Shawna Cox Video from Inside LaVoy's Truck

a reply to: raymundoko

Just for the sake of what the Investigation has reported, this quote is from Page 8 of the PDF text of the press conference on March 8th so we all know what's being stated about the gun:

SN: Many of you have seen the social media photos of
Mr. Finicum carrying a firearm on his left side. The
Oregon State Police troopers had been briefed and were
aware that Mr. Finnicum carried a handgun on his left
side. During the investigation of the scene, Major
Incident Team investigators found a loaded 9mm
handgun in the left hand interior pocket of Mr. Finicum’s
jacket. Detectives recovered the 9mm loaded handgun
from that interior pocket and were able to determine
that the handgun was a gift from a relative to Mr.
Finicum.

From here

a reply to: Indigo5

You must have missed this.

a reply to: Indigo5

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Boadicea

First stop. NOT the last stop.
The first stop is where Finicum fled the scene.


My mistake -- and my apologies. From the same link, at the first stop:

"Payne, the tactical leader of the occupation, surrendered after a state trooper fired a plastic tipped 40mm pepper spray round that struck the truck's canopy."

a reply to: tweetie

Fully aware, I read the whole thing. However in social media he has it HOLSTERED at all times. Why did he decide to not wear a holster and just so happened to be a gun that his family can't account for?

They say:

Detectives recovered the 9mm loaded handgun from that interior pocket and were able to determine that the handgun was a gift from a relative to Mr. Finicum.

Yet everyone in the family so far has said it was not his gun and they don't know where it came from...

What I find particularly interesting is this:

In the early stages of the investigation we could not
explain the 4th shot into the roof of the truck or its
trajectory, given the placement of the Oregon State
Police troopers at the time.
We had conclusive evidence that the Oregon State Police
troopers fired 6 shots, the three that hit the truck and
the three that hit Mr. Finicum.
During the course of our investigation, we discovered
evidence that FBI HRT operators fired two shots as Mr.
Finnicum exited the truck, and one shot hit the truck. The
footage from Ms. Cox’s camera confirms this. Neither of
these two shots fired by HRT operators struck Mr.
Finicum.
14
The HRT operators were interviewed on the evening of
January 26 and again on February 5th and 6th during the
investigation by the Major Incident Team. Of particular
concern to all of us, is that the FBI HRT operators did not
disclose their shots to our investigators. Nor did they
disclose specific actions they took after the shooting.
The failure by HRT operators to disclose that they fired
shots during this contact, and actions they took after the
shooting are the subject of an ongoing investigation by
both the Deschutes County Sheriff’s Office and the
Inspector General of the United States Department of
Justice.

I find it hard to believe a trained sniper missed twice, once wildly. I have a hunch, and it could be a bad one, that the shots were to create the tense situation without an FBI agent being the one who had to shoot him.

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Indigo5


Again you drive a false narrative.

Please stop the BS???? If you afraid to discuss facts then baiting would be a solution?

Direct link PDF to Autopsy Report

He had TWO exit wounds on his left side. One from his 4th rib and one under his left pectoral. Did you even read the autopsy report you are claiming to have knowledge of?

You are lying here...
He had two gunshot wounds on the left hand side...
(1) in the upper left shoulder
(2) upper left chest (4th rib) ABOVE the nipple...and I quote "ABOVE and Medial to the left nipple"...which is where the 4th rib is.

(YOUR LINK ABOVE)

Neither of which were anywhere near his left torso/waistline where you claim he was reaching for a wound.

"The abdomen is flat, soft, free of palpable mass and uninjured"

Gunshot wounds:
#1 "Left Shoulder"
#2 Left "Neck and Upper Chest"
#3 Right Lower Back

NONE TO HIS WAIST ON THE LEFT

Now is a good time to point out Lavoys family also had an autopsy done near immediately and chose not to release it...cuz it did not support the false narrative.

He had no wound anywhere near where he was reaching.

This is scientific fact...you have provided the link yourself to the autopsy explaining the same..

Here is a snip of a picture just to help you reconcile your error..

Facing away (from his back)...no wounds where he was reaching on the left waistline...

Here are a few questions & I apologize up front if they
are stupid...
If any of those people & Finicum himself were carrying
guns, wouldn't they mention them in the conversation?

Like damn we don't have enough guns & ammo
to handle this confrontation? or after leaving the first stop
saying, we bloody better toss the guns, or make sure
all weapons are fully loaded this is going to be a blood bath?

I'm just curious...since they don't mention any guns & no one else
had any with or on their persons, just maybe Finicum did not
have that gun on him?

Seems that it may also be difficult to plant one with all those
officers around but still possible.
Thanks guys.

Cheers
Ektar

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: Indigo5

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Boadicea

First stop. NOT the last stop.

The first stop is where Finicum fled the scene.

My mistake -- and my apologies. From the same link, at the first stop:

"Payne, the tactical leader of the occupation, surrendered after a state trooper fired a plastic tipped 40mm pepper spray round that struck the truck's canopy."

OK...Not sure if that counts as "shooting at them" at the first stop..

It is a non-lethal, big fat pepper spray round..that bounced off the canopy of the truck?

40mm Pepper spray round

a reply to: Indigo5

OK...Not sure if that counts as "shooting at them" at the first stop..

I think what matters is what Finicum and the others in the vehicle perceived/knew, and how that would influence and motivate their further actions/reactions.

NONE TO HIS WAIST ON THE LEFT... He had no wound anywhere near where he was reaching.

According to the autopsy report here, pages 1 and 2, the third "gunshot wound of the right lower back, abdomen and chest" entered from the right, traveling left, back-to-front, in an upward path, exiting "below and medial to the left nipple."

Now is a good time to point out Lavoys family also had an autopsy done near immediately and chose not to release it...cuz it did not support the false narrative.

There are many possible reasons for why the family has not yet released their autopsy result, especially in terms of future legal action against responsible parties.

a reply to: raymundoko

Thank you for that! I am not yet convinced LaVoy had a gun in his pocket. He did know, though, two days before he died that things might become kinetic with law enforcement very soon.

There is a photo of the alleged gun at, "The Oregonian" in case you, or anyone, haven't seen it. I will link the page again once I find it.

Here it is; see the slide.

Your hunch at this time is plausible.

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: Indigo5


According to the autopsy report here, pages 1 and 2, the third "gunshot wound of the right lower back, abdomen and chest" entered from the right, traveling left, back-to-front, in an upward path, exiting "below and medial to the left nipple."

That bullet exited "medial" meaning inside or toward center between nipple and the sternum...very close to the nipple at the 5th rib. No where near his waist. It exited between where the nipple is and the center of the chest...where the V meets. You can look up the location of the 5th rib.
Actually it exited between the 4th and 5th ribs as I read this again..that is an inch at best below the nipple and toward center...again no where near his waist on the left.

a reply to: Dragoon01

Ryan Bundy. He dropped his pistol in the snow when he exited the truck... or maybe his phone. Earlier in the video you can see him holding his phone inside of the truck trying to call out.

a reply to: Indigo5

That bullet exited "medial" meaning inside or toward center between nipple and the sternum...very close to the nipple at the 5th rib. No where near his waist.

I quoted the report. I did not qualify it. You did.

Obviously, "nowhere near" is not used in the autopsy report, and is a relative term as defined by the user (you); however, we are talking about the same general area of a few inches. That is not "nowhere near" to me. If the exit wound were in the bottom of the foot, that would be "nowhere near."

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Elementalist

Because the majority of Americans understand Finicum / Bundy's have no legitimate argument and know the actions they were taking were going to result in a confrontation. Even the citizens living in the area this occurred in wanted the militia people gone and the Hammonds stated numerous times they did not speak for / represent them.

Further the people who are outraged are only outraged because they substitute their opinion for the law. As an example some posts in this thread.

Your argument is the weakest form I've seen here.

You CANNOT justify the actions by these killers. If you believe you can, your in denial period.

The universe doesn't work for politics, Fbi, and government. Get that straight. Nor the political correct bullsnip.

There were a trillion different approaches to this situation especially what we see in this video.

CHILDREN WERE BEING SHOT AT BY THE ESTABLISHMENT.

originally posted by: namehere
where does it say you can't defend yourself when shot at for no reason just because they are police, fbi or whatever?

Oregon State Law 161.260 - Use of physical force in resisting arrest prohibited

A person may not use physical force to resist an arrest by a peace officer who is known or reasonably appears to be a peace officer, whether the arrest is lawful or unlawful. [1971 c.743 §32]

As for Finicum's actions -

161.235¹ Use of physical force in making an arrest or in preventing an escape

Except as provided in ORS 161.239 (Use of deadly physical force in making an arrest or in preventing an escape), a peace officer is justified in using physical force upon another person only when and to the extent that the peace officer reasonably believes it necessary:

(1) To make an arrest or to prevent the escape from custody of an arrested person unless the peace officer knows that the arrest is unlawful; or

(2) For self-defense or to defend a third person from what the peace officer reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of physical force while making or attempting to make an arrest or while preventing or attempting to prevent an escape. [1971 c.743 §27]

161.239¹ Use of deadly physical force in making an arrest or in preventing an escape

(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of ORS 161.235 (Use of physical force in making an arrest or in preventing an escape), a peace officer may use deadly physical force only when the peace officer reasonably believes that:

(a) The crime committed by the person was a felony or an attempt to commit a felony involving the use or threatened imminent use of physical force against a person; or

(b) The crime committed by the person was kidnapping, arson, escape in the first degree, burglary in the first degree or any attempt to commit such a crime; or

(c) Regardless of the particular offense which is the subject of the arrest or attempted escape, the use of deadly physical force is necessary to defend the peace officer or another person from the use or threatened imminent use of deadly physical force; or

(d) The crime committed by the person was a felony or an attempt to commit a felony and under the totality of the circumstances existing at the time and place, the use of such force is necessary; or

(e) The officers life or personal safety is endangered in the particular circumstances involved.

(2) Nothing in subsection (1) of this section constitutes justification for reckless or criminally negligent conduct by a peace officer amounting to an offense against or with respect to innocent persons whom the peace officer is not seeking to arrest or retain in custody. [1971 c.743 §28]

There is that pesky totality of circumstances thing people ignore (not the person im responding to).

Again the proper setting to argue legalities is in court and not roadside.


ETA -
For those not familiar with legal jargon. The laws cited above spell out the elements of the crime. When a law gives multiple "elements" you will see 2 specific terms - "and" as well as "or". When the list uses the term "and" it means all elements must be met. When the term "or" is used it means each individual element is a stand alone and only one element is needed to violate the law.

In the above laws you will see the term "or" is prevalent.

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: Indigo5

That bullet exited "medial" meaning inside or toward center between nipple and the sternum...very close to the nipple at the 5th rib. No where near his waist.

I quoted the report. I did not qualify it. You did.

Obviously, "nowhere near" is not used in the autopsy report, and is a relative term as defined by the user (you); however, we are talking about the same general area of a few inches. That is not "nowhere near" to me. If the exit wound were in the bottom of the foot, that would be "nowhere near."

Touch where your ribs meet in a V at the center of the chest...that is within 2 inches of where the bullet exited..

that is not anywhere near his waist..

that is what the autopsy clearly states ..medial (toward center) to the nipple...4th and 5th ribs...

originally posted by: Elementalist
CHILDREN WERE BEING SHOT AT BY THE ESTABLISHMENT.

No children were in the car.

This whole thing could have been avoided had the militia not hijacked the Hammonds issues for the bundys agenda. They could have not come to oregon. They could have peacefully surrendered at the first stop. He could have complied at the last stop.

The option to settle this peacefully and remain alive was in Finicums hands the entire time.

He chose poorly.

originally posted by: WonderToys
a reply to: Xcathdra

It's been fascinating watching you argue how the law works with people who are arguing how they think it should work.

I agree he shouldn't have been shot, but I also agree that I don't see much in these videos that show it was an unlawful shooting by the police/FBI.

At least they are engaging in a debate... Its certainly a lot more productive than not communicating with law enforcement at all.

Besides its my hope that people might take the time to learn about how this all works instead of just assuming. I certainly dont expect people to change their minds but at the very least they might walk away with a better understanding of why police do some of the things they do. That understanding, in turn, can lead them to making a stronger argument as to why some things should be changed.

Its not everyday you get to read the "oppositions playbook". In this case its open to all. Learn it and make your argument to change things from a position of knowledge.

a reply to: Foxtrot7x

Sorry for being educated on the topic. Would you prefer I lie and just make things up while interjecting my opinion as fact?

originally posted by: Foxtrot7x
a reply to: Xcathdra

The verdict who was the guilty party is decided by the courts n not by some random parrot sitting behind a keyboard . Why are you duscussing this again ?

Because I know what im talking about and can.

Whats your excuse?

originally posted by: BatheInTheFountain

3) There is no proof on video or audio that he was reaching for a weapon. It can't be called either way.

Yes but remember in the US court system the police are always right and it's you who has to prove they are wrong (as unfortunate as it is...).

originally posted by: Granite
YT Channel

See the entire events from the first stop to the final stop.

LaVoy is murdered at 5:45 mintute mark.

I am mobile so can someone post the video?
Thanks in advance!

I'm surprised at the LEO's restraint for over 5 minutes, that's what I got out of it.