Shawna Cox and Victoria Sharp's Interviews Match Precisely- LaVoy Finicum WAS Murdered in Oregon

a reply to: Indigo5

Nope. And no intention of watching it. Say and think what you will (you will anyway) I've seen a few stills, asked some questions, and I've read more analysis of this video than probably anyone, and combined with the statement of the FBI, it's not that difficult to figure it out. Well, enough to know that the video really isn't high enough quality for anyone to know much for sure.

a reply to: Indigo5

And your transcript doesn't agree with what you tried to portray earlier in the thread of "just 3 shots".

Stop being dishonest.

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Indigo5

And your transcript doesn't agree with what you tried to portray earlier in the thread of "just 3 shots".

Stop being dishonest.

(a) Don't ever quote me whilst fictionalizing what I say...

(b) You did the same with Victoria Sharps testimony...Made up stuff and stuck it in qoutes saying she said it ...to support your BS....when I asked you to cite it in the video...you retreated to ...uhhh...I was paraphrasing.

(c) Not "my" transcript, but her literal words that I transcribed and linked to....which clearly articulate that there were NO SHOTS between the time LaVoy left the vehicle and the time he was shot three times in quick succession.

YOU had claimed they were shooting at him while he was stumbling with his hands up...and that is why he was grasping at his waist..

You provided a quote by Victoria..in quotation marks...that she never said.

I provided the transcript...She says the bullets stopped when the truck hit the snowbank...he exits....then3 quick shots and he drops immediately. No other shots fired at him after he exits the vehicle and the time he drops.


Actually don't respond to me anymore...each post is the same....BS ...fake quotations....and personal garbage in place of substance.

a reply to: Indigo5

Dude, you can't talk your way out of it or try to shift blame. You flat out lied earlier in this thread and attempted to say only 3 shots were fired. It is obvious now that you intended to lie. You are trying everything you can to discredit what I've said in this post but I think you are the only one who believes your spin. It's obvious you are having trouble putting basic ideas together.

Then this:

Actually don't respond to me anymore

Which is your way of trying to back out of this conversation because you are mired in your own circular logic.

Lord help me...I have been citing video and Victoria's own words and you are simply saying stuff and inventing quotes.

And for me providing evidence disagreeing with your inventions...you call me dishonest?

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: TrueAmerican

From the video this is what I perceive to have happened.

Agents stopped the truck Finicum was driving. It does not look like they ever approached the vehicle or identified themselves. They are not allowed to stop a vehicle without communicating with the vehicle.

Victoria said that they loudspeakered to the vehicle near immediately and extensively..Want me to find that part in the audio for you?

When people say he was reaching in his jacket I believe he was actually grasping wounds. His jacked was fully zipped so he was not reaching inside it for weapons.

I showed the zoomed up video with his jacket clearly unzipped and swinging open...
Jacket unzipped. reaching across to waistline

I think he may have been being shot as he was running with his hands up. .

Nope. No shots fired between the time he exited and the time he was shot 3 times and went down immediately…so no he was not shot while running.

1:18:10 Mark

"Then as soon as the vehicle came to a stop, LaVoy opened his door and I kind Popped my head up a little bit because the bullets stopped coming when we stopped, when the vehicle stopped"

….

"But I just know as soon as it came to a stop, he opened the door and he got out with his hands up and started walking and said if your gonna shoot, just shoot me..And I didn't think they would, because he had his hands up and he wasn't being aggressive..He was stumbling....but he had his hands up the whole time (Clearly not true according to video)"

"And next thing you knew, somebody shot him, like 3 consecutive shots"

Interviewer: "So you heard 3 shots pop, pop, pop?"

"Yes."

"Yes, we saw him go down right as the first 3 shots hit him"

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Indigo5

You seem to be intentionally twisting the witnesses words by taking snippets out of context. You take:

"There we a lot of bullets coming into the truck, he exited then three more shots"

She never said the above. You quoted it like she did...but that sentence does not exist in her audio. To the contrary, she said the bullets had stopped when the truck hit the snowbank and before LaVoy exited....her words...not mine.

Transcript above...So again..between the time he exited and the time he immediately went down with "three consecutive shots" "pop, pop, pop"...there were no other shots fired.

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Indigo5

Dude, you can't talk your way out of it or try to shift blame. You flat out lied earlier in this thread and attempted to say only 3 shots were fired. It is obvious now that you intended to lie. You are trying everything you can to discredit what I've said in this post but I think you are the only one who believes your spin. It's obvious you are having trouble putting basic ideas together.

Then this:

Actually don't respond to me anymore

Which is your way of trying to back out of this conversation because you are mired in your own circular logic.

I have been following this thread in its entirety and I believe Indigo has practiced intellectual practices of discussion use reason and common sense.

On the other hand I have seen other posts stating conjecture and hearsay as fact, I won't name names at this point but you know who you are. Clearly we all have emotions about this issue but we should try and reserve those emotions so that we may have a thoughtful and substantive debate.

I do not believe Indigo is purposely trying to spread misinformation nor do I see where he did the things that you are claiming.

a reply to: TrueAmerican

I just finished watching this interview with Shawna. Big, long sigh......................... That was emotional for me, too.

She said she was given information prior to this interview but after seeing the FBI video, from whom she didn't say, that there were three bullet holes/gunshot wounds (forget her terminology) in LaVoy's body, all in his back.

There were no arrest warrants for any of them until after the fact.

She said whenever the guys went to a meeting in town they weren't armed even though she thought the guys probably had their guns when she was questioned in her first interviews. She didn't know for sure then but guessed.

a reply to: Indigo5

Again, just making yourself look dense.

Let's look at my first quote:

From the video this is what I perceive to have happened.

Is there any audio in the video? No. This is before I watched the interview. I said clearly From the video which was my intention to imply it was in reference to the FBI video. If that wasn't clear let me make it clear now: That post was specifically referring to the aerial video. Once I watched the HOUR PLUS interview videos it is obvious they were being communicated with over a PA system.

For my second quote in your post you again are dishonest because I agreed to your point after you showed me that video.

a reply to: raymundoko

Clearly dishonesty and deflection is your go-to argument style.

You also ignored this post which showed how wrong you were on your dishonesty about my changing claims:

raymundoko

And to your last point about not getting shot at when they stopped, simply more dishonesty on your part:

a reply to: raymundoko

At 1:16:45 they start talking about the road block.

At 1:17:30 "When we hit the snowbank THEN we heard bullets, a lot of bullets actually. It sounded from the back and the front. We went for several feet. When we were moving there were a lot of bullets hitting from the front and back. As soon as we stopped at the snowbank right then is when I thought oh we are gonna die. They were shooting at us and everything was going kind of wild so I thought we would die. As soon as the vehicle came to a stop Lavoy opened his door" etc etc.

So you are intentionally obfuscating the issue by saying "see they stopped shooting as soon as the vehicle stopped" but you are talking about a 2-3 second time period between the vehicle stopping and Lavoy being outside with his hands up. So how can I not think you are a liar when you avoid the entire lead up where she says they were in the snow bank being shot and and thought they were going to die? You are cherry picking your evidence to support your narrative. YOU are the only one here being dishonest.

At 9:18 is when the vehicle comes to a complete stop, by 9:20 Lavoy has fully exited the vehicle. At 9:32 Lavoy is dead. As many people think, Lavoy seems to have exited the vehicle as a distraction to protect those inside the vehicle. So they only stopped firing BECAUSE he exited the vehicle with his hands up. If he had stayed in the vehicle no doubt they would have continued to shoot.

I also made it quite clear, since you were so confused as seems to be the norm, that I was paraphrasing with my quotes to make a point. I can type more slowly if you prefer.

let's look at an early post of yours, which lines up with several others:

3 quick shots and he dropped where he was standing. No prior shots fired (when he frantically reached while walking to his final position)

She says 3 shots, consecutive shots, pop,pop,pop "we saw him go down right as the FIRST 3 shots hit him"

3 quick shots and he immediately went down. Pop, Pop, Pop...pause...3 more pop pop pop....when he was down.

Surely you see how you are attempting to obfuscate the issue. It was a lot more than 3 shots, and to say no prior shots fired? C'MON MAN. 3 shots may have killed him but it seems apparent dozens of shots (or more) may have been fired. According to both witnesses the windshield was riddled with bullet holes. I guess those were accidents while aiming for the tires huh?

Edit: a reply to: beyondtruth

Specifically see above where he started the narrative in this thread that only 3 shots were fired. He was dishonest to a high degree, especially with the "No prior shots fired" which I bolded from his post.

Then in this post: Indigo5 Indigo says:

I see no officers firing. The rear window and windshield is intact. No reaction from anyone in the car as if they are being fired on...no ducking...not even flinching

Knowing full well that we are looking at the WRONG SIDE of the vehicle and that nowhere in the interview was the rear window mentioned in relation to the shots at the first stop. Obfuscate, obfuscate, obfuscate.

He was called out for that here: raymundoko but notice he ignored the meat and focused on where I paraphrased. This is a tactic of someone who lost an argument and is being petty. Please note, that although I paraphrased my quote is accurate.

I simply shortened:

At 1:17:30 "When we hit the snowbank THEN we heard bullets, a lot of bullets actually. It sounded from the back and the front. We went for several feet. When we were moving there were a lot of bullets hitting from the front and back. As soon as we stopped at the snowbank right then is when I thought oh we are gonna die. They were shooting at us and everything was going kind of wild so I thought we would die. As soon as the vehicle came to a stop Lavoy opened his door" etc etc.

To:

There we a lot of bullets coming into the truck, he exited then three more shot

In order to get my point across that he was picking and choosing what he wanted to use for his narrative. In this case he only wants to use the "Three shots only" line.

Shawna's statement in this part of the vid is very clear:
@37:16
Interviewer:
"did they fire before he moved his hand? was there shots fired?"
Shawna:
"absolutely, absolutely. there was all kinds of bullets going..he had his hands out and they were shooting while he was walking towards them with his hands out."
Interviewer (very softly)
"Ok"
That contradicts what Indigo is saying. I haven't watched the CNN vid yet but I will try later tonight.

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Indigo5

Again, just making yourself look dense.

Let's look at my first quote:

From the video this is what I perceive to have happened.

Is there any audio in the video? No. This is before I watched the interview. I said clearly From the video which was my intention to imply it was in reference to the FBI video. If that wasn't clear let me make it clear now: That post was specifically referring to the aerial video. Once I watched the HOUR PLUS interview videos it is obvious they were being communicated with over a PA system.

For my second quote in your post you again are dishonest because I agreed to your point after you showed me that video.

a reply to: raymundoko

Clearly dishonesty and deflection is your go-to argument style.

You also ignored this post which showed how wrong you were on your dishonesty about my changing claims:

raymundoko

And to your last point about not getting shot at when they stopped, simply more dishonesty on your part:

a reply to: raymundoko

At 1:16:45 they start talking about the road block.

At 1:17:30 "When we hit the snowbank THEN we heard bullets, a lot of bullets actually. It sounded from the back and the front. We went for several feet. When we were moving there were a lot of bullets hitting from the front and back. As soon as we stopped at the snowbank right then is when I thought oh we are gonna die. They were shooting at us and everything was going kind of wild so I thought we would die. As soon as the vehicle came to a stop Lavoy opened his door" etc etc.

So you are intentionally obfuscating the issue by saying "see they stopped shooting as soon as the vehicle stopped" but you are talking about a 2-3 second time period between the vehicle stopping and Lavoy being outside with his hands up. So how can I not think you are a liar when you avoid the entire lead up where she says they were in the snow bank being shot and and thought they were going to die? You are cherry picking your evidence to support your narrative. YOU are the only one here being dishonest.

At 9:18 is when the vehicle comes to a complete stop, by 9:20 Lavoy has fully exited the vehicle. At 9:32 Lavoy is dead. As many people think, Lavoy seems to have exited the vehicle as a distraction to protect those inside the vehicle. So they only stopped firing BECAUSE he exited the vehicle with his hands up. If he had stayed in the vehicle no doubt they would have continued to shoot.

I also made it quite clear, since you were so confused as seems to be the norm, that I was paraphrasing with my quotes to make a point. I can type more slowly if you prefer.

let's look at an early post of yours, which lines up with several others:

3 quick shots and he dropped where he was standing. No prior shots fired (when he frantically reached while walking to his final position)

She says 3 shots, consecutive shots, pop,pop,pop "we saw him go down right as the FIRST 3 shots hit him"

3 quick shots and he immediately went down. Pop, Pop, Pop...pause...3 more pop pop pop....when he was down.

Surely you see how you are attempting to obfuscate the issue. It was a lot more than 3 shots, and to say no prior shots fired? C'MON MAN. 3 shots may have killed him but it seems apparent dozens of shots (or more) may have been fired. According to both witnesses the windshield was riddled with bullet holes. I guess those were accidents while aiming for the tires huh?

Edit: a reply to: beyondtruth

Specifically see above where he started the narrative in this thread that only 3 shots were fired. He was dishonest to a high degree, especially with the "No prior shots fired" which I bolded from his post.

Then in this post: Indigo5 Indigo says:

I see no officers firing. The rear window and windshield is intact. No reaction from anyone in the car as if they are being fired on...no ducking...not even flinching

Knowing full well that we are looking at the WRONG SIDE of the vehicle and that nowhere in the interview was the rear window mentioned in relation to the shots at the first stop. Obfuscate, obfuscate, obfuscate.

He was called out for that here: raymundoko but notice he ignored the meat and focused on where I paraphrased. This is a tactic of someone who lost an argument and is being petty. Please note, that although I paraphrased my quote is accurate.

I simply shortened:

At 1:17:30 "When we hit the snowbank THEN we heard bullets, a lot of bullets actually. It sounded from the back and the front. We went for several feet. When we were moving there were a lot of bullets hitting from the front and back. As soon as we stopped at the snowbank right then is when I thought oh we are gonna die. They were shooting at us and everything was going kind of wild so I thought we would die. As soon as the vehicle came to a stop Lavoy opened his door" etc etc.

To:

There we a lot of bullets coming into the truck, he exited then three more shot

In order to get my point across that he was picking and choosing what he wanted to use for his narrative. In this case he only wants to use the "Three shots only" line.

The part of her story that doesn't make sense is all these bullets and no one is hit while in the vehicle?? Something isn't right there bullets would have tore through that vehicle.This part makes no sense also if your being shot us the last thing you do is get out of the only cover you have if anything you hide behind it. You don't go walking to give them a clear shot. This tells me he wasn't worried about being shot at all.I know if I have bullets flying at my car I'd hide behind it and stay low. His actions are more like a dare maybe that's what he meant by shoot me??

a reply to: dragonridr

The part of her story that doesn't make sense is all these bullets and no one is hit while in the vehicle??

maybe they were rubber bullets. That would explain why Shawna said the bullets didn't break the side window

if your being shot us the last thing you do is get out of the only cover you have

unless you know you are the target and you are trying to protect the women in the truck.

His actions are more like a dare maybe that's what he meant by shoot me??

I think it's because he knew they wanted to murder him.

a reply to: dragonridr

Bundy WAS shot while inside the vehicle staying as low as possible. He was shot in the arm.

Here is a scholarly article about how difficult it is for shooting at a vehicle to be effective for hitting a target in the car, specifically wind shields:

Direct Link PDF

This was also a lifted tank of a truck.

originally posted by: OveRcuRrEnteD
Shawna's statement in this part of the vid is very clear:
@37:16
Interviewer:
"did they fire before he moved his hand? was there shots fired?"
Shawna:
"absolutely, absolutely. there was all kinds of bullets going..he had his hands out and they were shooting while he was walking towards them with his hands out."
Interviewer (very softly)
"Ok"
That contradicts what Indigo is saying. I haven't watched the CNN vid yet but I will try later tonight.

Just to be clear that contradicts what Victoria says..Not "Indigo"

1:18:10 Mark

"Then as soon as the vehicle came to a stop, LaVoy opened his door and I kind Popped my head up a little bit because the bullets stopped coming when we stopped, when the vehicle stopped"

In response to the Q about whether he could have already been wounded...she refers to before the vehicle hit the bank while it was speeding toward the roadblock

"I don't know if he got hit, he could have got hit, cuz there were a lot of bullets coming from the front"
"He could have ducked down"
"I remember seeing holes in the windshield were he was"
"He may of been hit, I am just not sure" (Shoulder Shrug)

"But I just know as soon as it came to a stop, he opened the door and he got out with his hands up and started walking and said if your gonna shoot, just shoot me..And I didn't think they would, because he had his hands up and he wasn't being aggressive..He was stumbling....but he had his hands up the whole time (Clearly not true according to video)"

"And next thing you knew, somebody shot him, like 3 consecutive shots"

Interviewer: "So you heard 3 shots pop, pop, pop?"

"Yes."

"Yes, we saw him go down right as the first 3 shots hit him"

* Note ...I would appreciate people not attributing something said right there in the OP video to me as if I am making things up. I am citing her words.

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: dragonridr

Bundy WAS shot while inside the vehicle staying as low as possible. He was shot in the arm.

It makes sense that most of the shots, if not all, were likely aimed at the tires.

My hypothesis is that (ironically) since Bundy was down on the floor of the vehicle he got hit by a bullet that penetrated the wheel-well.

a reply to: Indigo5

You are citing her words, but omitting her words just a few seconds before.

I have quoted it for you again:

At 1:17:30 "When we hit the snowbank THEN we heard bullets, a lot of bullets actually. It sounded from the back and the front. We went for several feet. When we were moving there were a lot of bullets hitting from the front and back. As soon as we stopped at the snowbank right then is when I thought oh we are gonna die. They were shooting at us and everything was going kind of wild so I thought we would die. As soon as the vehicle came to a stop Lavoy opened his door

Note, they did not stop shooting until Lavoy got out of the vehicle. She is saying they stopped shooting when they stopped and Lavoy exited the vehicle. As can be seen this was about a one second time frame. You are conveniently using an excerpt out of context. It completely changes the narrative when that is done. By her account Lavoy exited the Vehicle WHILE they were being shot at and the shots stopped when he exited the vehicle with his hands up.

a reply to: Indigo5

Yet there are many bullet holes in the windshield according to both witnesses. It is a lifted truck so the windshield is quite a ways from the tires. I think they poorly positioned the road block knowing he wouldn't see it in time giving them the green light to open fire. If you look at the roadway there are several straightaways they could have positioned the block at. They however chose to position it at a very well placed tactical location in an ambush type setup. It left the truck in cold weather conditions with no choice but to swerve to miss the vehicles and smash into the snow bank. It also opened up the ability to legally open fire on the vehicle.

a reply to: raymundoko

If you are claiming that they shot at the vehicle before it came to a stop and for the brief time it slid to stop after hitting the snowbank..Yes. that is likely.

But what you originally claimed was that she attested to them shooting at LaVoy as he was stumbling and running immediately after he exited and before the 3 consecutive quick shots that dropped him where he stood.

And she was clear that the bullets stopped once the car came to a stop and then Roy exited.

Car moving?: Yes bullets likely being fired?
Car impacting snow-bank? Sure? Maybe?

But she clearly says the bullets stopped when the vehicle came to a stop...and that there was only 3 shots after that...and those shots immediately dropped LaVoy..

So according to her he was not being shot out between the time he exited the vehicle and the time we see him dropping in the video...her words...3 shots, rapid succession..."pop, pop, pop" and he drops.

You keep mudding up the audio etc. with various excerpts about different times in her story.

She was clearly grilled about the time between when Roy exited and the time he died. Only 3 quick shots and he immediately dropped.

originally posted by: Indigo5
You keep mudding up the audio etc. with various excerpts about different times in her story.

This says it all. The various excerpts put the entire thing in context, they ALL have to be taken into consideration. You specifically care about one section of audio that if taken out of context, as you have done, completely changes the narrative.

As far as:

But what you originally claimed was that she attested to them shooting at LaVoy as he was stumbling and running immediately after he exited

I said that I thought he was being shot at after he exited the vehicle, NOWHERE did I say immediately. I said I thought his arm movements looked more like grasping wounds, either already inflicted or inflicted at the time, than reaching for a weapon. As you said though, the autopsy will show if that is the case. Your dishonesty about what I said early in the thread was already addressed here: Post by raymundoko

That is the 3rd time I have posted it for you.

I gave several option on what I thought could have happened. More review of evidence as it comes will no doubt change or confirm my thoughts.

Edit: Format

originally posted by: raymundoko

originally posted by: Indigo5
You keep mudding up the audio etc. with various excerpts about different times in her story.

This says it all. The various excerpts put the entire thing in context, they ALL have to be taken into consideration. You specifically care about one section of audio that if taken out of context, as you have done, completely changes the narrative.

1:18:20
because the bullets stopped coming when we stopped, when the vehicle stopped"

"3 consecutive shots, like at the same time hit him"

(Interviewer obviously digging for prior shots to account for LaVoy reaching for waist)
Interviewer: So you heard three shots, pop, pop, pop..

"Yes"

"We saw him go down right as the first 3 shots hit"

Now...she says a lot of other stuff...but NONE of it contradicts what she says above..

Her words...not mine...

a reply to: raymundoko

This is what you said...And while you continue to cite your rebuttal calling me dishonest...as if citing one insult supports another?...I am citing your actual post here?

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Indigo5

I don't think he was reaching in his pocket. His jacked was fully zipped. I think he was clutching a wound. I think he was being shot while he was running with his hands up causing him to grab his body.

You have called me dishonest for showing that his coat was not zipped...
And you have called me dishonest for citing the OPs testimony showing he was not "being shot while he was running"?..

I have simply provided words spoken in the OP link that clearly dispute the claims...