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.

 

LaVoy Finicum shooting: FBI agent indicted for alleged false statements

page: 8
38
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 6 2017 @ 07:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: jimmyx

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


There were a lot of people at the ranch who were armed and who are still alive and not in jail. I wonder why that is.




posted on Jul, 6 2017 @ 07:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: jimmyx

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


There were a lot of people at the ranch who were armed and who are still alive and not in jail. I wonder why that is.

More of them than the cops?
If you go back and look at the pics, you will find some of civilians aiming loaded rifles at federal agents.
That is a death sentence when the feds are not outnumbered.
edit on b000000312017-07-06T19:14:30-05:0007America/ChicagoThu, 06 Jul 2017 19:14:30 -0500700000017 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2017 @ 07:14 PM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

No idea about law enforcement.. My comparison was to the "protestors" at the Oregon incident. People there were also armed who are still alive and not in jail / facing charges.



posted on Jul, 6 2017 @ 07:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

See my edit.
The leos pick their battles.
They kill when the enemy is retreating by setting ambushes with sniper nests.



posted on Jul, 6 2017 @ 07:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: Xcathdra

See my edit.
The leos pick their battles.
They kill when the enemy is retreating by setting ambushes with sniper nests.


Of course LEO's will pick their battles. That is part of our training to understand that its ok to withdraw / not act in order to wait for other officers to arrive / attempt to deescalate a situation using other means.

Since each encounter is unique and based on totality of circumstances your opinion about a "death sentence" is off.

No ambush was set... No sniper nest was used... Finnicum had all the chances under the sun to comply and did not. Finnicum is dead because of Finnicums actions and the only person to blame for that is Finnicum himself.



posted on Jul, 6 2017 @ 08:43 PM
link   
..sigh..
a reply to: Xcathdra



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.

you really didn't answer my question. it was an A or B answer.



ok... What exactly was your point then?

I was pointing out from this comment from you:


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

that they knew exactly where everybody was going and that's why they timed the "traffic stop" and roadblock as they did.




The initial traffic stop was not based on a traffic infraction - It was done to take people into custody.

so... it was to serve felony warrants? isn't there a name for that?




Shots were fired when individuals refused to comply with verbal commands - Finnicum and R. Bundy.

hmmm, and that's legal?




Yes it was a good shoot.

man, that's scary.



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.

I get all that, but thanks.




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.

So, if he hadn't missed on that first shot would it still have been a good shoot? It seems to me a professional like that wouldn't accidentally discharge his weapon and also unlikely he would miss his target twice once he made the decision to fire. Why were those initial shots fired anyway?




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.

you may be correct about that but I don't think you need one to understand what happened to LaVoy.
and for the record I do understand your perspective and am not disagreeing or arguing about whether it was legal or not.



posted on Jul, 6 2017 @ 10:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: OveRcuRrEnteD
..sigh..

right back at ya...



originally posted by: OveRcuRrEnteD
you really didn't answer my question. it was an A or B answer.

Not really.. A threat is a threat and in this scenario they are one in the same.



originally posted by: OveRcuRrEnteD
I was pointing out from this comment from you:
......
that they knew exactly where everybody was going and that's why they timed the "traffic stop" and roadblock as they did.

Finnicum was on his way to speak at a public meeting in the town of John Day to recruit more people to their cause. The FBI / State Police had no idea where he was going to until the initial stop, when Finnicum kept yelling he was on his way to see the Sheriff. Which, by the way, is no excuse for resisting a lawful stop / detention / arrest. Finnicum then fled the scene. The only reason we know where he was heading was because of media reports after the fact.



originally posted by: OveRcuRrEnteD
so... it was to serve felony warrants? isn't there a name for that?

A felony traffic stop is one term. Taking people who are considered armed and dangerous is another.



originally posted by: OveRcuRrEnteD
hmmm, and that's legal?

Given the totality of the circumstances - yes.

Source

When asked on January 6 if he would rather be killed than arrested if the occupation turned violent, Finicum replied, "I have no intention of spending any of my days in a concrete box."






originally posted by: OveRcuRrEnteD
man, that's scary.

Any type of encounter dealing with a dead mans mindset, as Finnicum stated on tv, is always scary.




originally posted by: OveRcuRrEnteD
I get all that, but thanks.

Are you sure? You still seem to not be understanding how this works.





originally posted by: OveRcuRrEnteD
So, if he hadn't missed on that first shot would it still have been a good shoot? It seems to me a professional like that wouldn't accidentally discharge his weapon and also unlikely he would miss his target twice once he made the decision to fire. Why were those initial shots fired anyway?

I am going to assume you have never been involved in a situation where you are armed and dealing with a person who A - stated he wont be going to jail, B - is armed, C - Fled the initial encounter, resulting in shots being fired. Until you have been in a situation like that trying to get into the mind of officers on scene is impossible. Its why we cant use 20/20 hindsight to review and officers use of force. I get sick and tired of people who have never been in similar situations telling us how someone should have acted or what their firearm skill level should be.

If you have been involved in something similar then you should know better than to even make that comment.

The initial shots were fired during the first stop and it occurred because Finicum and Bundy refused to comply with verbal commands. The FBI agent fired during the second encounter, which was Bundy in his truck coming towards the road block, where Finnicum almost hit an officer. The 3rd encounter occurred outside the vehicle where Finnicum failed to comply with verbal commands, making a move towards his pocket, which was taken as another threat. Never mind the fact a gun was found on him.



originally posted by: OveRcuRrEnteD
you may be correct about that but I don't think you need one to understand what happened to LaVoy.
and for the record I do understand your perspective and am not disagreeing or arguing about whether it was legal or not.

Actually you do need to understand law enforcement, the laws in question and SCOTUS rulings to understand what occurred. Without that knowledge its difficult if not impossible for a person to understand why it occurred and why it was lawful.

Respectfully, while you claim you dont need to understand and that you are not arguing about the legality, your responses to date suggest otherwise.
edit on 6-7-2017 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2017 @ 11:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra
I'm not going to rebut your post but thanks for your perspective on the matter. It says a lot about LEO's mindset.
The assumptions, sidestepping and condescension were also quite telling.


while you claim you dont need to understand

nice twist but that's not what I said. At all.
Good day sir.



posted on Jul, 7 2017 @ 12:06 AM
link   
a reply to: OveRcuRrEnteD

Right...

So when you said -

originally posted by: OveRcuRrEnteD
you may be correct about that but I don't think you need one to understand what happened to LaVoy.
and for the record I do understand your perspective and am not disagreeing or arguing about whether it was legal or not.

you actually meant you do need to understand?

Maybe you should decide what you mean before replying.

What it says is people are more concerned with bashing something they know nothing about and are to lazy to take the time to learn. So long as people keep that attitude they are going to be constantly lost when incidents like these occur.



posted on Jul, 7 2017 @ 12:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

maybe you should read it again until you get it.


edit on 7/7/2017 by OveRcuRrEnteD because: ...more assumptions and condescension, cool.



posted on Jul, 7 2017 @ 12:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: OveRcuRrEnteD
a reply to: Xcathdra

maybe you should read it again until you get it.



I understood it... I said a person needs a background in law enforcement or legal to understand it and you said you dont need it to understand. Then you made comments demonstrating my point as to why an understanding is needed.

But whatever works for you.



posted on Jul, 7 2017 @ 01:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: Xcathdra

See my edit.
The leos pick their battles.
They kill when the enemy is retreating by setting ambushes with sniper nests.


Of course LEO's will pick their battles. That is part of our training to understand that its ok to withdraw / not act in order to wait for other officers to arrive / attempt to deescalate a situation using other means.

Since each encounter is unique and based on totality of circumstances your opinion about a "death sentence" is off.

No ambush was set... No sniper nest was used... Finnicum had all the chances under the sun to comply and did not. Finnicum is dead because of Finnicums actions and the only person to blame for that is Finnicum himself.
What i see is a cop covering for other cops. You're so far behind the blue line you can't even see that people are tired of cops hiding behind unjust laws and procedures. Not to mention the cops who just cover for eachother. If you won't admit it, you're a bad cop. Period.

You think it was a good shoot because other cops said it was a good shoot. That's all you need. Meanwhile, the head of the fbi just got fired for among other things, manipulating investigations of the highest order. And covering for the very people he was supposed to be investigating. For some, the police can do no wrong all while their dirty laundry is being aired nationally. Why should anyone trust the fbi in light of recent events?
edit on 7-7-2017 by Woodcarver because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 7 2017 @ 05:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Woodcarver

and you would be wrong.... Things will look different if the person actually understands what happens and why. The blue line bs is nothing more than an excuse to attack something you dont understand.



posted on Jul, 7 2017 @ 08:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra



Without that knowledge its difficult if not impossible for a person to understand why it occurred and why it was lawful.


So we're all just civil idiots unable to understand the law und thus unqualified to form an opinion with regards to the use of force?
Is that really what you're saying here?



posted on Jul, 7 2017 @ 08:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra
I doubt you'll get this but I'll try anyway. It's like standing in the trees and you can't see the forest. It's the bigger picture I referenced earlier. You can't see it, or choose not to. There is a difference between what's right and what's legal, that is my overall point. There is also a difference between what's legal and what's lawful. You consistently conflate the two. What was the actual crime committed by LaVoy? Who was the victim? Did he make any actual threats? Why would a federal agent lie about or omit circumstances in his report at the risk of being indicted? These are the types of questions that need honest answers. Let's see if you can do that or if you will continue to justify the actions of the aggressors.



posted on Jul, 7 2017 @ 10:18 AM
link   
a reply to: OveRcuRrEnteD

I agree. When the law allows for corrupt authority. The law is literally no longer binding.



posted on Jul, 9 2017 @ 12:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra

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.
So really it comes down to whether we can trust the police and agents to be honest, whether we can trust their superiors to be honest, and whether we can trust the media to give us an honest unbiased description of the details involved. That is a lot of trust you are showing towards people who have proven time and time again to cover up lies and corruption for eachother.



posted on Jul, 9 2017 @ 03:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Woodcarver

You forgot to add the suspects being honest... The witnesses being honest... etc.



posted on Jul, 9 2017 @ 03:11 PM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion

For the most part civilians dont know or understand the laws in question and a very large majority dont understand how use of force works, the laws governing it or the supreme court rulings that define it. A very large majority dont understand how use of force / officer actions are reviewed.

That becomes evident when people ignore facts / laws and instead think their opinion somehow trumps the law when in reality it doesn't.



posted on Jul, 9 2017 @ 03:33 PM
link   
a reply to: OveRcuRrEnteD

No I understand what you are saying I am just not buying into it. I am saying you are wrong by trying to substitute an opinion for law / established scotus rulings on how reviewing an officers use of force works. Your post demonstrates my point by some of the questions you asked when they have already been explained / defined. If this were an "ambush / assassination" then why did all other people with finnicum, in both vehicles, comply with law enforcement and why were they arrested peacefully?

Your problem is you reject something if you dont understand it or dont agree with it. If you could understand the laws in question / scotus rulings you would not be asking the questions you are as you would already know the answer.

A threat by a suspect that results in use of force has to be justified by the officer.

In this case -
* - Finnicum stated on tv he would not be going to jail.
* - Finnicum was armed in those interviews.
* - He has an established criminal history.
* - He has an established dislike for law enforcement.
* - He has an established dislike of the government.
* - He traveled to another state to occupy federal property while armed.
* - He refused to leave the land he was illegally on.
* - He recruited people to his cause.
* - He refused to comply with the initial traffic stop.
* - He refused to comply with verbal commands at that traffic stop.
* - His actions created a situation where shots were fired at that first stop, placing himself and everyone else in danger.
* - He fled the traffic stop.
* - He engaged in a high speed pursuit during wintertime where road conditions arent ideal.
* - He placed everyone in that pursuit in danger.
* - He refused to stop for the road block.
* - He almost hit an officer while trying to go around the road block.
* - His actions here resulted in more shots being fired, placing him and everyone else in danger.
* - He refused to comply with verbal commands.
* - He exited the vehicle and still refused to comply with verbal commands.
* - He started walking towards an officer ignoring verbal commands.
* - He reached into his coat, at which point the threat was ended by state police.
* - He was armed.

When taken individually then you might have an argument. However, since we use totality of circumstances they are all taken into account.

Possible charges (in general and not accounting for specific state laws / federal laws)
* - Resisting a lawful detention / arrest / stop x2
* - possession of a concealed weapon
* - Armed criminal action
* - Felony fleeing
* - Trespassing
* - Property damage
* - Failure to obey lawful commands
* - Conspiracy
* - attempted murder of a law enforcement officer
* - assault / attempted assault of a law enforcement officer.
* - Illegal possession of a firearm inside a national wildlife refuge
* - illegal possession of a firearm in the state of Oregon (not covered by peaceable travel laws)
* - Speeding
* - Improper use of drive lane (crossing center)
* - Driving on the wrong side / opposing traffic section of the road.
* - Trying to circumvent a road block / road closed section.
* - endangering the people in his truck during all encounters, from initial contact to road block.
* - endangering the lives of all law enforcement officers involved in the operation.
* - kidnapping
* - felonious restraint


Who was the victim? In this instance the officers / agents involved and the state / federal government. To help people understand this when a person is driving while intoxicated the state and law enforcement officer becomes the injured party.

Here - this video supports what I have been trying to explain to you.


Totality of circumstances. ALL of that is taken into account and can only be reviewed in a manner that does not use 20/20 hindsight.

So yes - his actions presented a dangerous and deadly threat to everyone he came into contact with.

Again, this is why people should know and understand the law / scotus rulings. Without that knowledge your review of the situation takes into account information not know by the officers at the time.

It was a good shoot.
It was a lawful shoot.

Why did the FBI agent lie? No clue since everything he did was legal. If I had to guess its entirely possible he didnt think he had justification after the fact and decided to try and hide it. Its also possible he violated FBI procedures. He could have violated an order / plan of action established prior to this encounter.

Either way he lied and will be charged and rightfully so.

You understanding it now? If not then its pretty obvious this exchange is a waste of time on both of our parts since I am not going to be changing my view and I doubt you will change yours.
edit on 9-7-2017 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-7-2017 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
38
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join