No Man's Land

Hands in the air, on his way to meet with law enforcement, we see drone footage of the man trying to surrender and is gunned down for NO REASON.

This so-called 'journalist' screeching about Americans complaining because 'Mexico and Venezuela are much worse!!' is like Kamala Harris saying she hasn't been to Europe therefore not visiting the border is irrelevant. In other words, insanely ridiculous.

The filmmakers went out of their way to show the viewpoint of their choice, much like current day journalists insisting on being biased and activists, rather than the actual facts directly related to the activities.

Lavoy Finicum was murdered by a thug with a badge.

White people do what they want to do. Seems like black people get shot tear gas arrested and charged more harshly. They get to have thier white utopia

For a documentary that is overwhelmingly composed of footage and interviews with the occupiers, the "journalist" analysis interviews interspersed throughout and given extra time at the end, as well as the voice over conclusions, are remarkably biased against the occupiers' point of view. In fact, they are 100% antagonistic to the occupiers and their cause, including misrepresenting them at times.

Moreover, the dramatic statements at the end of the film pointedly directed at President Trump and his supporters are not only jarringly out of place, but serve as a very clear statement of the filmmakers' true intent with this piece. Which is a shame, because the incident itself is quite interesting, and the documentary crew got some really great access.

Given all that, it's impossible not to look back through the documentary and assume that the filmmakers chose the craziest and most inflammatory statements of the occupiers in order to paint them in the worst possible light, while excluding whatever footage they thought might reflect well on the occupiers.

While I don't personally agree with the occupiers' actions or believe they ever had any hope of achieving much, and place 100% of the blame for the one man who died on that man himself (not to mention endangering the lives of his family), it would have been nice to see some unbiased interviews and footage from people who didn't go into the project with an obvious agenda to demonize the occupiers.

This subject has been given particular relevance in light of the recent (2020) "occupations" of public, federal, and private property, often armed and also often violent, unlike this group. (For a prominent example see the Seattle CHOP.) This group managed to last several weeks with zero acts of violence in their occupied zone, zero crimes against persons, and the only destruction of property was principled protest against government policy (still a crime). Contrast that with any of the 2020 occupations and the differences could not be more striking, and yet the media coverage of the incidents was completely inverse, treating this incident like a terror cell and the 2020 occupiers as legitimate protest. Obviously it is not the actions they find objectionable, but the actors.