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.

 

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

page: 9
66
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 10:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5


Hyperbole and emotion.


Hyperbole? No. It is what it is. Emotion? You bet! I find it very disturbing -- emotionally and intellectually -- to know a man was gunned down because those who put him in a no-win situation were "afraid" for their lives. They never should have put anyone in that situation.


I doubt any of those officers were gleefully planning a murder.


I would very much like to believe that, but I don't. Rather I suspect that at least one officer of the law, the one who created and designed this death trap, did exactly that. Perhaps more.


To the contrary in order to follow through on his declaration that he would never be taken alive, he had to flee the police, nearly ram a road block, jump out of the vehicle and repeatedly reach for his gun while shouting "Just shoot me".


Since neither of us can be sure of what happened prior to this, specifically what aggressive and life-threatening actions were taken against Mr. Finicum by the law enforcement present, nor can anyone know exactly what Mr. Finicum was reaching for or towards, it is impossible to make such a blanket statement. Further, for one who questions the parts of the eyewitness statements which cast blame on the officers, I find it inconsistent for you to accept without question those parts of their statement which casts blame on Finicum.


Or we can examine evidence and video.


The only evidence we have is a seriously flawed video and the eyewitness statements. Release the vehicle for public display and examination and we'll have some real evidence to confirm or deny the eyewitness accounts.

Release the 9mm for examination and testing. For example, are Mr. Finicum's fingerprints even on that weapon? Can anyone confirm that he owned a 9mm prior to his death? Provide paperwork for the purchase? Until then, we have absolutely no evidence that he owned or had possession of that gun prior to his death... only the word of those who killed him. That's not evidence.


Law enforcement is required to enforce the law.


There is no law on the books which required this ambush or to kill Mr. Finicum or anyone. There is, however, an inalienable natural right to life, and therefore a Constitutional right to life, which was blatantly violated.


He had a felony warrant out for his arrest and law enforcement gave him weeks of opportunity to peacefully negotiate a surrender.


So? My point still stands. Whatever crimes Mr. Finicum committed, he was innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, and it was the responsibility of the law enforcement agencies/officers to arrest him without endangering anyone's life -- so no playing judge, jury and executioner on the spot.


That is virtually unprecedented.


No, it's not. Most recently, consider the Occupy protest which commandeered a public park for months. There are many more examples. This ambush and resultant killing of a man who had not hurt anyone, and only promised to defend against violence against him and others, is unprecedented.


I see no way this scenario can be described as a "scenario" law enforcement created.


Then I have to believe that you are willfully blind. Mr. Finicum did not create and man the roadblock that led to his inevitable death, and you know that.


Frankly given everything that led up to this and the patience that was afforded...that is outrageous.


Frankly, given the outcome, the FBI and other federal agencies never even tried to negotiate in good faith, and were simply biding their time to do their dirty deeds in a way that best afforded a cover for their dirty deeds... and that is outrageous.




posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 10:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

What are your thoughts on the agent jumping in front of the moving vehicle? As soon as that happened the vehicle was a weapon and they were free to open fire. You think that agent jumped in front of it on accident? His intentions sure seemed clear in the video.



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 11:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5

Next ...as we follow your ever changing claim...we can ponder why and how a man with a serious gut shot (by your claim) is able to leap out of the vehicle quickly and move as quickly as he does...and feels the need to shout "just shoot me" when he has already been profoundly shot?



Indigo5 I think your post discredits anything you say here, obviously you never seen a person shot or you haven't researched this issue, sadly there is plenty of youtube videos showing people running and screaming after being shot etc.


edit on 2-2-2016 by imitator because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 11:08 AM
link   
a reply to: beyondtruth


You say that Finicum was in a situation that the authorities created, but that's just not true.


Yes, it is. Mr. Finicum did not design and implement that ambush. Mr. Finicum did not ask them to design and implement that ambush. Mr. Finicum did not know anyone had designed and implemented that ambush.

The law enforcement officials created and implemented that ambush. They were under no obligation to do so. That was not the only option available to them. Mr. Finicum did not and could not force any law enforcement agency and/or official to do anything. Those who made this happen are responsible for their own decisions and actions.


No one forced Finicum to get involved and threaten authorities by stating that he would not be taken alive.


Again, no one forced the authorities to create a dangerous death trap. Mr. Finicum did not have that power. Only the ones who made that decision to do so.


He put himself in the perilous situation and frankly no one should be surprised that someone dies after taking off from police and leading them on a high speed chase before crashing into a roadblock.


Nor should anyone be surprised that someone takes off after being shot at by those who have taken an oath to the law and the public. Mr. Finicum had every right to protect his life from those who would threaten his life. Instead he sacrificed his life to save the life of others.

Who has my respect? Not the law enforcement involved. Who has my contempt? Not Mr. Finicum.
edit on 2-2-2016 by Boadicea because: clarity



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 11:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Indigo5

What are your thoughts on the agent jumping in front of the moving vehicle? As soon as that happened the vehicle was a weapon and they were free to open fire. You think that agent jumped in front of it on accident? His intentions sure seemed clear in the video.


My thoughts are that there is a poorly thought out theory/claim that the officer intentionally threw himself in front speeding pick-up truck, severely risking being run over or pinned by the truck..and chose to risk his life so that he and others might have the chance to shoot someone.

That is a severely stupid hypothesis ..in my strong opinion. Those officers were within their legal rights to open fire on the truck once it was clear it was not stopping for the roadblock. No officer needed to dive in front of a speeding pick-up truck to afford himself the opportunity to fire on the truck. That officer believed the truck was going to ram the vehicle he was stationed behind and dove to avoid being pinned or struck on impact. He did not dive in hopes of being struck by the vehicle, nor is he some superman with super reflexes able to predict in milliseconds how the truck would strike the snow and realize it would miss him by a couple of feet.



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 11:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: imitator

originally posted by: Indigo5

Next ...as we follow your ever changing claim...we can ponder why and how a man with a serious gut shot (by your claim) is able to leap out of the vehicle quickly and move as quickly as he does...and feels the need to shout "just shoot me" when he has already been profoundly shot?



Indigo5 I think your post discredits anything you say here


Good luck with that aspirational big brush. I am simply pointing to factual evidence, video and witness accounts. You might be better off in your campaign by simply claiming the video is fabricated altogether?



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 11:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: beyondtruth


You say that Finicum was in a situation that the authorities created, but that's just not true.


Yes, it is. Mr. Finicum did not design and implement that ambush. Mr. Finicum did not ask them to design and implement that ambush. Mr. Finicum did not know anyone had designed and implemented that ambush.

The law enforcement officials created and implemented that ambush. They were under no obligation to do so.


When there is a felony warrant out for someone's arrest and those being stopped are aware of the same and have refused to surrender despite weeks of opportunity, I do not believe the word "ambush" applies...It was technically a "Felony Stop"



A "felony" or "high-risk" traffic stop occurs when police stop a vehicle which they have strong reason to believe contains a driver or passenger suspected of having committed a serious crime, especially of a nature that would lead the police to believe the suspect(s) may be armed (such as an armed robbery, assault with a weapon, or an outstanding felony warrant for the registered owner). In a high risk stop, officers attempt to provide their own safety by issuing instructions to maintain absolute control over every step of the proceedings.

They will have additional officers on scene for back-up, often waiting for additional officers to join up before initiating the stop. They will typically have their weapons drawn, and stay back from the suspect vehicle, using their patrol cars for cover. If there is no choice but to make the stop on a busy street, then they will often stop traffic. They will address the driver and any passengers over the PA speaker of the patrol car, typically instructing the driver to turn the engine off, remove the keys from the ignition, and sometimes toss them out the window. They will instruct the occupants, one at a time, to exit the vehicle with empty hands showing, place their hands on top of or behind their heads, walk backwards some distance, and then lay flat on the ground, where they will remain until all occupants have done likewise, at which point officers will move up, apply handcuffs, do a body search and then secure the suspects in the patrol cars. The vehicle is then typically searched for weapons and other evidence in accordance with the arresting Department's Standard Operating Procedures "S.O.P.'s".

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 11:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: beyondtruth

Nor should anyone be surprised that someone takes off after being shot at by those who have taken an oath to the law and the public.


You can fast forward to 7:30 and see before and when LaVoy takes off from the first stop.

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..and LaVoy never puts the vehicle in park the whole 5 minutes he is stopped. Break lights the whole time, he is planning to flee.

They are behind the vehicle and shooting at it, but do not shatter the rear window? And no one in the vehicle even flinches during these shots?




posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 12:31 PM
link   
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"

And say:

See, she said only three shots.

That is dishonesty at a high level.

a reply to: Indigo5

More dishonesty? You can't see any of the officers when they take off in that video, so you have no basis to make your claim. You also can't see the passenger side of the vehicle, which is where the witness said they shot at. It seems obvious you came into this with the intent of protecting the agents at all costs.
edit on 2-2-2016 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 12:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5


When there is a felony warrant out for someone's arrest and those being stopped are aware of the same and have refused to surrender despite weeks of opportunity, I do not believe the word "ambush" applies...It was technically a "Felony Stop"


Okay. Believe what you want. I'll believe what I want.

Beyond that, speaking to the wikipedia quote you provided, there is absolutely nothing in there that requires law enforcement to only arrest suspects via a "felony stop," nor is there anything which requires them to do so in the manner they did. That was their decision.

Not to be disrespectful or insulting, but this is how I see your rationalization:

"But Mommy, Sissy looked at me cross-eyed so I had to kill her!"

I wouldn't let my kids get away with kind of nonsense, and I sure won't condone the same nonsense from armed thugs acting on the taxpayer's dime without speaking out loud and clear. There is absolutely no good reason or excuse for how this was designed, implemented and executed.

And, incidentally, I am very well aware that officers' lives were also put in danger with this pathetic stunt, and I am equally outraged about that.



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 12:45 PM
link   
originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: Indigo5


Hyperbole? No. It is what it is. Emotion? You bet! I find it very disturbing -- emotionally and intellectually -- to know a man was gunned down because those who put him in a no-win situation were "afraid" for their lives. They never should have put anyone in that situation.


Again, he was not put in this situation by the authorities. He knew he was going to be arrested and he continued to run from the police.


The only evidence we have is a seriously flawed video and the eyewitness statements. Release the vehicle for public display and examination and we'll have some real evidence to confirm or deny the eyewitness accounts.


How is the video flawed? In what way? Because to me, someone who works in investigations and specializes in surveillance I think the video is solid. The only conclusion I can come to about your statement that the video is flawed is because either a) it's not shot on a steady cam with Hollywood Producers getting every action shot close up, or b) it frankly just doesnt fit your narrative and thus you would like to discredit the best evidence we have available. I'm betting it's b.


There is no law on the books which required this ambush or to kill Mr. Finicum or anyone. There is, however, an inalienable natural right to life, and therefore a Constitutional right to life, which was blatantly violated.


As Indigo correctly stated this was not really an ambush. The police didn't hunt Finicum down in his home and chase him from his property and then pull a Mack truck in front of him with dozens of police hiding in wait. You fled from the scene of a police traffic stop in which EVERY participant knew their status of being wanted by law enforcement and they decided to flee at a high rate of speed. Then they came upon a police road block with armed officers and flashing lights. Even IF that was his first sign that maybe he should stop running, I venture to say if he had stopped at the checkpoint Finicum would more than likely still be alive today.

your statements are getting further and further from reality.
edit on 2-2-2016 by beyondtruth because: Format



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 12:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5


You can fast forward to 7:30 and see before and when LaVoy takes off from the first stop.


I could... if I wanted to. But I won't... because I don't.


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..and LaVoy never puts the vehicle in park the whole 5 minutes he is stopped. Break lights the whole time, he is planning to flee.


I wish I could take your word for this. But I can't, because even the FBI statement made clear that that portion is obscured to one extent or another by trees due to the plane having to fly in a circular holding pattern. Neither do I believe the quality of the video is such that you can unquivocally discern exactly how those inside reacted, nor do I believe that all people react the same in such a situation. Ever heard the saying "paralyzed in fear?"



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 12:59 PM
link   
a reply to: TrueAmerican


Okay so, if they planned to "murder" them, please answer the following:

1. Why did they put a drone up to film it?
2. Why did they release that video at all?
3. Why was he the only one killed?
4. Why have they not done anything to the 4 remaining in the camp?

You see, you guys love to selectively pick and choose the nonsense supporting your knee-jerk anti-government bs, no matter what. If they didn't have a drone up and no footage you would be screaming that he was "executed on his knees" still, right?

So, you're initial beliefs about him being on his knees and executed was proven wrong by this video, so now you move on to believing the next piece of bs instead.

And lets make something clear here, before this video was released the same people you are believing now claimed he was executed on his knees begging for his life to be spared.

The fact is, this man spent almost an entire month saying repeatedly that he would not allow them to arrest him. He then fled from that stop, at speed, almost hitting them. He then got out of that vehicle, acting irrationally, behaving in a threatening manner, and reaching for a weapon. They knew he and his co-conspirators were armed, they knew the threats he had been making all month.

Anyone who knows me on this forum knows that I have been vocally and openly critical of policing in the US, but there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that this was absolutely justified.

He was a part of an extremist, terrorist group who had made political demands while threatening violence. They had used kids as Human shields. They had openly stated more than a few times that they were dangerous. They were armed. He fled a stop at speed.

He deserved everything he got.



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 01:05 PM
link   
a reply to: beyondtruth


Again, he was not put in this situation by the authorities. He knew he was going to be arrested and he continued to run from the police.


Awwwww... Those po' widdle poweesemen wif awl the wesources of the countwy had no contwol o choice what they did. Yeah, right.


How is the video flawed? In what way? Because to me, someone who works in investigations and specializes in surveillance I think the video is solid.


That statement discredits only yourself. The video is shot from a distance, from a limited angle, low resolution, difficult lighting, no audio, and visibility is often obscured. Nothing solid about that. And yet you use it to justify killing a man.


As Indigo correctly stated this was not really an ambush. The police didn't hunt Finicum down in his home and chase him from his property and then pull a Mack truck in front of him with dozens of police hiding in wait.



1. a surprise attack by people lying in wait in a concealed position.


From those officers concealing themselves and lying in wait on side roads to the officers concealed and lying in wait at a manmade roadblock concealed around a bend in the road, this is, by definition, an ambush.


I venture to say if he had stopped at the checkpoint Finicum would more than likely still be alive today.


He did stop. You said so yourself. You saw the brakelights, remember? And he's still dead. So much for that theory.


your statements are getting further and further from reality.


LOL! Okay.


edit on 2-2-2016 by Boadicea because: delete redundant quote



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 01:14 PM
link   
Ok I realize you are not budging from your theory and your statements in the below quoted post only proves what I have said so I think unless something substantive comes up I have made my point and will just be watching from here out.

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: beyondtruth


Again, he was not put in this situation by the authorities. He knew he was going to be arrested and he continued to run from the police.


Awwwww... Those po' widdle poweesemen wif awl the wesources of the countwy had no contwol o choice what they did. Yeah, right.


How is the video flawed? In what way? Because to me, someone who works in investigations and specializes in surveillance I think the video is solid.


That statement discredits only yourself. The video is shot from a distance, from a limited angle, low resolution, difficult lighting, no audio, and visibility is often obscured. Nothing solid about that. And yet you use it to justify killing a man.


As Indigo correctly stated this was not really an ambush. The police didn't hunt Finicum down in his home and chase him from his property and then pull a Mack truck in front of him with dozens of police hiding in wait.



1. a surprise attack by people lying in wait in a concealed position.


From those officers concealing themselves and lying in wait on side roads to the officers concealed and lying in wait at a manmade roadblock concealed around a bend in the road, this is, by definition, an ambush.


I venture to say if he had stopped at the checkpoint Finicum would more than likely still be alive today.


He did stop. You said so yourself. You saw the brakelights, remember? And he's still dead. So much for that theory.


your statements are getting further and further from reality.


LOL! Okay.


edit on 2-2-2016 by beyondtruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 01:31 PM
link   
a reply to: beyondtruth


Ok I realize you are not budging from your theory.


No theory... but you're right in that I'm not budging from my position, unless and until facts prove me wrong. And conjecture and speculation aren't proof of anything.


I have made my point and will just be watching from here out.


Okay.



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 02:03 PM
link   

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"

And say:

See, she said only three shots..


You just entirely fabricated the above? She never said that????

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"

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"



** But at no time does she say what you claim she does in your post.. in quotes....**

Please explain why you are inserting fabrications into this discussion...repeatedly...

Or cite where in the video she says the sentence you are claiming she does....what I have provided are her words.
edit on 2-2-2016 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 02:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: beyondtruth

Awwwww... Those po' widdle poweesemen wif awl the wesources of the countwy had no contwol o choice what they did. Yeah, right.


Thanks for the reminder of the pointlessness of discussing facts with someone who communicates with all the credibility of a 4th grade bully troll.

edit on 2-2-2016 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 02:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5


Thanks for the reminder of the pointlessness of discussing facts with someone who communicates with all the credibility of a 4th grade bully troll.


LOL! Bully troll? That's a first!

But I do agree that it's pretty incredible to treat armed and trained officers of the law with every conceivable advantage and resource at their disposal as poor little helpless babies... or perhaps fourth graders?

All while imagining that one middle-aged man is the big bad boogeyman that's going to bring them all down singlehandedly.



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 02:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: Indigo5


Thanks for the reminder of the pointlessness of discussing facts with someone who communicates with all the credibility of a 4th grade bully troll.


LOL! Bully troll? That's a first!

But I do agree that it's pretty incredible to treat armed and trained officers of the law with every conceivable advantage and resource at their disposal as poor little helpless babies... or perhaps fourth graders?

All while imagining that one middle-aged man is the big bad boogeyman that's going to bring them all down singlehandedly.



It's not about being a big bad boogeyman it is a out being a fugitive that is refusing to adhere to the orders of police to stop your vehicle.

And I know I said I was not going to post any more until something substantive was brought up, but I don't like the fact that you are, from what I can gather, purposely misconstruing not only my words but also the facts presented in the video evidence.



Awwwww... Those po' widdle poweesemen wif awl the wesources of the countwy had no contwol o choice what they did. Yeah, right.


I don't speak this language but I understand your attempted insult to anyone who is using rational thoughts to address these events at hand, and frankly it is unfortunate that you feel the need to stoop to that level when many of us are trying to have a frank and intelligent discussion. It is also insulting to officers who put their lives on the line every day to protect us. The police obviously had a choice and their choice was to end the stand off in a way that not only has precedence but is also widely accepted among the law enforcement community worldwide.

Now were the police completely in the right and having made no mistakes during the standoff? It's possible they did make some mistakes and that is something that the investigation should look to find out and remedies found to stop those mistakes from happening in the future.


He did stop. You said so yourself. You saw the brakelights, remember? And he's still dead. So much for that theory.


This statement is ludicrous and you know it Boa. You claim that he did stop. He temporarily stopped the vehicle and then before they could be taken into custody he fled the scene. That is not stopping and you know it. I'm sorry but I can't sit back and let you twist my words.

Indigo has made some great points to which I agree and I also will not stand by and let him get bashed for stating his opinion to add to this discussion.
edit on 2-2-2016 by beyondtruth because: Sp



new topics

top topics



 
66
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join