Militia seizes Federal building

I don't think that's exactly it. The guy fancied himself a soldier in a just war. He was going out in a blaze of glory. He probably figured he would die, but I'm sure he wanted to take a couple feds with him. He wasn't going to jail. He was either going to shoot his way out of it, or go down trying.

I figure the shooting was justified. He does reach inside his coat - a couple times, I think. I wish there was audio. I suspect he was warned, loudly, more than once.

It's strange to me that the police are emphasizing that he had a loaded gun in his coat pocket. That's almost immaterial, though I understand it, since "unarmed" gets emphasized so much in these stories. The question isn't whether he actually had a loaded gun. It's whether police, in the situation they were in at the moment, had reasonable suspicion to believe he did.

 

Seriously? The reason seems obvious to me. The police statement is not seeking a legal determination, instead it's directed toward the American public. The American public watching that vid firstly wants to know if there was in fact a weapon in that pocket.

But, since you mentioned it, I don't think anyone can straight-faced dispute that the reasonable suspicion standard is satisfied here, regardless of whether the cop had seen the gun. They had information indicating that these known gun nuts were armed at the time, you got a driver who just made a video declaring he'd take death over jail and threatening law enforcement not to point guns at him, who just tried to blast through a police barricade during which he came an inch from running over an FBI agent, and instead of obeying orders to keep his hands up repeatedly reaches into his coat pocket for something. That is a shitload of reasonable suspicion.

 

Did you stop there?

That's almost immaterial, though I understand it, since "unarmed" gets emphasized so much in these stories.

 

Then why is it "strange" to you?

 

Because it shouldn't matter if he had a loaded gun or not.

 

Meanwhile, there are a handful of rodeo clowns remaining at the bird refuge, but they don't want to come out because they might be arrested and they don't want to go to jail. (I guess they didn't realize there are consequences to an armed takeover a federal property that ends up costing taxpayers hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars.)

Trapped Inside Malheur Refuge, Militants Desperate For Way Out

 

Total pussies. Excuse my French. But that's what they are.

I'll tell you one thing about the Negro: During the '60s, he wasn't saying he'd leave the diner or the bus as long as the cops didn't lock him up.

 

OK, whatever Dick. Yeah, it sure is "strange" that a statement directed to the American public contained the piece of information the public wants to know. So weird.

 

The next sentence stated that I understood why.

 

Any fair minded observer knows that the "hands up" command implies "don't make a threatening move or we'll shoot". If you have half a brain and see five or six people pointing weapons at you, you don't make any quick moves. As to the loaded gun, in one way it does not matter, because making that reach into the coat under those circumstances will get you shot whether you have a gun or not. The other side of that is in this age of police shootings being closely examined and skepticism about excessive force, for them to be able to say that the pocket he reached toward did indeed contain a loaded pistol is very much on point.

 

But, again, it shouldn't matter. Right? All that matters is whether the police had suspicion to think he was armed. Whether he actually was or not is completely immaterial to whether they were right to fire or not.

 

It does not matter in terms of whether it was a justified shoot. It does matter in terms of public perception, and also in terms of the sagebrush rebels trying to paint it as the feds killing a dissenter. They can still do it, but if he was shot while reaching for a gun it is a much harder sell to anyone except the true believers.