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

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Xcathdra

Thats because it is still an active and ongoing investigation.

I believe the drone video was released with statements that he 'reached' for a gun and thats why they killed him.

Sounds pretty 'conclusive', i.e., case closed to me…

You know as well as I they have ground level video and audio of this, that stuff hidden behind your state sponsored cloak of secrets, masked by euphemistic mantras like "ongoing investigations".

I understand what you are saying however what I mean by ongoing investigation is the entire situation and not just the shooting alone. Secondly you have 16 people who are being accused of something so an info release could jeopardize their ability to get a fair trial. Third the officer's who discharged their weapons are now classified as suspects in a shooting and again releasing documents could affect their ability to get a fair trial if they are charged.

Due process will trump the public's right to know.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
Those claiming Finicum was misrepresented by the media in terms of what he said. Lets hear itdirectly from the horses mouth.

The reporter put words in his mouth, did you even watch your own video?

a reply to: Xcathdra

Have you found any links or press releases stating that the officers involved are suspects in the shooting?

If there really is a legit investigation going on that is the first step to getting some real answers.

a reply to: SonOfThor

Due process will trump the public's right to know.

Covering up evidence isn't due process.

If they state he went for a gun, then show that proof, not some inconclusive drone footage.

Thats not proof, investigatory or due process, its cover up.

originally posted by: sprtpilot
Evidence is being withheld, there obviously has to be a lot more (from the ground) video.

Because its still an active investigation. Like I said due process beats the public's right to know.

originally posted by: sprtpilot
The evidence released has been altered (at the least, telemetry data is obscured).

I would go with obscured. If it is a drone its possible the info obscured might be classified. So long as its not relevant info to the case / defense it shouldn't be an issue. Of course thats in the realm of the courts and the PA / Defense.

originally posted by: sprtpilot
The cops were trigger-happy as evidenced by their filling the stationery, zero-threat vehicle, full of bullet holes.

You have to take the totality of circumstance. Not sure if you watched the entire video (its like 25+ mins long) you would see the driver of the truck veer to the left, coming very close to law enforcement. What are you basing trigger happy on?

originally posted by: sprtpilot
Overwhelming evidence points to law enforcement murdered him and are now engaged in cover-up, so, business as usual sadly.

There is nothing to support that accusation. Secondly if it was a cover up then why release the video?

a reply to: Vector99

I did.. Did you?


His comments (not verbatim) -
I won't spend time in a concrete box.
They shouldn't point guns at me.

There was no distortion of his words.

What conclusion would you come to after hearing those words? Factor in everything and it can paint a picture.

a reply to: Xcathdra

No offense X, but why bother?

Not enough info = coverup.

Information = lies. And coverup.

Eyewitness account = irrefutable, absolute proof.

Minds are already made up. This isn't even really a discussion anymore.

a reply to: TheBadCabbie

dont tasers also shoot out confetti with serial numbers? If anyone knows what I am talking about, the small marked paper bits that are popped out as the taser assembly opens....

They are used for things just like this. If a taser was fired there, even in the snow you would find at least ONE piece of paper with a serial number corresponding to an issued taser cartridge.


www.theguardian.com...

I don't think he was tasered but I am not ruling it out. I believe Victoria and Shawna's statements are essential to understanding what actually happened and whether he was reaching for a gun or a bullet wound. I'd like to point out some things about Victoria's statement from the vid in the OP of this thread. I will explain how it's very likely that he was shot while his hands were up:
Both women said they saw him with his hands up when the first three shots were fired after he got out of the truck. I'll start just before that moment. I think everyone can agree that the barrage of bullets stopped about the same time the truck stopped. From Victoria's statement in the OP video:
1:18:20 "because the bullets stopped coming when we stopped, when the vehicle stopped"

What did Levoy do when the truck stopped? He immediately got out to protect the women because he knew he was the target. That's why he was shouting at the LEOs to just shoot him, because that is what he thought they wanted.
1:18:10 "as soon as the vehicle came to a stop Levoy opened his door"
1:19:00 "but I just know that as soon as it came to a stop he opened the door"

Here is what she said after the interviewer rudely interrupted her just as she was about to describe those seconds after he got out and she finally got back to it:
1:19:28 "but he had his hands up the whole time and the next thing we knew they shot him. three consecutive shots at the same time" Right there she is claiming she saw him with his hands up and three shots were fired. Shawna said basically the same thing.

1:19:38 "and I ducked down immediately" So how did she see him go down? Allow me to break it down based on her next words:

1:19:43 "then we heard three more shots but they didn't hit our vehicle so we were like they just shot him when he was down" No, she didn't see him go down because she ducked. The interviewer wants to be clear so he asks her "so you heard three shots-pop pop pop" she says "yes" he continues his question "and then momentarily later you heard three more-pop pop pop" she says "yes. and we saw him go down right as the first three shots hit him" I think they saw him when he was reaching for the wounds and was bending a little just as he started turning toward the truck and assumed he was going down. I mean, he was just shot after all and she said they ducked immediately.

So, as they are ducked down in the truck they hear the second set of three shots and assume that he was shot when he was down when in fact these were the killshots. We're only talking about a few seconds here and a couple of steps. At this point they come back up, see him dead or dying and she starts screaming let me help him. In the video from the plane, the only indication that he may have been shot while on the ground was when his hand was still in the air and then fell. During my initial studies of that video before I even heard the testimony of Victoria and Shawna I thought he might have been shot at that time. I don't think so anymore. I now think this was just the moment of his final breath and there were no more shots after he was down. There were lasers on him at one point after that but I think the snipers were just watching for movement through their scopes. There was none.

If this is in fact what happened, then there can be no doubt that he was set up and murdered in cold blood. The video was released because it is inconclusive and they knew it would create tons of speculation (think divide and conquer). The initial statement by a non eyewitness(which is hearsay) and the media spin would create the desired narrative for most people. Especially those who simply hear what they want to hear and do not use logic and critical thinking when coming to their conclusion. I do not want to believe that our government is capable of this type of behaviour but history has shown that they are and this whole thing stinks of color of law bull#. The motive for stopping this man is clear if you have an understanding of why this protest and occupation of a public building was started in the first place and what they were actually trying to accomplish.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Vector99

I did.. Did you?


His comments (not verbatim) -
I won't spend time in a concrete box.
They shouldn't point guns at me.

There was no distortion of his words.

What conclusion would you come to after hearing those words? Factor in everything and it can paint a picture.

You clearly don't grasp the questions asked and insinuated to cause the half-ass claim you are trying to make.

Why did they start the video with the commentator asking a question then cutting to a response from him?

That wasn't the question asked of him, and they clearly cut/pasted the interview to suit the proper agenda.

If you can't see the obvious, I don't know what to say.

a reply to: Vector99

Just a bystander here ... but ... care to compare your credentials in Law Enforcement with the member you claim doesn't "grasp the questions?"

I mean ... come on ... general quality of the ATS forums and all that ... good gravy.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Vector99

Just a bystander here ... but ... care to compare your credentials in Law Enforcement with the member you claim doesn't "grasp the questions?"

I mean ... come on ... general quality of the ATS forums and all that ... good gravy.

Care to reference how that would be relevant in this discussion at all?

It does look like a taser in the hand of the cop on the left. The other officers being in the line of fire is also a great point.
This begs the question then: were the officers on the road also firing tasers? Anyone being hit by one (or a bullet) will instinctively reach for the spot where wounded. It looks like Finicum does that and realizes his hands aren't up and tries to raise them only to be hit with a taser again.

If shot were he lay Finicum's wounds would all have entry points from the top of his body; head and shoulders. That would be easy to determine with an autopsy.

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Vector99

Just a bystander here ... but ... care to compare your credentials in Law Enforcement with the member you claim doesn't "grasp the questions?"

I mean ... come on ... general quality of the ATS forums and all that ... good gravy.

Care to reference how that would be relevant in this discussion at all?

Oh my. Nope, you're doing quite the job of that.

I mean ... Why would we listen to an expert on issues about the law, use of deadly force and the actual you know relevant facts ...

Great point!

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Vector99

Just a bystander here ... but ... care to compare your credentials in Law Enforcement with the member you claim doesn't "grasp the questions?"

I mean ... come on ... general quality of the ATS forums and all that ... good gravy.

Care to reference how that would be relevant in this discussion at all?

Oh my. Nope, you're doing quite the job of that.

I mean ... Why would we listen to an expert on issues about the law, use of deadly force and the actual you know relevant facts ...

Great point!

We have conclusive video in now? I didn't know that.

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Vector99

Just a bystander here ... but ... care to compare your credentials in Law Enforcement with the member you claim doesn't "grasp the questions?"

I mean ... come on ... general quality of the ATS forums and all that ... good gravy.

Care to reference how that would be relevant in this discussion at all?

Oh my. Nope, you're doing quite the job of that.

I mean ... Why would we listen to an expert on issues about the law, use of deadly force and the actual you know relevant facts ...

Great point!

We have conclusive video in now? I didn't know that.

Quote where I said that "conclusive video" exists.

I politely inquired about your qualifications to provide analysis of the situation. You've indirectly answered my question.

We're done now; thanks!

Actually watching it over and over we have speculative evidence he was NOT tazed, look at his clothing, and look at the distance. no way a taser shot would have done what happened unless it hit him in the only exposed area on skin, his face. to get a shot that accurate from the distances seen in the vid, he wasn't tasered.

Now just need the audio version, but I bet we will not see that for a while, if ever.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Vector99

Just a bystander here ... but ... care to compare your credentials in Law Enforcement with the member you claim doesn't "grasp the questions?"

I mean ... come on ... general quality of the ATS forums and all that ... good gravy.

Care to reference how that would be relevant in this discussion at all?

Oh my. Nope, you're doing quite the job of that.

I mean ... Why would we listen to an expert on issues about the law, use of deadly force and the actual you know relevant facts ...

Great point!

We have conclusive video in now? I didn't know that.

Quote where I said that "conclusive video" exists.

I politely inquired about your qualifications to provide analysis of the situation. You've indirectly answered my question.

We're done now; thanks!

I'm not LEO or a lawyer, but because of my childhood I'm well versed on the law and how it works.

Now care to explain how an edited interview makes me uninformed?

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Vector99

I did.. Did you?


His comments (not verbatim) -
I won't spend time in a concrete box.
They shouldn't point guns at me.

There was no distortion of his words.

What conclusion would you come to after hearing those words? Factor in everything and it can paint a picture.

It can't paint the picture you want it to if you factor in all the spin and the fact that in that video you posted the interview is chopped to hell. What small portion of the intervew is actually contained in the video you posted, that is. It's mostly just those TYT people putting a massive spin on what he said and turning it into somethig else entirely.

I don't care what credentials you possess, that video you posted is a misconstruction of what he actually said. That's okay, though. I posted the actual interview from which that crapita was created right below yours in my reply, so I guess anyone who cares to be informed and finds this thread can watch them both and make up their own minds. Thanks again though, for providing another excellent example of how the media manipulated the facts in regard to this story as it unfolded.

Round and round we go....nobody has anything conclusive just more wrangling for one side or the other.....
So far all we have are freaking opinions...why not admit it people.....
Those who see,.... see through a glass but darkly....
If they can shoot JFK right in front of a Dallas crowd
They can do anybody anywhere....
And they've been doing it ever since ....the same junta that killed Kennedy has been in control of America for decades now.....