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.

 

Shawna Cox Video from Inside LaVoy's Truck

page: 23
82
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 11 2016 @ 05:07 PM
link   
It is a cop out. I asked if it was legal to shoot at him as he was exiting the vehicle, and you're reply was "Yes! Totality!". So if I take a couple of potshots at someone with their hands up, I can use the "Totality" defense? Do you think I'd walk?




posted on Mar, 11 2016 @ 05:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: mzinga
a reply to: Xcathdra

I have also said this over and over. This is the key all you people who want to chastise law enforcement. None of this had to happen. They chose for this to happen. Why are we making excuses for the criminals here? The car was being used as a weapon, if he didn't want to die all he had to do is stop and follow instructions.



To be honest I think the bulk of the people defending Finicum / Bundy's / militia are doing so not out of common interest or solidarity but more so because it gives them a soapbox to spout off / dream up conspiracies against the government and police.



posted on Mar, 11 2016 @ 05:21 PM
link   
I don't see it as a conspiracy. I see it as a deliberate escalation by LE to snag a person whom they considered a radical.

Law enforcement always wins. Civilians will never hear this said in their presence, but behind closed doors it is the law.

LE will always win and they don't care how they do it.

Understand this when you deal with them.

Finicum pissed them off, so they passively escalated to goad him and it cost him his life.

LE: 1
Alleged Domestic Terrorist: 0

Mission accomplished.



posted on Mar, 11 2016 @ 05:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Flatcoat

Well Finicum exhibited the same level of ignorance you are so I would not recommend it.

However, if that person was armed, said he wont go to jail, ignored verbal commands at a traffic stop, fled a traffic stop, engaged in a pursuit, avoided spike strips, didnt stop when police shot the vehicle to disable it, tried to drive around a road block, coming close to hitting / killing an officer, ignored verbal commands while bouncing out of the truck all the while ignoring verbal commands, ignoring the officers who had guns trained on him while the guy is yelling just shoot me then yes, you could shoot Finicum to stop the threat and you can claim totality of circumstances.

Absent you being a police officer you would be required to abide by state laws for the use of deadly force in self defense as a civilian since you are not acting under color of law. It would also depend on the state and if it is a duty to retreat or a no duty to retreat state.

As for your last comment yes, you can make the argument using totality of circumstances to justify why you shot at someone. As with law enforcement, you will have to justify your actions.

Contrary to popular belief the requirements for a civilian in using force are a lot less strict than for law enforcement.

Each and every case brought before the court is unique, restricted to the specific incident. What is appropriate in one case may not be in a similar case.



posted on Mar, 11 2016 @ 05:28 PM
link   
assuming the double post occurred from the attack.
edit on 11-3-2016 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 11 2016 @ 06:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Restricted
I don't see it as a conspiracy.

Yet that is what your post is.




originally posted by: Restricted
I see it as a deliberate escalation by LE to snag a person whom they considered a radical.

Actually they were attempting to arrest people for breaking the law, which Finicum did up to the very end.



originally posted by: Restricted
Law enforcement always wins. Civilians will never hear this said in their presence, but behind closed doors it is the law.

I've never had that conversation nor has any of my coworkers, present or past.



originally posted by: Restricted
LE will always win and they don't care how they do it.

Wrong and there is a ton of court cases / scotus rulings proving you wrong.



originally posted by: Restricted
Understand this when you deal with them.

Again, a conspiracy claimed based on opinion and no facts.

Finicum pissed them off, so they passively escalated to goad him and it cost him his life.



originally posted by: Restricted
LE: 1
Alleged Domestic Terrorist: 0

Mission accomplished.

He should have surrender instead of acting like a fool. His actions / choices caused his death.

So it would be -
LE: 0
Darwin award: 1
edit on 11-3-2016 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 11 2016 @ 06:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra

So it would be -
LE: 0
Darwin award: 1


REALLY?
Those LE/FED looked like a bunch of monkeys with guns.... By their actions I would say they are lower on the evolution chain.
Genus half monkey, half pig.


edit on 11-3-2016 by imitator because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 11 2016 @ 06:19 PM
link   
a reply to: imitator

Yet they abide by the law and Finicum did not. Lashing out wont change the idiotic behavior Finicum exhibited, resulting in his death.

So, yes really -
LE: 0
Darwin award: 1
edit on 11-3-2016 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 11 2016 @ 06:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

I'm going with
LaVoy: Hero
Law Enforcement/FEDS: zeros

Plus murder is a lower primal trait.... I'm sure Darwin would agree.



posted on Mar, 11 2016 @ 06:53 PM
link   

I've never had that conversation nor has any of my coworkers, present or past.


We have.



posted on Mar, 11 2016 @ 06:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: imitator
a reply to: Xcathdra

I'm going with
LaVoy: Hero
Law Enforcement/FEDS: zeros

Plus murder is a lower primal trait.... I'm sure Darwin would agree.


Just like he would agree, using science, law and common sense, that no murder occurred. Suicide by cop maybe. I don't understand why you guys ignore Finicums own words that he wont go to jail or that he will point his guy at someone pointing one at him. Do you ignore it because it doesn't support your accusations or what?
edit on 11-3-2016 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 11 2016 @ 07:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: Flatcoat
a reply to: Xcathdra

So do consider being shot at while exiting the vehicle with his hands up illegal?


Given the totality of circumstances nope. He would be alive had he not fled.


Just fleeing isnt grounds for being shot to death. i remember the law stating that somewhere. ANd he was fleeing because he was shot at and in hi s mind was avoiding a illegal arrest.



posted on Mar, 11 2016 @ 07:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: yuppa

Should have done more research -


This case is widely cited on the Internet in blogs and discussion groups.[19] The most commonly quoted version is:

"Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306 [sic]. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated: “Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed."[20]

The above Plummer v. State quote is a fabrication; the text does not appear in the text of the Plummer opinion.[21] Modern sources citing Plummer and Bad Elk have tended to discuss the issue as defense against unlawful force; under contemporary law in most jurisdictions, a person may not use force to resist an unlawful arrest.


Secondly it occurred in the late 1800's using common law as a basis. That has changed since then with state laws. Third it was, once again a state court ruling, applying only to that state and only before the law making it illegal to resist an arrest.

* - John Bad Elk v. U.S - A scotus ruling thats no longer applicable as state laws rectified the issue the court found.

You will find the cases in your source are not longer applicable.

Stop seeing only what you want while ignoring the facts that dont support your argument.

Indiana has the only law that allows a person to defend against law enforcement actions, and as I stated and posted and you ignored, the restrictions on use against the police are present and restricted to very specific instances.


Apparently Teh castle doctrine and Texas would disagree. The castle law applies to ALL break ins that includes SWAT TEAMS. IF you are innocent and a cop breaks in yes you can end his career/and life. You didnt read th earticles i posted apparently. if you did the One in TEXAS was recent and the man who shot the swat team officer was not charged for murder or attempted murder. Now correc tme i fi am wrong but that wasnt too long ago. as in within th elast 10 yrs or so i fi remeber. Still As i said earlier indoctrination is a powerful thing.



posted on Mar, 11 2016 @ 10:04 PM
link   
a reply to: yuppa

and yet it still has no bearing on Oregon law or Finicums actions.

The castle doctrine deals with the home (and in some states the car as well). It does not include law enforcement (your Texas comment) since the only way to enter a residence is by consent, fresh pursuit and a warrant.

Also -
Texas Penal Code 9.31.C

(c) The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified:

(1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search; and

(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.




(d) The use of deadly force is not justified under this subchapter except as provided in Sections 9.32, 9.33, and 9.34.


So no you cant resist an arrest by shooting a cop in Texas.

Back to the topic.
edit on 11-3-2016 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 11 2016 @ 10:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: Flatcoat
a reply to: Xcathdra

So do consider being shot at while exiting the vehicle with his hands up illegal?


Given the totality of circumstances nope. He would be alive had he not fled.


Just fleeing isnt grounds for being shot to death. i remember the law stating that somewhere. ANd he was fleeing because he was shot at and in hi s mind was avoiding a illegal arrest.


He did not just flee and this has been pointed out time and again. Also it is possible to use deadly force on someone who is just fleeing by taking into account the suspects actions at the time. If he/she present an imminent threat to the officers / general public then its permissible under Tennessee vs Garner.

You are also overlooking / ignoring the fact police are allowed to escalate their use of force to overcome the level of resistance.

All of which we saw in Finicums actions from start to finish.

Which is why I keep saying totality of circumstances. A view of the incident in its entirety and not just a view of the shooting.



posted on Mar, 12 2016 @ 12:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra

Just like he would agree, using science, law and common sense, that no murder occurred. Suicide by cop maybe. I don't understand why you guys ignore Finicums own words that he wont go to jail or that he will point his guy at someone pointing one at him. Do you ignore it because it doesn't support your accusations or what?


There is nothing to ignore, those where trumped up charges.... and yes he is aloud to point his guy at tyrants.

Your science hypothesis is false, look at the data:

1. shot at while driving
2. hidden ambush, roadblock
3. hands in the air
4. shot in the back 3 times
5. there is no just laws when there is tyranny
because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual. -Thomas Jefferson

In science you choose the hypothesis that provides the best fit to the data, and this data points to murder.

Those murders violated LaVoy's 1st Amendment rights along with the 2nd Amendment rights etc... all federal government laws are void when tyrants are in control.



posted on Mar, 12 2016 @ 01:06 AM
link   
a reply to: imitator

You cant substitute your opinion in place of the law. Learn the law so you can better understand the situation. It will cut down on the circular argument you are trying to make.

Next time if you want to be taken seriously dont base your argument on ignoring / breaking the law. Doing that didn't work out for Finicum nor the Bundy's.
edit on 12-3-2016 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2016 @ 01:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Flatcoat

Totality of circumstances.

When he almost hit the officer it demonstrated an indifference to life. When he bolted out of the truck he continued to present an imminent danger to everyone present.

You have to take into account everything leading up to the final encounter.

And no its not a cop out.


Maybe if LEO hadn't set up a road block in the middle of a curve, and the LEO didn't jump in front of the car, those things wouldn't have happened?

Doesn't matter though...Outcome would have been the same.

Unless he was anything but white, that is. Had he been any other race this would be nonstop news, 24/7.




posted on Mar, 12 2016 @ 02:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: imitator

originally posted by: Xcathdra

Just like he would agree, using science, law and common sense, that no murder occurred. Suicide by cop maybe. I don't understand why you guys ignore Finicums own words that he wont go to jail or that he will point his guy at someone pointing one at him. Do you ignore it because it doesn't support your accusations or what?


There is nothing to ignore, those where trumped up charges.... and yes he is aloud to point his guy at tyrants.

Your science hypothesis is false, look at the data:

1. shot at while driving
2. hidden ambush, roadblock
3. hands in the air
4. shot in the back 3 times
5. there is no just laws when there is tyranny
because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual. -Thomas Jefferson

In science you choose the hypothesis that provides the best fit to the data, and this data points to murder.

Those murders violated LaVoy's 1st Amendment rights along with the 2nd Amendment rights etc... all federal government laws are void when tyrants are in control.


The boot licking types will never see ANYTHING wrong with this shooting.

I mean, who puts up a road block in a curve?? That in itself is against the Oregon SP policies and procedures...But then I guess those same LEO defenders will come back with "but it was the FBI..." bull snip.

RIP LaVoy. Unless you live out in the western US, you have NO idea the amount of Federal land there is. For no other reason than just because they can.



posted on Mar, 12 2016 @ 02:34 AM
link   
a reply to: lovebeck

It was not set up in the middle of a curve. Maybe he should not have fled a traffic stop, engaged in a pursuit, avoided spike strips and tried to go around the roadblock the end result would have different.

Finicum could have surrendered peacefully at any point and instead he opted to cause his own depth.

Contrary to popular belief ignorance is not bliss so leave the race card at home next time.



new topics

top topics



 
82
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join