[UPDATE: For even more evidence of how corrupt and out of control the government is at the federal level and how they are willing to fabricate evidence see this recent article – Federal Case Against Patriots Full of Constitutional Violations]

One of the most egregious infractions by authorities in the Finicum shooting besides the shooting itself is the roadblock with which he was forced off the road.

Having run driving tests at the site at the same specific time of day as the actual incident in the same weather and road conditions, I could not stop before the point of impact where the vehicles were parked blocking the road. I attempted three times and was unsuccessful each time. It is worth noting that my vehicle was smaller and lighter wieght. I also had 400 lbs less cargo.

A roadblock in and of itself is use of deadly force and in some cases unlawful seizure.
A roadblock in and of itself is use of deadly force and in some cases unlawful seizure.

This is appropriately deemed a Deadman’s Roadblock because there was no alternative course of travel and the Roadblock was placed at the end of a blind turn in which the driver could not see the roadblock with sufficient time to react and effect a stop before colliding with the components of the roadblock.

A roadblock in and of itself is use of deadly force and in some cases unlawful seizure. In the eventual civil trial and hopefully criminal trial against the officers responsible, It will definitely be argued that the roadblock was either ;

1. In violation of Police policy
US DEPT OF JUSTICE – Restrictive policies for High Speed Pursuits

“Fixed roadblocks are extremely dangerous and are rarely justifiable.”
“…As can be seen from appendixes A through D, the four departments severely restrict, if not prohibit, these tactics.”
“Roadblocks are dangerous and difficult to properly establish. No roadblock may
be established until both dispatcher and pursuing officer have been notified.”

Stationary Road Block — The placement of one or more police vehicles in the traveled portion of the roadway, in order to partially block the road, and to indicate a denial of passage to the violator’s vehicle. Although not absolutely necessary, officers frequently leave a restricted route through the roadblock. When the road is totally blocked, so that even a slow moving vehicle cannot go around—or through—safely, the degree of risk is heightened. When a complete blockage of the roadway is undertaken, officers should ensure that the oncoming suspect has a clear view of the roadblock, and has ample time to stop safely, should he or she decide to do so. This complete blockage usually represents a higher level of control, and could be constitutionally unreasonable unless properly managed.

Pursuits will be immediately terminated when:
• A sworn supervisor orders pursuit terminated.
• Suspect is known to officer and offense is traffic infraction, misdemeanor. or
nonviolent felony.

2. In violation of his 4th amendment rights ( Search and Seizure)

Legal Aspects of Law Enforcement Driving Objective 1.4
Chapter 6 – Module 1 – Page 50
Case Thirty-One: Deadman’s Roadblock
BROWER v. CONTY OF INYO, 489 U.S. 593, 103 L. Ed. 2d 628, 109 S. Ct. 1378 (1989).

The family claimed that police had erected a “deadman’s roadblock” by positioning an 18-wheel tractor-trailer across both lanes of the driver’s escape route, concealing the roadblock behind a curve in the road and leaving it unilluminated…

…roadblock can result in a fourth amendment seizure if it can be established that it was an unreasonable seizure. Thus, the trial court was directed to reconsider critical fact…

Fourth Amendment Seizure, by Roadblock: The court noted that the Brower Estate alleged that Mr. Brower’s death was caused by a concealed roadblock installed by the police whereby the suspect was stopped by crashing into the road block, the very instrumentality put in place to achieve that result. Since a 4 Amendment seizure occurs “when there is a governmental termination of freedom of movement through means intentionally applied,” the Court concluded that the Complaint state a valid constitutional claim that had to be decided by a jury. Brower v. Inyo County, 109 S. Ct. 1378 (1989).

3. So offensive and egregious as to “Shock the conscience”

BROWER v. CONTY OF INYO, 489 U.S. 593, 103 L. Ed. 2d 628, 109 S. Ct. 1378 (1989).

“Police pursuits that “shock the conscience” may not only expose the pursuing officers to liability but also may expose the governmental employer and the pursuit supervisor to liability.”

“ An employing town, city, or county may be directly responsible under 42 U.S.C. §1983 when an employee executes a governmental policy or custom that inflicts Constitutional injury. “

This allows a Judge some latitude in a finding on a case where statutes may not exist or are inappropriate to the graphic nature or a particular case. The Judge may impose the shock the conscience rule to establish merit in his or her decision.

Such was the case in the original Hammond sentence when Judge Hogan said that to impose the mandatory minimum sentence of five years would shock the conscience thereby giving him authority to impose a lighter, more appropriate sentence. Even though his sentence was overturned in the 9th circuit it was still and is still a viable rule in assessing fault or findings.

From all which is seen in the video, he clearly applied brakes and kept them on until his vehicle came to a stop 40’ past the point of intended impact with the vehicles used to block the roadway. His brake lights come on midway between the two sign posts and stayed on. He simply could not stop and averted a horrific impact which would have injured and killed the other occupants of the vehicle as well as the officials standing behind and around the trucks.

This was a completely intentional, inappropriate use of deadly force. It was in conflict with the US Dept of Justice’s Restrictive policies for High Speed Police Pursuits (

It caused not only physical Injury to Mr Finicum but also Constitutional injury by violation his 4th amendment rights regarding search and seizure, in particular the unlawful seizure of himself and the occupants of the truck.

Beyond all of the laws and regulatory infractions on behalf of the FBI and OSP in this boondoggled mess of a pursuit, they were in graphic violation in the court of common sense and rationality IF their cause and objective was to detain Mr. Finicum and try him under due process.

The preponderance of evidence in this incident gives credence to the notion that they willfully and purposefully violated his rights with the predetermined intent to kill him and his passengers. Intent is a challenging pursuit against members of law enforcement and the likelihood of a much lessor plea bargain if any charges at all. But this is just the issue of the roadblock. The shooting itself in my opinion, will have good standing for a charge of murder and or a host of other criminal charges against those who surrounded him with gunfire and shot him to death unmercifully, unlawfully and with no regard to the lack of threat that he posed to anyone.

This has cost us the public trust of our law enforcement. Rarely a day goes by since this shooting in which I don’t hear someone portraying fear of their “protectors” It doesn’t seem to matter which branch, we all tense up when seeing a police vehicle near us and subconsciously view it as a threat. This for many is a new and uncomfortable experience. It breeds the sensation that we are no longer free at all. We are subject to slaughter or imprisonment if we are bold enough to exercise our bill of rights.

The mere mention of a tyrannical Government can now be deemed an act of terrorism.(Bundy) Starting a controlled backburn fire to protect your home from a wildfire can now be deemed an act of terrorism.(Hammonds) Reporting on a story with truth can now be deemed an act of terrorism.(Santilli)

Are we nearing a place where teaching the constitution will also be an act of terrorism? Talking to your neighbor over the fence?
Voicing an opinion on Facebook?

Some will say this is just spreading fear. Less than a month ago, the thought of FBI shooting you for protesting them seemed far fetched. Now, we know otherwise. There was no risk to officers that they didn’t wrongfully impose upon themselves such as diving in front of Mr. Finicums truck and shooting at him or placing themselves in a Deadmans Roadblock around a blind turn, or firing upon a group of gospel singers hiding their heads with their arms in the truck.

There was intent here plain and simple, and it was not intent to prosecute him under due process.

US Department of Justice

The Police Policies Study Counsel

NCJRS – National Criminal Justice Reference Service

POLICE Magazine Community for Cops

Rainwater Holt & Sexton Law Offices

Case History
1] Graham v. Connor, 109 S. Ct. 1865 (1989) — In Graham, the Court set forth standards for evaluating the reasonableness of the use of force. There were three criteria stated: the severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of officers or others, and whether the suspect is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by fleeing.

[2] Tennessee v. Garner, 105 S.Ct. 1694 (1985) — In Garner, the Court opined that deadly force could be used to protect officers or others from the immediate threat of serious physical harm, or to prevent the escape of dangerous individuals, after other means have been exhausted, and a warning has been given, where feasible.

[3] Fiser v. City of Ann Arbor, 417 Mich. 461 (1983) — In Fiser, the Michigan Supreme Court provided guidelines for evaluating the reasonableness of a police pursuit.

[4] National Driver Training Reference Guide — International Association of Directors of Law Enforcement Standards and Training, in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Transportation, 1989.

[5] Brower v. County of Inyo, 109 S.Ct. 1378 (1989) — The Brower Court held that a seizure is a, “…governmental termination of freedom of movement through means intentionally applied…” (emphasis added), and further opined that a seizure has occurred when force is used. The Court defined force as an intentional act which leads to a stop or an arrest.

Please also see the following for more information on this:

Since When Does OSP Wear Blue Jeans On Duty?

Cops Breaking Cover Confirm LaVoy Was No Threat

We must dispel myths surrounding Oregon protest


Who are the good guys?

Top 10 things we learned from the Malheur Refuge Protest in Harney County Oregon

Don’t Talk About “Posse comitatus” and Burns, Oregon

The FBI’s Ties to Private Sector Mercenaries (Burns, Oregon)

The Secret That NO ONE Wants You To Know About The Standoff in Oregon

Your Story Just Doesn’t Add Up FBI…

The Gun Is Civilization.
Article By Brad Steffey 02/13/16
Oregon Wide Open