LaVoy Finicum shooting: FBI agent indicted for alleged false statements

a reply to: Xcathdra

The totality of circumstances at the border will have wall guards on patrol shoot at everything in sight as well. The good old Stasi mindset prevails, things people don't seem to grasp cuz... Nazis!

So R. Bundy was reaching for something in his jacket as well?

Obeyed orders to surrender... they should have shot the two ladies in the back for that as well, I reckon?

a reply to: PublicOpinion

Try again...

Totality of circumstances is case by case, as the supreme court has stated. Secondly when dealing with the border you move beyond the standard 4th amendment and move into Border search exception.

When you dont comply with verbal commands, and your with someone who is armed and has threatened not to go to jail, that person becomes a threat.

You are more than welcome to ignore the facts that dont support your opinion. I will stick with the law.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Can cops shoot you for not following commands?

a reply to: Woodcarver

You're obviously crossing at least one border with that. So yes, that's well within the totality of their rights.

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: Woodcarver

You're obviously crossing at least one border with that. So yes, that's well within the totality of their rights.

Is running from fed agents who are trying to kill you to keep you from getting to the police who are on your side? Is that illegal?

a reply to: Woodcarver

Don't you dare bringing up that meeting they were heading to, let's just forget the whole context of this ambush and obey a nice day...

sadly, I don't believe justice will ever be served. I will be surprised and happy if I am wrong.
"totality of circumstances" smh..I remember that BS from the old threads. whose totality?

originally posted by: Woodcarver
a reply to: Xcathdra

Can cops shoot you for not following commands?

Depending on circumstances - yes they can.

The use of force is situation specific and the officer is the one who will have to justify their actions. The standard when reviewing use of force is "what did the officer perceive the moment force was used". 20/20 hindsight is not allowed in reviewing use of force.

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: Woodcarver

You're obviously crossing at least one border with that. So yes, that's well within the totality of their rights.

Is running from fed agents who are trying to kill you to keep you from getting to the police who are on your side? Is that illegal?

Information you only know about after the fact. Information the law enforcement officers on scene did not have.

20/20 hindsight cannot be used when reviewing use of force. Everything we know about the shooting is available to us after the fact. The same cant be said of those on scene.

a reply to: OveRcuRrEnteD

In the law, the totality of the circumstances test refers to a method of analysis where decisions are based on all available information rather than bright-line rules.[1] Under the totality of the circumstances test, courts focus "on all the circumstances of a particular case, rather than any one factor".[2] In the United States, totality tests are used as a method of analysis in several different areas of the law.[3] For example, in United States criminal law, a determination about reasonable suspicion or probable cause is based on a consideration of the totality of the circumstances.[4]

a reply to: Xcathdra
In your opinion, was the destination of LaVoy and party part of that totality?

originally posted by: OveRcuRrEnteD
a reply to: Xcathdra
In your opinion, was the destination of LaVoy and party part of that totality?

Was that information available to the officers on scene? The only reason we know about it is because of media reports - after the fact.

Secondly the State Police and the Federal agents also had lawful jurisdiction.

a reply to: Xcathdra
I'm not questioning jurisdiction. I'm questioning timing and motive. I'm pretty sure it was reported "after the fact" that LaVoy stated to officers and agents his intention during the initial stop.

...and, do you think the feds really didn't know where they were going?

a reply to: OveRcuRrEnteD

Finnicum also stated to the media he would not be going to jail and stated this while armed. People dont get to pick and choose what law enforcement they are going to deal with, especially during a traffic stop.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Finnicum also stated to the media he would not be going to jail and stated this while armed.

was this a perceived threat or an actual threat?

People dont get to pick and choose what law enforcement they are going to deal with

of course not, it works the other way around. that was not my point though.

during a traffic stop

that's what the initial stop was? ok, sure. Troopers, officers and agents, shots fired at the truck and a roadblock already set up down the road...and now this agent being indicted for obstructing justice at the scene of the "good shooting".

Thanks for your time answering my questions but if you can't see the bigger picture here I feel I'm wasting mine. nice chatting with you..

originally posted by: OveRcuRrEnteD
a reply to: Xcathdra
In your opinion, was the destination of LaVoy and party part of that totality?

Of course the officers on the scene knew about the meeting they were heading toward. Their inside guys had told them so the "traffic stop" and road block could be set up. To deny that is simply to ignore the facts. But law enforcement can conveniently ignore those facts and pretend anything they want.
You know, the funny thing is---I've never heard a word about the probable cause for the "traffic stop" fantasy our Authoritarian posters have fallen in love with. Did the truck have a taillight that wasn't working properly? That has been used in the past to shoot folks dead in the street.

a reply to: Xcathdra

no black guy law-breaker shot, only white guy law-breaker shot.....so it has to be a travesty of justice, and those government employees need to be in prison.....(shakes head)

Xcathdra...can you imagine if 20 to 30 black guys with loaded AR's pointed them at white BLM officers protesting a black guys grazing rights (ala bundy ranch)?......I wonder how many right-wingers on ATS would be cheering for them?

a reply to: jimmyx

There were black guys at the Bundy ranch with loaded AR 15s.

originally posted by: OveRcuRrEnteD
was this a perceived threat or an actual threat?

If law enforcement is dealing with a person, and that person claims they are a blackbelt in karate and a former navy seal, those comments are taken at face value, regardless if they are true or not. Finnicums actions / words are taken at face value, even more so when he is armed and stating he wont be going to jail.

originally posted by: OveRcuRrEnteD
of course not, it works the other way around. that was not my point though.

ok... What exactly was your point then?

originally posted by: OveRcuRrEnteD
that's what the initial stop was? ok, sure. Troopers, officers and agents, shots fired at the truck and a roadblock already set up down the road...and now this agent being indicted for obstructing justice at the scene of the "good shooting".

The initial traffic stop was not based on a traffic infraction - It was done to take people into custody. Shots were fired when individuals refused to comply with verbal commands - Finnicum and R. Bundy.

Yes it was a good shoot. The FBI agent is not charged for discharging his firearm. He is being charged because he lied about discharging his firearm. Secondly that encounter was not the one where shots occurred first. Since shots had already been discharged at the first encounter, the level needed to discharge their duty weapons at the second encounter was reduced.

The agent discharging his firearm was valid and lawful. My guess is he may have violated a department policy or disobeyed an order. If it was a bad shoot the charges would be higher than lying / obstruction.

A "suspect" does not have to be in possession of a firearm, let alone discharge that firearm at police, in order for police to respond with deadly force = totality of circumstances.

originally posted by: OveRcuRrEnteD
Thanks for your time answering my questions but if you can't see the bigger picture here I feel I'm wasting mine. nice chatting with you..

You are welcome... and I agree as I dont think people who dont have a law enforcement / legal background adequately understand whats involved or how use of force is reviewed in a legal context.

We will have to agree to disagree.

originally posted by: jimmyx
a reply to: Xcathdra

no black guy law-breaker shot, only white guy law-breaker shot.....so it has to be a travesty of justice, and those government employees need to be in prison.....(shakes head)

Xcathdra...can you imagine if 20 to 30 black guys with loaded AR's pointed them at white BLM officers protesting a black guys grazing rights (ala bundy ranch)?......I wonder how many right-wingers on ATS would be cheering for them?

I chalk it up to people on this site not being fans of law enforcement so no matter what law enforcement does they are always going to be the ones who get the blame. I have tried numerous times to get people who dislike law enforcement to take the time to understand the law so they make their arguments more logically but to no avail.

As I always say ignorance is a choice. Even if you dont like law enforcement or the laws / SCOTUS rulings in question it should not stop a person from educating themselves on the topic in order to make a better argument for their position. They have access to the law enforcement playbook so why not use it to get the changes they think should occur?