Jan 30, 2016 Ongoing Protests of the murder of Lavoy Finicum Burns, Oregon

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: schuyler

careful.

The Oregonian is MSM.

Could be actors in that vid.

The compilation is Oregonian, but I originally saw it direct from the YouTube feed itself.

Oh, wait....

I "must be some kind of government employee? Right?" I forgot myself for a moment there. Excuse me, but it's time for me to report to my handlers.....

a reply to: Phage

Actually I can't find any information on who Sharp is and it doesn't really matter what matters is her witness testimony.

Give me a #ing breakZ

Strange though.

Why would a guy get out of a car with his hands up and then decide to go for a gun with shooters pointing at him?

The guy went for a gun to his left the FBI claims.

The video shows him turning left and stumbling but he’d have to be crazy or stupid to think he could out draw those guns on him

Or the police might have shot him on his left side and he was responding to that.

a reply to: schuyler

My credibility has nothing to do with Victoria Sharps witness testimony and that's what matters.

Your trying to discredit my because of a piece of information that's not relevent to the overall perspective of wha I was saying in the post in an attempt to prove that your perspective is somehow more accurate than mine when what truly matters is what's said by the witness's.

Keep trying.

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: schuyler

My credibility has nothing to do with Victoria Sharps witness testimony and that's what matters.

Your trying to discredit my because of a piece of information that's not relevent to the overall perspective of wha I was saying in the post in an attempt to prove that your perspective is somehow more accurate than mine when what truly matters is what's said by the witness's.

Keep trying.

It's easy. Your posts do that all by themselves. There was nothing else to your post at all except the usual generalized polemics. You're wrong in your material facts. You can't really wiggle out of that unless you erase your post. It's there for everyone to see.

originally posted by: Rezlooper

originally posted by: SaturnFX

originally posted by: Rezlooper

originally posted by: SaturnFX
Murdered?
he was pulling a gun

he was killed
unfortunate, but pull a gun on a cop, and you're gonna get shot.

Did you actually see a gun? Did you actually see him pull anything? The video doesn't show whether he was even reaching for a gun. IMO he was reaching down in reaction to being shot.

not up to me to see anything. I seen him being surrounded, running around, and reaching for something in the coat..now, he might have suddenly realized he needed a breath mint after running from the cops, threatening them, and saying he will die fighting em...totes makes sense.

It will be properly investigated, but like anyone of any color..you dont run from police, and you damn sure dont start reaching for crap when they got guns drawn..you lift your hands high in the air and play it cool..because they have guns and the authority to shoot your ass if they feel threatened.

Moan about that as much as you want, but you know full well thats the truth they are dealing with here. Everyone wants to blame someone when in mourning, but that is typically pointless. Investigate it? sure..should always be an investigation when someone dies, just this video looks pretty damning.

Okay... investigate it. Unfortunately, all they've given us is this helicopter video which you can't tell anything for certain, especially if he was simply reaching for his "coat" as you point out. My guess is as good as your guess, and mine is that he was shot when he "reached." The truth lies in the body cams, dash cams and audio sounds that we have been denied. Why is that?

I would assume because the court system and any investigation isn't a democracy, its something done internally and needs to be officially signed off before it becomes public. I dont know, but is it common for police to immediately release their footage after shooting someone to channel 6 news or something? Its my understanding they try to not corrupt the evidence the moment they can by tweeting it.


I know its a conspiracy website, but lets try to give some thought to what standard procedure would be.

a reply to: SaturnFX

I agree with you on that, but then why did they release the helicopter video so quickly. The answer... to sway public opinion in their favor immediately. What the law says must be true, right?

a reply to: Rezlooper

The answer... to sway public opinion in their favor immediately.

Um. That would be your answer, of course. But are you saying that the video does not show a cold blooded murder? How else would it garner favor?

While it is surprising that the video was released so quickly, what do you think the response of those who insist it was a murder would be if they had not released it? When it comes to people with deep confirmation biases, it doesn't matter if they released the video or not. Nor does it matter what can actually be seen in the video. Those minds were made up before the traffic stop occurred. No matter what further information is released. Those minds will not be changed.

Confirmation bias. We've seen it before. We'll see it again.

a reply to: schuyler

Did you listen to her testimony?

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: Shamrock6

Tomatoes... tomawtoes...

You call it what you will. I'll call what I will. You know as well as I do that while it can technically be called a "traffic stop," and you also know that to most people that means being pulled over for a traffic violation, not a pre-planned ambush for criminal warrants. And as an officer, I'm sure you know much better than I that there are more appropriate terms that would better represent their actions if their intention was full disclosure and providing the whole truth.

I don't care what it means to you personally. I care how it's defined legally. I choose to accept the legal definition of it as opposed to whatever narrative bias you've elected to apply to it in order to bolster your own fanciful realm of reality.

And you're completely skipping over the use of the term "enforcement action" that is used in the FBI's own press release where they named the individuals arrested. And the usage of "enforcement action" during press conferences.

Really can't say I'm surprised though. Ignore and dismiss whatever doesn't work for you, make some other stuff up, run that into the ground, then accuse the other side of being dirty and underhanded about things. Seems to be a rather common theme.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Rezlooper

The answer... to sway public opinion in their favor immediately.

Um. That would be your answer, of course. But are you saying that the video does not show a cold blooded murder? How else would it garner favor?

While it is surprising that the video was released so quickly, what do you think the response of those who insist it was a murder would be if they had not released it? When it comes to people with deep confirmation biases, it doesn't matter if they released the video or not. Nor does it matter what can actually be seen in the video. Those minds were made up before the traffic stop occurred. No matter what further information is released. Those minds will not be changed.

Confirmation bias. We've seen it before. We'll see it again.

Agreed. But, in this case, they needed to release the video quickly and then claim the video clearly shows he was reaching for his weapon inside his coat, so that the public would agree that the shooting was justifiable. IMO, I can't see either way... he was reaching, but was it for a weapon or was it a reaction to being shot or shot at. I can't say for certain, all I can do is express my opinion that he was probably shot because they were probably shooting at the vehicle before he even exited the vehicle. He comes out with his hands up and to me, it looks as if he is surrendering. Someone who is surrendering has no intention of getting into a shootout. It is my opinion then that the FBI released the video so quickly to try to sway public opinion in their favor rather than incite more protesting or gathering of militia members, or to have public opinion sway behind the militia members or protesters.

And you're just as delusional as those armed protesters. If law enforcement truly wanted to "kill them all," they'd all be dead and there wouldn't be any video whatsoever. They were known to be armed, they had threatened to use deadly force against any LEOs who tried to remove them or impede their cause, they did not follow instructions during the first stop, then they fled and attempted to run through a police roadblock. Actually, they're damn lucky they're not all dead.

Okay buddy, why did they get pulled over in the first place?? A "routine traffic stop" does not say anything about WHY they were pulled over at all because as far as I know you have to be committing a crime or infraction, have a warrant out, driving bad something to get pulled over for.... If they had a reason to pull them over then why not give that reason, why just a "routine traffic stop"??? BS Also last time I checked their is only one* driver seat in the car so how did "they" run. Then after they execute LaVoy, the next logical step is to let hell loose on the truck right? WTF??? Oh and their is a word for what they did, it's called "entrapment." Here's from a simple google search on the word: "In criminal law, entrapment is a practice whereby a law enforcement agent induces a person to commit a criminal offense that the person would have otherwise been unlikely to commit. It is a conduct that is generally discouraged and thus, in many jurisdictions, is a possible defense against criminal liability." Hmmm a practice whereby law enforcement induces a person to commit a criminal offense... From eyewitness accounts LaVoy was demanding to speak to the Sheriff when he started getting shot, the one who has jurisdiction where they were. Do you all honestly think this is how it would have went down if the Sheriff pulled um over in the first place? I don't buy it. LaVoy was the first casualty of a planned out FBI operation on the people.

a reply to: tensetek

If they had a reason to pull them over then why not give that reason, why just a "routine traffic stop"???

Where do you get "routine traffic stop?"

At approximately 4:25 pm on Tuesday, January 26, 2016, FBI and OSP began a law enforcement action to bring into custody the people riding in two separate vehicles as they traveled between Burns and John Day. The FBI did have a plane in the air, and what I am about to show you is a video from that plane. A couple of notes about the video before we watch it.

media.oregonlive.com...

They had good reason to stop them. As specified in the complaint.
www.ktvz.com...

So if your a militiaman and your holding up on federal building, or land, your going to prison.

Because of laws that were passed many years ago that protect federal land and their buildings with seems to supersede the second Amendment of the right to form a militia and the right to be armed.

So when Redress doesn't work because our local leaders are corrupt, then I guess we are at a point in the United States that there is nothing we can do.

I do agree the militia should not have handled the situation they way they did, but on the other hand, I don't see any other alternative either.

Our leaders are becoming untouchable Kings, using what powers they have to their disposal to stop people from exposing their evil doings.

I know we are a county with laws that are to be obeyed, however there are just to many laws on the book and the fact is, many of these laws are for protecting political leaders.

These guys have done such an outstanding job of explaining what they are protesting about that they have gained prominent national attention. Great PR job, guys!

a reply to: Informer1958

So if your a militiaman and your holding up on federal building, or land, your going to prison.

If you are anyone unlawfully entering federal property you face that possibility, yes. Calling yourself "militia" has no legal bearing.

Because of laws that were passed many years ago that protect federal land and their buildings with seems to supersede the second Amendment of the right to form a militia and the right to be armed.

No, they don't. Trespassing and going armed are two different things. Of course, if you combine the two it may be looked upon differently.

So when Redress doesn't work because our local leaders are corrupt, then I guess we are at a point in the United States that there is nothing we can do.

What redress? Do you know what the Bundites' demands were?

a reply to: Shamrock6

Enforcement action... enforcement action... enforcement action!!! Better?

You don't care what I think or feel personally... and I don't care. You may want to stick with strict legal definitions, and that's appropriate for a court of law; but we're talking in and about the court of public opinion, and the perceptions -- or misperceptions -- thereof.

Make your case... make your record... I will make my case... I will make my record. Others will do the same. We will all come to our own conclusions. The chips will fall where they may.

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: Phage

Actually I can't find any information on who Sharp is and it doesn't really matter what matters is her witness testimony.

Here ya go!

Kansas woman found herself inside Oregon gunbattle

Sharp family, of Auburn, gains national attention after singing during Oregon protest

And in case you haven't heard yet, Shawna Cox has been released and given a statement in a telephone interview. It's tough to understand though. I hope someone makes a transcript of it.

Shawna Cox Testimony of the Death of LaVoy Finicum

a reply to: Phage

Thanks for posting this Phage! Reading though now but the first link you provide does not state why they're getting pulled over just an FBI overview on what happened. The 2nd link I'm still reading though but as far as I can tell, the charge "Conspiracy to impede officers of the united states from discharging their official duties through the use of force, intimidation or threats".
How did they do this again when they occupied the building it was empty and they were peaceful otherwise so I'm confused how they did this by walking into an empty building. Then rather then listen to the complaints they go about planning a sting operation to nab up all the trouble makers. Not to mention the use of "force, intimidation or threats" by the police and feds, did you see the armor and equipment they moved out there, my god man. LaVoy called it in his interview the day before he died, they were the ones in fear, the feds rolled in to squash the problem. And the justification they use is absurd, that second link is a Complaint*, NOT warrants, did they have warrants out at the time of the arrest? The date on that complaint IS the day LaVoy died the 26th! so how did they get warrants to justify the arrests in the first place on the same day?

originally posted by: Rezlooper
a reply to: SaturnFX

I agree with you on that, but then why did they release the helicopter video so quickly. The answer... to sway public opinion in their favor immediately. What the law says must be true, right?

Well, the helicopter footage, from what I understand, is from a traffic helicopter..so not their footage?
I could be wrong, check it, but from what I understand, yeah..it was a news chopper..and cops cant demand news not release film