FBI Release full unedited video of Finicum shooting

a reply to: Gryphon66

For deadly force to be constitutional when an arrest is taking place, it must be the reasonable choice under all the circumstances at the time. Therefore, deadly force should be looked at as an option that is used when it is believed that no other action will succeed.

source

So, I take it the LEO's saw no other option but to use excessive force and arrest was not on the table.
And not sure why the snide remarks. Educate rather than insult. Trust me, I am learning a great deal with our discussion. More so than I would have otherwise.

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?

Sorry fixed the paragraph.

It means when you are being taken into custody you should listen to what the officer is telling you. Not complying can result in the police perceiving you as an immediate threat.

You make your argument in court and not roadside.

a reply to: rollanotherone

Didn't this guy blow past the police?

originally posted by: rollanotherone
a reply to: Gryphon66

For deadly force to be constitutional when an arrest is taking place, it must be the reasonable choice under all the circumstances at the time. Therefore, deadly force should be looked at as an option that is used when it is believed that no other action will succeed.

source

So, I take it the LEO's saw no other option but to use excessive force and arrest was not on the table.
And not sure why the snide remarks. Educate rather than insult. Trust me, I am learning a great deal with our discussion. More so than I would have otherwise.

You'd have to ask the LEOs, I don't pretend to know the thoughts of others, and I'm not being snide, I'm being direct.

I'm not sure what "snide remarks" you're referring to. I can see that you may not be used to "arguing" in a formal way, but if you are really interested in learning to formally discuss things ... you should be wary of yourself when you make statements in your logic like "so what you're really saying is ... "

It's considered bad form to restate someone else's argument to make it easy to attack. If you can't quote what someone said directly, you're probably not actually dealing with THEIR argument, but with yours.

Consider the composition of the "LEOs" we're talking about ... Oregon State Police, County Deputies, FBI and other Federal Agents. These different levels of jurisdiction typically really HATE working together, etc. I find it very difficult to believe that these disparate forces would conspire to do anything, much less murder a man when the whole operation had been designed to take the leaders of the occupation in as peacefully as possible.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
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.

Are you implying that people who do not trust what the FBI is saying 100% are somehow crazy?

Really? Is that what you are implying?

Finicum was shot with his hands in the air. He was murdered. His whole group was ambushed and this proves it was premeditated murder. It was a planned murder with malicious intent.

a reply to: GeisterFahrer

Look up the difference between implication and inferrence and get back to me.

Finicum was not "shot with his hands in the air." He was not "murdered." I'm not going to waste time with irrational beliefs.

Finicum evaded arrest, fled the scene, endangered others, assaulted police officers with deadly force, disobeyed commands to surrender, and he was armed and dangerous.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
Sorry fixed the paragraph.

It means when you are being taken into custody you should listen to what the officer is telling you. Not complying can result in the police perceiving you as an immediate threat.

You make your argument in court and not roadside.

Well, at least they're releasing video, good move. I was a bit worried they'd cover it up.

But yes, I have to agree, even if it's a jelly bean road stop for license checks, rolling through it is uncool, you get attention you don't want and everyone's pissy with each other, because you are acting in a way that aggressive, dangerous people act, which can lead to bad outcomes because everyone's on edge.

And in this case, it's more than a jellybean road stop.

And the guy you just stopped has sworn to die and take you with him, so it's sort of a no-brainer to be perhaps overly edgy.

Were I this Finicum guy, I sure wouldn't have picked that time and place with that set of preliminaries as being just the right time to be Mr CopBlock or whatever. Not very smart, if getting killed wasn't your intent.

originally posted by: Discotech
a reply to: imitator

You know, watching it we can clearly see he IS reaching for something

But without sound it's entirely plausible to imagine he gets out of the car hands up, struggles for a bit in the snow, one rambo cop shoots, which causes him to reach for his gun and end up dead.

Maybe they fired a warning shot at him ?
Maybe they fired at him but missed with the intention of getting him to draw any concealed hand gun ?
Maybe one of the cops accidentally fired a shot ?

It just seems strange that Finicum comes out hands up and then afterwards decides to go for his gun instead of just coming out shooting

Without any audio it's incredibly difficult to put the pieces together

Not to mention those 2 cops closest to him either side are incredibly stupid for getting into a crossfire position, they could have shot each other

What can you do but realize there are some with an open mind, willing to follow the truth where ever it leads and are willing to speculate down possible paths like a good forensic scientist. Then there are some who like open and shut cases when they think they have convincing evidence. A big fan of Sherlock Holmes books as a child, I recall the theme over and over was to "eliminate all the possibilities and all that was left must be the truth".

Now lets suppose Informer's theory is right. A conundrum without all of the data such as sound. Informer has a point, if a bit wacky to some. I get what he is pointing out. Without reasonable proof, there is something to be said for he was shot upon attempt to surrender and was possibly reacting to that . Therefore in Holmes' fashion, the case is not closed even if it looks like the odds are suicide by cop.

We have another issue here of simply needing more data that we can all trust. With the track record of lying about everything big and small we have reason to take pause every time there are situations of death . This only matters if the Feds do an end around of our freedoms for real gun confiscation as we saw last century.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
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.

These snide remarks. Totally and completely off topic and bring nothing to the discussion.

And from reading your link you posted (the one you snidely said I wouldn't even bother with) I am leaning a great deal about the use of excessive force.

The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable. It is not better that all felony suspects die than that they escape. Where the suspect poses no immediate threat to the officer and no threat to others, the harm resulting from failing to apprehend him does not justify the use of deadly force to do so. It is no doubt unfortunate when a suspect who is in sight escapes, but the fact that the police arrive a little late or are a little slower afoot does not always justify killing the suspect. A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead. The Tennessee statute is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes the use of deadly force against such fleeing suspects.

But then the next paragraph says this

It is not, however, unconstitutional on its face. Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force. Thus, if the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon or there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm, deadly force may be used if necessary to prevent escape, and if, where [471 U.S. 1, 12] feasible, some warning has been given. As applied in such circumstances, the Tennessee statute would pass constitutional muster.

Which leads me to believe the officer that got run over did so to justify the use of deadly force. Like I said, taking one for the team.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: GeisterFahrer
and he was armed and dangerous.

So you're willing to believe that narrative, but find it irrational that the LEO's only recourse was excessive force?

a reply to: rollanotherone

First I didn't make that remark to you personally, and no, it's not off-topic at all. As the course of this "discussion" has proceeded, the wildest absurdities have been brought up to suggest that we should deny what we see, clearly with our own eyes. We're dealing with fringe conspiracy theories here ... (like the Federal Government can't hold property or that the Bundys are not subject to the Constitution and laws of the land) ... and so my comparison with other well-known crazy theories is actually quite apt.

You brought up Tennesee v. Garner and obviously hadn't bothered to read it as the text of the decision backs up my statement that you claimed to find fault with. You hadn't demonstrated that you actually bother to quote or refer to what others actually say in favor of your own thoughts ... so I really don't think anything Iv'e said rises to the level of being "snide."

If you do ... two things: 1) I'll apologize if you got your feelings hurt and 2) Might want to toughen up a bit if you're going to frequent internet discussion boards.

Everything you're saying about the actions of the LEOS presumes that they are acting illegally or dishonestly: this is not fact, this is your belief.

originally posted by: rollanotherone

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: GeisterFahrer
and he was armed and dangerous.

So you're willing to believe that narrative, but find it irrational that the LEO's only recourse was excessive force?

What? He was armed. He was dangerous. He resisted arrest, endangered others, assaulted officers. On video.

It's not for me to second-guess the men on the scene nor their actions which happen clearly right before our eyes.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
assaulted officers. On video.
.

You must be in the wrong thread, there is no officers being assaulted in the Finicum murder.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I don't know about you, but I never saw a gun on the video.

And no, feelings aren't hurt. I live, I learn. And ATS has been my go to news source and the opinions given have been amazing for the past couple of years. I don't nessecarily agree with everything you post, but I'm always willing to learn from anyone and everyone.

As far as believing what LEO reports, I've seen first hand the lies and manipulation, demonstrated by the Portland Police Dept. Anything to save their hide.

a reply to: imitator

Yes and no. He did flee which gives open season on "felons".

a reply to: rollanotherone

true but he had his hands up....
no excuse to murder a man or felon while surrendering..

a reply to: imitator

We should have a channel dedicated to murdering people who we feel has done something wrong!

Entertainment for all!

I think he had his hands up heard that someone was behind him and attempted to draw his weapon resulting in his death.
I wouldn't call it an execution I think he did attempt to run the blockade and I can see why he was shot, could have been handled better of course but we don't know what was said yet.
Not happy anyone gets shot but If a guy is attempting to pull a gun out on me I would shoot him like most would.

originally posted by: imitator
a reply to: rollanotherone

true but he had his hands up....

Until he dropped them whilst reaching for his gun....