Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • The Soho Forum Debates
    • Just Asking Questions
    • The Best of Reason Magazine
    • Why We Can't Have Nice Things
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Donate Crypto
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password

Oregon Standoff

FBI Agent Indicted For Lying to Investigators About Shooting at Oregon Occupation Protester LaVoy Finicum

The law still considers the killing of Finicum justified.

Brian Doherty | 6.29.2017 3:30 PM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests
Large image on homepages | John Rudoff/Polaris/Newscom
(John Rudoff/Polaris/Newscom)

FBI special agent W. Joseph Astarita has been indicted for possible misconduct involving last January's law enforcement murder of Robert LaVoy Finicum, one of the occupiers of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.

Lavoy Finicum Facebook

Astarita "falsely stated he had not fired his weapon during the attempted arrest of Robert La Voy Finicum, when he knew then and there that he had fired his weapon," according to the indictment.

Further, "by failing to disclose that he had fired two rounds during the attempted arrest of Robert LaVoy Finicum…[Astarita] acted with the intent to hinder, delay and prevent the communication of information from the Oregon State Police to the Federal Bureau of Investigation relating to the possible commission of a federal offense."

The legal system long ago decided that the actual killing of Finicum was justified. An objective outside observer of the video evidence might think differently, given that agents started shooting at him as soon as he exited his truck, before Finicum made motions interpreted as "reaching for a gun" that, in the minds of many, justified the shooting.

Those who insist Finicum's driving represented a mortal danger to the officers should note that he was no longer operating a motor vehicle at the time of the killshots.

Astarita, one of the first shooters but whose shots did not actually hit Finicum, might justifiably be held to account not only for lying about his actions, but also very likely unjustified attempted murder. Alas, the legal system disagrees on the second point.

A Los Angeles Times account from the federal courtroom in Portland, Oregon, where Astarita faced a judge this week and pleaded not guilty, reports he was "stone-faced" and notes that Astarita's troubles began when:

Investigators were concerned that they could not account for the shots apparently fired by an FBI agent that left the bullet hole in the roof of Finicum's truck.

None of the FBI agents took responsibility for taking the shots. Suspicions were further aroused when investigators later reportedly couldn't find two shell casings that had initially been spotted at the scene.

Astarita will remain free pending his eventual trial.

While Finicum essentially faced a death sentence for his role in the Malheur occupation, seven other occupiers who actually went to trial for their crimes were acquitted last October. The result was likely because of prosecutorial overreach, trying them on charges more serious and harder to prove than the trespassing they actually committed, but which would have resulted in more jail time had they been convicted.

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: Mitch McConnell Wants to Pass the Senate Health Care Bill By Making It More Expensive

Brian Doherty is a senior editor at Reason and author of Ron Paul's Revolution: The Man and the Movement He Inspired (Broadside Books).

Oregon StandoffFBI
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (32)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

  1. Crusty Juggler - Sapiosexual   8 years ago

    None of the FBI agents took responsibility for taking the shots. Suspicions were further aroused when investigators later reportedly couldn't find two shell casings that had initially been spotted at the scene.

    Our best and brightest.

    1. loveconstitution1789   8 years ago

      The FBI is above reproach, completely professional, and apolitical.

      This is the lie that its Directors have told for decades.

  2. Citizen X - #6   8 years ago

    So for a federal agent, helping to murder a dude is fine as long as you don't egregiously lie about it? Good to know.

    1. Crusty Juggler - Sapiosexual   8 years ago

      Right, but if you lie to them it's a felony and you go to prison. Well, unless you are a high-ranking government official, like Hillary Clinton or David Petraeus.

    2. BestUsedCarSales   8 years ago

      I imagine the FBI chief telling him, "I'm not mad, I'm just disappointed."

      That will really hurt that murderer more then any jail time.

  3. Dillinger   8 years ago

    of all the things you're never going to get away with lying about...

  4. GILMORE?   8 years ago

    Of interest here is the question of "why did he deny the shoot" if the people on the scene were so certain that their actions were within the law?

    i know there's (likely) zero possibility of overturning the actual ruling on the killing of fincum, but i'm still curious how the agent's lawyer will rationalize his client's behavior.

    in particular: when exactly did these shots take place? after other officers had fired, or before?

    my suspicion: he fired first, before fincum reached for a gun. and in fact that's what prompted fincum to act, which is what other police used to justify their own use of force.

    of course I don't think these questions will ever get raised and i think the whole thing will be quickly processed and forgotten.

    1. Crusty Juggler - Sapiosexual   8 years ago

      Before.

      As Finicum left his truck, an FBI agent shot twice at Finicum, though none of the hostage team members admitted to discharging their firearms, the Deschutes County sheriff alleged. The county sheriff's office was tasked with investigating the Finicum shooting.

      The agent's bullets didn't hit Finicum, 54, an Arizona rancher who was the spokesman for the armed takeover of the federal sanctuary near Burns in Harney County. Moments later, state police troopers shot Finicum three times after he emerged from his white truck and reached for his inner jacket pocket, where police said he had a loaded 9mm handgun. One bullet pierced his heart, an autopsy found.

      1. Hendu Manchu   8 years ago

        yep, before. The two initial shots were fired ~1 second after he got out of the vehicle when he clearly posed zero imminent threat to anyone. The fatal shots were ~12 seconds after he got out, at the time when the maybe possibly remotely arguable movement to pull a gun from his jacket was made.

        1. loveconstitution1789   8 years ago

          If you were unarmed and holding your arms up then the cops tried to murder you, wouldn't you try and defend yourself?

          I would.

      2. loveconstitution1789   8 years ago

        "...the armed takeover of the federal sanctuary...."

        That was some marvelous lefty spin. When protesters take over public areas in New York to protest Wall Street or whatever, its called protest and protected by the 1st Amendment.

        When protesters take over public areas in Oregon, its called an armed takeover and not protected by the 1st Amendment. Evidently the 2nd Amendment is not protected either.

  5. Tony   8 years ago

    There is justice for cops who shoot people after all, provided the people are actually committing a crime and white.

    1. colorblindkid   8 years ago

      Aaaaand there it is.

      1. Tony   8 years ago

        Oh goodie it's White Racial Resentment Man.

        1. colorblindkid   8 years ago

          Hundreds of white men are killed by cops every year and not a single cop goes to jail for it, yet you don't hear about a single one on the news. This lack of coverage makes people see it solely as a race issue when in reality race is only a relatively small aspect of the problem. This prevents us from actually solving the underlying problems.

      2. paranoid android   8 years ago

        Tony's just a pragmatist. He sees a problem--blacks attacked and/or killed by agents of the State at disproportionately high rates relative to their share of the population--and identifies a simple and efficient solution: shoot more white people. Who cares who the government murders as long as there is racial parity?

        1. Tony   8 years ago

          Sometimes I get the feeling that you people really do think liberalism is these ridiculous caricatures.

          Also, fuck the police, every last humpty-dumpty looking one of the motherfuckers.

          1. Citizen X - #6   8 years ago

            Quit being a caricature then, dumbass.

          2. paranoid android   8 years ago

            Sometimes I get the feeling that you people really do think liberalism is these ridiculous caricatures.

          3. loveconstitution1789   8 years ago

            Tony, you can't turn against the police because they enforce all your lefty laws like must buy ObamaCare, must not carry guns, must not sell loosie cigs, and must not drink more than 24oz in one sitting, etc.

        2. Citizen X - #6   8 years ago

          Look, Tony is not very smart.

          1. timbo   8 years ago

            He's dumber than most. In fact, I wonder if he is not a foil that is AI generated to react to trigger words. He is the epitome of brainwashed leftist zombie.

            I rather enjoy his attempts at intellectual ciphering. I enjoy watching my dog try to figure stuff out too. Its cute.

    2. LoneWaco   8 years ago

      what crime dumbshit? they were acquited.

      1. Tony   8 years ago

        So was OJ.

        1. timbo   8 years ago

          You can't even figure out why you are mad anymore. You're like a crazy hobo just mad at the walls.

  6. LoneWaco   8 years ago

    why were the Oregon State police involved in a federal matter?

    1. loveconstitution1789   8 years ago

      Evidently, the Oregon State Police we supposed to arrest Lavoy because technically he had not really violated federal law, so the FBI did not have jurisdiction.

  7. Ron   8 years ago

    Besides shooting Finicum why did they keep shooting at the truck after he was dead. No one in the truck could surrender while ducking all of the bullets and its amazing how bad the shooters were since no one in the truck was hit. note truck doors are not bullet proof

    1. loveconstitution1789   8 years ago

      No witnesses would have been better.

  8. Ken Shultz   8 years ago

    "While Finicum essentially faced a death sentence for his role in the Malheur occupation, seven other occupiers who actually went to trial for their crimes were acquitted last October. The result was likely because of prosecutorial overreach, trying them on charges more serious and harder to prove than the trespassing they actually committed, but which would have resulted in more jail time had they been convicted."

    They didn't want to convict them of mere trespassing. They wanted to turn them into Timothy McVeigh.

    P.S. Trespassing on public property? That might be a hard sell to a jury, too. Maybe they should have gone for picnicking without a permit.

    1. loveconstitution1789   8 years ago

      It was a hard sell that protesters of government abuse of power, where there was no violence by the protesters who did have firearms, where the government ended up killing someone proving said government abuse of power.

  9. Cbalducc   8 years ago

    Any chance of a wrongful death lawsuit?

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

Welcoming Anti-Trump Liberals to the Free Trade Club

Katherine Mangu-Ward | From the July 2025 issue

Brickbat: Armed, Elderly, and Dangerous

Charles Oliver | 6.2.2025 4:00 AM

How Trump's Tariffs and Immigration Policies Could Make Housing Even More Expensive

M. Nolan Gray | From the July 2025 issue

Photo: Dire Wolf De-extinction

Ronald Bailey | From the July 2025 issue

How Making GLP-1s Available Over the Counter Can Unlock Their Full Potential

Jeffrey A. Singer | From the June 2025 issue

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS

© 2024 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

This modal will close in 10

Reason Plus

Special Offer!

  • Full digital edition access
  • No ads
  • Commenting privileges

Just $25 per year

Join Today!