LaVoy Finicum shooting: FBI agent indicted for alleged false statements

a reply to: Xcathdra

More than anything, I'd like to say thank you for being so civil in our diagreements. That's so rare these days. Thank you for the good talk.

a reply to: PublicOpinion

No I got the stasi point... I just reject the comparison since they arent even remotely close to how US law enforcement operates and the laws arent even close to being the same.

Law Enforcement can refuse orders that are "illegal" however we run into the issue of people who arent versed in the law or law enforcement thinking something is illegal based on their own personal opinion / personal standards when in reality they are far off base and dont reflect the actual law.

When you start allowing personal opinion as a substitution for actual law you run into the issue of inconsistent enforcement and prosecution and by extension possible 6th amendment violations.

originally posted by: Excallibacca
a reply to: Xcathdra

More than anything, I'd like to say thank you for being so civil in our diagreements. That's so rare these days. Thank you for the good talk.

Same.. I am trying to be more aware of how I phrase my reply's so I dont come across like an arrogant ass. Since trying to determine a persons intent / tone in written / typed text is difficult as well I try to be mindful of that. I dont always succeed so if something comes across wonky just ask me to clarify please.

Thank you as well.

a reply to: Xcathdra

No worries, I've been on the Internet for about 22 years now and I've learned pretty well how to read people. Not that I don't get it twisted sometimes, and not that I'm not an arrogant ass myself, LOL.

I went ahead and added you as a friend on here as well, you have a good head on your shoulders.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

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.

In those previous encounters did he shoot at anyone? nope.

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: Xcathdra

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.

In those previous encounters did he shoot at anyone? nope.

Not relevant.. He was armed and said he wont be going to jail. You cant dismiss some information because it does not support your position. That information is in fact relevant and taken into account when planning operations. SCOTUS requires law enforcement use the least amount of force possible when doing our jobs and they also require law enforcement deescalate the situation at the earliest possible moment. Law Enforcement is not required to start at the bottom of the use of force / subject resistance control continuum and then work their way up. They can enter that continuum at any point based on totality of circumstances.

Being armed and gong on live tv while making the comment he wont be going to jail is relevant and affects planning in addition to the actions of officers / agents present.

All Finnicum had to do was not take the course of action he did when they initiated first contact with him. Every action taken by Finnicum from that moment on continually narrowed the response of law enforcement.

a reply to: Xcathdra

SO just sit still and been shot to death was what you wanted him to do then? SO much for defending your rights under the constitution then right?

a reply to: Excallibacca

Faith +7

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: Xcathdra

SO just sit still and been shot to death was what you wanted him to do then? SO much for defending your rights under the constitution then right?

No, sit still, keep your hands where they can be seen and comply with verbal commands when given.

Finnicum didnt do this.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: Xcathdra

SO just sit still and been shot to death was what you wanted him to do then? SO much for defending your rights under the constitution then right?

No, sit still, keep your hands where they can be seen and comply with verbal commands when given.

Finnicum didnt do this.

Hard to do when someone makes a threatening move towards you first. We do have the right to refuse a order from a policeman if we are not doing anything at the time. But well never agree on this. The feds are dirty on this one. pay finicums wife for excessive force and be done with it.

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: Xcathdra

SO just sit still and been shot to death was what you wanted him to do then? SO much for defending your rights under the constitution then right?

No, sit still, keep your hands where they can be seen and comply with verbal commands when given.

Finnicum didnt do this.

Hard to do when someone makes a threatening move towards you first. We do have the right to refuse a order from a policeman if we are not doing anything at the time. But well never agree on this. The feds are dirty on this one. pay finicums wife for excessive force and be done with it.

Actually no you dont have a right to refuse law enforcement in the manner you suggest and its that level of incorrect knowledge that gt people, like Finnnicum, killed.... You disagree with law enforcement thats fine but making a stand roadside is not an option nor is it an appropriate venue to do so. Thats what the courts are for.

Excessive force was not used and it was a good shoot. We know this because the FBI agent is being charged with lying in his report about his own actions and nothing else.

You are right, we will never agree on this. I rely on the laws and scotus rulings instead of personal opinion. I rely on my experience and training instead of a personal opinion. I rely on facts instead personal animus towards the government.

a reply to: Xcathdra

You do have a right to defend yourself if you are thinking you are being unfairly gone after. Police do not trump the constitution. the founders would be livid if they knew peoples rights were beng stomped on.

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: Xcathdra

You do have a right to defend yourself if you are thinking you are being unfairly gone after. Police do not trump the constitution. the founders would be livid if they knew peoples rights were beng stomped on.

No really you dont... There is a reason why the laws prevent people from resisting arrest / lawful detention / stop in that manner. The courts are the proper place to make that argument.

The founders would be livid to see people acting in a manner that is inconsistent wit the law, regardless if they wear a uniform or civilian clothes.

Regardless of how wrong the officer might be, resisting still results in charges, even if the primary reason law enforcement was present was wrong.

And to head you or anyone else off at the pass -
* - The ruling out of Indiana is restrictive to certain scenarios and does not apply to any law enforcement officer outside the state of Indiana.
* - The SCOTUS ruling in Plumber does not allow the resistance / use of force to resist an unlawful arrest / detention / stop being made in a peaceable manner.

Since then Plumber has been cited by various appeals courts to define it further.

You cannot resist an arrest, lawful or unlawful, by using force. Determining if something is lawful or not is reserved to the courts and not the officer or the person being dealt with. It is why we have 42 USC 1983.

a reply to: Xcathdra

The founders would be livid to see people acting in a manner that is inconsistent wit the law, regardless if they wear a uniform or civilian clothes.

Our founders actually revolted against British law.

I am not saying that they would not be livid, we have Washington and the Whiskey Rebellion as proof, I am just saying that some of them were hypocrites.

I do not include Jefferson as one of the hypocrites, since he fully anticipated uprisings against our own government every 20 years or so, and thought it would be best for our nation if it did happen.

a reply to: butcherguy

To assume guilt by sight is not constitutional. A cop grabbing you suddenly for no reason is against the law. they have to have cause to do so. otherwise they can be treated as someone attacking you for no reason. If i am walking down the street and have done nothing wrong and a cop tells me to stop for no reason(depending n the state) i am not legally required to do so if we are still a free country.(which looking at SC rulings we arent anymore)

Oh who are we kidding. we are living in nazi germany legal wise because we have to show our papers when asked or we get punished for it.

Anyone who loves the constitution and goes by its word should be concerned about how close we all are to being in concentration camps thanks to the SC and its legislating from the bench in the past. The new court needs to revisit this police power and strip it because they are basically gestapo now.

a reply to: yuppa

Changing the goal posts doesnt help your argument.

If its a voluntary contact then yes, you can ignore the officer. However if its an investigative contact then no, you dont have a right to walk away. We once again come back to a lawful detention / arrest / stop. The validity of the contact is also not up to the civilian to determine. If you think the cop is in the wrong then you use the law, as the founding fathers envisioned.

An officer placing their hands on a person is not in and of itself illegal. If the person in question decides to ignore verbal commands then yes, police can stop you by physical means. Again we come back to a lawful detention / arrest /stop. We also come back to the standard of law enforcement being able to escalate their use of force to 1 level higher than the resistance being encountered.

As for the Constitution its our founding / guiding document however you are ignoring, or dont understand, the concept that states are separate sovereign from the federal government. The states are subject to their own constitution and laws as well as the citizens who are located in those states.

As for the Nazi comment drop the drama. If it were Nazi Germany you would have disappeared some time ago for anti government sentiment. The fact you can criticize the government, and the police, all the while being wrong because you think personal opinion and ignoring laws you dont like or dont understand, is a clear indication you arent in a police state or nazi germany.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Federal law trumps local and state law correct? Point is if the FBI was innocent then this Agent would not be in trouble.
In SC our officers are at least smart enough to have some common sense. See i dont hate law enforcement or the government in SC.

originally posted by: 123143
Finicum's death was wrong all the way around. If you haven't seen the video, go to YouTube and watch it. As a citizen of the US, watch it.

Speaking of that were there really shots being fired when he went for his gun? That was not indicated at the time.

originally posted by: Logarock

originally posted by: 123143
Finicum's death was wrong all the way around. If you haven't seen the video, go to YouTube and watch it. As a citizen of the US, watch it.

Speaking of that were there really shots being fired when he went for his gun? That was not indicated at the time.

There were shots fired at the traffic stop before the roadblock ambush, and there was no 'going for a gun' at that point, just goading by the FBI at that point.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: Xcathdra

SO just sit still and been shot to death was what you wanted him to do then? SO much for defending your rights under the constitution then right?

No, sit still, keep your hands where they can be seen and comply with verbal commands when given.

Finnicum didnt do this.

I understand that a cop wants to defend themselves. Its just that back during the revolutionary period we as a nation didn't set down and shut up, did not comply, refused to obey the king and his officers and started shooting.