They murdered a man, nearly murdered another and two women. They are proud of themselves.
Get used to it folks. This is our national reality now. They will ruin your life or murder you at their whim... because they can.
The first shot comes as they round the last turn approaching the blocking position. The second comes just before Finicum drives the truck into the snow to avoid a collision with the blocking vehicles. As Finicum exits the vehicle, he was shot at twice more. What would your state of mind be?
In my mind, when the first round was fired at the truck without provocation, everyone in the truck would have been justified in firing at ANYONE who pointed a weapon at them.
In legal terms, whenever a Law Imposement officer uses more force than is necesssary in the first instance, the "actor" is justified in using equal and opposite force in defending his life.
As a matter of legality, see here http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/defunlaw.htm
“These principles apply as well to an officer attempting to make an arrest, who abuses his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by the use of unnecessary force and violence, as they do to a private individual who unlawfully uses such force and violence.” Jones v. State, 26 Tex. App. I; Beaverts v. State, 4 Tex. App. 1 75; Skidmore v. State, 43 Tex. 93, 903.
And in case you are called on to help,
“One may come to the aid of another being unlawfully arrested, just as he may where one is being assaulted, molested, raped or kidnapped. Thus it is not an offense to liberate one from the unlawful custody of an officer, even though he may have submitted to such custody, without resistance.” (Adams v. State, 121 Ga. 16, 48 S.E. 910).
And since they are shooting first now,
“Story affirmed the right of self-defense by persons held illegally. In his own writings, he had admitted that ‘a situation could arise in which the checks-and-balances principle ceased to work and the various branches of government concurred in a gross usurpation.’ There would be no usual remedy by changing the law or passing an amendment to the Constitution, should the oppressed party be a minority. Story concluded, ‘If there be any remedy at all ... it is a remedy never provided for by human institutions.’ That was the ‘ultimate right of all human beings in extreme cases to resist oppression, and to apply force against ruinous injustice.’” (From Mutiny on the Amistad by Howard Jones, Oxford University Press, 1987, an account of the reading of the decision in the case by Justice Joseph Story of the Supreme Court. (The instance of the Branch Davidians, being attacked and shot at in their home comes to mind)
And, just for the record,
As for grounds for arrest: “The carrying of arms in a quiet, peaceable, and orderly manner, concealed on or about the person, is not a breach of the peace. Nor does such an act of itself, lead to a breach of the peace.” (Wharton’s Criminal and Civil Procedure, 12th Ed., Vol.2: Judy v. Lashley, 5 W. Va. 628, 41 S.E. 197). You can read the case here, http://www.guncite.com/court/state/41se197.html
Is that what free men do? Do they prostrate themselves, grovel and whimper before tools of the state?
A free man owes no obligation to submit to a badged thug just because the thug declares it would please him to have it so.