Protecting the identity of the officer who shot LaVoy Finicum is evidently more of a priority to Oregon State Police and politicians than ensuring unfettered public scrutiny.
by David Codrea
“State Rep. Jeff Barker has introduced a bill that would temporarily delay the release of the name of the officer who shot [LaVoy] Finicum,” KOIN 6 News reported Sunday. “House Bill 4087 already unanimously passed the Oregon House Judiciary Committee.”
The bill, which will allow law enforcement to petition a judge for a 90-day stay on releasing the name of an officer, was introduced after the Oregon State Police said it had “received death threats from all over the U.S.” Barker, a Democrat, said he took the action after being convinced by OSP Superintendent Rich Evans that ‘there is a real safety concern.”
Perhaps. But if that’s the case, it’s fair to ask if there are alternatives in terms of investigation and protective custody options that would make it unnecessary to suppress information that’s in the public interest to know. Plus, how do we know the “threats” are even real and not coming from provocateurs or other interested parties?
We know that the powers that be are desperately trying to bolster a false, government-started narrative that “rightwing extremists are a greater threat than ISIS.” And if you want to see violent death wishes leveled with promiscuous abandon, just look at comments on ”progressive” websites ginning up the mob against the Malheur Wildlife Refuge occupiers. Plus, let’s not forget the only killing so far was committed by an agent of the state.
So it’s hardly out of line to wonder if we’re being told everything about the alleged “threats,” or to expect those bringing us the news of Barker’s bill to assign some investigative reporters. After all, being watchdogs on behalf of liberty is supposedly a duty of a free press. But outrageously, establishment media in too many cases willingly wears the collar of lapdogs.
It’s a tricky enough question without all the causes for doubt. What rises to the level of a threat that will trigger such an order, and how will that impact investigations into and disclosures about relevant past conduct and disciplinary issues regarding the involved officer? Why shouldn’t this be regarded as government circling the wagons?
Assessing the politician behind the bill is tricky as well. Barker is a retired police officer who has been “rated 100%by the National Rifle Association.” That said, Obama for America included him in its “Support from Oregonians” list, and NRA has characterized Obama as “the most anti-gun president in history.” So either NRA is being bipolar, or giving aid and comfort to the enemy is not something they want their members to consider when heeding their political ratings.
In any case, trust, as far as OSP’s and FBI’s handling of the Finicum killing, is, no pun intended, shot as far as the Patriot community is concerned. That said, everyone who considers himself an Oath Keeper does not do so, as the collectivists lie, because they are “anti-government,” but because of fidelity to the Constitution.
As much as some are convinced the soundless aerial footage of Finicum’s death is all the evidence they need to convict those involved of murder, our system of justice requires a jury trial, a presumption of innocence, the burden of proof on the prosecution, and a conviction of guilt only when it is beyond a reasonable doubt.
Finicum never received any of those things, some will no doubt argue back.
Assume for a moment that some of the threats precipitating Barker’s bill are real, and further that they’re credible. That means those making them are convinced that action outside the Constitution, with no checks and balances outside of force they bring to bear, is acceptable. Just remember, the Constitution was established first and foremost to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity. If those threatening to initiate force can take it on themselves to deny due process to anyone, then that’s who they’ll be able to do that to.
I’d say a full-blown and very public investigation of the “threats” that convinced Barker to introduce his legislative band-aid in the first place is just as important, if not more so, than the bill itself. With all the reasons government has given us to distrust its actions and intentions, some of us are going to need a bit more than a cry of alarm from the Oregon State Police, and a knee-jerk “solution” from “progressive” Oregon politicians led by a supposedly “pro-gun” Obama supporter.