LaVoy Finicum shooting: FBI agent indicted for alleged false statements

a reply to: Xcathdra

He was shot at for failing to comply with verbal commands at the first stop. 

There you have it folks.

If a cop pulls you over and you don't comply with verbal commands.... they are allowed to shoot at you.

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: Xcathdra

He was shot at for failing to comply with verbal commands at the first stop. 

There you have it folks.

If a cop pulls you over and you don't comply with verbal commands.... they are allowed to shoot at you.

Try again.. If you are going to intentionally leave out my argument points why bother to respond? I stated totality of circumstances in several posts, which includes Finnicum on tv, armed, stating he wont be going to jail.

I guess you ignored that since it doesnt fit your narrative.

originally posted by: Excallibacca
a reply to: Xcathdra

Law enforcement are the ones who are trained for the scenarios and swore an oath. Finicum wasn't and didn't. The LEOs involved bore responsibility for that situation at the expense of Finicum, a taxpayer.

While I in no way believe that everything LaVoy Finicum did was right, I can't accept that setting him up to die was right. There was no justice that day.

Sure but in the end we come back to the fact Finnicum have several chances to end the encounter peacefully and chose not to, forcing law enforcement into an ever narrowing list of options.

Also if law enforcement set him up to die they would not have bothered with a traffic stop away from populated areas all the while filming it from the air.

As for no justice that day you are correct. Finnicums actions and failure to comply made sure of that, sticking with his threats of not going to jail to the very end.

Ma reply to: butcherguy
Omg that video just breaks my heart. This was one incident I wasn't up
On.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: Xcathdra

He was shot at for failing to comply with verbal commands at the first stop. 

There you have it folks.

If a cop pulls you over and you don't comply with verbal commands.... they are allowed to shoot at you.

Try again.. If you are going to intentionally leave out my argument points why bother to respond? I stated totality of circumstances in several posts, which includes Finnicum on tv, armed, stating he wont be going to jail.

I guess you ignored that since it doesnt fit your narrative.

I took your reason for them shooting at him when he presented no direct threat to them and responded to it.

An FBI agent has been indicted for lying. He lied for a reason.
The reason that you put forward earlier was that he was stupid.
I am not buying that reason.
If you want to back up dirty law enforcement personnel, have at it.
I won't.

a reply to: Xcathdra


I understand that your intent is to respect authority, but our government and those who go out to do the bidding of the wealthy elites who control it have become tyrannical jackbooted authoritarians who no longer serve the People. This is all part of Agenda 21 and I don't care who rolls their eyes at my post. Here's a vid that shows a kind of continuum of similar events involving Blm land grabs...and by the way I drive past ranches with cattle every day on my way to work and live in an area where most of the land belongs to government and we have housing crisis all the time m.youtube.com...
A blog that connects all this to Agenda 21. cybermick.com...

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: yuppa

Or you can watch the drone video released and see it for yourself.

Are you even watching the same Vids as everyone else
In your eyes this was a good shoot, in my eyes you are condoning cold blooded murder .

a reply to: butcherguy

and I explained multiple times what totality of circumstances are and how it affects a police encounter.

Secondly I put forward multiple possibilities.

Stop seeing only what you want.

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

I dont buy it since I dont represent the elites nor the federal, state or county governments.


BLM is not a law enforcement entity (although they have a part of them that are federal law enforcement). Contrary to what people think the federal government and state governments are separate sovereigns. I cant enforce federal law any more than federal law enforcement can enforce state law / municipal ordinances (exceptions exist with joint task forces).

Putting all law enforcement into one box is just as ignorant as cops putting all people in the same box.

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: yuppa

Or you can watch the drone video released and see it for yourself.

Are you even watching the same Vids as everyone else

In your eyes this was a good shoot, in my eyes you are condoning cold blooded murder .

Yeah in my eyes, and the law, it was a good shoot. While I respect your opinion, opinions dont trump what the law says or how supreme court rulings apply.

Finnicum would still be alive if he didnt escalate the situation by fleeing and refusing to comply with verbal commands all the while being armed. Something people seem to be ignoring for some reason.. I guess it doesnt fit the cold blooded murder agenda.

The agent is going to be charged for lying and I completely support that charge / prosecution.

a reply to: Xcathdra



It's good at least the agent will be charged for lying.

I too respect your opinion, although I do not agree, obviously.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

I dont buy it since I dont represent the elites nor the federal, state or county governments.


BLM is not a law enforcement entity (although they have a part of them that are federal law enforcement). Contrary to what people think the federal government and state governments are separate sovereigns. I cant enforce federal law any more than federal law enforcement can enforce state law / municipal ordinances (exceptions exist with joint task forces).

Putting all law enforcement into one box is just as ignorant as cops putting all people in the same box.

And yet the Obama admin used the BLM as enforcement in their Agenda 21 land grabs and to help the Clintons and the Reid's....
Me thinks you see only what you want ...

So! the Autopsy was Fake't to!
A rifle bullet damages in a totally different way.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Thank you very much for the considered response.

Because you are German I will give you the benefit of the doubt in that you dont understand our laws, scotus rulings defining those laws and the standards established by scotus for an officers use of force.

Trying to compare this / pther incidents to the nazis only reinforces the issues foriegners have when they arent familiar with our legal system.

You assume I'm unaware? I don't argue law, I argue righteousness in a time of police brutality. The number of deaths is staggering, which is why I'm saying it again: the Stasi was well within their rights as well. Until they weren't cause the people revolted.

I doubt you would be happy to be involved in a situation where you have to take someones life only to be Monday morning quarterbacked by people who weren't present who had the benefit of information not available to you when it occurred.

What? Of course I will stand up to scrutiny, it's for the same peoples sake I ought to protect and serve. An egoistical standpoint might be understandable but it doesn't make it right. Try to be a mercenary instead? You wouldn't have to deal with the pitfalls of public services and nobody is going to hurt your... feelings... when you take someones life.

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
Thank you very much for the considered response.

You took the time to have a civilized debate / exchange so I have no issues giving detailed responses, whether we agree or not.

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
You assume I'm unaware? I don't argue law, I argue righteousness in a time of police brutality. The number of deaths is staggering, which is why I'm saying it again: the Stasi was well within their rights as well. Until they weren't cause the people revolted.

Of US law and scotus rulings and how they apply / govern our law enforcement actions yes. The number of law enforcement shooting deaths has to be looked at on a case by case basis as no 2 shootings are ever the same. Circumstances that are similar can have completely separate justification standards based on a myriad of criteria.

Again I dont think the discussion supports the nazi comparison, but whatever works I guess. There is a difference in a total state police agency and police agencies that separately operate under differing laws (state / county and municipal) with differing areas of jurisdiction.

Our legal system allows / encourages scrutiny of law enforcement actions however it requires a case by case review and not a wholesale blanket review.

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
What? Of course I will stand up to scrutiny, it's for the same peoples sake I ought to protect and serve. An egoistical standpoint might be understandable but it doesn't make it right. Try to be a mercenary instead? You wouldn't have to deal with the pitfalls of public services and nobody is going to hurt your... feelings... when you take someones life.

No my point was being trained to do a job and having those actions called into question by A - people who arent trained to do the job, B - people who arent familiar with the governing laws and C- people who dont understand how legal rulings apply / affect the situation.

I am saying you would not like having a person who is not remotely qualified to be monday morning quarterbacking your decisions.

US law enforcement is based off the British model of policing by consent. I have no issues with that and have no issues with holding our law enforcement to a higher standard. I do take exception though when people who arent qualified to do so think their opinion should somehow trump what the law says when reviewing an officers actions.

a reply to: Xcathdra

They shot at a vehicle with innocent bystanders in it. Thats in excusable no matter what you say. Finicum was the target and they fired regardless of innocents inside the cab. Our law enforcemnt in SC has let vehicles in that situation go and just followed them. finicum was going to the sherrif. The feds didnt want a peaceful surrender at all.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: yuppa

Or you can watch the drone video released and see it for yourself.

Oh no no.. you are arguing totality of circumstances we have to watch all the video. Not just the edited drone video.

a reply to: Xcathdra

I am saying you would not like having a person who is not remotely qualified to be monday morning quarterbacking your decisions.

Fair enough.

As long as the public opinion is affected, and this whole occupation sure as hell did leave quite the impression, I wouldn't have the street officers dealing with the outrage either. That's why they have personnel for that, to communicate with press and public in a more diplomatic and professional manner.

I'm under the impression you didn't really get the Stasi point, which boils down to tyranny one way or another. Can we leave the Nazis out of this for once, please? I'm always pissed when they show up for half-witted comparisions, the Stasi is good for now and, DDR or not, we're talking fascism as well. So there's that.
Point is, that some orders are hardly justifiable and that line was crossed this day. Multiple times, your mileage may vary.

a reply to: yuppa

In your opinion. Law Enforcement will vary from agency to agency and state to state and, as I have said numerous times, is on a case by case basis.

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: yuppa

Or you can watch the drone video released and see it for yourself.

Oh no no.. you are arguing totality of circumstances we have to watch all the video. Not just the edited drone video.

Yup and you also have to take into account the history of Finnicum, including his previous encounters with law enforcement as well as his being armed in interviews with media saying he wont be going to jail.