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: 29
82
<< 26  27  28    30 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 12:28 PM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko

and repeating a fallacy over and over doesn't make it true, contrary to Hitler's school of thought.

There was no ambush and you have crossed over into the realm of lunacy by ignoring facts that dont support your fallacy.
edit on 23-3-2016 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 12:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Wow, Hitler? Do you realize how far out of control you have spiraled?

Edit: Since you may have missed it.


originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Xcathdra
I also want to point out I have come back at you several times with definitions, examples and sources. You have done nothing but say "nuh uh". It's kind of pathetic and I expected more out of a representative of law enforcement.


Which you just did again, only this time invoking Hitler. Way to go brotatochip.


Since that initial contact occurred there was no ambush as he knew law enforcement was trying to stop and arrest him.


That he knew they were after him has nothing to do with what an ambush is. By all means though, continue down the path of making yourself look ignorant of a basic word and concept. I say again, just because it was an ambush does not mean Lavoy was murdered, nor does it mean that anything was unlawful.
edit on 23-3-2016 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 12:31 PM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko

Is that all you got?? Your still wrong no matter how much you insult. Very childish trait.

In a corner with nowhere to go but insult city. Your DI work failed you on this one.

Have a great day!



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 12:36 PM
link   
I'm not sure why anyone can hold light on any part of the Story after the release of some of the information from the "so called" OSP shooters etc.. So many holes in the story...after my 17 years in law enforcement, I have my doubts that any of these shooters ever were..

For example during the interview "officer #2" turned in his AR-10 rifle that he placed a shot in the back with allegedly.
As anyone knows a semiauto rifle, when fired ejects the spent case, while charging a live round from the magazine.
During the first part of his statement he said "after the shooting, such and such officer, removed the magazine, worked the action and removed the empty case??? Later saying he pointed out the empty case on the ground... Well which is it?

And same documents say why they picked that location... Because the next county was so supportive, law enforcement was concerned... Even called it a UN free zone?? What OSP even thinks that way



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 12:37 PM
link   
a reply to: kyleplatinum

I think it's very obvious that wasn't an insult, but an observation. You didn't even know what a Flanking Ambush (Pincer Ambush) was and had to google it. You've wandered into a discussion you are ineptly qualified for.

But there was both of y'alls "NUH UH" again with absolutely no substantive material to back up your idea.



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 12:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: kyleplatinum

I think it's very obvious that wasn't an insult, but an observation. You didn't even know what a Flanking Ambush (Pincer Ambush) was and had to google it. You've wandered into a discussion you are ineptly qualified for.

But there was both of y'alls "NUH UH" again with absolutely no substantive material to back up your idea.


I definitely know and have known what an Ambush is for a very long time. Pincer Ambush, ok so I haven't heard of it, whats your point?? Do you know everything?

I am 100% qualified for this discussion, who are you to judge? You are the one that is wrong in this thread.

This is very simple stuff, even for a unqualified uneducated person such as me right?

Move on please.
edit on 23-3-2016 by kyleplatinum because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 12:52 PM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko

If you knew your history you would understand the Hitler comment.

Since you don't i'll help -

Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it.
- A. Hitler



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 01:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: kyleplatinum

Move on please.


If it's so simple then why are you two so confused about what does and does not constitute an ambush?

Edit: This argument works just as well for you:


Sure it was an ambush, a legal one set up for the safety of the officers.

Lavoy was not murdered. His actions produced the outcome.

edit on 23-3-2016 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 01:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

No, I get it guy. The issue is I haven't told a lie. You are invoking Hitler because you are trapped in a glass house of emotion.



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 01:05 PM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko

Well you have by trying to insist an ambush occurred when in reality one did not. There was plenty of room to stop before the road block and Finicum chose not to.



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 01:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

None of what you said discredits the FACT that BY DEFINITION the FBI executed a Pincer Ambush. A well known military tactic used by almost all federal agencies and many police forces, especially SWAT. Aren't you an officer of the law?

Listen, you are hung up on the fact that YOU think the word "ambush" implies some nefarious intent or that something illegal happened. That isn't the case. It is what it is. You can try and play spin doctor all you want, but an AMBUSH is exactly what happened. Just because you don't like a specific word being used doesn't mean that isn't what happened.
edit on 23-3-2016 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 01:15 PM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko

I am which is why I've been telling you it was not an ambush.

The only person hung up on words is you man.


ambush
: to attack (someone or something) by surprise from a hidden place



roadblock

1 a : a barricade often with traps or mines for holding up an enemy at a point on a road covered by fire b : a road barricade set up especially by law enforcement officers

2 : an obstruction in a road

3 : something that blocks progress or prevents accomplishment of an objective


They were not hidden during the first traffic stop.
They were not hidden when Finicum refused verbal commands.
They were not hidden when he fled the traffic stop.
They were not hidden when they pursued.
They were not hidden when he avoided spike strips.
They were not hidden when osp tried to disable the truck with 3 rounds.
They were not hidden when Finicum approached the road block.
They were not hidden when he tried to go around the roadblock.
They were not hidden when Finicum jumped out of the truck.
They were not hidden when the FBI shot at him.
They were not hidden when they gave verbal commands to Finicum.
They were not hidden when he kept reaching for his pocket.
They were not hidden when osp tried to deploy a taser.
They were not hidden when Finicum reached again to his pocket.
They were not hidden when Finicum was shot.

Attack, Surprise and hidden are in bold for a reason as you have glossed over those words.
edit on 23-3-2016 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 01:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

With absolutely no source material to back up your claim that the flanks attacking from a concealed position is NOT an ambush. Sorry guy, but saying "nuh uh" and invoking Hitler does not make you even remotely close to being correct.

I've linked you definitions and examples. The only one lying is you, to yourself, about the definition and concept of a word.



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 01:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko

originally posted by: kyleplatinum

Move on please.


If it's so simple then why are you two so confused about what does and does not constitute an ambush?

Edit: This argument works just as well for you:


Sure it was an ambush, a legal one set up for the safety of the officers.

Lavoy was not murdered. His actions produced the outcome.


From someone who says I'm dense. You must just be doing this for a laugh, not funny though but you are a joke.

I'm not the one that is confused. I have stated many times why it is not an Ambush and so has X, you just cannot except.
That is not our problem, it's yours.



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 01:24 PM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko

See my post above yours.



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 01:27 PM
link   
a reply to: kyleplatinum

Accept? Ok, sure.

Here is a link to all your posts in the thread: Your Posts Not one of them has any source whatsoever. I have Definitions linked, examples linked, you know, actual source material that backs up my viewpoint. All you have is "nuh uh".

Ambush or no?



a reply to: Xcathdra

Straight up LIES bro.

They WERE hidden, in the trees on the flanks of the road block. I know full well you saw the FBI video which clearly shows the officers emerging from the tree line. Don't go down the path of being branded one who lies to spread ignorance.

Also, this lie of yours glares out at me:


They were not hidden when he tried to go around the roadblock.


They swerved to miss the road block after braking. The time synced video clearly shows everyone lurch forward BEFORE they hit the snow bank when he says "hang on" indicating he slammed on his brakes. If he had not swerved he would have hit the road block dead on. On top of that, the flanks absolutely WERE hidden. The FBI shooter was beyond the tree line. Did you read the reports? I take it you did not. The OSP officer who fired the fatal shots was also hidden beyond the tree line.
edit on 23-3-2016 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 01:35 PM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko

and yet the video shows people who are not hidden. Again read my post to learn why you are still wrong. I am telling you that you are wrong. Kyleplatinum is telling you that you are wrong. Law enforcement is telling you that you are wrong. The PA is telling you that you are wrong.

I will go with my experience and training, the agencies involved, the independent agencies involved and the PA's involved and finally the laws involved.

An ambush did not occur and ignoring facts because they don't support your claim is a problem for you.



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 01:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Oh boy. So I show you a video of a pincer ambush and you are still sticking to "not an ambush because I said so". Your style of argument is weak and then to pull a logical fallacy for bias confirmation? "This other incorrect person agrees with me so I am sticking to my guns". That dude DIDN'T EVEN KNOW what a Pincer Ambush was yet you are looking to him for bias confirmation??

And more lies. Nowhere does any agency say it is not an ambush because they know they can't say that. They use the term road block because that covers all of it and it sounds less nefarious. But by all means, if you have a link to a law enforcement agency saying this wasn't a flanking ambush then please link to that. I don't think the term ambush has any nefarious connotation. It's a tactic, not a derogatory term. It's just a noun (or a verb) and nothing more.

a reply to: kyleplatinum


Pincer Ambush, ok so I haven't heard of it, whats your point??


The point is you've now been shown what a Pincer Ambush is yet you still deny that an ambush happened. You've chosen to side with X because he is in law enforcement so you thought he was right. In this case though, X is blatantly wrong. In pointing that out you both have become angry with me and have turned stubborn out of spite. The best thing you could have done was accepted the education and just moved on. It's OK to be wrong occasionally.
edit on 23-3-2016 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 02:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Xcathdra

Oh boy. So I show you a video of a pincer ambush and you are still sticking to "not an ambush because I said so". Your style of argument is weak and then to pull a logical fallacy for bias confirmation? "This other incorrect person agrees with me so I am sticking to my guns". That dude DIDN'T EVEN KNOW what a Pincer Ambush was yet you are looking to him for bias confirmation??

And more lies. Nowhere does any agency say it is not an ambush because they know they can't say that. They use the term road block because that covers all of it and it sounds less nefarious. But by all means, if you have a link to a law enforcement agency saying this wasn't a flanking ambush then please link to that. I don't think the term ambush has any nefarious connotation. It's a tactic, not a derogatory term. It's just a noun (or a verb) and nothing more.

a reply to: kyleplatinum


Pincer Ambush, ok so I haven't heard of it, whats your point??


The point is you've now been shown what a Pincer Ambush is yet you still deny that an ambush happened. You've chosen to side with X because he is in law enforcement so you thought he was right. In this case though, X is blatantly wrong. In pointing that out you both have become angry with me and have turned stubborn out of spite. The best thing you could have done was accepted the education and just moved on. It's OK to be wrong occasionally.


Are you ok? Nobody is picking sides because of anything except of being correct. That's it! You call me dense and we call you wrong because it is a fact! Doesn't matter how many different types of ambushes you try to validate your false theory with. They are all wrong. Your the problem with incorrect info being spread around and the danger with that is some people may believe you (not good)! I will never move on and "accept" false "education" that you think is correct.

"angry" & "stubborn out of spite"?? not at all, more like feeling great and correct.

"It's OK to be wrong occasionally" Say this to YOUR self over and over again!



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 04:41 PM
link   
a reply to: kyleplatinum

Only problem with your view is that you have unequivocally been shown that the maneuver performed was an ambush by definition. You've simply chosen the baseless argument of "no it wasn't" in spite of facts. Your stubbornness and ineptitude is obvious. Perhaps you should honestly reflect on yourself...
edit on 23-3-2016 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
82
<< 26  27  28    30 >>

log in

join