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

originally posted by: CharlesT
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.

Really not sure what you're responding to here ...

Your heroes are extremists; the average American is not. The average American is able to consider the actions of their government and condemn them when they are wrong without following the dictates of what amounts to a Skousenite Cult.

Back to your posts about the video ... how is it that you can determine the facts from it ... but others are not allowed that same privilege ... doesn't that strike you as a bit ... self-contradictory?

Or is that question just too unpleasant for you to face, so you're Godwining ...

a reply to: Gryphon66

I just see the futility in trying to debate truth with individuals that are intent on adamantly supporting any position the government posits as right and proper regardless of it's actual intent. You are welcome to your propagandist arguments here but you have no hope of deceiving the growing multitude that is finally beginning to see the deceit and corruption that is festering in our nations capital.

originally posted by: CharlesT
a reply to: Gryphon66

I just see the futility in trying to debate truth with individuals that are intent on adamantly supporting any position the government posits as right and proper regardless of it's actual intent. You are welcome to your propagandist arguments here but you have no hope of deceiving the growing multitude that is finally beginning to see the deceit and corruption that is festering in our nations capital.

Yes, yes ... we've heard all that Skousenite nonsense ... now, let's talk about this video that only you can interpret correctly ... care to explain how you can observe it and make statements about exactly what happened, but someone with years of law enforcement expertise cannot (at least, in your rather self-contradictory opinion)?

How does that work again? And please, could you spare us the evangelizing?

a reply to: Gryphon66


No,,,,No,,,, This has gone far enough.....

Sleep tight and don't let the bedbugs bite. I'm gone to bed.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
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.

Apparently yours is made up as well, despite not being enough info, shoddy information at best, ignoring eyewitness accounts, you do not want a discussion, you think its slam dunked from the beginning,

Why do you even bother ?

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: CharlesT
a reply to: Shamrock6


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.

I had to log back in to respond to this.

I absolutely did not claim that nothing could be determined by only watching the video. Your comment is misleading and false.

Again, good night. It's past my bedtime.

originally posted by: CharlesT

I absolutely did not claim that nothing could be determined by only watching the video.

Funny, neither did I ...

... but you did claim that you could use the video to determine details about the situation and then turned around and told another member that they could not, when all things being equal, they are far more qualified to do so than you.

Sleep tight.

originally posted by: hellobruce

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!

Well that's not how that notion applied to this situation, so it's not really an accurate comparison that you are trying to make here. A point of fact is that government initiated force with this ambush, or "enforcement action", or "traffic stop", or whatever you want to call it. This whole gun pointing trigger squeezing thing was initiated by the government, not the occupiers. The occupiers were civil disobedients who were working toward a peaceful redress of the people's grievances.

Besides which, I haven't yet seen color of law presented here yet for our consideration, so we're not even really arguing about that yet. We're arguing about the culture of policing, which, yes, I think is too heavy handed, most notably evidenced by the situation we are discussing at the moment.

Also Robert LaVoy Finicum was not a nutter, not really. He did not have a death wish. That is media misconstruction.
Finicum did not have a death wish. Mainstream media distorted the facts.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: TheBadCabbie

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

Agreed, in that both the TYT stories and the MSNBC interview were very spinny.

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

Not at all, I just wrote the reply because you were obviously getting caught up in the spin angle of the story rather than objectively evaluating the real information. I thought it might help you gain a little more clarity. Watch the actual interview again. Pay attention to what is said, and by whom. It is clear to see that Mr. Finicum did not make the threatening comments that headlines stated he did, if you objectively evaluate the actual interview. The MSNBC one is what I'm specifically referring to, though the AJ+ and the OPB ones are similar in this regard. The only way he could be made to look threatening would be to take him way out of context and splice his answers, as was done in the TYT piece, though it is clear to see to any objective viewer that leading questioning is present in all of the above referenced interviews.

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

I shall continue to repeat them as long as they remain the valid refutations of illogical and flawed arguments. And not anyone who doesn't think he was a hero. Have an opinion. Don't distort the facts. Let's view this issue with clarity.

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

I should hope so. I am trying to provide and promote clarity here, after all.

a reply to: Shamrock6

Agreed, poor form on my part. I was just one lining his one lineriness.

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".

he look't to me like he was emptying his pockets.
the cop would have told him to do this.
the cop behind tazers him.
the rest shoot him.

a reply to: TheBadCabbie

The government didn't initiate force. This group did the minute they decided to get there guns and take over a federal building.The federal giblvernment used restraint trying to get them to leave. Instead of just going in and disarming these people they tried shutting off the power in hopes they would get cold and leave. Unfortunately they decided to continue their armed occupation. The state finally had enough and asked the federal government to do something and charges were filed. The ambush everyone keeps saying is somehow wrong saved lives. The alternative was send a bunch of police and federal agents into the reserve to remove these people.

If this had occurred you could guarantee some of the yahoos up there would start shooting and you would have had a shoot out. By waiting until they could get the leaders alone the others took their guns and left. Instead they only had to deal with three armed individuals it was the easiest way for everyone to diffuse the situation. The other truth had he decided to give up when his friends did he would still be alive . By him continuing after he knee they were trying to arrest him is either stubburness or stupidity choose one. These people should have packed it up when locals told them to leave even the local ranchers told them to leave in fact even the bundys father said he thought it was a bad idea. At least we know he has a brain because taking guns into any federal building is going to cause problems.

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.

Indeed. If they actually shot at him at the first stop, though, then I think most people would have had a personal apocolyptic moment. For you at that point, the rule of law has broken down, and you really have no reasonable expectation that the authorities expect to return anything other than a body to the government facility. At that point, it's a "the man's tryin' to gun me down" type scenario, so anyone with the cajones is going to try and do just about whatever he can to protect himself and those he cares about. If that is actually how it went down, I think he could have shot all those cops and in an actual fair court, might have even been acquitted of the charges. You have no reasonable expectation of the rule of law prevailing in that type of situation.

Even if that's not true(if he wasn't shot at at the first stop), they were on their way to a meeting that was orchestrating a process that would have led to a peaceful resolution. He probably could've plowed that roadblock in his truck and kept rolling if he wanted to be mean. Instead he swerved to the side, knowing he would get stuck, and stepped out of the vehicle(his only hard cover close enough at hand to be of any use in a firefight) with his hands held away from his body and clearly visible to all of the guys with the guns(and probably yelling), and got shot to death. He was perhaps a threat to the authorities within their minds, but nothing more, in my speculative opinion. The authorities got the ol' itchy trigger finger like they tend to do, or it was a calculated hit for whatever reason.

If he'd gotten mean enough, he might've survived the roadblock, and possibly even escaped. I would imagine fully escaping and evading would have been very unlikely, if the authorities had chosen their terrain well enough for the ambush; but it would still have been a possibility, however unlikely. If anything, his desire for a peaceful resolution is what cost him his life, in my opinion.

a reply to: Xcathdra

You know X I am getting more and more to the point where I do take sides against our govt. and law enforcement. But I will also never fail to admit it if I'm wrong. I'm not quite convinced of that yet.

a reply to: Shamrock6

I didn't use courts as a champion of truth

Yes you did....

Save your strawman for somebody else.

The only type of straw going on here is you clutching at them

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

Deflect all you want it was clear what you were alluding to

Need to ask a question here. Would a taser actually be effective in this case? With all the clothing Levoy must have been wearing? That looks a lot like a Carhartt jacket. Those things are tough and thick. Would the prongs of the taser actually penetrate that?

After going looking for videos of people actually being tased when not expecting it, I could find only this one that clearly shows the reaction to being tased. Seems to be much the same reaction as to being shot.
www.youtube.com...
The tasing happens after the 40 second mark. The victim grabs at her side.


Will be interesting to see if indeed a taser was deployed and if it was equipped with a camera.

a reply to: TheBadCabbie

There was no meeting you haven't figured that out yet????????? They were told by the sheriff to meet then to get them away from the others. It was done to limit the possibility of gun fire. Since the other vehicle surrendered to authorities then you insinuate he did so under a hail of gunfire. I find that scenario unlikely I'm pretty sure if they were shooting the jeep would have ran too. What happened is while they were arresting them he chose to leave deciding he didn't want to be arrested.

originally posted by: diggindirt
Need to ask a question here. Would a taser actually be effective in this case? With all the clothing Levoy must have been wearing? That looks a lot like a Carhartt jacket. Those things are tough and thick. Would the prongs of the taser actually penetrate that?

After going looking for videos of people actually being tased when not expecting it, I could find only this one that clearly shows the reaction to being tased. Seems to be much the same reaction as to being shot.
www.youtube.com...
The tasing happens after the 40 second mark. The victim grabs at her side.


Will be interesting to see if indeed a taser was deployed and if it was equipped with a camera.

Headshot offers the most exposed skin, in my opinion, so seems most liklely. The agent that was downrange of the other on screen agents was pretty close...otherwise I guess you'd go with multiple taser shots and it's iffy with a body shot that you're going to bring him down with any one shot, in my unprofessional opinion.

a reply to: TheBadCabbie

LOL ... talk about spin. First you're faulting me, now MSNBC ... it's like that old song by The Byrds.

You "wrote a reply" to a specific conversation between myself and another user. We were not discussing the general truth about what Mr. Fincum said, but specific claims that user had made about their own rendition of it. With all due respect, I have no need for what you consider "clarity" to be, as it seems to be a complex mixture of misinterpretation and psychic ability.

You continue to repeat a mantra that you apply to every situation. What you are doing is the farthest thing from "clarity" possible.

Ditto.

You act as if you have some corner on the truth, as if hundreds of news outlets, numerous members here at ATS are all either unable or unwilling to see the facts as you see them. You admit no bias and no possibility of error.

Finicum said what he said. I listened to it, and I know what I heard. I have no reason to fabricate anything. Perhaps you don't either. There is no doubt, however, that Finicum participated (and indeed was one of the leaders of) a staged armed occupation and shutdown of a government facility, and that is, whether anyone likes it or not, an illegal act, an oppressive act ... and indeed, in all interpretations both literal and legal ... a terrorist act.

That is the fact that is beyond clear. To deny that is simply to deny reality.

a reply to: dragonridr

There was no meeting you haven't figured that out yet?????????

Where are you getting your information? Are you saying this is a made-up story?
www.bluemountaineagle.com...

Grant County residents filled the John Day Senior Center beyond capacity Tuesday evening for a community meeting that was supposed to feature Ammon Bundy and leaders of the armed militia group occupying the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. Instead, Bundy and four other militants were arrested by the FBI on Highway 395 north of Burns before they could arrive. A sixth member of the group was shot and killed during the encounter. The news drew tears and anger from militia supporters at the meeting, who described it as an “ambush.”

Another source of this fictional meeting:
www.oregonlive.com...

When police stopped a group of vehicles containing Harney County occupation leader Ammon Bundy on Tuesday, the activist was two hours from John Day where he was scheduled to speak.
People turned up by the hundreds in the Grant County town of John Day to listen to Bundy and others talk about the protest at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in adjoining Harney County.
Some toted signs against the occupation. Far more turned up to express their solidarity with the Harney County protest. Before the meeting's scheduled opening at 6 p.m., the standing-room-only crowd at the John Day Senior Center started buzzing with rumors.
Something had gone wrong on Bundy's way to the meeting.

Hundreds are reported to have been there. Read the entire articles.
I've not been able to find a site that gives the capacity of the John Day Senior Citizens' Center but the articles say, "standing room only" and "hundreds showed up"

If you are going to make comments you really should get your facts straight....not take what is said on social media as the facts.
Your actual ignorance on the first issue contributes to skepticism on how much you have actually educated yourself on the whole issue. It takes time and diligence, and going beyond what social media and MSNC are telling you, to determine the facts of the matter.

ETA: The sheriff of Grant county was actually at the meeting in John Day. That's what Levoy was referring to when he said he was going to meet with the sheriff. The sheriff had helped them get the meeting set up.

from my first link

In John Day, the majority of people who approached the microphone during the town hall were supportive of Bundy and the armed protest. A smaller counter-protest was held outside the senior center, with roughly 30 people holding signs directing their ire at both the militia and Grant County Sheriff Glenn Palmer. Palmer, who appeared in uniform at the beginning of the meeting, declined to speak with media. When it became clear Bundy would not arrive, Houpt told the crowd it appeared there had been an altercation somewhere between John Day and Burns. News later circulated about the arrests and gunfight.