.

 

[Boboclown]

Yeup. So best bet is to not pick a side first. Its okay to lean towards a side, but don't ship early. Its harder get back on ship than it is to jump.

 

[Hal Jordan]

I'm glad they're doing a complete investigation to get all the facts out there. Some of the bloggers are really going overboard. I saw what was supposed to be a screen capture of a Facebook post where someone was saying that Finicum was shot 9 times and the FBI planted a stolen gun on him.

 

[Mark Torrence]

I don't know! Real? Fake? either way the substance of the subject fits with the UN's mission! Hence the pistol with a knotted barrel in front of the UN! That fact is NOT in question. Maybe that is what makes this so believable. Is it disinformation? Is it leaked accurate information? Does it make a damn bit of difference? I don't know but it IS scary.

AND as TAKU said I just cannot understand why the rest of the supposed informed US public is not in an absolute uproar over the murder of a single AMERICAN by his OWN GOVERNMENT! He did nothing to warrant being summarily executed! I don't know maybe I am going down the rabbit hole but the more I read. The more I hear and see regarding this situation the more I believe in my heart that this was a carefully planned and executed event!

 

[Mark Torrence]

I'm glad they're doing a complete investigation to get all the facts out there. Some of the bloggers are really going overboard. I saw what was supposed to be a screen capture of a Facebook post where someone was saying that Finicum was shot 9 times and the FBI planted a stolen gun on him.

Who is "They"?

 

[Hal Jordan]

The "investigators"

http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/02/post_6.html

 

[41Slinger]

I read it all, it was like a movie. JMHO

 

[nvs]

I'm glad they're doing a complete investigation to get all the facts out there. Some of the bloggers are really going overboard. I saw what was supposed to be a screen capture of a Facebook post where someone was saying that Finicum was shot 9 times and the FBI planted a stolen gun on him.

Are "they" the same people that did the investigation of Bengazi? The Hammonds's? Flint Michigan water? Colorado EPA spill? Finnicum FBI video? Yea we will see some overwhelming "facts". I know I will sleep better after that report comes out.

 

[Martini_Up]

FPNI.

I'll add - if it hasn't already been noted in these 9 pages - that the narrative being promoted is the truck tried to 'run the road block'. It is very clear to me that road block was set up in a corner. That corner combined with high snow drifts and timber on each side was a blind corner. As the truck negotiated that corner it is clear to see in the video they began breaking the moment the road block was in view. They obviously swerved to miss it all awhile braking. They did not try to run it.

Now given what I have just detailed, I find it disturbing that the narrative being promoted is not what I see on the video. Now everything else I hear is suspect to me.

Yes, he seems to reach into his pocket a few times. But then raises his hands after each time. It appears to me he is confused. I can imagine conflicting instructions being given to him. "hands up!" "throw down your weapons!" He even could have been reaching in pain after being shot. Who knows without audio. But again, the narrative being promoted is not what happened.

I did not vote in the poll.

 

[Hal Jordan]

Are "they" the same people that did the investigation of Bengazi? The Hammonds's? Flint Michigan water? Colorado EPA spill? Finnicum FBI video? Yea we will see some overwhelming "facts". I know I will sleep better after that report comes out.

This is what the article said. This is ALL the article said. If you need a list of the investigators' names and agencies, you could contact the Oregonian.

As hundreds attended Friday's funeral for Arizona rancher Robert "LaVoy" Finicum, many questions remain about exactly how he died.

Answers won't be coming for a while.

Investigators reviewing the shooting on a heavily wooded stretch of U.S. 395 said results won't be available for at least four to six weeks.

The article