Breaking: Lavoy Finicum Tased By OSP Implicates Murder By The Feds

originally posted by: spy66
The roadblock is not clasified by a legislation.

So the claim by you that it is "clasified as use of leathal force " was just made up by you!

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: spy66
The roadblock is not clasified by a legislation.

So the claim by you that it is "clasified as use of leathal force " was just made up by you!

Jesses christ kid. If you dont have Insight get some from somewhere else. Call the FBI or SWAT or what ever Counter terreorist unite you have where you live. THey will tell you how they clasify the nature of these Things. Because they have to know this, to know how to chose the right Method to do the job. No one choses a random roadblock out of thin air and hope it will work. These Things have been tested, studied and used.

Listen to this guy. He is X SWAT. www.oathkeepers.org...

www.portlandoregon.gov...

630.05 VEHICLE PURSUITS:

d. Barricading: Barricading is considered deadly physical force and subject to DIR 1010.10.

a reply to: spy66

I was about to post the same info and article from Oathkeepers!

For what it's worth, I asked an LEO if he thought this roadblock was their best and/or only option. He said no, unless they wanted to get someone killed, and that basically because of the way the roadblock was set up (and where), that Finicum was a "threat" to every officer there as soon as he came around the bend. He told me that he would have set the roadblock on a long, flat stretch of desert road, where there was nowhere to run and nowhere to hide, with officers and vehicles in front and behind him and all around. He also stated no officer should have been without cover when/if the occupant exited the car, especially if they knew he was armed and dangerous. So the information given in the article was not a surprise to me in terms of the lethal nature of this roadblock, but I was surprised to find out that law enforcement agencies actually consider them lethal.

Including the National Institute of Justice:

Boxing-In, Ramming, and Roadblocks

Boxing-in and ramming to be used only against violent felons and with permission by sworn supervisor monitoring pursuit. Not to be used by officers who have not completed prescribed training.

Roadblocks allowed when possible to pick safe location.

Roadblocks are “dangerous and difficult to properly establish.”

No roadblock maybe established until both dispatcher and pursuing officer have been notified.

There are three kinds of roadblock:

1. Fixed roadblocks, which block road to extent that little or no outlet remains.”

Fixed roadblocks are extremely dangerous and are rarely justifiable.”

Let me just repeat that last line: "Fixed Roadblocks are extremely dangerous and are rarely justifiable."

ETA: According to an OregonLive articles, the governer of Oregon and/or her congress critters contacted Obama and Jarrett and demanded they put an end to the standoff. I very much want to know who at the executive level knew about this "enforcement action" and approved it... or perhaps even ordered it. Oregon's senators, Wyden and another I don't remember his name right now, had complained earlier that day that the "virus" was spreading... "virus" meaning support for the Occupiers.

a reply to: Boadicea

For what it's worth, I asked an LEO if he thought this roadblock was their best and/or only option. He said no, unless they wanted to get someone killed, and that basically because of the way the roadblock was set up (and where), that Finicum was a "threat" to every officer there as soon as he came around the bend.

This is practically the same Words i have been using since i posted on this topic. It seams like the LEO you have been speaking to have had this type of training. You need specific Insight/training to understand what actually tok Place at this event.

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: Boadicea

For what it's worth, I asked an LEO if he thought this roadblock was their best and/or only option. He said no, unless they wanted to get someone killed, and that basically because of the way the roadblock was set up (and where), that Finicum was a "threat" to every officer there as soon as he came around the bend.

This is practically the same Words i have been using since i posted on this topic. It seams like the LEO you have been speaking to have had this type of training. You need specific Insight/training to understand what actually took place at this event.

It's possible. I didn't ask and he didn't say, but I wouldn't doubt it. He ran a meth task force several years ago, and I could see that kind of training being involved for example. Not saying it was, but it would make sense to me. He's the type of man that would take that kind of thing to heart. He'd never make it as an FBI guy... he's old school and still believes that he works for US. Much the same way my own police chief has told me that the public is their partner -- not the enemy.

Anyway, I'm with you on the known lethal nature of a fixed roadblock with no outlet. It's a death trap. And whoever set it up knew that.

a reply to: Boadicea
Funny thing. I spoke this afternoon with a retired Kentucky State Trooper, also "old school" who said the same thing. Such a road block couldn't be done in KY legally in his opinion---and his comment was, "I would hope they would have more sense that to do something that stupid. This was the feds idea I'm thinkin' and they were afraid not to do what they were told." According to his experience the feds come in with the attitude of "We're THE LAW and everybody better kowtow." so it takes a lot of backbone to stand up to them. They've been known to drop lines like, "You never know when you'll be hit with a DOJ investigation." into conversations---but they don't directly threaten. Kinda like local authorities say stuff like, "It would be a shame if your daughter lost her job at the courthouse." when courthouse corruption is being investigated.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: centarix

I'll thank you in advance for not telling me what I think. You're not in my head, nor are you welcome to try and get there. I have literally zero desire to murder you or anybody else, but I thank you for so eloquently displaying your "side's" complete inability to have a discussion without resorting to wildly over the top hyperbole and rhetoric.

I'm quite happy to leave you alone. You've given ample evidence why it's in everybody's best interest to avoid you at all costs.

The post was very harsh. But, you told me that cops can shoot anyone they want for putting their hand in their pocket. I think that pretty much justifies everything I said, which was quite harsh. I'm sorry but I really believe being around someone who thinks I should be shot if I put my hands near my pocket is a very dangerous person.

originally posted by: centarix
The post was very harsh. But, you told me that cops can shoot anyone they want for putting their hand in their pocket. I think that pretty much justifies everything I said, which was quite harsh. I'm sorry but I really believe being around someone who thinks I should be shot if I put my hands near my pocket is a very dangerous person.

The problem with your response is the complete lack of context in which a person could be shot for placing their hands in their pockets. If I am making an arrest the assumption is always the person you are dealing with can pose a risk. When I have information the person in question is known to be armed the individual will be given commands to keep their hands where they can be seen. Factor in everything else occurring and you get a different picture.

The moment they ignore that command they present a deadly force threat. It is simple- don't put your hands into your pockets when told not to.

Totality of Circumstances.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

No, there are not Skousenites everywhere! How silly. What a convenient strawman stuffed with hyperbole !

Indeed, sir or madam, I was being silly. I was merely poking fun, speculating that after TheBadCabbie's super constitutional revolution, there would be Skousenites everywhere, which would make you uncomfortable. (Arnie voice)Skousenites! Goooo Gryphon66! Get to the chopperrr!!!

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: imitator
while I shoot bullets around your feet

Oh look, yet another made up story! first we had him dragged out of the car and executed, then we had a stolen handgun planted on him, now we have police shooting around his feet!

No evidence for any of those claims, but as we have seen when there is no evidence some people here will just make crap up!

Well, they're just following your example, I'd guess, making stuff up...keep throwing stuff out there until something sticks, right?

a reply to: diggindirt

That's good to hear (that another deputy had the same perspective and understanding... not about the barely veiled threats.)

It's also good to know there are more than a few LEOs who still respect the people and the law. There's still hope!!!

a reply to: spy66

a reply to: Boadicea

a reply to: diggindirt

Agreed, guys, in that the roadblock was designed to allow escalation, or set by untrained operatives, which seems unlikely. I've been arguing the minutae in this thread mostly, but I think this is another line of writing on the wall for anyone who cares to look deeply enough into this scenario, that this guy was essentially executed. At the very least he was a victim of escalation due to trigger happiness on the part of LEO's. I think it's hard to dismiss it even that lightly, though.

a reply to: spy66

The problem is the complete blocking of the road. We are prohibited from completely blocking the road. An avenue of escape must be provided so it doesn't force a deadly force encounter. That's why I was asking how they classified the blocking of the road and also was wondering if the agencies officially called out a vehicle pursuit. The same standard applies to officers on foot who try to stop a motor vehicle. We can not intentionally place ourselves into the path of an oncoming vehicle as it creates a deadly force encounter. If we have no avenue of escape from an oncoming vehicle then deadly force would be justified.

The functions of FBI agents are a lot different than those of uniformed law enforcement and that becomes evident when you see agents engaging in actions they arent exposed to as much as uniformed officers are - like vehicle pursuits and the court guidelines that govern them. When scotus makes a ruling that affects law enforcement it generally applies to all law enforcement - city / county / state / federal.


ETA -
I see you guys covered this after my last post. My bad.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: centarix
The post was very harsh. But, you told me that cops can shoot anyone they want for putting their hand in their pocket. I think that pretty much justifies everything I said, which was quite harsh. I'm sorry but I really believe being around someone who thinks I should be shot if I put my hands near my pocket is a very dangerous person.

The problem with your response is the complete lack of context in which a person could be shot for placing their hands in their pockets. If I am making an arrest the assumption is always the person you are dealing with can pose a risk. When I have information the person in question is known to be armed the individual will be given commands to keep their hands where they can be seen. Factor in everything else occurring and you get a different picture.

The moment they ignore that command they present a deadly force threat. It is simple- don't put your hands into your pockets when told not to.

Totality of Circumstances.

The context is that
1. NO gun (or anything else for that matter) can be seen in the victim's hands at the time they opened fire.
2. His group made a pledge they would not fire first.
3. Numeous cops had guns aimed at him.
4. He made extremely obvious indications he would be surrendering.
5. He is not known to have ever harmed another human being, ever.

Is this or is this not an accurate description of the context? Yes or no?

Given this context, I strongly question the mental stability of anyone who actually opened fire

Personally if I didn't want to be a coward like the cops, I'd wait until Finicum actually fired first. I mean, I would be getting paid big bucks to take risk and that is a sensitive situation they were involved in. I want cops to be courageous heroes who risk their lives, not cowardly murderers. That is some extra context providing my expectations.

Given the context, anyone who would actually open fire in such a circumstance is a dangerous and mentally unstable person I really think people should avoid to their best effort. These people are *dangerous* threats. As evidenced by the constant stream of people who are killed by the police. I imagine someone like you if you agree with the cops murder are also a very dangerous person who might someday shoot someone without thinking the situation through.

I honestly suspect the people at that roadblock were handpicked for being sociopathic/psychopathic to the point they would be willing to kill regardless of the situation.

originally posted by: centarix
The context is that
1. NO gun (or anything else for that matter) can be seen in the victim's hands at the time they opened fire.

Not relevant since the militia people involved are known to be armed.

originally posted by: centarix
2. His group made a pledge they would not fire first.

Not relevant. Law Enforcement does not have to be shot at / assaulted in order to act.

originally posted by: centarix
3. Numeous cops had guns aimed at him.

The number of officers present can affect how use of force is viewed however when firearms are involved that changes.

originally posted by: centarix
4. He made extremely obvious indications he would be surrendering.

Putting your hands in your coat pockets is not an obvious sign of surrendering. Secondly an obvious sign of surrendering would be following verbal commands.

originally posted by: centarix
5. He is not known to have ever harmed another human being, ever.

Again not relevant.

originally posted by: centarix
Is this or is this not an accurate description of the context? Yes or no?

No and that is because you are using your opinion and not established law / court rulings. Law enforcement, in general, has whats called a 1 plus advantage. It allows law enforcement to escalate their use of force 1 level higher than the level of resistance they are experiencing.

originally posted by: centarix
Given this context, I strongly question the mental stability of anyone who actually opened fire

Thats your prerogative.

originally posted by: centarix
Personally if I didn't want to be a coward like the cops, I'd wait until Finicum actually fired first. I mean, I would be getting paid big bucks to take risk and that is a sensitive situation they were involved in. I want cops to be courageous heroes who risk their lives, not cowardly murderers. That is some extra context providing my expectations.

Another example of substituting personal opinion for actual law. We do not have to wait to be shot at before being able to take action. If someone breaks into your house are you going to wait for them to assault you before taking action?

originally posted by: centarix
Given the context, anyone who would actually open fire in such a circumstance is a dangerous and mentally unstable person I really think people should avoid to their best effort. These people are *dangerous* threats. As evidenced by the constant stream of people who are killed by the police. I imagine someone like you if you agree with the cops murder are also a very dangerous person who might someday shoot someone without thinking the situation through.

Totality of circumstances and what you are describing arent the same thing. Totality of circumstances would be when the Bundys had their first run in with law enforcement in other states. It would include the groups they are affiliated with and whats occurred. It would include everything from this latest incident up to the time of the shooting. That would include any comments made by militia ,embers to media / social media etc.

Secondly trying to attack me in the manner you did is pathetic. Maybe you should learn the law before attacking someone that knows a whole hell of a lot more than you on this topic.

a reply to: Xcathdra

No and that is because you are using your opinion and not established law / court rulings. Law enforcement, in general, has whats called a 1 plus advantage. It allows law enforcement to escalate their use of force 1 level higher than the level of resistance they are experiencing.

The use of the pluss 1 factor is a very difficult enforcement to apply correctly to all types of situations. That is why we have to Train on many different types of senarios where we learn how to apply the pluss 1 factor to different situations. And the plus one factor are in many cases combined With negotiations.

We were thought that the first plus 1 factor is preparation and planning before we ingage the suspect. Because then we plann the first appropriate solution to confront the suspect. So the first plus one factor is based on information/intel. Then we gear up to set the plan in motion.

- So when we confront the suspect/s we are already a plus one factor. We set the stage that sends the Message to the suspect/s.

When you confronted the suspect/s. The confrontation comes With a set of insturctions (rules of ingagment) that your training is also based on. In other Words we Train on how to confront the suspect/s With a preplanned solution of force.

When it comes to this roadblock it covers at least 5 aspects where you preplan the rules of ingagment and use of force.

The 5 aspects:
1. IF he stops in front of the roadblock. What do we do?
2. If he rams the roadblock. What actions do we take?
3. If he tries to pass the roadblock. What do we do?
4. If the suspect/s try to run. What do we do?
5. If the suspect/s barricade. What do we do?

These 5 aspects of the initial confrontation is part of the first plus 1. How and when you must use leathal force is also in the solution to resolve the confrontation of this type.

The problems often occure when you screw up your own preplanned rules of ingagment in one of the 5 aspects. Because your screw up also affects the suspects reactions. That reaction might force you to apply the absolute last resort right away: Leathal force.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Are you suggesting, then, that ignorance on the part of the federal agents as to how to properly set the roadblock might have been to blame for this crapjob of a roadblock?

a reply to: Xcathdra

Very much appreciate your expertise.

The only question I have is do we have proof of when he was first shot? It would make a big difference if he was being shot while his hands where out wide or if he wasn't shot until they dropped.

All we have at this point is witness testimony and the official narrative of the FBI and a somewhat blurry / inconclusive video without audio.

What justification would there be if the first shots did indeed ring out while his arms were extended outwards?

a reply to: Xcathdra
Jumping Jehosephat!

originally posted by: centarix The context is that 1. NO gun (or anything else for that matter) can be seen in the victim's hands at the time they opened fire. Not relevant since the militia people involved are known to be armed.

My sheriff's department knows I am armed because they taught the classes for my CCW, they qualified me on the range and they issued my license. By your reasoning, they are justified in shooting me in any encounter with them whether they actually see a gun or not! Because you see, a few years ago I was a member of a Concerned Citizens Group and was described in the newspaper as a "radical Constitutionalist" and "anti-government" because our group was demanding the local legislative council abide by the statutes of Commonwealth law. The sheriff's deputies, if they had held your opinion, could have shot me down on the side of the road because they knew I was armed and they knew it had been reported that I was in opposition to some of the actions of our county government. Lucky for me, our sheriff didn't believe whatall he read in the newspaper because we'd known each other since the '70s when we were in school together. Lucky for us, he'd actually read the Constitution.

When you write crap like that why are you surprised when people come to the conclusion that you are part of the Authoritarian Cult of LEOs who claim to be able to justifiably shoot down citizens?

originally posted by: centarix 4. He made extremely obvious indications he would be surrendering. Putting your hands in your coat pockets is not an obvious sign of surrendering. Secondly an obvious sign of surrendering would be following verbal commands. originally posted by: centarix 5. He is not known to have ever harmed another human being, ever. Again not relevant.

As Mr. Reagan used to say, "Now there you go again..." You are asserting something of which you have absolutely no evidence beyond what an FBI agent told you via msm. It cannot be determined from the grainy video they released precisely what his actions were other than that he was holding his hand in view, showing them to be empty. You further state that he wasn't following verbal commands....where is the audio of the verbal commands you assert he was refusing to follow? Please post the a link to the audio which backs up your words.

Neither you or I have any idea what transpired beyond what the FBI said and the witnesses that have been allowed to speak. Since the stories are at opposite ends of the spectrum, and the FBI is the same agency that has a long, long history of lies and deception...and shooting wives, children and dogs, then lying about it....why would ANYONE give automatic credibility to their carefully scripted story? My friends in law enforcement certainly don't. They also claim that they don't do their investigations of crimes by using media reports of the supposed crimes. I guess your department is different.

Every single interaction with LEOs up until this encounter was peaceful and filmed at the request of the leadership. Ammon Bundy refused to meet with them without the presence of media because he wanted transparency, so there wouldn't be any we said/they said arguments. It was the FBI who wanted secrecy rather than transparency in the meetings.

As you have many times you are pulling things out of your hat with no evidence. Your assertions that LaVoy was attempting to avoid the spikey strips---your claim that they were visible on the video and yet you can't point them out!
Your claim that he was putting his hands in his pockets. Nobody can prove that until a ground level video with audio is produced. We have no idea what the exchange might have been or whether the lowering of his arms had to do with being shot by bullets or tasers and yet because an FBI spokesperson had a script that said he was "going for a gun" you get on the bandwagon and proclaim it to be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but.

He is reported to have shouted, "Just shoot me." Could he have meant that he was their target and to stop shooting at the truck which held innocent people? Since when did LEOs start obeying what a citizen tells them to do? That's crazy stuff.

Here is an excellent example of the misinformation being put out within hours of the incident in which LaVoy is demonized and called a "suicide by cop" and a lot of nonsense about the leadership being told to stay on the refuge, something that never actually happened. (They were told to go home by the sheriff, not that they couldn't travel to the next county for a meeting set up by citizens in Grant Co. with the help of Sheriff Palmer.)
crooksandliars.com...
From the article accompanying the video:

"They were trying to spread this protest, this unlawful activity, to another area," he observed. "Law enforcement very clearly told them not to go... and that is a well-known marker of suicide by cop."

See where he equates (erroneously) "protest" with "unlawful activity"---that's a common ploy of the disinformation agents. Then he tells an outright lie by saying that law enforcement clearly told them not to go to John Day.

And you have followed in the footsteps of the disinformation spreaders by repeating like a parrot every justification for their actions that they've repeated from their well-crafted script. If the cops in MO operate on what has been said to the media and what has been posted on social media, I'm certainly glad I don't reside in MO.

originally posted by: TheBadCabbie
a reply to: Xcathdra

Are you suggesting, then, that ignorance on the part of the federal agents as to how to properly set the roadblock might have been to blame for this crapjob of a roadblock?

The roadblock/barricade was properly set. The question is: was it needed and is it leagal to use this kind of raodblock/barricade to solve this situation.

- This roadblock/barricade is defined as use of leathal force.

- THe other question is: Were the offisers who manned the roadblock/barricade properly trained to handle the situation that sutch a roadblock can create?
This is a question these individuals will have to answer for under the investigation. They will also question a instructor what the proper cource of actions should be at this kind of roadblock/barricade.

- I am 100% sure that the offiser who confronted the suspect up Close and in the open. Will have problems defending his cource of actions. WHat he did was not according to rules of ingagment. No offiser is ever instructed to confront a suspect like that. WHat he did was either preplanned or he acted on his own judgment. BUt that is for the Court to decide.

- The offiser who approuched from behind the suspect acted according to training ingagment. He also used a Taser, which is also correct. If it was a real leathal situation he should have drawn his weapon. Because initially the offiser was out of taser range when he approched the suspect from behind. This offiser didnt think this was a leathal situation?