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: 25
82
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 12 2016 @ 06:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Since the only other witnesses were ducked down in the truck that leaves LE. You may believe them. I do not.

I worked with dirty cops. Nothing is going to scrub that memory clean.

Those weren't rubber bullets hitting that truck and those LEO's didn't give a damn who they killed as long as they could pop off a few.




posted on Mar, 12 2016 @ 06:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Restricted
Why did LE continue to put rounds into the truck


#What rounds? How many, what sort?


after they murdered Finicum


As Finicum was not murdered what are you babbling about?
edit on 12-3-2016 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2016 @ 08:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Restricted

Another example of not knowing what your talking about.

When he refused verbal commands he resisted arrest. When he fled the traffic stop he resisted arrest. When he 3engaged in a pursuit he resisted arrest. When he ignored verbal commands, again, he resisted arrest. When he reached for a weapon he resisted arrest.

Stop making false claims.


Oregon State Law 162.315¹
Resisting arrest

(1) A person commits the crime of resisting arrest if the person intentionally resists a person known by the person to be a peace officer or parole and probation officer in making an arrest.

(2) As used in this section:

(a) Arrest has the meaning given that term in ORS 133.005 (Definitions for ORS 133.005 to 133.400 and 133.410 to 133.450) and includes, but is not limited to, the booking process.

(b) Parole and probation officer has the meaning given that term in ORS 181.610 (Definitions for ORS 181.610 to 181.712).

(c) Resists means the use or threatened use of violence, physical force or any other means that creates a substantial risk of physical injury to any person and includes, but is not limited to, behavior clearly intended to prevent being taken into custody by overcoming the actions of the arresting officer. The behavior does not have to result in actual physical injury to an officer. Passive resistance does not constitute behavior intended to prevent being taken into custody.

(3) It is no defense to a prosecution under this section that the peace officer or parole and probation officer lacked legal authority to make the arrest or book the person, provided the officer was acting under color of official authority.

(4) Resisting arrest is a Class A misdemeanor. [1971 c.743 §206; 1989 c.877 §1; 1997 c.749 §3; 2005 c.668 §2]


Finicum's actions were NOT passive.
edit on 12-3-2016 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2016 @ 08:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Restricted

Again demonstrating your lack of knowledge.

I doubt you ever worked with dirty cops. Based on your posts / intentional misinformation I would believe it to be you that are "dirty".
edit on 12-3-2016 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2016 @ 08:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Restricted
a reply to: Xcathdra

Who died and made YOU mod?

You are a poor representative of LE. What a rotten know-it-all attitude.

I don't think Finicum expected LE would be so stupid as to shoot him. Obviously he was wrong.


No one but since you guys have no clue what your talking about its only right to correct you guys while warning others that your info is wrong.



posted on Mar, 12 2016 @ 08:29 PM
link   
a reply to: yuppa

and thus far proven wrong on all accounts. Why would I use a source that is known to be wrong, let alone it coming from a person who has every single post corrected since it was wrong as well.

Like Texas, where I showed you the law that says you cant resist an arrest by shooting a cop, even though you still push that falsehood of yours. Just like Indiana law not applying to Oregon.

You refuse to accept any fact that does not support your intentional misinformation.



posted on Mar, 12 2016 @ 09:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Restricted

Again demonstrating your lack of knowledge.

I doubt you ever worked with dirty cops. Based on your posts / intentional misinformation I would believe it to be you that are "dirty".


You've shown your true colors in attacking me personally.



posted on Mar, 12 2016 @ 11:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: yuppa

and thus far proven wrong on all accounts. Why would I use a source that is known to be wrong, let alone it coming from a person who has every single post corrected since it was wrong as well.

Like Texas, where I showed you the law that says you cant resist an arrest by shooting a cop, even though you still push that falsehood of yours. Just like Indiana law not applying to Oregon.

You refuse to accept any fact that does not support your intentional misinformation.


Blah blah blah. Durh I cop i know everything durh..... IN certain circumstances you can shoot a cop breakin ginto your home. If you KNOW they are coming thats a different story altoghther. Blue wall of silence. cops before civies and all that. lol.



posted on Mar, 12 2016 @ 11:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Restricted

Oh I'm sorry when you attacked me personally I thought the gloves came off. I don't think, you of all people, should be commenting on personal attacks.

Can we get back on topic now? like discussing the video that corroborates the version of events the police put out.



posted on Mar, 12 2016 @ 11:13 PM
link   
a reply to: yuppa

This is what I'm referring to. After being proven wrong and linked to the laws you still insist on spreading false info.

You were wrong. You still are wrong. Admit it, learn what you can from it and move on.

No, there are no circumstances - period.



posted on Mar, 12 2016 @ 11:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: yuppa

This is what I'm referring to. After being proven wrong and linked to the laws you still insist on spreading false info.

You were wrong. You still are wrong. Admit it, learn what you can from it and move on.

No, there are no circumstances - period.



So cops are above the law i s what you are suggesting. Even if one bust in your door and you are innocent you have no right to defend yourself right? My sound slike were already in a police state. SO i guess you have to ask are you a cop while in cover instead of reacting first now huh? do you know how retarded that sounds?



posted on Mar, 13 2016 @ 01:29 AM
link   
a reply to: yuppa

I apologize for the long post but there were things I wanted to say / address.

Nope they are not and ive demonstrated that also. You have absolutely no understanding of the job what so ever. Since your hung up on certain parts of the law try this.

Has it occurred to you, and my guess is no it has not, that the reason civilians are prevented by law from defending themselves with a gun / physical force against the police is to ensure people don't die? Law enforcement is allow3ed to escalate force to overcome the level of resistance where civilians are not since they are not acting under the color of law.. A civilian with a gun guarantees an armed encounter and probable death.

Like civilians, cops are not perfect and are prone to mistakes. Walk a mile in our shoes before spouting off about something you know nothing about. When we are dispatched to a check a person call we have no idea if the call is legitimate. Officers have been sent to calls expecting one thing only to be shot and killed because the call was bogus and the reason for the call was to kill a cop.

Fire services have been targeted in this manner.
EMS operations have been targeted in this manner.

There is a term called "swatting", where a bogus 911 call results in a swat team being sent to an innocent persons home under the guise of major felonies, like kidnapping or murder. The crime is bad, diverting police / fire / ems resources are bad, interrupting the lives of the people being "swatted" ARE HORRIBLE. Responding with gun fire when the police announce their presence results in a tragedy. A no knock warrant, in general, does not allow the police to enter without identifying themselves. It allows the police to breach the door for entry without knocking / waiting for a person to answer the door. We still identify ourselves as police while entering. Check youtube for swatting videos and you will see what im talking about.

The laws you dismiss are present to ensure a situation doesnt go from bad to deadly.

The job of police officer is more complex than you and some others think. We are forced to make split second life and death decisions based on only the info we have at the time. Its why scotus says 20/20 hindsight cant be used when reviewing an officer's use of force. Its why laws that prevent people from using deadly force on police exist.

You ignore the fact that 99% of calls police are sent to are resolved peacefully with no use of physical force. You latch onto the media's distorted view when they do cover deadly force encounters where they have a bad habit of reporting rumor as fact while filling in the blanks with guesses.

Your paranoia, conspiracy driven paranoia are doing absolutely nothing to help you learn and understand.

As I have stated time and again the repairs that are needed between the police and the people we serve must start with communication. It must allow both sides to explain why they see or do the things they do. Its been my experience, situation allowing, to talk to the people involved to try and answer the questions im legally allowed to answer.

Legally allowed you say, with the conspiracy kicking in. Police are restricted by law from speaking to people we are dealing with about legal issues. My response is the law prohibits me from answering your questions as its a legal question. You need to speak to a lawyer.

You guys constantly slam police yet at no point have you ever asked questions to better understand what it is what we do. I have stated many times for people to ask questions and I would try to answer them, along with the encouragement for other leos or lawyers to correct me if im wrong or have a different view. I also encourage them to ask people they deal with in real life to ask.

What you guys cant seem to understand is you have access to the "play book" for law enforcement. You guys seem to think it would be the end of the world to educate yourselves on it. Learning does not require you to change your stance. So you don't like a law you think is biased / unfair. There is nothing stopping you from reading the law, pulling together stats on the effect of the law and its application and forming an alternative answer and pushing for change.

Every thread like this one helps me to better prepare when I do encounter someone who doesn't care for police and I have been successful in deescalating some encounters where I was able to understand their position. I have had people thank me for showing the side this side of the equation.

I have no problems if people dont like us as its a fact of life. What I do have issues with is when people refuse to engage in conversation and would rather cast aspersions than seek solutions.

Bitching followed with no actions to correct / change / fix / communicate the issues doesn't fix anything.
edit on 13-3-2016 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2016 @ 08:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra
That was a well thought out post and i think i get what youre trying to say. Its a necessary evil in other words. I still think the founding fathers would have a bitchfit over it. I know a few cops. My dad was a MP in the army as well.

Yes its a dangerous job but i have a hard time with a policeman always being in th eright. Ive known some dirty cops too and those espepcially abuse the power given to them. It may be a step in th ewrong direction but i do think we need to further restrict our law enforcement from entering a building unless its with direct permission OR a crime is visible going on.

As to the OP of this thread. There is enough doubt in my mind to say at least BOTH sides should be held liable. first stop should had goten out. th e second one the feds were at fault for escalating it further. I saw the man get out looked like hands was up from that angle in the still.

Look no hard feelings man. its just we have to agree to disagree on this topic. I migh tneed to run for office oneday and change the way i t is because granting polic e immunity from being fire d on IF they are illegally assaulting you is wrong. Thankfully thos e examples are far and few between.



posted on Mar, 14 2016 @ 02:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: yuppa
Has it occurred to you, and my guess is no it has not, that the reason civilians are prevented by law from defending themselves with a gun / physical force against the police is to ensure people don't die?


No man, thats crap. I dont agree that it should be applied in some rare instances where hot headed cops involved in domestic affairs draws on a civi cheater. That person should have the right to cut that LEO down because we dont know the state of mind could be very unstable. Acquit the person defending himself with lethal fore, that is justified in situations like that.

Our prophet Lavoy stood up against a half dozen feral beasts that spit fire from their fingers and took ½ dozen hits before finally falling down! His likeness and words shall grace the halls of citizens of the land from coast to coast. Children will dress as him on Halloween. Local small towns may honor him in their parades! He is sitting back player a game of poker with Washington, Jefferson, Jackson, and Franklin with Jesus dealing and Annie Oakley.

We shall remember the hero who was cut down by the devils direct agents.


I am really going to enjoy the popcorn when I watch actors play him in movies which will recreate this story. I just hope they get a good music score with some Western influences.



posted on Mar, 14 2016 @ 03:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: AmericanRealist
and took ½ dozen hits


Why make up crap when we know the nutter Finicum was only hit 3 times?



posted on Mar, 14 2016 @ 03:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: AmericanRealist
and took ½ dozen hits


Why make up crap when we know the nutter Finicum was only hit 3 times?





Why do you feel the need to point out the obvious



posted on Mar, 14 2016 @ 03:30 AM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce

I was spinning me some folk tales here man! Its fer the future cowboys to tell each other like Paul Bunyan stories. They will be told!



posted on Mar, 14 2016 @ 08:14 AM
link   
a reply to: kyleplatinum

I am sorry you were wrong. Don't double down. There were officers hidden in the trees on the sides of the road. And it was a blind turn, you can use google maps if you wish. You just got all kinds of bad information on your post there.



posted on Mar, 14 2016 @ 05:38 PM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko

It was not an ambush.



posted on Mar, 14 2016 @ 05:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: AmericanRealist
and took ½ dozen hits


Why make up crap when we know the nutter Finicum was only hit 3 times?





Why do you feel the need to point out the obvious


If he didn't people would think the info is accurate instead of what it really is - a lie.



new topics

top topics



 
82
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join