The edited version is 8 minutes 3 seconds. The tape ran for 36:49 according to the FBI time stamp. I did not see Finicum go for a weapon. As I understand it, he was shot several times after falling down onto the snow. No word in the article saying how many times he was shot.
that's interesting if it was 36:49 and yet even the 'unedited' version here is 25 minutes, no?
at any rate, whether he had a weapon on him or not, I believe by all accounts that LaVoy Finicum was a very good and decent, God-fearing man with the best of intentions. He was passionate in his beliefs.
However, whether you have a donut, a pocket full of daiseys or an AK47 under your jacket, if you reach in to your jacket during a confrontation with amped up Israeli-trained cops guess what? you're dead as dirt within seconds.
Only a suicidal maniac or a looney tunes would a act like that in such a situation, sorry. That's my opinion and i'm sticking to it, and guess what? Ive had MANY contentious interactions with evil pig cops, and I'm still alive. and it is going to stay that way.
I get tired of these libertarian types always bashing the cops even when they clearly don't deserve it. their judgment and completely irrational bias is screwed in the head.
In retrospect all the other occupiers are actually lucky that the state police didn't open fire on the vehicle as it approached speeding towards the roadblock.
They all could have been killed. I'm not saying that would be justified, but it could have VERY easily occurred.
I believe by all accounts that LaVoy Finicum was a very good and decent, God-fearing man with the best of intentions. He was passionate in his beliefs.
True, by all accounts that I've seen, heard, or read.
I believe by all accounts that LaVoy Finicum was a very good and decent, God-fearing man with the best of intentions. He was passionate in his beliefs.
True, by all accounts that I've seen, heard, or read.
I will third that.
While I have criticisms of the occupation that are strategically & logistically based and have voiced the same here, when people nobly stand up for what they believe in and suffer for it, they still deserve full & complete respect. Especially from anyone who has, instead of lifting a finger for the cause, continues to be subjugated.
It's possible Finicum preferred to be shot & killed instead of arrested. Didn't he voice as much? If so, then his actions of getting out of the car and reaching in his jacket -- if that's what he did -- might have been intentional with the desired result achieved.
If so, then his actions of getting out of the car and reaching in his jacket -- if that's what he did -- might have been intentional with the desired result achieved.
It did appear that he was reaching into his jacket, and if he was, he had to know that that was likely to answered with quick and extreme violence. When you are armed (or believed to be so), a gov helicopter is overhead, and a dozen police cars are chasing and blocking you thus making escape impossible, the only two choices are to surrender or risk being killed. His surrender wasn't quite peaceful and compliant enough for gov, so they killed him. That said, they might killed him anyway, even if he hadn't reached into his jacket.
When you are armed (or believed to be so), a gov helicopter is overhead, and a dozen police cars are chasing and blocking you thus making escape impossible, the only two choices are to surrender or risk being killed.
Exactly! Only a completely irrational maniac does this. I think it's unspeakably foolish for people to characterize these actions as somehow noble or heroic. Just bizarre.
Exactly! Only a completely irrational maniac does this. I think it's unspeakably foolish for people to characterize these actions as somehow noble or heroic.
Standing up for what you believe in, and suffering for same, absolutely is noble. I stand by that statement.
Personally I don't believe in Suicide , it's considered an affront to God. Throwing away the life God gave you. Just as BLM tyranny is evil, an affront to the dignity of the person and theft of their property, Suicide is even more immoral than that. Since suffering or fear of it is not reason to destroy your body, the temple of God.
2281 Suicide contradicts the natural inclination of the human being to preserve and perpetuate his life. It is gravely contrary to the just love of self. It likewise offends love of neighbor because it unjustly breaks the ties of solidarity with family, nation, and other human societies to which we continue to have obligations. Suicide is contrary to love for the living God.http://www.vatican.va/archive/c cc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.h tm
I agree that standing on principle is noble, even to death
Under what principled conditions would/could one allow his death to occur unnaturally that would not qualify as suicide? And why wouldn't Finicum's death qualify (assuming he purposely chose to be shot rather than be arrested?)
For example the martyrs who died rather than deny their faith, or in defense of self or others fighting to protect them, or your property. As a last resort when there is no further recourse. I appreciate your very good questions even if I don't answer them to your satisfaction. These are not my personal ideas, it is from the Catholic catechism, a theology that goes back thousands of years. For example a just war doctrine, if it meets the criterion a soldier can go and risk death out of duty but that is not careless disregard for his sacred life. Or if you jump into a river to save a drowning person, that would be an example of a noble act.
I subscribe to a different belief system which holds to a different standard. Under it, mercy killing, i.e. a terminally ill end of life situation, is not a spiritual crime, though suicide as a form of running away from a difficult life situation is not acceptable.
Finicum's act, however, if indeed it was purposed to cause his own death which we don't know for a fact was the case, would have room for virtue that rises above suicide. One aspect of that choice, again if that is what it was, is that people like us are discussing it in that context. A example of "give me liberty or give me death" being demonstrated fully. His death would not have been in vain if it inspires others to appreciate freedom as a higher virtue.
I agree that we can't say for sure that finicum did suicide by cop or chose to die by his purposeful actions. And even if he did, it's not my place to judge his intent or motivations. I agree with you that in his mind he probably didn't think he was doing wrong.
As an interesting sidenote, the traditional Catholic teaching was obviously opposed to the French revolution, which put freemasonic concepts of "liberty" above God's laws, as Jefferson urged to "break the chains of monkish superstitions ".
This was also covered in the papal encyclical on "americanism". As one great priest put it recently, the reason Americans are losing their liberties is not surprising since you can't get good fruit from a rotten tree. I don't revere the CONstitution as many do. There are higher standards above and beyond it.
My main point is that is never suggest to a friend or loved one or stranger that they confront armed amped up Israeli trained cops in a wild manner.
I have a question for you also. What's the big distinction between suicide as running away from problem as you said was condemned in your belief system vs Mercy killing?
I have a question for you also. What's the big distinction between suicide as running away from problem as you said was condemned in your belief system vs Mercy killing?
If the human body had reached a point where it is basically not functional and irreversably so, then the life cycle is sufficiently complete such that ending the life -- and moving on -- is a reasonable course.
In the case of a body that is in reasonably good health, where a decision of suicide is made simply because of a particular event, financial hardship, or other circumstance where one just doesn't want to face a particular hardship is regarded as wasting that life.
The key difference is the condition of the physical body, and prospects for more years of potentially productive life.
The model I subscribe to includes reincarnation. Our purpose in life is to grow spiritually. Throwing away years that could be spend on further growth is a waste. Ending a life when one is, for example, in a permanently vegetative state does not deprive that one of productive years.
Thanks for the explanation. Although id argue that the mere fact that someone isnt productive does not diminish the value of theif life. Is there value in suffering, in your belief system/religion,?
We can offer up suffering in reparation of sin and for other reasons. That is quite foreign to many people today. Suffering can be a great source of sanctification. Many saints throughout the centuries have written on this, even going so far as to say that if we don't have a cross, we should pray for one. I know, wild stuff to most people. Bishop Sheen preached a lot on these concepts.
Although id argue that the mere fact that someone isnt productive does not diminish the value of their life. Is there value in suffering, in your belief system/religion?
The value of spiritual life is never diminished. But there is physical life and there is the life of the soul which is immortal. Physical life inevitably comes to and end, but only serves the greater purpose of facilitating progression of one's immortal spiritual journey. That context does not exist in the Christian model, which basically equates physical life with soul life.
We can offer up suffering in reparation of sin and for other reasons. That is quite foreign to many people today. Suffering can be a great source of sanctification. Many saints throughout the centuries have written on this, even going so far as to say that if we don't have a cross, we should pray for one. I know, wild stuff to most people. Bishop Sheen preached a lot on these concepts.
Michael Newton is the contemporary, a doctor who specialized in hypnotherapy involving past life and between life regression. He writes that "sin" in one life, in which one person habitually or seriously hurts others, is indeed "paid for" through similar suffering in a future life. Such souls will volunteer for those roles in advance of birth, knowing the fate involved. The purpose if it, however, is not to suffer simply for the purpose of experiencing physical pain, but rather to become truly enlightened as to the harm they caused, thus furthering their spiritual progression in the process.
Perhaps related, there are hard lives and there are easy lives, and yes, one living a hard life, and dealing with the hardship gracefully, will progress much farther than an easy life spent as a wealthy person who has everything handed to him/her on a silver platter (assuming they progress at all).
So in this model, there is no need for a "special place in hell" for those who commit atrocious acts upon others. When they die, they will deal with their earthly choices in a fully just manner, one way or another, without losing love of which at all of us are permanent recipients.
But back to the point of the discussion, since death is not a door through which we pass only once, physical life is not of particular importance compared to the needs of the soul. Hence, the room for morality in terminating a life that is beyond recovery and beyond any service to the soul.