In any venue where one publishes content, it is not surprising to find the various types of trolls who love nothing more than to obfuscate, inflame and goad others who comment on articles into a post war and declare some proverbial axiom or one-liner that is supposed to indicate their superiority. Most all news sites allow comments to promote a healthy level of discussion. However, the ability to comment is a privilege on the site that can be changed at any time. An article at Freedom Outpost covered an interview with Shawna Cox, the woman who was at the scene and an eyewitness to the shooting of LaVoy Finicum by FBI agents. It garnered plenty of troll activity where one individual eluded to wanting to shoot what he termed “right-wing extremists, terrorists.”
Ms. Cox was an eyewitness to the shooting incident and is being erroneously charged herself. FBI agents opened fire on the vehicle she was occupying without giving the occupants instructions to exit the vehicle. She was not threatening the FBI. She did not point a weapon in any agent’s direction. She was upset and scared that these agents opened fire on the vehicle she occupied after shooting LaVoy Finicum.
Whether you agree or disagree with the manner in which Mr. Finicum and members of that group sought to gain a redress of grievances, it is the law that should ultimately determine legality.
Where anyone gets the idea that standing for the Constitution, individual God-given rights and holding government to the law/Constitution is “extremism or terrorism” is beyond most. More than likely, the individuals making these types of comments on news sites and elsewhere are lacking sufficient knowledge in the Constitution of the united States of America to know what power government is authorized versus what power government has usurped. It is absolutely correct to say the FBI acted lawlessly for several reasons.
Citizen of this nation have the right to peaceably assemble and ask for a redress of grievances as guaranteed by the First Amendment. The ranchers and protestors did just that at the wildlife refuge. It’s the same as happened with Occupy Wall Street and the Black Lives Matter groups. Some individuals have claimed the protestors and ranchers destroyed equipment and prevented government personnel from doing their job. If that is the case, no one should have destroyed any property or equipment since that action is wrong.
In Baltimore, MD, and Ferguson, MO, individuals engaged in looting, rioting, and vandalism of businesses and property with the full permission of the local government. Many business owners lost their livelihood. These crimes were captured on video camera, yet no one has been held accountable. Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlins stated, on camera, the individuals on the streets were given “plenty of room” to act out — commit crimes. She even said the city officials knew there would be looting, vandalism, and rioting, and that thugs were given plenty of room to express themselves, and police were ordered to observe activity.
However, back to the Finicum shooting. A commenter to the article at Freedom Outpost claimed individuals at the wildlife refuge damaged property and thousands of dollars of equipment, fencing and property. If true, where’s the warrant under probable cause for vandalism? And, if the shooting of Finicum was because of property damage, fleeing the unconstitutional road block and “being an extremist/terrorist,” it is a violation of the Eighth Amendment since it is cruel and unusual punishment to shoot and kill someone for property damage, fleeing the unconstitutional road block, and “being an extremist/terrorist.” The right of the individual to due process against charges made against him still apply. Moreover, there would be probable cause for a judge to issue a warrant for arrest. Where’s the warrant that details the probable cause and evidence Mr. Finicum was a terrorist?