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.

 

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

page: 7
30
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 07:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

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



I think we could safely say 50/50 corruption/truth,if you are going to use the courts as a champion of truth you have to accept its failures too...

edit on 5-2-2016 by hopenotfeariswhatweneed because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 07:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: TheBadCabbie
Doesn't matter if he was armed or not in my opinion, the fact is he did not have a gun in his hand when he was shot to death.


Irrelevant...

Gun, wallet, cell phone...

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

Further you demonstrated perfectly why people with a similar mindset to yours have such issues with incidents like this.

You cant substitute the law with your personal opinion - It doesn't work.

I get it. Cops'll shoot you down these days if they even think you might be reaching for a weapon. Noted. Doesn't make it right, doesn't make it okay, and that fact doesn't change the fact that he did not have a gun in his hand when he was shot to death.

Incidentally, can you please reference pertinent penal codes and/or legal opinions where the legislative and/or judicial system attempts to color the law to make it okay to shoot down a man or woman because they might be reaching for a weapon? I agree that those laws figure prominently in this discussion, though I might tend to disagree with them or think that they are applied a little too liberally at times like this.



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 07:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheBadCabbie
and that fact doesn't change the fact that he did not have a gun in his hand when he was shot to death.


So you think police should wait until a nutter like Finicum draws a weapon and shoots at police before they can shoot him....
Funny how some people are upset police expect to be able to go home at the end of the day, instead of standing around waiting for a nutter to shoot them!



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 07:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: TheTory

You're interpreting Finicum's statements, just as you are citing others for doing. Where did you come by this transcription?

The fact remains that he stated, repeatedly, that he was not going to be arrested and implied, quite strongly, that he was willing to fight ("man with a rifle") if that was attempted.

What's your point?

Did you even watch the video with the actual interview, or just jump on the super spin job? Perhaps he renderred a transcription by actually transcribing the video. You know, you listen to the words that are actually said and write them down, instead of just mangling the crap out of what was said by paraphrasing, and injecting opinions and unvoiced statements that weren't present in the actual conversation.



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 07:49 PM
link   
a reply to: TheBadCabbie

Spin job? Which one? Asking a question? Stating known facts? Taking what Tory provided at face value in good faith?

Did I offend you on someone else's behalf? Or is this rhetorical/feigned offense for effect?

I notice you repeat the same criticisms at anyone who isn't towing the "Our Hero Finicum" line.

Your own agenda here, for whatever reason ... is getting kinda obvious, not to mention, predictable.



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 08:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

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



I think we could safely say 50/50 corruption/truth,if you are going to use the courts as a champion of truth you have to accept its failures too...


I didn't use courts as a champion of truth, nor have I ever denied that corruption exists within the justice system. Save your strawman for somebody else.

It's a fact, an actual fact and not an emotional caps-lock fact, that SCOTUS has made multiple rulings on not only deadly force, but how that use of force must be judged after the fact. That's what I was referring to. I've never shied away from voicing my opinion when I think the court system gets it wrong in a use of force incident so, again, save your strawman for somebody else.



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 08:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: hellobruce

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?

Any evidence disputing that claim? Anything at all?



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 08:03 PM
link   
a reply to: centarix

See how well that "argument" holds up in court. I'm sure it'll turn out marvelously.



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 08:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheBadCabbie

originally posted by: hellobruce

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?

Any evidence disputing that claim? Anything at all?


Your claim, you back it up. Not sure when this became such a foreign concept on ats.



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 08:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

I just watched the video guy. Finicum's truck was clearly off of the pavement and in the ditch when the officer bolted from behind the vehicle blocking the left side of the highway. Watch the video. You need to stop disputing what is obvious.



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 08:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

You need to cite the FBI report. The only source to validate your claim is the video. Post the news statement claiming FBI deployment of spikes.



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 08:19 PM
link   

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.

That color of law doesn't make how it was applied to Mr. Finicum just or right, or wise, in my opinion. As I've said in other threads, they should have kept the kid gloves on for this whole standoff situation deal. I know, they didn't storm in there on the first day, but they didn't have to take these boys in like they did. Instead they broke out the hammer, when a little more patience would have gotten the job done just fine. We still have yet to see what, if any, fallout comes about as a result of this incident. Could be nothing. Could be a big deal. Regardless, I still think it was unjust.

This event could have had a much happier ending, though I suppose it still could've come out worse, too.



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 08:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: CharlesT
a reply to: Shamrock6

I just watched the video guy. Finicum's truck was clearly off of the pavement and in the ditch when the officer bolted from behind the vehicle blocking the left side of the highway. Watch the video. You need to stop disputing what is obvious.



originally posted by: CharlesT
a reply to: Xcathdra

You need to cite the FBI report. The only source to validate your claim is the video. Post the news statement claiming FBI deployment of spikes.


a reply to: CharlesT

I notice in your last two posts that you argue that you can completely determine what happened from a review of the video, and then you tell the next member that nothing at all can be determined for certain by watching the video ...

I find this confusing.
edit on 5-2-2016 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 08:22 PM
link   
a reply to: TheBadCabbie

The authorities may have provoked them into believing they had no other option. Wouldn't be the first time someone was forced to react to hostile intent by authorities.



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 08:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: CharlesT
a reply to: TheBadCabbie

The authorities may have provoked them into believing they had no other option. Wouldn't be the first time someone was forced to react to hostile intent by authorities.


Are you truly claiming that the LEOs "forced" the Bundy Gang into this stupidity?

So much for personal responsibility, eh?




posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 08:24 PM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce

He wasn't a nutter. He was a Constitutional Patriot that believed in this nations founding documents. I resent your comment.........



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 08:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheBadCabbie
This event could have had a much happier ending,


True, all they had to do was surrender, instead of acting like a nutter like Finicum did.



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 08:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: CharlesT
a reply to: hellobruce

He wasn't a nutter.


Yes he was, as his actions showed.



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 08:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

YES I DO!!!! They are brainwashed into believing the government is right and just in everything they dictate and blindly enforce everything the government dictates. People are so easily mislead. Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia are 2 prime examples of the truth people are so easily manipulated. The government supports them and their families financial existence and they blindly follow orders regardless of the moral justifications absent in the pursuit of the government"s agenda.



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 08:37 PM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce

NO, HE WAS NOT!!!!



new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join