Shawna Cox Video from Inside LaVoy's Truck

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: Xcathdra

ARE you friggin kidding me? And you know that why? He fled because they started shooting at him. He was trying to protect his and his family's lives...

You are pathetic... This is illegal for so many reasons and leos need to be held accountable.

Jaden

Agreed.

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: Xcathdra

ARE you friggin kidding me? And you know that why? He fled because they started shooting at him. He was trying to protect his and his family's lives...

You are pathetic... This is illegal for so many reasons and leos need to be held accountable.

Jaden

If he was trying to protect his families lives he should't have put them in that situation in the first place, and even though he does, he still gives them the option to get out of the truck. They all made their choices!

a reply to: Flatcoat

The video clearly showed him with his arms out to his side, taunting the OSP. Then, he reached for his gun, twice. Then he got shot.
You're either making stuff up or, you should go to the eye doctor.

originally posted by: Restricted

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: Vector99

well that's a problem. Police should not be authorized to shoot someone because they are REACHING for some UNKNOWN object...

The fact that we have degenerated to the point that LEOs can MURDER someone, because they PERCEIVE a threat that they can't even see, shows that we are fully engulfed in a police state and that people need to wake up.

LEOs are PAID to protect the populace and to safeguard the constitution. Not to murder someone because they THINK they might be in personal danger.

Jaden

Early in my career I did some "Shoot, Don't Shoot" films.

One scenario was a young man coming at us across railroad tracks at dusk. He reached and we drew, ordering him to stop and put his hands in the air. He continued to advance, ignoring all our orders.

Ultimately, I was the only one who shot him.

He was deaf and was reaching for credentials that explained his disability.

I have never forgotten that. It is practically a PTSD memory for me.

Exactly, it seems like some of those defending these types of actions would have to say "Well, he was asking for it. As soon as they drew their weapons that deaf guy who couldn't understand what they were asking him to do should've read their minds just capitulated."

Capitulated to what? He's trying the best he can to illustrate the issue.

LEOs need to stop being chicken# pussies...

I know for a fact that in the 80's and 90's officers were trained to only shoot if they knew there was no other way to de-escalate the situation and to never shoot if they didn't physically see the weapon or threat. Someone coming at you with a car? Jump out of the way dummy or get behind something, you don't unload 80 rounds at the guy, his brakes may have failed and his gas pedal is stuck...

Jaden

originally posted by: Mririshman

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: Granite

The vid is quite damning, we needed some ground audio to match the fbi vid and lo and behold it shows what many of us expected it too.....

Can someone please explain to me why the American Authorities be it Police/FBI /ATF or whatever seem to have no Problem Shooting People??? ( I am EX British Army and have been all over the World on Duty and have myself disarmed armed Suspects) so dont give me the he might of been armed bull**** I constantly see this why?????????????? why do they just shoot People?????? theese are Human beings? excessive force in America and the disrespect for human life is truly shocking and terribly sad.

I think because of the gun culture there, police have itchy trigger fingers because every single person they encounter could be packing , they are scared and get it drummed in to them each and every day it is better for them to shoot the perp and go home than it is to be shot and killed on the job.....that coupled with aspirations of being a bad ass military type....

originally posted by: Restricted
He, and those in his vehicle, posed no threat of death or great bodily harm.

Finicum fled a traffic stop, engaged in a pursuit, avoided spike strips, tried to avoid a road block, and almost hit and killed a leo, all while being armed. Other weapons were found in the vehicle.

So lets recap -
Finicum does all of the above in addition to leaping out of the truck while yelling at police to shoot him, ignores verbal command while reaching into his pockets with the result being police shooting to stop the threat.

The people in the truck complied with officers and were not injured / shot / etc.

originally posted by: Restricted
Yes,

The wise decision would have been to allow him to proceed to his destination and then arrest him on the appropriate charges.

When he states on tv he wont be going to jail, flees a traffic stop, engages in a pursuit, avoids spike strips and tries to avoid a road block, all the while knowing the police were OSP / FBI, I find it implausible he would have surrendered peacefully. Especially when the "sheriff" he was going to see would have no authority / ability to prevent a hand off back to federal custody.

originally posted by: Restricted
This was very badly handled. The police exacerbated the situation instead of trying to mitigate it as they are meant to do.

Wrong - Finicums actions exacerbated the situation. Finicum had several opportunities to end the situation peacefully and yet at every chance he failed to do so.

originally posted by: Restricted
I blame the police, and I am generally one of their staunchest supporters.

We will agree to disagree here.

a reply to: Masterjaden

I'm not defending it. I'm saying it's an extremely difficult position to be in.

a reply to: Flatcoat

Totality of circumstances.

When he almost hit the officer it demonstrated an indifference to life. When he bolted out of the truck he continued to present an imminent danger to everyone present.

You have to take into account everything leading up to the final encounter.

And no its not a cop out.

a reply to: yuppa

No, states are not passing laws making it legal to shoot / kill cops, no matter how many times you repeat that falsehood. Further evidence is your inability to support your claim.

The case / law applies to Indiana and has no bearing on Oregon.

You need to stop.

a reply to: Xcathdra

LE started the incident and made many bad decisions along the way.

There was a way to resolve this quietly and calmly. They chose to poke the dog first, knowing Finicum would escalate.

THEY DID IT ON PURPOSE.

I have seen it before - 30 YEARS OF IT.

a reply to: Restricted

ewll then the chicken# pussies who can't handle it shouldn't take the paycheck then...


Jaden

a reply to: yuppa

Should have done more research -

This case is widely cited on the Internet in blogs and discussion groups.[19] The most commonly quoted version is:

"Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306 [sic]. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated: “Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed."[20]

The above Plummer v. State quote is a fabrication; the text does not appear in the text of the Plummer opinion.[21] Modern sources citing Plummer and Bad Elk have tended to discuss the issue as defense against unlawful force; under contemporary law in most jurisdictions, a person may not use force to resist an unlawful arrest.

Secondly it occurred in the late 1800's using common law as a basis. That has changed since then with state laws. Third it was, once again a state court ruling, applying only to that state and only before the law making it illegal to resist an arrest.

* - John Bad Elk v. U.S - A scotus ruling thats no longer applicable as state laws rectified the issue the court found.

You will find the cases in your source are not longer applicable.

Stop seeing only what you want while ignoring the facts that dont support your argument.

Indiana has the only law that allows a person to defend against law enforcement actions, and as I stated and posted and you ignored, the restrictions on use against the police are present and restricted to very specific instances.

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: Restricted

ewll then the chicken# pussies who can't handle it shouldn't take the paycheck then...

Jaden

It takes a person with a certain mindset. You have to be half-criminal yourself in order to get into their heads.

originally posted by: Masterjaden
ARE you friggin kidding me? And you know that why? He fled because they started shooting at him. He was trying to protect his and his family's lives...

* - They were not shooting at him at the first stop.
* - They did fire pepper ball rounds.

He was not trying to protect anyone.

originally posted by: Masterjaden
You are pathetic... This is illegal for so many reasons and leos need to be held accountable.

Jaden

The problem is people interjecting their opinions as law, like you are trying to do.

Its not illegal and ignoring laws you dont like does not invalidate them. I am sure with your many years as a police officer / lawyer that you could better articulate your response and use facts instead of misplaced emotion mixed with ignorance.

originally posted by: Restricted
LE started the incident and made many bad decisions along the way.

Really? So law enforcement went to these different states and told Finicum, the Bundys and the others to come to Oregon and break the law? I must have missed that in the reporting somewhere. You got a link so I can read it?

originally posted by: Restricted
There was a way to resolve this quietly and calmly. They chose to poke the dog first, knowing Finicum would escalate.

How about not traveling to another state to hijack an issue where the Hammond's dint want them involved in?
How about not seizing property that does not belong to them?
How about not stealing property that does not belong to them?
How about not ignoring the Sheriff's offer to escort them out to resolve the situation?
How about not going on tv and stating you arent going to jail while armed?
How about not fleeing a traffic stop?
How about not engaging in a pursuit?
How about not avoiding spike strips?
How about stopping the truck when officers attempted to disable it?
How about not trying to go around a road block?
How about not almost striking an officer with the truck?
How about not jumping out of the truck while ignoring commands?
How about not reaching into pockets while ignoring commands?

So I agree there were many many many chances for Finicum to end this peacefully.

He chose not to.

originally posted by: Restricted
THEY DID IT ON PURPOSE.

I have seen it before - 30 YEARS OF IT.

Yes the Bundy's and Finicum and the other militia people did this intentionally and as a matter of fact the Bundy's have been doing this same bs for the last 26 years and still they are to stupid to get a clue.

originally posted by: Restricted

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: Restricted

ewll then the chicken# pussies who can't handle it shouldn't take the paycheck then...

Jaden

It takes a person with a certain mindset. You have to be half-criminal yourself in order to get into their heads.

When were the militia / Bundy / Finicum getting paid?

Forgot to add to the thread that there was a reason they set this thing up in a non-comm zone.

They didn't want any witnesses.

a reply to: Xcathdra

I have also said this over and over. This is the key all you people who want to chastise law enforcement. None of this had to happen. They chose for this to happen. Why are we making excuses for the criminals here? The car was being used as a weapon, if he didn't want to die all he had to do is stop and follow instructions.

originally posted by: NotTooHappy
a reply to: Flatcoat

The video clearly showed him with his arms out to his side, taunting the OSP. Then, he reached for his gun, twice. Then he got shot.
You're either making stuff up or, you should go to the eye doctor.

Yep someone should see an eye doctor. He was shot at twice as he was exiting the vehicle with his hands up.......or did you miss that part?

originally posted by: Restricted
Forgot to add to the thread that there was a reason they set this thing up in a non-comm zone.

They didn't want any witnesses injuries to civilians and a controlled environment is what they chose.

Fixed...

If they did not want witnesses then why did the police record it and why did they release the cell phone footage / reports.

Its easy to make a claim. Its harder to support that claim when the evidence / facts don't support that claim.