Shawna Cox Video from Inside LaVoy's Truck

a reply to: Xcathdra

Well then, I hope we find out. Mainstream is making an issue of the discrepancies, for a change.

This was an FBI op; OSP was assisting.

a reply to: Xcathdra

A legal ambush is still an ambush...you can't change the definition of words.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Oh really? You think? Everything the FBI did seems shady, including where and how they chose to create a road block. You've been blindly defending the wrong side on this one.

a reply to: raymundoko

Not at all considering the shooting was justified as I and others have been stating. My issues are the actions of the FBI after the scene was secured for processing. Everything leading up to the conclusion of this incident was lawful. The actions of the FBI makes no sense. Its why I am thinking something else might be the reason they did what they did.

a reply to: Xcathdra

So because something is lawful means it can't be shady? Come on man...

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Xcathdra

So because something is lawful means it can't be shady? Come on man...

What part of my posts are confusing you since im saying just that and for some stupid ass reason you keep telling me im saying something different.

Seriously, what part is throwing you. I will clarify even more, if its possible since ive been pretty clear thus far on the FBI lying.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Don't be dense intentionally:

Not at all considering the shooting was justified as I and others have been stating

That's your quote when I said everything was shady. So get off your confused butt and figure your stance out bro.

I think you are slowly realizing you backed the wrong horse. The FBI set this up to fail.

a reply to: raymundoko

The shooting was justified and the result proves that. The FBI lying is not relevant to what occurred.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Not relevant? What if the FBi fired the shots intentionally to spark a firefight between the OSP and Lavoy? Would that not be related?

a reply to: raymundoko

Lets try this again... OSP fired the first 3 shots, the FBI then fired 2 and the OSP fired the final 3. The FBI shooting was in fact justified, as the USP shots were. The issue is not the discharging of a firearm, its telling the investigators they didnt fire.

They arent related.

a reply to: Xcathdra

OSP fired 3 shots at the vehicle yes, but they did not fire when Lavoy exited the vehicle and they hadn't fired for several seconds. A TRAINED, ELITE FBI sniper did fire twice (and missed) at a man who had his hands above his shoulders. OSP showed further restraint by not firing again until an agent appeared to be in immediate danger. The FBI also instructed where to setup the roadblock, on a nearly blind turn for the drivers side (left turn) when there was plenty of straight road available.

So the issue here is you are sticking with the "justified" line, when I've never, not once, disputed that. It's a logical fallacy on your part to keep bringing it up. I am saying it was SHADY that a trained sniper missed twice when shooting at a man that less trained individuals recognized, according to the reports, as someone who exited the vehicle in a surrendering manner so much so that one even decided to switch to a taser. That agent as well as the agent next to him then both lied claiming he did not discharge his weapon. For you to not see how both of those could possibly be related is baffling.

a reply to: raymundoko

Yeah all the shots were justified, even the fbi ones. Thats not in dispute by those who know what they are talking about.

The FBI not disclosing the shots fired is not related to the outcome of Finicums shooting. If they said they fired the shooting was still justified.

The 2 arent related.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Hey look, a logical fallacy again...

Please, by all means, show my post where I said it wasn't justified. I've even defended the justification of the shooting.

If they said they fired the shooting was still justified.

And therein is your problem. They DIDN'T say they fired, in fact they LIED. This throws their entire operation into question.

Also, let me point out this error on your part:

The FBI not disclosing the shots fired

Don't use jargon that does not apply to muddy the waters. You know full well that legally "not disclosing the shots" is not the same as "lying when asked". Officers are not required to report all shots in a justified shooting unless they caused injury or damage (even then it can vary). They often do but don't have to account for every shot. If they are asked specifically they will comply. These FBI agents chose to lie and even discussed it among themselves...

a reply to: raymundoko

and again it has no bearing on the Finicum shooting as it was justified. If the FBI said they shot it was justified. If they didnt shoot it would still be ruled justified. If they shot and failed to disclose it the shooting was still justified.

Not disclosing the info to investigators has no bearing on the Finicum case...

Do I need to speak more slowly for you to understand this?

a reply to: Xcathdra

No, the only one not understanding is you. You need to read more slowly so you can understand.

1) You start your post with the same logical fallacy. I've never disputed the justification. The shooting was justified. I said the entire circumstances were SHADY.

2) Now we've got a blatant lie on your part as "failed to disclose" is NOT what happened and you've repeated it yet again. They were specifically asked by investigators and LIED. It's very different in legal terms and you know it. Yes they initially chose not to disclose their shots, they may not have been required to as I have pointed out in previous posts. However, when they were specifically asked, they lied. That's why they are under investigation.

So why would the agents lie? It's my opinion that the FBI agent shot at Lavoy intentionally to spark a firefight which is why they lied. Maybe you need a nap? You don't seem to be processing correctly.

a reply to: raymundoko

Failed to disclose is exactly what occurred. Brush up on your legal studies since they mean the same thing.

“Failure to disclose” is a legal term that refers to a situation where important information has been omitted when there was an obligation to provide the information.

Lie
1.a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
Synonyms: prevarication, falsification.
Antonyms: truth.

2.something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture:
His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.

3.an inaccurate or false statement; a falsehood.

4.the charge or accusation of telling a lie: He flung the lie back at his accusers.

Lying by omission, otherwise known as exclusionary detailing, is lying by either omitting certain facts or by failing to correct a misconception.

Failing to disclose is in fact the legal term thats used. Oregon law also uses false report, providing false information however nowhere is the term "lie" used. In addition you can look at conspiracy if other agents helped conceal in addition to tampering with evidence. The wild card is which laws will be used if it gets to the charges stage - State or Federal.

We done with the semantics kick your on or what?

Second your "theory" on why the FBI shot ignores the fact that OSP fired the first 3 shots and not the FBI. Not sure how you are going to rectify that fact with your "theory".

As for not understanding well that would be you. I said the FBI actions have no impact on the Finicum shooting and gave examples as to why thats true. You seem to be lost on that concept.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Yet again you fail to read:

Yes they initially chose not to disclose their shots

So clearly I said failure to disclose was included.

But failure to disclose wasn't the only issue. That was what INITIALLY happened. They then lied, which is called making false statements. I am fairly confident you are totally aware of this since you are a "police officer".

Do you even semantics bro?

Concerning:

Second your "theory" on why the FBI shot ignores the fact that OSP fired the first 3 shots and not the FBI. Not sure how you are going to rectify that fact with your "theory".

Because the OSP stopped shooting. That may not have been what the agent who fired wanted, so he kicked it back off...The OSP only fired 3 shots and as soon as the truck went into the snow bank they stopped shooting. They didn't fire at Lavoy as he exited the vehicle so the FBI agent made sure to keep things lively. But hey, an elite sniper misses twice from relatively close range all the time right?

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Xcathdra

Yet again you fail to read:

Yes they initially chose not to disclose their shots

So clearly I said failure to disclose was included.

But failure to disclose wasn't the only issue. That was what INITIALLY happened. They then lied, which is called making false statements. I am fairly confident you are totally aware of this since you are a "police officer".

Do you even semantics bro?

Concerning:

Second your "theory" on why the FBI shot ignores the fact that OSP fired the first 3 shots and not the FBI. Not sure how you are going to rectify that fact with your "theory".

Because the OSP stopped shooting. That may not have been what the agent who fired wanted, so he kicked it back off...The OSP only fired 3 shots and as soon as the truck went into the snow bank they stopped shooting. They didn't fire at Lavoy as he exited the vehicle so the FBI agent made sure to keep things lively. But hey, an elite sniper misses twice from relatively close range all the time right?

I think you need ti research the oath of the bullets. The agent wouldn't even have known he jumped out.they went through the roof and hit the top of the window. I'd say are Fbi agent just doesn't get much practice with firearms. The police have far better training most FBI agaents have their firearms in a drawer at home they dibt use them often if ever.once they qualify that's it their not required to go ti ranges like police. If he was a trained sniper he would have waited for a shot. If he wanted him dead rather than shooting randomly at a vehicle he would just yell gun. OSP would have taken him down and end if story. Your scenario doesnt make sense.

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Xcathdra

Because the OSP stopped shooting. That may not have been what the agent who fired wanted, so he kicked it back off...The OSP only fired 3 shots and as soon as the truck went into the snow bank they stopped shooting. They didn't fire at Lavoy as he exited the vehicle so the FBI agent made sure to keep things lively. But hey, an elite sniper misses twice from relatively close range all the time right?

To the both of you:

It makes sense to me the FBI agent who fired the "misses" may have been trying to force LaVoy to draw or, at least, reveal if he had any concealed firearms on his person. This could have easily provoked a firefight in certain situations. LaVoy wasn't buying though. A lot happened in those 8 seconds between the time LaVoy exited the truck and when he was shot down but he never revealed an actual firearm.

I'm repeating myself but I still think OSP SWAT Trooper #3, who came out of the woods, may have been hit or grazed by one of these "misses" because one of the other troopers at the scene reported in his testimony during the shooting investigation #3 was seen by him holding his side more than once after LaVoy was shot down. He ran up to #3 and asked him if he was OK the first time he noticed it.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A few other thoughts, if I may:

I take LaVoy as a man of his word. People may not like what he had to say but my sense of him is he meant whatever he said in life. He stated when literally pressed (pun!) at the Malheur Refuge during an early interview if anyone pointed a gun at him, he would point one back. He also stated, "Don't point a gun at me." I never found him to be provocative like some of the other people who showed up at the refuge who really were looking for a fight with the Feds.

The survival instinct, or self-preservation instinct, is very powerful and often wins any internal battles when someone feels backed into a corner. Some people are able to override it based upon certain principles they adhere to in their hearts and minds. Others just don't care what happens to themselves. From what I saw, LaVoy cared deeply about many things and many people but he made his choices based upon his principles, like them or not, in my perspective.

a reply to: dragonridr

Are you even familiar with the case? The FBI squad here was an elite unit who does this kind of thing full time. The Sniper was trained and considered elite.

Source 1
Source 2

Hey look, another elite FBI sniper who killed an innocent person after a botched FBI raid: Ruby Ridge anyone?

Pay close attention to what happend at Waco with that same sniper. He fired shots into the branch to trigger a firefight. Another agent ratted him out then recanted his story. Sound familiar????

On September 13, 1993, Charles Riley, a fellow FBI sniper deployed during the Waco Siege claimed that he had heard Horiuchi shooting from Sierra 1, an FBI-held house in front of the compound holding eight snipers, including Horiuchi and Christopher Curran on 19 April 1993. Riley later retracted his statement, saying that he had been misquoted, and that he had only heard snipers at Sierra 1 announce that shots had been fired by Branch Davidians. Riley later clarified that he had heard a radio report from Sierra One that someone at that position had witnessed gunfire from within the compound.

In this case the OSP was NOT having any questionable activity by the FBI. They were refusing to take the fall for the shots that were fired at a person in an obvious surrender position. The Texas Rangers felt the same way about Waco:

Source

The Rangers also released a scathing letter to Reno written Aug. 30 by William W. Johnston, an assistant U.S. attorney and chief of the Justice Department's Waco division. In the letter, Johnston told Reno, "I have formed the belief that facts may have been kept from you -- and quite possibly are being kept from you even now, by components of the Department."

He accused the Justice Department's torts branch of hiding documents from Reno and from the lawyers of surviving Branch Davidians, who are suing the government in a wrongful death suit.

ore questions were raised by the Texas Rangers, who released yesterday their study of about 24,000 pounds of evidence that was collected after the Waco conflagration. The report had been delivered to Capitol Hill Friday in response to a Government Reform Committee subpoena.

Among the evidence were at least three dozen high-powered rifle shells recovered from two houses where FBI snipers were quartered during the 51-day standoff at Waco. FBI officials continue to insist that agents never fired at the Davidians during the standoff.

In an interview with a superior, FBI Agent Charles Riley said he had heard shots fired from a sniper post on April 19, 1993, but he later recanted. The evidence is all the more incendiary because the sniper post was manned by sharpshooter Lon Horiuchi, who was implicated in the disastrous shootout with white separatist Randy Weaver at Ruby Ridge in 1992.

Horiuchi has asserted that no shots were fired from his post.

The Rangers' report also confirmed that two potentially flammable Whitestar illumination flares were found on the Davidian compound.

So these elite agent units know how to do exactly what happened in Oregon. Setup a situation to fail, then blame it on the local authorities.

Also a parallel is that in Waco, the FBI, despite evidence to the contrary, attempted to say they didn't fire a single shot.

Source

Charles Riley was removed from the FBI and now works for the Austin Police Department.