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: 7
82
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 8 2016 @ 11:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Boadicea
and just like that thread the provocation of conflict does not apply.


So you said. I profoundly disagree.

I'm in the court of public opinion. I can do that.




posted on Mar, 8 2016 @ 11:48 PM
link   
originally posted by: Xcathdra
originally posted by: BatheInTheFountain




He resisted a lawful detention / stop / arrest. He engaged in a motor vehicle pursuit.


Not grounds for being FIRED upon.


He had other people in the car.


Endangerment charge possible. By Lavoy AND LEOs


He avoided spike strips.
Where/When...and if so...STILL not grounds for live fire


He continued driving towards the road block without stopping.


He came around a bend and was met with a road block of no more than 100 yards visual and breaking distance. How could he NOT??


He almost hit an officer.


You mean, he evaded a last minute COLLISION and an officer JUMPED out in front of him. Video shows this.


He jumped out of the vehicle.
Yep, with hands up while being shot at. Again, video.


He ignored verbal commands from the first stop and from officers at the final stop.
Video shows yelling and verbal commands. You or I have no idea what those were.


He reached into his coat several times after being told not to. He was armed.


Nope. No evidence shows a positive or negative either way. That is your OPINION.


He made comments he would not go to jail.


Comments? Oh


He kept telling police to shoot him while ignoring commands.


Which is what I suspect was done to draw fire AWAY since he was ALREADY being shot at, but that is just my opinion. And as a cop, you should know, asking to be killed, is NOT reason to be killed.

You keep talking about the 'totality' But your details, each taken apart, don't add up to the WHOLE, especially in light of this new video



posted on Mar, 8 2016 @ 11:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Boadicea
and just like that thread the provocation of conflict does not apply.


So you said. I profoundly disagree.

I'm in the court of public opinion. I can do that.


and these cases are brought before a court of law based on facts and the laws in question and not public opinion.



posted on Mar, 8 2016 @ 11:49 PM
link   
Ahh th eblue wall of silence strikes again. special brotherhood that one. It sThem versus everyone else these days. ANd No weapon was visible on finicum. he didnt try to use th evehicle to escape in a chase either. Ops were heard before he go t out and in a vehicle gunshots outside ar e muffled when th e windows are up.

Stop defending the FBI just because they are law enforcement.



posted on Mar, 8 2016 @ 11:51 PM
link   
a reply to: BatheInTheFountain

I found this at Oregon Live:


Oregon's law on use of deadly force:

161.239 Use of deadly physical force in making an arrest or in preventing an escape.

(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of ORS 161.235, a peace officer may use deadly physical force only when the peace officer reasonably believes that:

(a) The crime committed by the person was a felony or an attempt to commit a felony involving the use or threatened imminent use of physical force against a person; or
(b) The crime committed by the person was kidnapping, arson, escape in the first degree, burglary in the first degree or any attempt to commit such a crime; or
(c) Regardless of the particular offense which is the subject of the arrest or attempted escape, the use of deadly physical force is necessary to defend the peace officer or another person from the use or threatened imminent use of deadly physical force; or
(d) The crime committed by the person was a felony or an attempt to commit a felony and under the totality of the circumstances existing at the time and place, the use of such force is necessary; or
(e) The officer's life or personal safety is endangered in the particular circumstances involved.

(2) Nothing in subsection (1) of this section constitutes justification for reckless or criminally negligent conduct by a peace officer amounting to an offense against or with respect to innocent persons whom the peace officer is not seeking to arrest or retain in custody.


Investigation of LaVoy Finicum shooting focuses on deadly force laws



posted on Mar, 8 2016 @ 11:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea
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.


I have to agree that on more than a few angles you look at this, Lavoy was setup to fail or be out of options, to fear for his life, and to basically put into motion a direct CRASH into a misplaced or oddly placed roadblock, to compound the entire event. After being SHOT at while making no direct physical or verbal threat.



posted on Mar, 8 2016 @ 11:52 PM
link   
a reply to: BatheInTheFountain

Again totality of circumstances. The list stands.

The PA also says the same in their final review.



posted on Mar, 8 2016 @ 11:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

Umm Live has released contradictory reports of the Sheriff Finicum was going to meet being at th eroadblock. the sehriff denies this. So we cant believe Orogon live.



posted on Mar, 8 2016 @ 11:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra


and these cases are brought before a court of law based on facts and the laws in question and not public opinion.


Not this one. No charges are being filed so it's not going to court. But, of course, you knew that already.

If the court of public opinion has no power and no influence, then I guess it doesn't matter what I say...

But I think it does.

I guess we'll find out together sooner or later.



posted on Mar, 8 2016 @ 11:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: Boadicea

Umm Live has released contradictory reports of the Sheriff Finicum was going to meet being at th eroadblock. the sehriff denies this. So we cant believe Orogon live.


So the media cant be trusted and Finicum can?

Interesting..



posted on Mar, 8 2016 @ 11:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: BatheInTheFountain

I found this at Oregon Live:


Oregon's law on use of deadly force:

161.239 Use of deadly physical force in making an arrest or in preventing an escape.

(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of ORS 161.235, a peace officer may use deadly physical force only when the peace officer reasonably believes that:

(a) The crime committed by the person was a felony or an attempt to commit a felony involving the use or threatened imminent use of physical force against a person; or
(b) The crime committed by the person was kidnapping, arson, escape in the first degree, burglary in the first degree or any attempt to commit such a crime; or
(c) Regardless of the particular offense which is the subject of the arrest or attempted escape, the use of deadly physical force is necessary to defend the peace officer or another person from the use or threatened imminent use of deadly physical force; or
(d) The crime committed by the person was a felony or an attempt to commit a felony and under the totality of the circumstances existing at the time and place, the use of such force is necessary; or
(e) The officer's life or personal safety is endangered in the particular circumstances involved.

(2) Nothing in subsection (1) of this section constitutes justification for reckless or criminally negligent conduct by a peace officer amounting to an offense against or with respect to innocent persons whom the peace officer is not seeking to arrest or retain in custody.


Investigation of LaVoy Finicum shooting focuses on deadly force laws


Looking through those, I don't see any that matched what Lavoy did.

Can you? Maybe I'm missing one.

Also, as I understand the FBI took jurisdiction. So are the local laws out the door? Are they combined with Federal guidelines for Rules of Engagement?

I don't know. What is the call on joint agency stops? Which one takes precedent in inter department between State and Local?



posted on Mar, 8 2016 @ 11:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: BatheInTheFountain

Again totality of circumstances. The list stands.

The PA also says the same in their final review.


I understand totality of circumstances. But based off the NEW evidence, along with the LEO/FBIs own statements and video, it's not adding up.

That's what this thread is about...I thought? Is it not? To call into question NEW evidence presented?



posted on Mar, 8 2016 @ 11:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

Incorrect.. Finicums case can still be investigated and charges could be filed via a federal civil rights investigation. Shooting / killing a person by police is a technical seizure under the 4th amendment and could be a violation of his civil rights.

Personally I dont see that type of case going anywhere given the facts.



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 12:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: Boadicea

Umm Live has released contradictory reports of the Sheriff Finicum was going to meet being at th eroadblock. the sehriff denies this. So we cant believe Orogon live.


So the media cant be trusted and Finicum can?

Interesting..


Oh so youre NOT BELIEVING THE SHERIFF? GASP!!!! I dont believe it. the SHeriff said HE WAS NOT THERE AT THE ROADBLOCK. Also Oregon live was also running stories abou t the sheriff as well. teh sheriff even said If he knew about the ambush he would not had allowwed it.



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 12:02 AM
link   
a reply to: BatheInTheFountain

The new video, when synced with the FBI video, destroys the case people who support Finicum are trying to make. We can discuss it all we want but it doesnt change the legality of the outcome.

This could have ended peacefully had Finicum complied at the first contact with law enforcement.

For some reason you guys ignore that fact.



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 12:03 AM
link   
a reply to: yuppa

Fine - link to the article in question please.

Secondly the Sheriff would have no legal authority to interfere with a federal / state law enforcement action (FBI / OSP).
edit on 9-3-2016 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 12:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: BatheInTheFountain

The new video, when synced with the FBI video, destroys the case people who support Finicum are trying to make. We can discuss it all we want but it doesnt change the legality of the outcome.

This could have ended peacefully had Finicum complied at the first contact with law enforcement.

For some reason you guys ignore that fact.



Actually I am well aware of the fact that Lavoy could have just stopped the car, put his hands out the window, and had his day in court

This thread is about what happened on the VIDEO.



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 12:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: BatheInTheFountain

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: BatheInTheFountain

The new video, when synced with the FBI video, destroys the case people who support Finicum are trying to make. We can discuss it all we want but it doesnt change the legality of the outcome.

This could have ended peacefully had Finicum complied at the first contact with law enforcement.

For some reason you guys ignore that fact.



Actually I am well aware of the fact that Lavoy could have just stopped the car, put his hands out the window, and had his day in court

This thread is about what happened on the VIDEO.


Yes - it confirms how Finicum caused his own death. That becomes even more clear with the synced videos from both sides.



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 12:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: BatheInTheFountain

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: BatheInTheFountain

The new video, when synced with the FBI video, destroys the case people who support Finicum are trying to make. We can discuss it all we want but it doesnt change the legality of the outcome.

This could have ended peacefully had Finicum complied at the first contact with law enforcement.

For some reason you guys ignore that fact.



Actually I am well aware of the fact that Lavoy could have just stopped the car, put his hands out the window, and had his day in court

This thread is about what happened on the VIDEO.


Yes - it confirms how Finicum caused his own death. That becomes even more clear with the synced videos from both sides.


And even in CAUSING your own death, another can be found liable in that very DEATH.

As a Cop, you know this too right?



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 12:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra




Personally I dont see that type of case going anywhere given the facts.


You are now displaying a disturbing trait among LEO which is simply "do as i say or die" it is apparent there is no in between....we as citizens if we do not comply immediately to an officers order death is an acceptable consequence...



new topics

top topics



 
82
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join