It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

FBI Release full unedited video of Finicum shooting

page: 25
46
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 29 2016 @ 10:49 PM
link   
a reply to: OveRcuRrEnteD

Ha! You guys are awesome! Thought so...
Damn you, Prof. Doom! His analysis is quite good anyway, who doesn't make mistakes though...



Now we would need Shawna Cox's testimony to triangulate the different accounts. *sigh* Can't find a thing right now...




posted on Jan, 29 2016 @ 10:53 PM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion
Here ya go:

Not her official testimony but I think that's all we're gonna get for now
edit on 1/29/2016 by OveRcuRrEnteD because: oops



posted on Jan, 29 2016 @ 10:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: OveRcuRrEnteD
a reply to: PublicOpinion



Bundy left the car and Payne was still inside

Not according to the FBI statement


Looking at the white truck... about four minutes into the video ... Ryan Payne exits through a back door. It's difficult to see behind the trees, but in the lower right hand corner you can see him with his hands up being approached by the law enforcement officers and being taken into custody.

Oh, Gawd! I'll see if I can straighten it out tomorrow!!
There were five people in LaVoy's truck named by McConnell. Someone surrendered at the first stop so that left four people in LaVoy's truck including LaVoy. I give up right now. I'll correct it tomorrow after I figure out who's who. See what I mean about how hard it is to keep things straight?



posted on Jan, 29 2016 @ 11:24 PM
link   
a reply to: tweetie

You were spot on, Prof Doom mixed it up. Payne left the truck during the first stop, before it was speeding up to the road block.


Approximately 30 seconds after the shooting, law enforcement officers at the scene deployed flash bangs to disorient any other armed occupants. Shortly after that, they deployed less-lethal sponge projectiles with OC capsules. Those OC capsules would be similar to pepper spray.

Over a period of several minutes agents and troopers worked to safely remove the remaining truck occupants, and to take them into custody. Those people included:

Ryan Bundy
Shawna Cox
And another woman, who was not arrested and will not be named

FBI press release

The OveRcuRrEnteD neuronic on board already straightened it out. Thanks again!



Have a good night and see ya around!
edit on 29-1-2016 by PublicOpinion because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2016 @ 11:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: tweetie

originally posted by: OveRcuRrEnteD
a reply to: PublicOpinion



Bundy left the car and Payne was still inside

Not according to the FBI statement


Looking at the white truck... about four minutes into the video ... Ryan Payne exits through a back door. It's difficult to see behind the trees, but in the lower right hand corner you can see him with his hands up being approached by the law enforcement officers and being taken into custody.

Oh, Gawd! I'll see if I can straighten it out tomorrow!!
There were five people in LaVoy's truck named by McConnell. Someone surrendered at the first stop so that left four people in LaVoy's truck including LaVoy. I give up right now. I'll correct it tomorrow after I figure out who's who. See what I mean about how hard it is to keep things straight?


CORRECTION (and my apology): it was Ryan Payne who surrendered at the first stop and Ryan Bundy stayed in Lavoy's truck with Lavoy and the two women as Lavoy sped off. I hope I have that straight now so other people can, too.



posted on Jan, 29 2016 @ 11:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

It was your claim that use of excessive force has been used since the dawn of time. I did a quick Google search and found it was only just recently authorized.

Care to try again?



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 12:04 AM
link   
Tennessee vs. Garner - Police cannot shoot a fleeing felon in the back unless the person presents an imminent threat to the public at large.

SCOTUS rulings have defined and refined the use of force requirements for officers. General rule of thumb.
* - Force use must be proportionate to the level of force encountered. Police have, essentially, a 1 plus advantage. Police can escalate force 1 level higher than the resistance in order to overcome resistance.
* - Police should use the least amount of for necessary.
* - Police should make all attempts to deescalate the situation as quickly / safely as possible.
* - Police are not required to start at the bottom and work their way up.


Case law dealing with police use of force -
* - Graham v. Connor
* - Tennessee v. Garner
* - Nelson v. City of Davis
* - Plumhoff v. Rickard

@rollanotherone
Use of force dates back to the inception of law enforcement. So not quite to the dawn of time but it goes a ways back.

With that said you wont find a lot of use of force laws / rulings that are blanket. Excessive use of force / use of forced is based on and viewable only in the context it occurs in. Each incident is separate and unique and depends on totality of circumstances.

A good overview of Police actions for those interested - Hollywood verse Reality -

edit on 30-1-2016 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 12:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: OveRcuRrEnteD

Ha! You guys are awesome! Thought so...
Damn you, Prof. Doom! His analysis is quite good anyway, who doesn't make mistakes though...



Now we would need Shawna Cox's testimony to triangulate the different accounts. *sigh* Can't find a thing right now...

Since she was arrested I doubt we'll see anything from her for some time.



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 12:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra
I would love to see more deescalation procedures. Non lethal forms of submission.



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 12:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: rollanotherone
a reply to: Xcathdra
I would love to see more deescalation procedures. Non lethal forms of submission.


Less lethal is always preferred however when guns are involved coupled with threats no to be taken alive less lethal may not be an option because of the limited distance of Taser cartridges.

Oregon is in the 9th circus court of appeals who have ruled on Tasers and where they are required to fall within a use of force continuum (1 step below deadly force if I remember right). All other less lethal options would require an officer to move with a few feet of the person.

Assuming the agencies involved are equipped with Tasers.

A resolution other than death would require the suspects cooperation / compliance with commands.
edit on 30-1-2016 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 12:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra
Not sure I fully understand your last paragraph, but I read it as, comply or you will die?



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 12:36 AM
link   
I keep hearing all this talk about how LaVoy said he was going to go out in a gun blazing big ball of redneck glory.

Anyone care to direct us all to his exact statements?

I know a lot of people who will use a phrase like "I would rather die on my feet than live on my knees", or "Live free or die". Are those comments more akin to what LaVoy actually said?



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 12:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: rollanotherone
a reply to: Xcathdra
Not sure I fully understand your last paragraph, but I read it as, comply or you will die?


That was pretty much how I read the comments too.



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 12:41 AM
link   
Looks like a planned roadblock ambush to me. A Cop just so happens to be hiding behind a tree in snow drift. No he wasn't back there taking a crap. Did you guys see the cop run to the front of the truck about getting himself ran over? That looked intentional to me. That's so they can get their thrill to kill you see. LaVoy had his hands up and was stumbling in knee deep snow and looked like he lost his balance before Mr Bigfoot from the tree's shot him in the face from behind. Was the gun drawn? Was it fired? Armed or not, a person that has their hands up is surrendering. Then they turned fire onto the vehicle trying to kill everyone after they shot LaVoy. I can clearly see the side windows being shot out. Who cares who's inside, just gun em all down. This is starting to sound like the LAPD SIS squad. No arrest, no judge, no jury, just execution. Probably is. They flown in the hit squad to Portland. We need to get some no name guys in there to do our dirty work.



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 12:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: rollanotherone
a reply to: Gryphon66

It was your claim that use of excessive force has been used since the dawn of time. I did a quick Google search and found it was only just recently authorized.

Care to try again?


No, that was not my claim. My claim was specific, and if you'd like to deal honestly with what I said, I'll be glad to.

However, I'm not even going attempt to justify your mistakes and "quick Googles."

If you wish to follow-up ... here's a decent little essay from the 2nd Amendment Foundation's website that establishes what I actually said about the time frame regarding fleeing felons:



The early common law (13th century and before), drew a very sharp, bright-line distinction between socially desirable, fully justifiable homicide as opposed to socially undesirable, barely excusable homicide. Justifiable homicide occurred when the victim of an inherently dangerous common-law felony (arson, stranger burglary, stranger robbery, stranger rape), or a bystander thereof, resisted the felony. In such cases, the perpetrator of the felony was considered to be what we call now a “career criminal,” a “professional criminal,” or a “recidivist criminal.”

The perpetrator of any of these felonies was considered to threaten continuing grave dangers to the community should he be successful or escape justice and roam at large. Therefore, the felon had lost his “right to life” by engaging in such conduct, so long as it was clear that the felon had actually attempted or completed an inherently dangerous felony.

Therefore, no showing of necessity other than the actual perpetration of the stranger attack was needed to justify force, even deadly force, to be used to resist the felon.



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 01:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Ok, so according to your essay, at the first sign of flight, the LEO were in full right to kill on sight.


My understanding is that once it was clear that an inherently dangerous common-law felony was being committed, the law
presumed the necessity for using force against the felon if and when the
felon did not peaceably surrender OR fled.



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 01:06 AM
link   
And as someone else posted, the cop who moved in front of the vehicle gave the other officers more reason to shoot to kill. He "took one for the team".



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 01:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: rollanotherone
a reply to: Gryphon66

Ok, so according to your essay, at the first sign of flight, the LEO were in full right to kill on sight.


My understanding is that once it was clear that an inherently dangerous common-law felony was being committed, the law
presumed the necessity for using force against the felon if and when the
felon did not peaceably surrender OR fled.


Absolutely not. The short piece I linked established a bit of the history associated with the concept which your "quick Google" had failed to reveal to you and you saw fit to try to deny. That was all.

Did you bother to read any of Tennesse v Garner? Need a link? Tennessee v. Garner at Findlaw

In short, since I seriously doubt you would read it ... SCOTUS's decision stipulated that deadly force cannot be used merely to arrest flight from justice ... but that it can be used in the cases of resisting arrest, reckless endangerment, and deadly assault ... all of which Funicum clearly committed.



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 01:09 AM
link   
a reply to: sean

I watched it several times your description is not at all based on the video. You clearly see him reaching for something. Since we know the troopers where giving him instructions he chose to ignore them. And to answer an earlier question about the policeman jumping I think he miscalculated and all most cost him his life. He was hiding behind the vehicle when he saw the truck speeding towards him. I think he believed rather then plow into a snow drift he was going to ram the vehicle he was hiding behind.

Actually makes no sense him plowing into a snow drift that was just not logical and I find that extremely strange hr made that choice. I think the officer was surprised to when he decided to leap for the side of the road only to discover that's where the car was going.



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 01:16 AM
link   
I keep waiting for the claim to be made here that the evil Feds took control of Finicum's truck by use of HAARP or a mind-control ray or some other such rot and made him attempt to escape at high-speed, alluding arrest, endangering lives and assaulting law-enforcement officers with a deadly weapon.

I mean, that makes almost as much sense as the wild excuses being put forth here ... which is to say: NONE.



new topics




 
46
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join