Shawna Cox Video from Inside LaVoy's Truck

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: BatheInTheFountain

That ruling applies to fleeing felons with the exception of when the person fleeing presents an imminant danger to the police / public at large.

Next time read it all.

I did read it all. And what DANGER was Lavoy to the cops or surrounding citizens since he was

1) Fleeing AWAY

2) In the middle of nowhere in SNOW.

a reply to: BatheInTheFountain

You would be incorrect.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: BatheInTheFountain

You would be incorrect.

You didn't answer my question.

What THREAT was he? What reasonable cause of posing a SIGNIFICANT threat was there, as to be fired upon in a moving vehicle?

a reply to: BatheInTheFountain

He resisted a lawful detention / stop / arrest. He engaged in a motor vehicle pursuit. He had other people in the car. He avoided spike strips. He continued driving towards the road block without stopping. He almost hit an officer. He jumped out of the vehicle. He ignored verbal commands from the first stop and from officers at the final stop. He reached into his coat several times after being told not to. He was armed. He made comments he would not go to jail. He kept telling police to shoot him while ignoring commands.

His actions met all criteria for use of deadly force, including the exemptions in Tennessee vs. Gardner.

Tennessee vs. Gardner - Cornell Law

Analysis of the deadly force rule in the context of the mandates of the fourth, eighth, and fourteenth amendments clearly indicates that the use of deadly force against a nonviolent fleeing felon is unconstitutional. In the event, however, the Court finds that the fleeing felon rule does not violate the fourth or fourteenth amendments and reverses the Sixth Circuit, opponents of deadly force will be left with two options: to accept the Court's ruling or find a new constitutional theory with which to attack the laws. An argument may be made that killing the fleeing felon who has not committed a crime of violence, and does not pose a threat of violence, violates the ninth amendment.

A violent crime does not have to be committed to shoot a fleeing when the person presents an imminent danger / poses a threat of violence. Everything I listed above meets the established criteria.

Also, reviewing law enforcement use of force based on 20/20 hindsight is not permissible as the officer's in question did not have that benefit. Its what the officers perceived when force was used.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: BatheInTheFountain

He resisted a lawful detention / stop / arrest. He engaged in a motor vehicle pursuit. He had other people in the car. He avoided spike strips. He jumped out of the vehicle. Ge ignored verbal commands from the first stop and from officers at the final stop. He reached into his coat several times after being told not to. He was armed. He made comments he would not go to jail. He kept telling police to shoot him while ignoring commands.

His actions met all criteria for use of deadly force, including the exemptions in Tennessee vs. Gardner.

Tennessee vs. Gardner - Cornell Law

Analysis of the deadly force rule in the context of the mandates of the fourth, eighth, and fourteenth amendments clearly indicates that the use of deadly force against a nonviolent fleeing felon is unconstitutional. In the event, however, the Court finds that the fleeing felon rule does not violate the fourth or fourteenth amendments and reverses the Sixth Circuit, opponents of deadly force will be left with two options: to accept the Court's ruling or find a new constitutional theory with which to attack the laws. An argument may be made that killing the fleeing felon who has not committed a crime of violence, and does not pose a threat of violence, violates the ninth amendment.

A violent crime does not have to be committed to shoot a fleeing when the person presents an imminent danger / poses a threat of violence. Everything I listed above meets the established criteria.

So you just made a list of made up stuff based on your own bias and criteria, dismissed the question I posed without any EVIDENCE other than testimony given by the very FBI under INVESTIGATION now, and you call it a day and say "Justified"....huh?

It's that easy?

a reply to: Xcathdra

Not so fast. I was asking what actions were justifiable to him and his family being SHOT at while fleeing a stop?

Remember, fleeing is NOT a cause for termination.

And WHILE he had his hands up in the air...

You have not answered the questions

a reply to: BatheInTheFountain

HE is not going to answer you because it would prove him wrong. I f this man was black he would be all see the racist COPS killed him. SOme people cant think that their own law enforcement would assasinate someone if they became a liability.

And Rubber bullets can be just as lethal if used correctly. Dont shoot at a person period unless you are trying to kill them.

OH and that law about fleeing. th e police HAVE TO SEE A WEAPON to legally shoot a perp in the back.

a reply to: Xcathdra

The twist is: The situation in which Lavoy as been shot should not have happened. The arrestation could have, and should have been delayed to prevent it. The officer who killed Lavoy is not responsable for this situation, but the commanding officer should be suspended because he failed to keep the safety of the involved citizen and his own officers.

a reply to: BatheInTheFountain

Well no I used my experience and training, not to mention my college education, to answer your question. Nothing is made up and all is verifiable in the videos. Just because you cannot understand the law or police procedure is not my fault.

So yes, when I have more than a decades worth of experience as a law enforcement officer from 2 states and a degree in poly sci public law it is that easy to understand what occurred and how the police arrived at their decisions to engage the threat.

All Finicum had to do was comply and he did not. It's sad when ever anyone loses their life. Finicum did not have to lose his yet thats what he chose.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: BatheInTheFountain

Well no I used my experience and training, not to mention my college education, to answer your question. Nothing is made up and all is verifiable in the videos. Just because you cannot understand the law or police procedure is not my fault.

The law in every facet is relative to how it is interpreted ....this is why the high end lawyers who talk the most bull# get paid the most, law in this day and age is literally about finding loopholes in the letter of the law.....xcathdra you know this and are just playing the game....

a reply to: PersonneX

The time and place were chosen specifically to reduce the danger to all people, involved and not involved. Blaming the police because Finicum made a poor choice is problematic since its incumbent on Finicum to comply and not for the officers to comply with his illegal actions.

a reply to: Xcathdra

So as a "Cop", can you tell me how the Supreme Court states that you cannot shoot at vehicles for simply fleeing without a CLEAR and imminent threat to an officer or People

And what exactly Lavoy and Family DID, to create that threat, as to deserve being fired upon with LIVE AMMO.

I don't care if you were an LEO. Answer the question.

In fact I don't care if you are the Terminator. Your experience has no bearing on facts of a case, which are RECENTLY put into a different light with this new video.

You could be Jesus himself...don't care

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Nope..

Police are not the ones who deal with the law in the terms you are describing. Our responsibility when force is used is defined by SCOTUS. We are allowed to elevate the use of force 1 level higher to overcome the resistance used. We are required to use an appropriate level of force. We are required to deescalate force as quickly as possible. All of which is a part of the totality of circumstances, which includes all relevant information known to the officers at the time.

As I stated before the judicial system is tasked with determining legalities / justifiable actions - as the PA did in this case. Just as the courts will decide for the others who are arrested and facing charges.

If Finicums family is not satisfied they can request a federal civil rights investigation.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Nope..

Police are not the ones who deal with the law in the terms you are describing. Our responsibility when force is used is defined by SCOTUS. We are allowed to elevate the use of force 1 level higher to overcome the resistance used. We are required to use an appropriate level of force. We are required to deescalate force as quickly as possible. All of which is a part of the totality of circumstances, which includes all relevant information known to the officers at the time.

As I stated before the judicial system is tasked with determining legalities / justifiable actions - as the PA did in this case. Just as the courts will decide for the others who are arrested and facing charges.

If Finicums family is not satisfied they can request a federal civil rights investigation.

What 'resistance"...warranting LIVE AMMO being shot, did the Finnicum Family, or Lavoy display?

1) Evasion?
2) Fleeing?
3) Words? In which there were no THREATS.?

Which?

originally posted by: BatheInTheFountain
a reply to: Xcathdra

So as a "Cop", can you tell me how the Supreme Court states that you cannot shoot at vehicles for simply fleeing without a CLEAR and imminent threat to an officer or People

And what exactly Lavoy and Family DID, to create that threat, as to deserve being fired upon with LIVE AMMO.

I don't care if you were an LEO. Answer the question.

I did...

and I showed you where the tenn vs gardner ruling says as much. Its what the officer perceived the moment force was used. Going back to the list you want to dismiss provides you with the justification. As I said just because you dont understand it does not mean its invalid and can be ignored.

Actions you insist on ignoring
He resisted a lawful detention / stop / arrest. He engaged in a motor vehicle pursuit. He had other people in the car. He avoided spike strips. He continued driving towards the road block without stopping. He almost hit an officer. He jumped out of the vehicle. He ignored verbal commands from the first stop and from officers at the final stop. He reached into his coat several times after being told not to. He was armed. He made comments he would not go to jail. He kept telling police to shoot him while ignoring commands.

a reply to: Xcathdra

In court, they will debate really hard on that! I won't. I liked debate with you Xcathdra

Thank for the thread Granite!

originally posted by: BatheInTheFountain
In fact I don't care if you are the Terminator. Your experience has no bearing on facts of a case, which are RECENTLY put into a different light with this new video.

You could be Jesus himself...don't care

Actuality it does when trying to understand how we ended up at the end point. Its not relevant what your personal opinion is in the sense it does not take into account the applicable laws and actions by finicum.

As an example I have taken the time to research the Bundy's and their position / issues with the federal government. I think they are ignorant and cherry pick the constitution in terms of what they agree with and what they ignore if it doesnt work in their favor, like the property clause of the constitution and the case law where the federal government can own land with the permission of the state. I did that to understand where they were coming from.

An action the other side and their supporters refuse to do.

a reply to: BatheInTheFountain

I think this falls under a so-called provocation-of-conflict doctrine as I also posted here in this ATS thread:

FBI agents under investigation for possible misconduct in LaVoy Finicum shooting

If an officer intentionally or recklessly violates a suspect's constitutional rights, then the violation may be a provocation creating a situation in which force was necessary and such force would have been legal but for the initial violation.

Someone at the FBI (and possibly the OSP) thought long and hard about how to set this ambush up in such a way that gave Finicum no real options, threatened Finicum's life and everyone in the vehicle, as well as ensuring every officer would be in potential danger and therefore in fear for their lives in order to "fulfill" the criteria established for the justifiable use of lethal force.

It's now in the court of public opinion. In an election year. With a lame duck president. It's gonna be a rocky ride.

a reply to: Boadicea

and just like that thread the provocation of conflict does not apply.

An officer cannot intentionally place themselves into a position that forces a deadly force encounter. Just like tenn vs gardner there are exceptions and we see them every now and then, like pit maneuvers and in this case with the final road block.. If there is no way to avoid the encounter the police can act. The police can also force an encounter to end a situation based on criteria, like this case..