My take on the FBI's video of the shooting of LaVoy Finicum

This is what I see when I watch this low quality footage. Other people might see different things. Feel free to comment.

1:09: Suspect vehicle (white Dodge pickup with crew cab and camper) stops in the middle of the road. Police have guns drawn

8:10: Suspect vehicle takes off again and flees at high speed. This is a felony.

9:15: Suspect vehicle encounters the police vehicles blocking the road. The suspect vehicle veers to the left. An officer lunges toward the suspect vehicle which is still moving. I don′t know why he would do this. It is dangerous and you can′t stop a truck with your body.

9:20 The driver of the Dodge pickup gets out. He has his hands up as if he wants to surrender. He is staggering though the deep snow. Then he puts his arms down. It looks like he′s flailing as if he lost his balance. Or maybe he is reaching for his gun. But his arms are clearly down, so the police shoot and kill the driver.

Normally, if you are armed and you need to surrender to someone else who is armed, you keep your hands up to show that you cannot fire at them. You keep your arms up until they tell you to put them down. The police knew he was armed. If they believed he was reaching for a weapon, then they were justified in shooting him. This doesn′t look like a murder from the video.

My take on the Oregon protests

This story starts in 2001, when Dwight Hammond and Steven Hammond set fires on federal land that burned 127 acres. They were convicted of arson, and a judge gave Dwight a three month sentence and Steven a one year sentence. The defendants claim that this was to control an invasive species, the prosecutors claim that it was to cover up illegal poaching.

Even if the Hammonds were telling the truth, I can't really condone setting fires on federal land as a form of pest control. In my opinion, arson is worse than bank robbery. Most bank robbers just slide a note over the counter, the tellers follow their training, and the FDIC reimburses the bank for any cash that isn't recovered. Arsonists are more reckless and destructive, causing more property damage and risk to human life than bank robbers. But the mandatory minimum sentence for arson is 5 years, while the minimum sentence for bank robbery is 10 years.

The Hammonds received less than minimum sentences and served their time. But an appeals court ruled that they should have received longer sentences, and that they should go back to prison. While I would agree that they should have received 5 year sentences in the first place, I also feel that if you are charged, convicted, and serve the original sentence, the government should leave you alone unless you commit another crime.  I think that the law should err on the side of the defendant throughout the entire process. But that isn't what the law requires. The law requires that the Hammonds go back to prison.

People do have a right to protest prison sentences if they feel that the sentences are unfair. But they don't have a right to take over a government building. I would much prefer that this standoff end with no bloodshed. But if these protesters use lethal force to resist arrest, then the moral responsibility for what happens next falls on them.