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

originally posted by: bandersnatch
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.....

It's not an opinion that Finicum lowered his hands to waist level. And it's not an opinion in law enforcement this is hte posture of someone reaching for a gun. This is reason to fire on him. And they did.

I've watched the videos with Finicum in them and I'm convinced he was a good person. He actually said he didn't want guns involved. He wanted everyone safe. He even said law enforcement have family too. This man believed strongly in the constitution. He had a big family and was a long time rancher. He wasn't a killer. An extremist? Maybe. It's hard for me to think of him that way though. But he made a couple of mistakes that day. The first was he didn't STAY stopped for the authorities. He instead sped off. The second was he exited the vehicle and somehow he lowered his arms... We've all been discussing these things to death but I don't think these things I bring up here are debatable. He behaved aggressively and law enforcement picked up on it and simply did their job.

Here, hear it from the tarp man himself (watch at 7:30):

He made mistakes. Believe me, I love this man but what he did I don't love. I wish it ended better. His family don't have him now. 11 children. 3 in the military. 1 a doctor. 50 foster children. 19 grand children, 2 on the way. He died just before his 55th birthday. Loving wife. His daughter was playing a highschool basketball game on the day he died.

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Xcathdra

You dont start putting your hands in pockets when police are telling you not to while pointing guns at you.

I woukld agree with that, but he brandished no weapon.

He doesn't have to. Contrary to popular belief an officer does not have to wait to be shot at before they can take action. In this situation you have to view the shooting by taking everything into account.

The reason the militia showed up.
The fact they are armed.
Their views on government / law enforcement.
What they said on tv / social media.
The fact they failed to stop the 1st and 2nd times.
The fact he tried to avoid the spike strips.
The fact he almost hit an officer when he drove left into the snow.
Getting out of the car.
Refusing to comply with verbal commands.
Putting his hands in his coat pocket.

Some of the above on its own are not law violations. However when you take it all into account (totality of circumstances) it creates a very real and dangerous situation for everyone on scene - law enforcement, suspects, passengers, witnesses, etc.

The officers at the final checkpoint would have been justified in shooting the driver when the officer was almost hit. They held back and made an attempt to end the situation peacefully. I can't be any more clear - in situations like this you don't put your hands into pockets. It becomes a deadly action, regardless of whats in his pocket.

What did the officer's perceive when the use of force occurred is the standard.

People say Finicum wasn't a danger and has a family.
The officers on scene also have families.

When given lawful commands you comply. All the arguments over the who why where what for etc should be argued in the appropriate setting - a court room.

a reply to: jonnywhite

I agree with a lot of your points, however - we don't know when the first shots occurred, which is why we can't make a claim one way or another. If any video evidence comes out with audio that shows he was getting shot while his hands were spread out in the air, that would be a whole different story.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Xcathdra

You dont start putting your hands in pockets when police are telling you not to while pointing guns at you.

I woukld agree with that, but he brandished no weapon.

He doesn't have to. Contrary to popular belief an officer does not have to wait to be shot at before they can take action. In this situation you have to view the shooting by taking everything into account.

The reason the militia showed up.
The fact they are armed.
Their views on government / law enforcement.
What they said on tv / social media.
The fact they failed to stop the 1st and 2nd times.
The fact he tried to avoid the spike strips.
The fact he almost hit an officer when he drove left into the snow.
Getting out of the car.
Refusing to comply with verbal commands.
Putting his hands in his coat pocket.

Some of the above on its own are not law violations. However when you take it all into account (totality of circumstances) it creates a very real and dangerous situation for everyone on scene - law enforcement, suspects, passengers, witnesses, etc.

The officers at the final checkpoint would have been justified in shooting the driver when the officer was almost hit. They held back and made an attempt to end the situation peacefully. I can't be any more clear - in situations like this you don't put your hands into pockets. It becomes a deadly action, regardless of whats in his pocket.

What did the officer's perceive when the use of force occurred is the standard.

People say Finicum wasn't a danger and has a family.
The officers on scene also have families.

When given lawful commands you comply. All the arguments over the who why where what for etc should be argued in the appropriate setting - a court room.

You realize the officer jumped in front of Finicum's vehicle, which clearly had brake lights on as soon as he rounded the bend and saw the roadblock. He was driving to avoid hitting the officers.

Also, the resolution is not high enough to tell what Finicum was doing with his hands near his sides - furthermore, we can't know from this footage if he was shot before his hands dropped.

I am not taking his side / calling it murder at this point because there is not enough evidence. But you are making statements as fact when they are not supported by evidence yet.

a reply to: SonOfThor

The video shows him trying to avoid deployed spike strips. The video shows him swerving to the left. The video shows the officer he almost hit / killed. The video does not show him jumping in front of his truck. It shows him trying to get out of the way of his truck. The video shows him reaching into his coat pockets.

I know your not taking sides and are pointing things out. Part of me thinks though that some people who watch the videos aren't paying attention to the details and are fixed on just the shooting. The lack of familiarity with the law also is an issue as they are not understanding the elements of a crime. People are also substituting the law they dont know with their personal opinions and like I said that is a set up for failure.

Find the complete video, the one that starts from the initial stop and ends when everyone is taken into custody.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Please tell me where you see the spike strips mentioned by the FBI. What section of road? I've mentioned them in other threads in that it was stated by Agent Bretzing that LaVoy somehow missed them. I've hunted and hunted for them in the FBI's unedited video and I'm clueless.

a reply to: TheBadCabbie

It's been my thought since the FBI video was first released that the officer who came running out of the woods to approach LaVoy from behind as closely as possible looked to me like he had a taser gun (he was covered by all of the other officers hiding among the trees as well as on the road) and I know there is still argument about if it was or wasn't a taser but that's not my point.

This is...

I've an enormous amount of time invested in studying what led up to the end of LaVoy's life and, from my perspective, that officer/trooper was the only one in the shooting situation, before and after, who "appears" to give LaVoy the opportunity to come out of the situation alive -- wounded but alive.

Just a thought.

a reply to: tweetie



Pause the video at 05:48. Just in front of the truck, left hand side. You see a black patch on the left. It looks like it continues across the road from left to right at an angle. At least thats what it looks like to me. Spike strips arent designed to be flashy / bright etc.

When he gets close to the black part he quickly swerves to the left. The officer he almost hit looks like he was prepping for an impact between the truck and the police vehicle on the left. Looks like he was directly behind his vehicle.

Also after finicum goes left watch the vehicle pursuing him. Notice he stops just prior to the black area I was talking about.

originally posted by: sprtpilot
by their filling the stationery, zero-threat vehicle, full of bullet holes.

Any evidence to back that claim up? Anything at all?

a reply to: Xcathdra

Nope, just do not see any spike strips and the officer intentionally jumped out in front of the truck well after it had left, or was leaving the roadway. He jumped out with the clear intention of making the truck veer even farther off the roadway and into the deep snowbank.

I have read every post in this OP with the clear intention of not getting involved too much until more concrete evidence is presented but your assertions that spike strips were deployed just can not be clearly supported with the video evidence presented. You should drop the spike strip assertion if this video is all you have to base that assumption on.

a reply to: CharlesT

This from the person who knows what was in the officers mind and his intent... Spike strips were deployed according to the FBI.

We both have our opinions so we will agree to disagree.

a reply to: CharlesT

Do you have a source for what the intention of the officer was? Because I think one could pretty easily argue he was moving to get out from behind the truck, thinking that Finicum might not miss the vehicle cleanly.

As it is, he missed it by a few feet. So unless you've got some secret insight into the officer's brain you're not sharing with the rest of us, we'll have to just call it your opinion and nothing more.

originally posted by: TechniXcality
a reply to: TheBadCabbie

Without footage from meters away (body cam) and sound we are jumping to conclusions, and often we do so based on what we believe about the broader spectrum issues. It's jacked up that this footage was released first and you are left wondering why? Could it really be this is the only footage we have in such a high profile event? If that is the case then they should of just buried the guy at sea.

If he wasent using a taser, Why would the trooper put his right hand on his holstered weapon right after he had tased him?

That is very Clear in the fottage..

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
What do I think?

I think you're...Fishing for flags

You don't have to share what you think if what you have to say is irrelevant.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: TheBadCabbie

If he reached into his pocket deadly force can be justified.

Wrong. Reaching into a pocket does not justify shooting someone. Pulling a gun out of a pocket does. For example, when the cops decided to initialize the interaction by pulling out guns on them, that was justification for the innocent people to kill all of the cops there. However, if they saw the cop with their hand on their gun itself, that would not have been enough to justify killing the cops. Double standards are UNACCEPTABLE in a society where everyone is equal. So again, you are wrong because you can't have a different standard to justify killing a cop as a non-cop in a place where people are considered equal.

a reply to: centarix

Wrong.

Wrong.

Wrong again.

Caps lock all you want, doesn't change actual case law and court rulings.

a reply to: Shamrock6

doesn't change actual case law and court rulings.

These very same rulings that are rampant in corruption and complicit in cover ups and lies ?

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Yes, those. Because every court decision ever is simply the result of corruption.

a reply to: randyvs

Hehe. A pertinent video, for sure. This one is just as pertinent, in my opinion.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: centarix

Wrong.

Wrong.

Wrong again.

Caps lock all you want, doesn't change actual case law and court rulings.

Thank you for sharing your opinion. Your opinion is based on the idea that government is the highest authority. Is government above me? Is government above you? Is government above God if you believe in God?

I consider God to be the authority on this matter and if I didn't I'd revert to the social contract which currently does not exist, so therefore would defer to me as an individual. I feel that God believes if a cop can shoot me for putting my hand in my pocket, I can shoot a cop for putting a hand in their pocket, because of equal rights.

However, that isn't the case. Cops are PAID BIG MONEY to take risks, so they need to see the gun before they shoot if they want to be considered a good person. That is their job. If they are not going to take risks, they are cowards and not special at all. Since I don't expect God to issue me a written edict on this matter, I'll go with my gut as you do too.

Yes it may be legal for cops to murder everyone who sticks their hand in their pocket. But that doesn't make doing so right as you imply.