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: 3
82
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 8 2016 @ 10:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: BatheInTheFountain
Pardon my ignorance, but isn't shooting at a vehicle fleeing without a threat of any harm....Illegal?

And when they shot at the windows while he got out with his hands up? Was that not Illegal also?



All of a sudden....




posted on Mar, 8 2016 @ 10:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Sublimecraft

I don't disagree with you, well, ever. This time you are wrong. The initial shots were fired when the truck stopped. The fatal shots were fired AFTER he started reaching for his gun. He kept his 9mm on that side.



posted on Mar, 8 2016 @ 10:30 PM
link   
It seems to me, just as an opinion, that Lavoy got out of the car saying 'shoot me shoot me' to take the gunfire off of the people in the SUV.

They were already being shot at, and it leads me to think that when he was driving he thought he had to evade them because they are now being shot at unprovoked.

So he makes a turn around a short bend, and little room to brake safely, and he ends up ditching the car. Which proves that he was trying to NOT hit the road block and avoid killing anyone.

An officer stupidly jumps in FRONT of the car while it skids onto the snow bank, and I bet all the money I have that he jumped out to take bullets instead of his family.

They were already getting shot at, he was shot at WHILE he was getting out and taking his first steps with hands up.

By all the evidence I'm seeing, the cops pushed the situation, stopped him in dead zone for phones or used something to block the signal, setup a road block around a bend which couldn't have possibly be seen or avoided safely...and then shot at him multiple times BEFORE and WHILE he was not even a threat.

I would say manslaughter in the least. Murder possible, if he was reaching for a bullet injury.



posted on Mar, 8 2016 @ 10:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Sublimecraft

I don't disagree with you, well, ever. This time you are wrong. The initial shots were fired when the truck stopped. The fatal shots were fired AFTER he started reaching for his gun. He kept his 9mm on that side.


1) Shots were fired at them while they were driving and came around the bend.

2) Fired WHILE he was getting out.

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



posted on Mar, 8 2016 @ 10:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Sublimecraft

I don't disagree with you, well, ever. This time you are wrong. The initial shots were fired when the truck stopped. The fatal shots were fired AFTER he started reaching for his gun. He kept his 9mm on that side.


Not true. The authorities already admitted that shots were fired at Finicum and/or his vehicle both at the initial stop and as he approached the roadblock.



posted on Mar, 8 2016 @ 10:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: yuppa

You are ignoring the fact OSP was present at both, the first attempted stop that Finicum fled, and at the part where Finicum acted like a moron. OSP does have access to less lethal.

It's not relevant that he was "trying to surrender" and he never stated that to police. He kept ignoring verbal commands while saying he had a meeting to be at. The stop was lawful and a pc arrest was in progress when he resisted arrest by fleeing.

I didnt see him being shot in his coat pockets so the notion he was reacting to where he was shot is without merit.

Again all he had to do was surrender and he opted not to.


HArd to surrender when youre being shot to death isnt it? Ans opening up on a vehicle with unknown occupants is a no no as well. Could had kille dinnocent people dont you think? And th e OSP was present but i gurantee you th e FBI claimed jurisdiction and rendered their opinions and reports nuull. IF it was taken from them then they do not have to testify to what happenned,

We both watched this and see different things. you see a criminal being gunned down an di see criminals gunning down a man trying to surrender peacefully.



posted on Mar, 8 2016 @ 10:34 PM
link   
a reply to: BatheInTheFountain

How can you listen to the audio/video collage and come to that conclusion?

he was clearly away from the truck when he started reaching for his side. The same side he wears his gun. They didn't shoot him dead until he reached for his gun.

I literally watched it 10x before I made any kind of decision, because, well I thought he was reaching for a gunshot wound. He wasn't.



posted on Mar, 8 2016 @ 10:34 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

I don't think the officer who shooted should be punished. For it's point of view, he was reaching for sure. But, the person who gave the orders should be indicted. He have created a higly dangerous situation without good reason. At start, nobody was in danger and they have the chance to proceed to the arrestation later, in a safe situation. But, no, they chose to risk something like 10 officer life and 4 civils. Now one civil is death because of that choice.

I don't defend the guy, but I point at the commanding officer and ask:"Could you have avoid that situation?"
edit on 8-3-2016 by PersonneX because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-3-2016 by PersonneX because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2016 @ 10:35 PM
link   
And the more I think about why Lavoy ran out into the snow, the more in adds up that he was drawing fire from the vehicle that were to the BACK RIGHT CORNER of him in the driver seat.

I'm starting to think he didn't want bullets wizzing through the car so he drew himself out where the path would be AWAY from the vehicle.



posted on Mar, 8 2016 @ 10:35 PM
link   
a reply to: yuppa

I dont think they were shot at while driving and the shots at the vehicle at the end I think were less lethal to break the glass.



posted on Mar, 8 2016 @ 10:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

I hate saying watch infowars, but watch that video.

There is literally no other conclusion after watching it.

They match the audio with the video. He reached for his gun, THEN was shot, NOT before.



posted on Mar, 8 2016 @ 10:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Vector99




The fatal shots were fired AFTER he started reaching for his gun. He kept his 9mm on that side.


You must be some kind of psychic guru to get that from the audio..



posted on Mar, 8 2016 @ 10:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: BatheInTheFountain

How can you listen to the audio/video collage and come to that conclusion?

he was clearly away from the truck when he started reaching for his side. The same side he wears his gun. They didn't shoot him dead until he reached for his gun.

I literally watched it 10x before I made any kind of decision, because, well I thought he was reaching for a gunshot wound. He wasn't.


Fallacy. nothing on the video can prove he WAS or WASN'T going for a gun.

Not one person can establish that. That's just an opinion on intent.
edit on 8-3-2016 by BatheInTheFountain because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2016 @ 10:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

I doubt that honestly. You can't penetrate a windshield easier than human skin.



posted on Mar, 8 2016 @ 10:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: BatheInTheFountain
It seems to me, just as an opinion...[snip]... By all the evidence I'm seeing, the cops pushed the situation, stopped him in dead zone for phones or used something to block the signal, setup a road block around a bend which couldn't have possibly be seen or avoided safely...and then shot at him multiple times BEFORE and WHILE he was not even a threat.

I would say manslaughter in the least. Murder possible, if he was reaching for a bullet injury.


Thank you for an excellent summary. That's pretty much how I see it as well.



posted on Mar, 8 2016 @ 10:38 PM
link   
a reply to: BatheInTheFountain

When you are surrounded by police and known to be armed and reach for your side, the side you keep your gun on, the police will shoot you every time.



posted on Mar, 8 2016 @ 10:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Boadicea

I hate saying watch infowars, but watch that video.

There is literally no other conclusion after watching it.

They match the audio with the video. He reached for his gun, THEN was shot, NOT before.



Am I watching the same video?

He was shot AT, as was the SUV, while he had his hands UP. Is that not on the video?

And the 'why' of him being shot is not proven or disproven by the video. It's speculation that he was going for a gun.

There's no way to tell.



posted on Mar, 8 2016 @ 10:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Granite

I am a person of strength and can and have seen and gone through a lot in this lifetime. But what i just watched not only disturbed me, it shamed me to tears.

I heard the pleas of a shattered and terrified young girl begging for her very life and her response by the FBI was to fire 9 rounds toward her position.

For a paycheck.

As i see this...there is zero turning back from this point.



posted on Mar, 8 2016 @ 10:39 PM
link   
a reply to: BatheInTheFountain

And the standard is what did the officer perceive the moment force was used. He fled the first stop, avoided a spike strip, tried to avoid the road block and then jumped out of the truck while yelling. He reached.. its doesnt matter what he was reaching for.



posted on Mar, 8 2016 @ 10:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: BatheInTheFountain

When you are surrounded by police and known to be armed and reach for your side, the side you keep your gun on, the police will shoot you every time.



1) How would cops know what 'side' he kept his gun on?

2) The police appeared to be shooting without justifiable CAUSE, prior to that point.



new topics




 
82
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join