The People Had Overwhelming Force at the Bundy Ranch, and They Showed Restraint... But When...

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: Gryphon66


To the Public the video show only one thing when it comes to the cause of the subjects Death.

It shows someone running from the police, refusing to do what he is told, and he is shot when reaching for a gun

What the Public dont see is that the FBI agent who moves to the left in front of the subject is also shooting his weapon.

How do you know he was FBI?
How come the public does not see him, but only you do and you know he is FBI?

If you focus on the gun the FBI agen holds in his hand.

How do you know he is FBI?

dont have to release a statment that the FBI firied their weapon at the victim.

Again, how do you know it was the FBI firing?

You seem obsessed about the FBI!

a reply to: spy66

I understand that you are interpreting the video based on your own experience.

That is not my question.

The Oregon State Police have stated that the shooters are Troopers not FBI. There are corroborating reports of same.

Are they lying? That's my question to you; is the Oregon State Police on record now with a complete fabrication?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: spy66

I understand that you are interpreting the video based on your own experience.

That is not my question.

The Oregon State Police have stated that the shooters are Troopers not FBI. There are corroborating reports of same.

Are they lying? That's my question to you; is the Oregon State Police on record now with a complete fabrication?

State troopers were the final road block like I stated earlier. Try reading responses instead of making things up it will help in your replys. As any operation you probably had 1 or 2 special agents that coordinated the stop. They would have been at the initial stop.

a reply to: dragonridr

I'm not sure what you're talking about ... as I'm not responding to you or anything you've said.

I stated facts about what the Oregon State Police have published, and I asked another member a question about their comments.

So ... why are you being rude and saying something about my "making things up" ... I cited the statement FROM the OREGON STATE POLICE earlier ... perhaps you should take your own advice? (???)

(And as far as I can tell, you agree that the shooters were OSP ... you're very confusing)

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: spy66

I understand that you are interpreting the video based on your own experience.

That is not my question.

The Oregon State Police have stated that the shooters are Troopers not FBI. There are corroborating reports of same.

Are they lying? That's my question to you; is the Oregon State Police on record now with a complete fabrication?

From experiance these teams would be mixed With troopers and FBI. The FBI would have People at the last stand, not just With the Chase.

I can not prove it from the video....no.

originally posted by: spy66
I can not prove it from the video....no.

So why keep claiming the FBI were involved in the shooting?

a reply to: spy66

Thanks for clarifying further ... but that's still not my question.

Were the Oregon State Police lying when they publicly announced that Finicum was shot and killed by Oregon State Police officers and that an official investigation will be conducted with County officials as proscribed by Oregon law?

Were the State Troopers lying? That's the question I'm asking you.

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: spy66

I understand that you are interpreting the video based on your own experience.

That is not my question.

The Oregon State Police have stated that the shooters are Troopers not FBI. There are corroborating reports of same.

Are they lying? That's my question to you; is the Oregon State Police on record now with a complete fabrication?

From experiance these teams would be mixed With troopers and FBI. The FBI would have People at the last stand, not just With the Chase.

I can not prove it from the video....no.

FBI would send special agents to the location and they would take over local law enforcement. If there was more than a couple of FBI this would be amazing. In most cases 2 special agents would be sent to coordinate local police. Unfortunately you won't find anything showing this as that's part of deal the special agents remain in the nackground .

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: spy66

Thanks for clarifying further ... but that's still not my question.

Were the Oregon State Police lying when they publicly announced that Finicum was shot and killed by Oregon State Police officers and that an official investigation will be conducted with County officials as proscribed by Oregon law?

Were the State Troopers lying? That's the question I'm asking you.

Why would they be lying it was state troopers?? FBI doesn't have the man power people believe they do they often rely on local police and other federal agencies like the ATF for example.

a reply to: dragonridr

You are very confused.

Re-read my post.

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: spy66
I can not prove it from the video....no.

So why keep claiming the FBI were involved in the shooting?

Because i think the person who walked to the left in front of the victim is FBI. The troopers are all dressed With the same gear, the FBI is not. They are also reacting the same way to the situation, they are taking cover...not ingaging. Like this one person in particular.

The troopers would react the same because they have the same training. If the person who walked out had the same training as the troopers he would have reacted the same way.....and take cover.

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: spy66
I can not prove it from the video....no.

So why keep claiming the FBI were involved in the shooting?

Because i think the person who walked to the left in front of the victim is FBI. The troopers are all dressed With the same gear. They are also reacting the same way to the situation, they are taking cover...not ingaging. Like this one person in particular.

The troopers would react the same because they have the same training. If the person who walked out had the same training as the troopers he would have reacted the same way.....and take cover.

He wasn't it was a state trooper that fired. Also all the firing that was reported was rubber bullets according to state police which explains why we don't see damage to the vehicle from the video. Live rounds were not fired until he reached for his gun. Watch the video here there is little doubt he wasn't surrendering
www.oregonlive.com...

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: spy66
I can not prove it from the video....no.

So why keep claiming the FBI were involved in the shooting?

Because i think the person who walked to the left in front of the victim is FBI. The troopers are all dressed With the same gear. They are also reacting the same way to the situation, they are taking cover...not ingaging. Like this one person in particular.

The troopers would react the same because they have the same training. If the person who walked out had the same training as the troopers he would have reacted the same way.....and take cover.

He wasn't it was a state trooper that fired. Also all the firing that was reported was rubber bullets according to state police which explains why we don't see damage to the vehicle from the video. Live rounds were not fired until he reached for his gun. Watch the video here there is little doubt he wasn't surrendering
www.oregonlive.com...

I know what the ofissial statment is. I am arguing against it.....


And i also doubt that they would use rubber bullets in a situation like this. When does the cops in the US ever use rubber bullets on a suspect they think is armed with leathal bullets?

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: spy66
I can not prove it from the video....no.

So why keep claiming the FBI were involved in the shooting?

Because i think the person who walked to the left in front of the victim is FBI. The troopers are all dressed With the same gear. They are also reacting the same way to the situation, they are taking cover...not ingaging. Like this one person in particular.

The troopers would react the same because they have the same training. If the person who walked out had the same training as the troopers he would have reacted the same way.....and take cover.

He wasn't it was a state trooper that fired. Also all the firing that was reported was rubber bullets according to state police which explains why we don't see damage to the vehicle from the video. Live rounds were not fired until he reached for his gun. Watch the video here there is little doubt he wasn't surrendering
www.oregonlive.com...

I know what the ofissial statment is. I am arguing against it.....


And i also doubt that they would use rubber bullets in a situation like this. When does the cops in the US ever use rubber bullets on a suspect they think is armed leathal bullets?

When they are trying to avoid having to use lethal force. No one but police ever use rubber bullets and its quite often. I guess you hate police and buy those stories they try to kill everyone.

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: spy66
I can not prove it from the video....no.

So why keep claiming the FBI were involved in the shooting?

Because i think the person who walked to the left in front of the victim is FBI. The troopers are all dressed With the same gear. They are also reacting the same way to the situation, they are taking cover...not ingaging. Like this one person in particular.

The troopers would react the same because they have the same training. If the person who walked out had the same training as the troopers he would have reacted the same way.....and take cover.

He wasn't it was a state trooper that fired. Also all the firing that was reported was rubber bullets according to state police which explains why we don't see damage to the vehicle from the video. Live rounds were not fired until he reached for his gun. Watch the video here there is little doubt he wasn't surrendering
www.oregonlive.com...

I know what the ofissial statment is. I am arguing against it.....


And i also doubt that they would use rubber bullets in a situation like this. When does the cops in the US ever use rubber bullets on a suspect they think is armed leathal bullets?

When they are trying to avoid having to use lethal force. No one but police ever use rubber bullets and its quite often. I guess you hate police and buy those stories they try to kill everyone.

I dont hate the police. One should be able to argu this event without hate.

I am just calling this as i see it. And i dont think they are giving the correct facts. To me it seams like the authorities are building a defence to argue what happened.

EDIT:
You have not seen any evidence, only read statments and seen the video. So how can you take a statment for facts if you have not seen the evidence?

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: spy66
I can not prove it from the video....no.

So why keep claiming the FBI were involved in the shooting?

Because i think the person who walked to the left in front of the victim is FBI. The troopers are all dressed With the same gear. They are also reacting the same way to the situation, they are taking cover...not ingaging. Like this one person in particular.

The troopers would react the same because they have the same training. If the person who walked out had the same training as the troopers he would have reacted the same way.....and take cover.

He wasn't it was a state trooper that fired. Also all the firing that was reported was rubber bullets according to state police which explains why we don't see damage to the vehicle from the video. Live rounds were not fired until he reached for his gun. Watch the video here there is little doubt he wasn't surrendering
www.oregonlive.com...

I know what the ofissial statment is. I am arguing against it.....


And i also doubt that they would use rubber bullets in a situation like this. When does the cops in the US ever use rubber bullets on a suspect they think is armed leathal bullets?

When they are trying to avoid having to use lethal force. No one but police ever use rubber bullets and its quite often. I guess you hate police and buy those stories they try to kill everyone.

I dont hate the police. One should be able to argu this event without hate.

I am just calling this as i see it. And i dont think they are giving the correct facts. To me it seams like the authorities are building a defence to argue what happened.

EDIT:
You have not seen any evidence, only read statments and seen the video. So how can you take a statment for facts if you have not seen the evidence?

That's why they have these things called trials where they present evidence to a jury. That's the next step for these people. The government will have to provide proof and well they made it easy because they couldn't help but put out videos. I'm all for standing up for your rights but you shouldn't use violence to do so there are other ways. Of you have to use threats to convey your message then you have a very weak message.

Ideas create change and revolution inspiring others starts a movement. The problem they have is the narrative is weak. They want to use federal land as they choose and think the government should give up their control of their lands. Its like your neighbor telling you what to do with your property. Say you want to install a pool and your neighbor decides he doesn't want you to because he has a better idea on how to manage your property.

originally posted by: fartlordsupreme
a reply to: Bundy

other than your obvious distaste for youth culture what seems to be the problem?
it is abundantly clear that the average high school student would absolutely destroy you in a debate or any kind of intellectual conversation so its certainly not the education (which is abysmal but still leaps and bounds better than it was in whatever dark age you seem to be stepping out from)

so no thats not at all what im describing (and i should know seeing as how im the one you know....doing the describing)
maybe youre not quite as astute as you would like to believe
but thats how its always been with your kind....a numbers game.... quantity over quality ....every time

What on gods green earth are you talking about? You made a lot of assumptions from my TWO SENTENCES that you definitely need to read again.

ME : "Are you a teacher in a public school? That's what you appear to be describing."

so this guy likely ruined 50 lives and countless others indirectly molding a bunch of children into brain dead fanatics and this information is supposed to make me sympathetic? sounds like recruitment tactics to me

Sounds to me like im showing a distaste for a public school system that you're a shining example of. Do i detect a Valedictorian?

it is abundantly clear that the average high school student would absolutely destroy you in a debate or any kind of intellectual conversation so its certainly not the education (which is abysmal but still leaps and bounds better than it was in whatever dark age you seem to be stepping out from)

Oh.. Clearly. I mean, my original two sentences you're responding to were just so telling. I've said too much, and a fool is revealed..

so no thats not at all what im describing (and i should know seeing as how im the one you know....doing the describing) maybe youre not quite as astute as you would like to believe but thats how its always been with your kind....a numbers game.... quantity over quality ....every time

..Luckily enough, it was you all along.

edit: just wanted to throw in, you sound really young, or like someone trying way too hard. Stop using words that you think make you appear intelligent so often. It Reeks of desperation.

originally posted by: spy66

Yes. We are trained to know when it is time to pull the trigger. We who are trained to handle situations like this, and operate With a different Level of threat than you would.

Even if he had put his hand on a holstered weapon, it is still not the right time to pull the trigger. The subject is still not a imminent threat. Becasue the gun is still holstered and safe.

It is when the subjects pulls a holstered weapon up and out of the holster, and up into fireing position... we make the decision to pull the trigger or not.

This is probably hard for you to grasp, but than again you dont have this Level of training.

Thank you! Finally someone talks some sense regarding rules of engagement and authorization of the use of deadly force. Just because many cops will gun you down because you make any move that could possibly be construed as you reaching for a weapon, doesn't mean they should. It's reassuring to hear that the FBI practices a higher standard of the rules of engagement. Of course, if you are correct, that means Finicum was assassinated, plain and simple. I tended to be of that opinion before reading your comments, but I think your assessment gives further confirmation to that notion. We also have the layout of the roadblock, the fact that it was even set up in the first place, and the reports of shots being fired at the first stopping point to support this assessment. I'm probably missing some other points, though. What else am I not noticing?

originally posted by: TheBadCabbie
It's reassuring to hear that the FBI practices a higher standard of the rules of engagement. Of course, if you are correct, that means Finicum was assassinated, plain and simple.

Why do you think the FBI were involved in the shooting?

What else am I not noticing?

How about the FBI never shot anyone?

originally posted by: tweetie

I have been absolutely horrified and freaked out at the number of people at ATS on various related threads who have been metaphorically dancing around LaVoy's dead body with glee. Good grief! I would much rather have LaVoy as a friend than anyone who has done that.

Thank you as well! I too have been feeling the same way, and hadn't gestated it enough to voice it. Thank you for mentioning that. Disgusting how so many posters here in these threads have been literally drooling over the chance for the blood of these people to be spilled. I don't really know what else I can say about it without sounding as ugly as I feel these folks have been acting with their vitriol, so I guess I'll stop here.