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